Oz, watch your ass.. [Archive]

Trevor Wilson

December 13th 05, 11:51 PM

"ScottW" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> >> "Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > http://loosers.hn.org/www/wwiiol/waronterror.wmv
>> >>
>> >> **You get CNNNN over there? It was a wonderful series. Much was local
>> >> humour, but, of course, we always enjoy laughing at the stupidity of
>> >> the
>> >> average American. Watching that clip again, makes me realise how Dubya
>> >> got
>> >> voted in - TWICE. I guess stupid Americans got a President with the
>> >> same
>> >> level of intelligence.
>> >
>> >
>> > What I find amazingly stupid is that you havne't yet figured out the
>> > CNN will wander the streets of America until they find an idiot, which
>> > I grant isn't all that hard, but to conclude that those people are
>> > "average Americans" is akin to me thinking its you out hunting Lebanese
>> > at the beach this weekend.
>>
>> **Thanks for proving my point, Scott. It's CNNNN, not CNN.
>>
>> Stupid Americans. Sheesh!
>>
>> BTW: YOU forget that I have visited America and have spoken to many. I
>> KNOW
>> exactly how stupid the average American is. Which, I hasten to add, is a
>> subset of all Americans. Clearly a proportion of Americans do, actually,
>> know where Australian, France, Iraq and Korea actually are. I'll betcha
>> that
>> before he launched a war on them, Dubya had absolutely no idea where Iraq
>> was. Dubya is a part of that subset of stupid Americans. You need to be
>> embarrassed that you have such an utter moron running your nation.
>
>
> I don't know where Australian is.

**MY typo. Australia, of course. If you don't know where Australia is, hang
your head in shame.

Do you really think Aussies have
> so much to be proud of?

**Strawman. The vast majority of Aussies know where the US and France are.

You keep freaking out about America while
> your own country seems to be far less than perfect.

**Strawman noted.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

George M. Middius

December 14th 05, 12:03 AM

Scottie yapped:

> the regime change policy originated with your beloved penis sticker.

Oh dear.

MINe 109

December 14th 05, 12:23 AM

In article >,
"Trevor Wilson" > wrote:

> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In >, Trevor Wilson wrote :
> >
> >> However, he sure as hell
> >>> performed well in his previous job compared to his successor.
> >>
> >> **Not really. Cliton lied about where he stuck his penis. Dybya has lied
> >> about much more serious matters. The death toll of thousands of US
> >> service
> >> people can be directly laid at Dubya's feet. They died, because Dubya
> >> lied.
> >
> >
> > I think she was speaking of his "job" as Texas governor.
>
> **Ah, this job?
>
> http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/05/13/president.2000/jackson.bush/

No, that's the governor. This job:

http://texaspolitics.laits.utexas.edu/html/exec/0200.html

Stephen

Trevor Wilson

December 14th 05, 12:31 AM

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote:
>
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In >, Trevor Wilson wrote :
>> >
>> >> However, he sure as hell
>> >>> performed well in his previous job compared to his successor.
>> >>
>> >> **Not really. Cliton lied about where he stuck his penis. Dybya has
>> >> lied
>> >> about much more serious matters. The death toll of thousands of US
>> >> service
>> >> people can be directly laid at Dubya's feet. They died, because Dubya
>> >> lied.
>> >
>> >
>> > I think she was speaking of his "job" as Texas governor.
>>
>> **Ah, this job?
>>
>> http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/05/13/president.2000/jackson.bush/
>
> No, that's the governor. This job:
>
> http://texaspolitics.laits.utexas.edu/html/exec/0200.html

**Bah, you're no fun at all.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

MINe 109

December 14th 05, 12:53 AM

In article >,
"Trevor Wilson" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Trevor Wilson" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In >, Trevor Wilson wrote :
> >> >
> >> >> However, he sure as hell
> >> >>> performed well in his previous job compared to his successor.
> >> >>
> >> >> **Not really. Cliton lied about where he stuck his penis. Dybya has
> >> >> lied
> >> >> about much more serious matters. The death toll of thousands of US
> >> >> service
> >> >> people can be directly laid at Dubya's feet. They died, because Dubya
> >> >> lied.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I think she was speaking of his "job" as Texas governor.
> >>
> >> **Ah, this job?
> >>
> >> http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/05/13/president.2000/jackson.bu
> >> sh/
> >
> > No, that's the governor. This job:
> >
> > http://texaspolitics.laits.utexas.edu/html/exec/0200.html
>
> **Bah, you're no fun at all.

Of course not! But a discussion of Bush's performance should include
funeral home directors and lottery commissions.

The current governor is more famous for his hair than anything else.

Stephen

Margaret von B.

December 14th 05, 01:55 AM

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Margaret von B." > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> http://loosers.hn.org/www/wwiiol/waronterror.wmv
>>>
>>> **You get CNNNN over there? It was a wonderful series. Much was local
>>> humour, but, of course, we always enjoy laughing at the stupidity of the
>>> average American.
>>
>> Much of the "stupidity" associated with Americans is actually frivolous
>> pursuit of our own interests that is exceedingly well disguised. Usually
>> the "smart ones" end up losing.
>
> **Yep.
>
>>
>>
>>>Watching that clip again, makes me realise how Dubya got voted in -
>>>TWICE. I guess stupid Americans got a President with the same level of
>>>intelligence.
>>
>> I voted for him one time and regret it now.
>
> **I admire your forthrightness. Exactly what qualities in Dubya did you
> see that everyone else on the planet could not?
>

As Lionel pointed out I was comparing Bush to his successor, the current
Texas governor.

I knew Bush's business and military "accomplishments" before he was elected
governor in TX. But surprisingly he did a good job keeping the democratic
process going and was generally well liked and respected in Austin (the
Texas state capital). Beyond politicians, he did a credible job across
cultural, religious and ethnic boundaries. His ability to communicate in
spanish is admirable (trust me on this)and his benign attitude toward Mexico
and Mexicans demonstrated that he had a mind of his own and that he wasn't
afraid to take a stand. When Bush became the president and his sidekick Rick
Perry took over, many Texans realized just how effective Bush was. Below are
some examples of just how bad it can be.

Governor Rick Perry speaks :-)

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=IIVQ3L0UQVI9

Rick Perry governs:

http://www.sierratimes.com/03/05/13/ap_chickendems.htm

and again, a couple of months later:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/29/politics/main565622.shtml

Compared to the above, Bush was downright brilliant.

And I wasn't the only one on the planet BTW. : -) I'm too lazy to check
but I believe that Texas population alone exceeds that of Australia and many
of the 23 million *documented* Texans were in a prime position to observe
the same kind of things as I did.

Cheers,

Margaret

December 14th 05, 05:56 AM

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
> ...
>> http://loosers.hn.org/www/wwiiol/waronterror.wmv
>
> **You get CNNNN over there? It was a wonderful series. Much was local
> humour, but, of course, we always enjoy laughing at the stupidity of the
> average American. Watching that clip again, makes me realise how Dubya got
> voted in - TWICE. I guess stupid Americans got a President with the same
> level of intelligence.
>
>
The stupidity is from yo thnking that there's no bias at CNN and that they
don't cherry pick idiots to make a point.

You have no idea what the average American is like, ESPECIALLY if you rely
on CNN for your info.

December 14th 05, 05:56 AM

"ScottW" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> "Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > http://loosers.hn.org/www/wwiiol/waronterror.wmv
>>
>> **You get CNNNN over there? It was a wonderful series. Much was local
>> humour, but, of course, we always enjoy laughing at the stupidity of the
>> average American. Watching that clip again, makes me realise how Dubya
>> got
>> voted in - TWICE. I guess stupid Americans got a President with the same
>> level of intelligence.
>
>
> What I find amazingly stupid is that you havne't yet figured out the
> CNN will wander the streets of America until they find an idiot, which
> I grant isn't all that hard, but to conclude that those people are
> "average Americans" is akin to me thinking its you out hunting Lebanese
> at the beach this weekend.
>
Bingo. Small wonder CNN loses to Fox.

December 14th 05, 05:59 AM

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> "Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> > http://loosers.hn.org/www/wwiiol/waronterror.wmv
>>>
>>> **You get CNNNN over there? It was a wonderful series. Much was local
>>> humour, but, of course, we always enjoy laughing at the stupidity of the
>>> average American. Watching that clip again, makes me realise how Dubya
>>> got
>>> voted in - TWICE. I guess stupid Americans got a President with the same
>>> level of intelligence.
>>
>>
>> What I find amazingly stupid is that you havne't yet figured out the
>> CNN will wander the streets of America until they find an idiot, which
>> I grant isn't all that hard, but to conclude that those people are
>> "average Americans" is akin to me thinking its you out hunting Lebanese
>> at the beach this weekend.
>
> **Thanks for proving my point, Scott. It's CNNNN, not CNN.
>
> Stupid Americans. Sheesh!
>
> BTW: YOU forget that I have visited America and have spoken to many. I
> KNOW exactly how stupid the average American is. Which, I hasten to add,
> is a subset of all Americans. Clearly a proportion of Americans do,
> actually, know where Australian, France, Iraq and Korea actually are.

I'm sorry I can't find "Australian" on any map.

I'll betcha that
> before he launched a war on them, Dubya had absolutely no idea where Iraq
> was. Dubya is a part of that subset of stupid Americans. You need to be
> embarrassed that you have such an utter moron running your nation.
>
>
The only thing more embarassing is if the other guy had won since he scored
lower than Bush on his inteligence tests the miltary gave him.

Jenn

December 14th 05, 06:04 AM

In article et>,
> wrote:

> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> http://loosers.hn.org/www/wwiiol/waronterror.wmv
> >
> > **You get CNNNN over there? It was a wonderful series. Much was local
> > humour, but, of course, we always enjoy laughing at the stupidity of the
> > average American. Watching that clip again, makes me realise how Dubya got
> > voted in - TWICE. I guess stupid Americans got a President with the same
> > level of intelligence.
> >
> >
> The stupidity is from yo thnking that there's no bias at CNN and that they
> don't cherry pick idiots to make a point.

CNN's bias, if any, if FAR less than Fox's.

Trevor Wilson

December 14th 05, 07:36 AM

> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> http://loosers.hn.org/www/wwiiol/waronterror.wmv
>>
>> **You get CNNNN over there? It was a wonderful series. Much was local
>> humour, but, of course, we always enjoy laughing at the stupidity of the
>> average American. Watching that clip again, makes me realise how Dubya
>> got voted in - TWICE. I guess stupid Americans got a President with the
>> same level of intelligence.
>>
>>
> The stupidity is from yo thnking that there's no bias at CNN and that they
> don't cherry pick idiots to make a point.
>
> You have no idea what the average American is like, ESPECIALLY if you
> rely on CNN for your info.

**Thank you for proving my point.

Will someone else tell him?

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Trevor Wilson

December 14th 05, 07:56 AM

"Margaret von B." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Margaret von B." > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> http://loosers.hn.org/www/wwiiol/waronterror.wmv
>>>>
>>>> **You get CNNNN over there? It was a wonderful series. Much was local
>>>> humour, but, of course, we always enjoy laughing at the stupidity of
>>>> the average American.
>>>
>>> Much of the "stupidity" associated with Americans is actually frivolous
>>> pursuit of our own interests that is exceedingly well disguised. Usually
>>> the "smart ones" end up losing.
>>
>> **Yep.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Watching that clip again, makes me realise how Dubya got voted in -
>>>>TWICE. I guess stupid Americans got a President with the same level of
>>>>intelligence.
>>>
>>> I voted for him one time and regret it now.
>>
>> **I admire your forthrightness. Exactly what qualities in Dubya did you
>> see that everyone else on the planet could not?
>>
>
> As Lionel pointed out I was comparing Bush to his successor, the current
> Texas governor.

**I take your point and it seems quite reasonable. Were Texans aware of his
previous shakey history, before voting for Dubya?

>
> I knew Bush's business and military "accomplishments" before he was
> elected governor in TX. But surprisingly he did a good job keeping the
> democratic process going and was generally well liked and respected in
> Austin (the Texas state capital). Beyond politicians, he did a credible
> job across cultural, religious and ethnic boundaries. His ability to
> communicate in spanish is admirable (trust me on this)and his benign
> attitude toward Mexico and Mexicans demonstrated that he had a mind of his
> own and that he wasn't afraid to take a stand. When Bush became the
> president and his sidekick Rick Perry took over, many Texans realized just
> how effective Bush was. Below are some examples of just how bad it can be.
>
> Governor Rick Perry speaks :-)
>
> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=IIVQ3L0UQVI9
>
> Rick Perry governs:
>
> http://www.sierratimes.com/03/05/13/ap_chickendems.htm
>
> and again, a couple of months later:
>
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/29/politics/main565622.shtml
>
> Compared to the above, Bush was downright brilliant.
>
> And I wasn't the only one on the planet BTW. : -) I'm too lazy to check
> but I believe that Texas population alone exceeds that of Australia and
> many of the 23 million *documented* Texans were in a prime position to
> observe the same kind of things as I did.

**Yikes! It seems that the bar for public officials in Texas is very low
indeed.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Lionel

December 14th 05, 09:22 AM

Margaret von B. wrote :

> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/29/politics/main565622.shtml
>
> Compared to the above, Bush was downright brilliant.

So what ?
Oh, oh I see, this brings us back to the beginning of the discussion... :-D

--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

George M. Middius

December 14th 05, 11:39 AM

Jenn said:

> CNN's bias, if any, if FAR less than Fox's.

duh-Mikey will tell you that "facts" are impervious to bias. ;-)

Margaret von B.

December 14th 05, 02:59 PM

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Margaret von B." > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Margaret von B." > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> http://loosers.hn.org/www/wwiiol/waronterror.wmv
>>>>>
>>>>> **You get CNNNN over there? It was a wonderful series. Much was local
>>>>> humour, but, of course, we always enjoy laughing at the stupidity of
>>>>> the average American.
>>>>
>>>> Much of the "stupidity" associated with Americans is actually frivolous
>>>> pursuit of our own interests that is exceedingly well disguised.
>>>> Usually the "smart ones" end up losing.
>>>
>>> **Yep.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Watching that clip again, makes me realise how Dubya got voted in -
>>>>>TWICE. I guess stupid Americans got a President with the same level of
>>>>>intelligence.
>>>>
>>>> I voted for him one time and regret it now.
>>>
>>> **I admire your forthrightness. Exactly what qualities in Dubya did you
>>> see that everyone else on the planet could not?
>>>
>>
>> As Lionel pointed out I was comparing Bush to his successor, the current
>> Texas governor.
>
> **I take your point and it seems quite reasonable. Were Texans aware of
> his previous shakey history, before voting for Dubya?
>

Certainly those with keen interest in politics were. For example, when Larry
Flynt (Hustler publisher) announced his highly publicized "investigation" of
an abortion Bush had paid for in Houston some years earlier, it was no news
at all to many politically active Texans. Overall, the national exposure
that resulted from the presidential campaign wasn't actually not as juicy as
it could have been.

I believe that Bush was elected governor because four years of hard
drinking, chain smoking, Harley riding biker started to scare the average
Texan. Even if bigger is better.

http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/governors/modern/richards-p01.html

>>
>> I knew Bush's business and military "accomplishments" before he was
>> elected governor in TX. But surprisingly he did a good job keeping the
>> democratic process going and was generally well liked and respected in
>> Austin (the Texas state capital). Beyond politicians, he did a credible
>> job across cultural, religious and ethnic boundaries. His ability to
>> communicate in spanish is admirable (trust me on this)and his benign
>> attitude toward Mexico and Mexicans demonstrated that he had a mind of
>> his own and that he wasn't afraid to take a stand. When Bush became the
>> president and his sidekick Rick Perry took over, many Texans realized
>> just how effective Bush was. Below are some examples of just how bad it
>> can be.
>>
>> Governor Rick Perry speaks :-)
>>
>> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=IIVQ3L0UQVI9
>>
>> Rick Perry governs:
>>
>> http://www.sierratimes.com/03/05/13/ap_chickendems.htm
>>
>> and again, a couple of months later:
>>
>> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/29/politics/main565622.shtml
>>
>> Compared to the above, Bush was downright brilliant.
>>
>> And I wasn't the only one on the planet BTW. : -) I'm too lazy to check
>> but I believe that Texas population alone exceeds that of Australia and
>> many of the 23 million *documented* Texans were in a prime position to
>> observe the same kind of things as I did.
>
> **Yikes! It seems that the bar for public officials in Texas is very low
> indeed.
>

You must not be familiar with Lousiana, then!

Cheers,

Margaret

Margaret von B.

December 14th 05, 03:03 PM

"Margaret von B." > wrote in message
...

Should read:

> Overall, the national exposure that resulted from the presidential
> campaign wasn't actually as juicy as it could have been.

dave weil

December 14th 05, 03:43 PM

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 14:59:36 GMT, "Margaret von B."
> wrote:

>I believe that Bush was elected governor because four years of hard
>drinking, chain smoking, Harley riding biker started to scare the average
>Texan. Even if bigger is better.
>
>http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/governors/modern/richards-p01.html

And, perhaps a formerly hard drinking, cigar smoking, Harley bike
riding Texas Jewboy will be the NEXT governor of Texas.

http://www.kinkyfriedman.com/

One can only hope...

Margaret von B.

December 14th 05, 04:05 PM

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 14:59:36 GMT, "Margaret von B."
> > wrote:
>
>>I believe that Bush was elected governor because four years of hard
>>drinking, chain smoking, Harley riding biker started to scare the average
>>Texan. Even if bigger is better.
>>
>>http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/governors/modern/richards-p01.html
>
> And, perhaps a formerly hard drinking, cigar smoking, Harley bike
> riding Texas Jewboy will be the NEXT governor of Texas.
>
> http://www.kinkyfriedman.com/
>

Officially, Richards was "clean" too by the time she was elected governor.
And some say she merely fell victim to the old adage "it's not how you are,
it's how you are perceived". And some know better.

Cheers,

Margaret

MINe 109

December 14th 05, 04:14 PM

In article >,
"Margaret von B." > wrote:

> I believe that Bush was elected governor because four years of hard
> drinking, chain smoking, Harley riding biker started to scare the average
> Texan. Even if bigger is better.
>
> http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/governors/modern/richards-p01.html

There was a nasty Rovian whisper campaign against Richards that played
better outside of Austin than in.

Bush was generally liked in Austin despite his political views. Stuff
like Bush twin gossip and bike accidents, like the time he had to dive
out of the way of a falling garbage truck, made him easier to identify
with at the local level.

Stephen

ScottW

December 14th 05, 05:47 PM

Trevor Wilson wrote:
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >
> >> > Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >> >> "Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > http://loosers.hn.org/www/wwiiol/waronterror.wmv
> >> >>
> >> >> **You get CNNNN over there? It was a wonderful series. Much was local
> >> >> humour, but, of course, we always enjoy laughing at the stupidity of
> >> >> the
> >> >> average American. Watching that clip again, makes me realise how Dubya
> >> >> got
> >> >> voted in - TWICE. I guess stupid Americans got a President with the
> >> >> same
> >> >> level of intelligence.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > What I find amazingly stupid is that you havne't yet figured out the
> >> > CNN will wander the streets of America until they find an idiot, which
> >> > I grant isn't all that hard, but to conclude that those people are
> >> > "average Americans" is akin to me thinking its you out hunting Lebanese
> >> > at the beach this weekend.
> >>
> >> **Thanks for proving my point, Scott. It's CNNNN, not CNN.
> >>
> >> Stupid Americans. Sheesh!
> >>
> >> BTW: YOU forget that I have visited America and have spoken to many. I
> >> KNOW
> >> exactly how stupid the average American is. Which, I hasten to add, is a
> >> subset of all Americans. Clearly a proportion of Americans do, actually,
> >> know where Australian, France, Iraq and Korea actually are. I'll betcha
> >> that
> >> before he launched a war on them, Dubya had absolutely no idea where Iraq
> >> was. Dubya is a part of that subset of stupid Americans. You need to be
> >> embarrassed that you have such an utter moron running your nation.
> >
> >
> > I don't know where Australian is.
>
> **MY typo. Australia, of course. If you don't know where Australia is, hang
> your head in shame.

I know where Australia is. Frankly I don't know anyone who I think
doesn't know where it is although its not a daily conversation.
>
> Do you really think Aussies have
> > so much to be proud of?
>
> **Strawman. The vast majority of Aussies know where the US and France are.
>
> You keep freaking out about America while
> > your own country seems to be far less than perfect.
>
> **Strawman noted.

Fine... Explain why a "satire" leads you to this:
" we always enjoy laughing at the stupidity of the
average American. Watching that clip again, makes me realise how Dubya
got
voted in - TWICE. I guess stupid Americans got a President with the
same
level of intelligence. "

Is that an average real american or an average satirical
representation of a real american. Your comment on Bush leads one to
think you can't draw the line between real life and satire.

I think we should do a satire of Australians. We can call it Under
Down Under. Lets see... what shall we cast...
I know.... one segment of the pops will be middle eastern immigrants
who prowl the rich burbs looking for white women to gang rape.....
another segment will be Islamic fundamentalists who prowl the beaches
insisting bikini clad women cover themselves, who then go for a rowdy
game of football and beat the hell out of the lifeguards who ask them
to stop.... and the final segment will be a bunch bat carrying nazi
skinheads who prowl the streets drunk at night looking for people of
middle eastern appearance to terrorize. The remainder will be a bunch
of shrimp on the barbie, uneducated fat slobs.
Oh.... I forgot the surfer gangs..... we need a bunch of knob legged
hooligans (there are lots of sharks in Australia you know).

Only problem is... how do we make sure people know its satire?

ScottW

Trevor Wilson

December 14th 05, 06:15 PM

"ScottW" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> >> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>> >> oups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> >> >> "Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> > http://loosers.hn.org/www/wwiiol/waronterror.wmv
>> >> >>
>> >> >> **You get CNNNN over there? It was a wonderful series. Much was
>> >> >> local
>> >> >> humour, but, of course, we always enjoy laughing at the stupidity
>> >> >> of
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> average American. Watching that clip again, makes me realise how
>> >> >> Dubya
>> >> >> got
>> >> >> voted in - TWICE. I guess stupid Americans got a President with the
>> >> >> same
>> >> >> level of intelligence.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > What I find amazingly stupid is that you havne't yet figured out
>> >> > the
>> >> > CNN will wander the streets of America until they find an idiot,
>> >> > which
>> >> > I grant isn't all that hard, but to conclude that those people are
>> >> > "average Americans" is akin to me thinking its you out hunting
>> >> > Lebanese
>> >> > at the beach this weekend.
>> >>
>> >> **Thanks for proving my point, Scott. It's CNNNN, not CNN.
>> >>
>> >> Stupid Americans. Sheesh!
>> >>
>> >> BTW: YOU forget that I have visited America and have spoken to many. I
>> >> KNOW
>> >> exactly how stupid the average American is. Which, I hasten to add, is
>> >> a
>> >> subset of all Americans. Clearly a proportion of Americans do,
>> >> actually,
>> >> know where Australian, France, Iraq and Korea actually are. I'll
>> >> betcha
>> >> that
>> >> before he launched a war on them, Dubya had absolutely no idea where
>> >> Iraq
>> >> was. Dubya is a part of that subset of stupid Americans. You need to
>> >> be
>> >> embarrassed that you have such an utter moron running your nation.
>> >
>> >
>> > I don't know where Australian is.
>>
>> **MY typo. Australia, of course. If you don't know where Australia is,
>> hang
>> your head in shame.
>
> I know where Australia is. Frankly I don't know anyone who I think
> doesn't know where it is although its not a daily conversation.

**The people interviewed by the CNNNN reporter did not know. Some Americas
I've spoken to (in America) had no idea.

>>
>> Do you really think Aussies have
>> > so much to be proud of?
>>
>> **Strawman. The vast majority of Aussies know where the US and France
>> are.
>>
>> You keep freaking out about America while
>> > your own country seems to be far less than perfect.
>>
>> **Strawman noted.
>
> Fine... Explain why a "satire" leads you to this:
> " we always enjoy laughing at the stupidity of the
> average American. Watching that clip again, makes me realise how Dubya
> got
> voted in - TWICE. I guess stupid Americans got a President with the
> same
> level of intelligence. "
>
> Is that an average real american or an average satirical
> representation of a real american. Your comment on Bush leads one to
> think you can't draw the line between real life and satire.

**Points:

* The satire, you speak of (the CNNNN report) is not scripted. They
interviewed actual Americans, not actors.
* George W Bush is a liar, a (ex)drug addict and as dumb as a pile of rocks.
Americans installed him as President. TWICE!

>
> I think we should do a satire of Australians. We can call it Under
> Down Under. Lets see... what shall we cast...

**Sure. Aussies can laugh at ourselves. Just ask a Pom.

> I know.... one segment of the pops will be middle eastern immigrants
> who prowl the rich burbs looking for white women to gang rape.....

**If you find that amusing, then you are one sick, demented human.
Australia, like the US, has it's fair share of sick individuals, who need to
be locked up. I find no amusement in such things.

> another segment will be Islamic fundamentalists who prowl the beaches
> insisting bikini clad women cover themselves, who then go for a rowdy
> game of football and beat the hell out of the lifeguards who ask them
> to stop....

**And again.

and the final segment will be a bunch bat carrying nazi
> skinheads who prowl the streets drunk at night looking for people of
> middle eastern appearance to terrorize. The remainder will be a bunch
> of shrimp on the barbie, uneducated fat slobs.
> Oh.... I forgot the surfer gangs..... we need a bunch of knob legged
> hooligans (there are lots of sharks in Australia you know).

**And again. Why do you find such things amusing? How can you relate
exposing the insular nature of many Americans (ie: Those who cannot identify
basic geographical items) and compare that to the criminal actions of a
handful of Aussies. Just because one US citizen perpetrated the worst
terrorist act in US history, during the 1990s, I don't imagine that all
right wing, religious nutters are desirous of destroying buildings in OK
City. Nor do I imagine that ALL US citizens are right wing, religious
nutters (though a large numbers SEEM to be).

>
> Only problem is... how do we make sure people know its satire?

**It's pretty easy to spot satire. It's a great shame you seem incapable of
doing so, yourself.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

ScottW

December 14th 05, 06:53 PM

Trevor Wilson wrote:
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >
> >> > Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >> >> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> >> >> oups.com...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >> >> >> "Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> > http://loosers.hn.org/www/wwiiol/waronterror.wmv
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> **You get CNNNN over there? It was a wonderful series. Much was
> >> >> >> local
> >> >> >> humour, but, of course, we always enjoy laughing at the stupidity
> >> >> >> of
> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> average American. Watching that clip again, makes me realise how
> >> >> >> Dubya
> >> >> >> got
> >> >> >> voted in - TWICE. I guess stupid Americans got a President with the
> >> >> >> same
> >> >> >> level of intelligence.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > What I find amazingly stupid is that you havne't yet figured out
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > CNN will wander the streets of America until they find an idiot,
> >> >> > which
> >> >> > I grant isn't all that hard, but to conclude that those people are
> >> >> > "average Americans" is akin to me thinking its you out hunting
> >> >> > Lebanese
> >> >> > at the beach this weekend.
> >> >>
> >> >> **Thanks for proving my point, Scott. It's CNNNN, not CNN.
> >> >>
> >> >> Stupid Americans. Sheesh!
> >> >>
> >> >> BTW: YOU forget that I have visited America and have spoken to many. I
> >> >> KNOW
> >> >> exactly how stupid the average American is. Which, I hasten to add, is
> >> >> a
> >> >> subset of all Americans. Clearly a proportion of Americans do,
> >> >> actually,
> >> >> know where Australian, France, Iraq and Korea actually are. I'll
> >> >> betcha
> >> >> that
> >> >> before he launched a war on them, Dubya had absolutely no idea where
> >> >> Iraq
> >> >> was. Dubya is a part of that subset of stupid Americans. You need to
> >> >> be
> >> >> embarrassed that you have such an utter moron running your nation.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I don't know where Australian is.
> >>
> >> **MY typo. Australia, of course. If you don't know where Australia is,
> >> hang
> >> your head in shame.
> >
> > I know where Australia is. Frankly I don't know anyone who I think
> > doesn't know where it is although its not a daily conversation.
>
> **The people interviewed by the CNNNN reporter did not know. Some Americas
> I've spoken to (in America) had no idea.

Some Americans aren't average. Look.. we get to see these stupid
shows of the reporter on the street asking questions. They spend all
day to find 5 idiots who think the head of the supreme court is George
Washington. Maybe if our schools weren't full of illegal immigrants
kids we could do a better job in public education.
>
> >>
> >> Do you really think Aussies have
> >> > so much to be proud of?
> >>
> >> **Strawman. The vast majority of Aussies know where the US and France
> >> are.
> >>
> >> You keep freaking out about America while
> >> > your own country seems to be far less than perfect.
> >>
> >> **Strawman noted.
> >
> > Fine... Explain why a "satire" leads you to this:
> > " we always enjoy laughing at the stupidity of the
> > average American. Watching that clip again, makes me realise how Dubya
> > got
> > voted in - TWICE. I guess stupid Americans got a President with the
> > same
> > level of intelligence. "
> >
> > Is that an average real american or an average satirical
> > representation of a real american. Your comment on Bush leads one to
> > think you can't draw the line between real life and satire.
>
> **Points:
>
> * The satire, you speak of (the CNNNN report) is not scripted. They
> interviewed actual Americans, not actors.

But silly you assume they were "average americans". How many were
interviewed and how many made the cut?

> * George W Bush is a liar, a (ex)drug addict and as dumb as a pile of rocks.
> Americans installed him as President. TWICE!

and your leader supported him. Go figure. I guess you're all idiots
for electing him.

>
> >
> > I think we should do a satire of Australians. We can call it Under
> > Down Under. Lets see... what shall we cast...
>
> **Sure. Aussies can laugh at ourselves. Just ask a Pom.
>
> > I know.... one segment of the pops will be middle eastern immigrants
> > who prowl the rich burbs looking for white women to gang rape.....
>
> **If you find that amusing, then you are one sick, demented human.
> Australia, like the US, has it's fair share of sick individuals, who need to
> be locked up. I find no amusement in such things.

But before we lock them up we can ask them questions... like where is
the Capital of the US? I mean we do need to get the average Aussie
opinion on such things, right?

>
> > another segment will be Islamic fundamentalists who prowl the beaches
> > insisting bikini clad women cover themselves, who then go for a rowdy
> > game of football and beat the hell out of the lifeguards who ask them
> > to stop....
>
> **And again.
>
> and the final segment will be a bunch bat carrying nazi
> > skinheads who prowl the streets drunk at night looking for people of
> > middle eastern appearance to terrorize. The remainder will be a bunch
> > of shrimp on the barbie, uneducated fat slobs.
> > Oh.... I forgot the surfer gangs..... we need a bunch of knob legged
> > hooligans (there are lots of sharks in Australia you know).
>
> **And again. Why do you find such things amusing? How can you relate
> exposing the insular nature of many Americans (ie: Those who cannot identify
> basic geographical items) and compare that to the criminal actions of a
> handful of Aussies.

Handful? You mean those aren't "average Aussies".
Gee from watching TV who would know?

>Just because one US citizen perpetrated the worst
> terrorist act in US history, during the 1990s,

I think its now the second worst..... you sure you're upto speed on
current events?
Hey... somebody interview this guy for our Aussie satire program.

>I don't imagine that all
> right wing, religious nutters are desirous of destroying buildings in OK
> City. Nor do I imagine that ALL US citizens are right wing, religious
> nutters (though a large numbers SEEM to be).
>
> >
> > Only problem is... how do we make sure people know its satire?
>
> **It's pretty easy to spot satire. It's a great shame you seem incapable of
> doing so, yourself.

If its so easy... why did you let CNNNN influence your opinion at
all of "average americans". You should feel really stupid for
letting TV influence your opion at all let alone letting an admitted
satire have such an impact.

ScottW

Trevor Wilson

December 14th 05, 08:18 PM

"ScottW" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> >> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>> >> oups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> >> >> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>> >> >> oups.com...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> >> >> >> "Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in
>> >> >> >> message
>> >> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >> > http://loosers.hn.org/www/wwiiol/waronterror.wmv
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> **You get CNNNN over there? It was a wonderful series. Much was
>> >> >> >> local
>> >> >> >> humour, but, of course, we always enjoy laughing at the
>> >> >> >> stupidity
>> >> >> >> of
>> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> average American. Watching that clip again, makes me realise how
>> >> >> >> Dubya
>> >> >> >> got
>> >> >> >> voted in - TWICE. I guess stupid Americans got a President with
>> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> same
>> >> >> >> level of intelligence.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > What I find amazingly stupid is that you havne't yet figured out
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > CNN will wander the streets of America until they find an idiot,
>> >> >> > which
>> >> >> > I grant isn't all that hard, but to conclude that those people
>> >> >> > are
>> >> >> > "average Americans" is akin to me thinking its you out hunting
>> >> >> > Lebanese
>> >> >> > at the beach this weekend.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> **Thanks for proving my point, Scott. It's CNNNN, not CNN.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Stupid Americans. Sheesh!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> BTW: YOU forget that I have visited America and have spoken to
>> >> >> many. I
>> >> >> KNOW
>> >> >> exactly how stupid the average American is. Which, I hasten to add,
>> >> >> is
>> >> >> a
>> >> >> subset of all Americans. Clearly a proportion of Americans do,
>> >> >> actually,
>> >> >> know where Australian, France, Iraq and Korea actually are. I'll
>> >> >> betcha
>> >> >> that
>> >> >> before he launched a war on them, Dubya had absolutely no idea
>> >> >> where
>> >> >> Iraq
>> >> >> was. Dubya is a part of that subset of stupid Americans. You need
>> >> >> to
>> >> >> be
>> >> >> embarrassed that you have such an utter moron running your nation.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > I don't know where Australian is.
>> >>
>> >> **MY typo. Australia, of course. If you don't know where Australia is,
>> >> hang
>> >> your head in shame.
>> >
>> > I know where Australia is. Frankly I don't know anyone who I think
>> > doesn't know where it is although its not a daily conversation.
>>
>> **The people interviewed by the CNNNN reporter did not know. Some
>> Americas
>> I've spoken to (in America) had no idea.
>
> Some Americans aren't average.

**Then who voted Dubya in for a second term? Clearly, these people (who
voted Dubya in) were a few sandwiches short of a picnic.

Look.. we get to see these stupid
> shows of the reporter on the street asking questions. They spend all
> day to find 5 idiots who think the head of the supreme court is George
> Washington.

**I don't know how long and how many people were interviewed before they
obtained the responses they did.

Maybe if our schools weren't full of illegal immigrants
> kids we could do a better job in public education.
>>
>> >>
>> >> Do you really think Aussies have
>> >> > so much to be proud of?
>> >>
>> >> **Strawman. The vast majority of Aussies know where the US and France
>> >> are.
>> >>
>> >> You keep freaking out about America while
>> >> > your own country seems to be far less than perfect.
>> >>
>> >> **Strawman noted.
>> >
>> > Fine... Explain why a "satire" leads you to this:
>> > " we always enjoy laughing at the stupidity of the
>> > average American. Watching that clip again, makes me realise how Dubya
>> > got
>> > voted in - TWICE. I guess stupid Americans got a President with the
>> > same
>> > level of intelligence. "
>> >
>> > Is that an average real american or an average satirical
>> > representation of a real american. Your comment on Bush leads one to
>> > think you can't draw the line between real life and satire.
>>
>> **Points:
>>
>> * The satire, you speak of (the CNNNN report) is not scripted. They
>> interviewed actual Americans, not actors.
>
> But silly you assume they were "average americans". How many were
> interviewed and how many made the cut?

**No idea. Based on the voting habits of Americans, I'd say one out of two
Americans would be sufficiently stupid.

>
>> * George W Bush is a liar, a (ex)drug addict and as dumb as a pile of
>> rocks.
>> Americans installed him as President. TWICE!
>
> and your leader supported him. Go figure. I guess you're all idiots
> for electing him.

**Nope. The 50% of Aussies who voted for John Howard are fools. So no, not
ALL of us are idiots. Having said that, John Howard is not a fool.

>
>>
>> >
>> > I think we should do a satire of Australians. We can call it Under
>> > Down Under. Lets see... what shall we cast...
>>
>> **Sure. Aussies can laugh at ourselves. Just ask a Pom.
>>
>> > I know.... one segment of the pops will be middle eastern immigrants
>> > who prowl the rich burbs looking for white women to gang rape.....
>>
>> **If you find that amusing, then you are one sick, demented human.
>> Australia, like the US, has it's fair share of sick individuals, who need
>> to
>> be locked up. I find no amusement in such things.
>
> But before we lock them up we can ask them questions... like where is
> the Capital of the US?

**Indeed. I fail to see how bringing the issue of sick, demented criminals
into a discussion about satirical TV programming relates, however. Perhaps
you'd care to enlighten me.

I mean we do need to get the average Aussie
> opinion on such things, right?

**You can do what you like. I doubt that Americans would be interested, nor
would they appreciate the humour anyway.

>
>>
>> > another segment will be Islamic fundamentalists who prowl the beaches
>> > insisting bikini clad women cover themselves, who then go for a rowdy
>> > game of football and beat the hell out of the lifeguards who ask them
>> > to stop....
>>
>> **And again.
>>
>> and the final segment will be a bunch bat carrying nazi
>> > skinheads who prowl the streets drunk at night looking for people of
>> > middle eastern appearance to terrorize. The remainder will be a bunch
>> > of shrimp on the barbie, uneducated fat slobs.
>> > Oh.... I forgot the surfer gangs..... we need a bunch of knob legged
>> > hooligans (there are lots of sharks in Australia you know).
>>
>> **And again. Why do you find such things amusing? How can you relate
>> exposing the insular nature of many Americans (ie: Those who cannot
>> identify
>> basic geographical items) and compare that to the criminal actions of a
>> handful of Aussies.
>
> Handful?

**Yep.

You mean those aren't "average Aussies".
> Gee from watching TV who would know?

**How many Aussies live in Australia? How many did you see on TV? Is there a
significant difference?

>
>>Just because one US citizen perpetrated the worst
>> terrorist act in US history, during the 1990s,
>
> I think its now the second worst..... you sure you're upto speed on
> current events?

**Was there a worse terrorist act, perpetrated by a US citizen in the US
during the 1990s? Please elucidate.

> Hey... somebody interview this guy for our Aussie satire program.
>
>>I don't imagine that all
>> right wing, religious nutters are desirous of destroying buildings in OK
>> City. Nor do I imagine that ALL US citizens are right wing, religious
>> nutters (though a large numbers SEEM to be).
>>
>> >
>> > Only problem is... how do we make sure people know its satire?
>>
>> **It's pretty easy to spot satire. It's a great shame you seem incapable
>> of
>> doing so, yourself.
>
> If its so easy... why did you let CNNNN influence your opinion at
> all of "average americans".

**You forget:

* 50% of US voters, put Dubya into office, for a second term.
* I've actually visited the US. Twice.

You should feel really stupid for
> letting TV influence your opion at all let alone letting an admitted
> satire have such an impact.

**I don't. I allow several factors influence my opinions.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

ScottW

December 14th 05, 08:41 PM

Trevor Wilson wrote:
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> >>
> >> **The people interviewed by the CNNNN reporter did not know. Some
> >> Americas
> >> I've spoken to (in America) had no idea.
> >
> > Some Americans aren't average.
>
> **Then who voted Dubya in for a second term?

Well.. I did for one. You conveniently forget the quality of
choices we had. Unfortunately our broken primary system often leaves us
with less than ideal choices. I wished the Repubs had a primary... I
wish the dems didn't nominate a traitor... I wish Bush was really a
conservative.

> Clearly, these people (who
> voted Dubya in) were a few sandwiches short of a picnic.
>
> Look.. we get to see these stupid
> > shows of the reporter on the street asking questions. They spend all
> > day to find 5 idiots who think the head of the supreme court is George
> > Washington.
>
> **I don't know how long and how many people were interviewed before they
> obtained the responses they did.

Then your subsequent comments re average americans had no merit.
>
> Maybe if our schools weren't full of illegal immigrants
> > kids we could do a better job in public education.
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Do you really think Aussies have
> >> >> > so much to be proud of?
> >> >>
> >> >> **Strawman. The vast majority of Aussies know where the US and France
> >> >> are.
> >> >>
> >> >> You keep freaking out about America while
> >> >> > your own country seems to be far less than perfect.
> >> >>
> >> >> **Strawman noted.
> >> >
> >> > Fine... Explain why a "satire" leads you to this:
> >> > " we always enjoy laughing at the stupidity of the
> >> > average American. Watching that clip again, makes me realise how Dubya
> >> > got
> >> > voted in - TWICE. I guess stupid Americans got a President with the
> >> > same
> >> > level of intelligence. "
> >> >
> >> > Is that an average real american or an average satirical
> >> > representation of a real american. Your comment on Bush leads one to
> >> > think you can't draw the line between real life and satire.
> >>
> >> **Points:
> >>
> >> * The satire, you speak of (the CNNNN report) is not scripted. They
> >> interviewed actual Americans, not actors.
> >
> > But silly you assume they were "average americans". How many were
> > interviewed and how many made the cut?
>
> **No idea. Based on the voting habits of Americans, I'd say one out of two
> Americans would be sufficiently stupid.

Thats far more than voted for Bush. You might want to think a bit
before bogusly stereotyping half the country.

>
> >
> >> * George W Bush is a liar, a (ex)drug addict and as dumb as a pile of
> >> rocks.
> >> Americans installed him as President. TWICE!
> >
> > and your leader supported him. Go figure. I guess you're all idiots
> > for electing him.
>
> **Nope. The 50% of Aussies who voted for John Howard are fools. So no, not
> ALL of us are idiots.

Not ALL of us are idiots either. Not even all of us who voted for
Bush are idiots.

>Having said that, John Howard is not a fool.

Did you hear Bushes speech this AM? It was pretty good. Now Reid's
pre-speech rebuttal was incredibly stupid. He actually said the Iraqi
election might be progress or it might be a step toward civil war... he
almost sounded pleading for civil war.

I actually heard a lib talk show claim the dems shouldn't commit to a
strategy on Iraq. It's a trap, not of their making... so they
shouldn't be forced to declare a strategy.
Thats just childish, if they want to lead the country they better be
prepared to deal with the times we are in.

>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> > I think we should do a satire of Australians. We can call it Under
> >> > Down Under. Lets see... what shall we cast...
> >>
> >> **Sure. Aussies can laugh at ourselves. Just ask a Pom.
> >>
> >> > I know.... one segment of the pops will be middle eastern immigrants
> >> > who prowl the rich burbs looking for white women to gang rape.....
> >>
> >> **If you find that amusing, then you are one sick, demented human.
> >> Australia, like the US, has it's fair share of sick individuals, who need
> >> to
> >> be locked up. I find no amusement in such things.
> >
> > But before we lock them up we can ask them questions... like where is
> > the Capital of the US?
>
> **Indeed. I fail to see how bringing the issue of sick, demented criminals
> into a discussion about satirical TV programming relates, however. Perhaps
> you'd care to enlighten me.

sick demented = average australians.... can we know the difference
from a TV satire?
>
> I mean we do need to get the average Aussie
> > opinion on such things, right?
>
> **You can do what you like. I doubt that Americans would be interested, nor
> would they appreciate the humour anyway.
>
> >
> >>
> >> > another segment will be Islamic fundamentalists who prowl the beaches
> >> > insisting bikini clad women cover themselves, who then go for a rowdy
> >> > game of football and beat the hell out of the lifeguards who ask them
> >> > to stop....
> >>
> >> **And again.
> >>
> >> and the final segment will be a bunch bat carrying nazi
> >> > skinheads who prowl the streets drunk at night looking for people of
> >> > middle eastern appearance to terrorize. The remainder will be a bunch
> >> > of shrimp on the barbie, uneducated fat slobs.
> >> > Oh.... I forgot the surfer gangs..... we need a bunch of knob legged
> >> > hooligans (there are lots of sharks in Australia you know).
> >>
> >> **And again. Why do you find such things amusing? How can you relate
> >> exposing the insular nature of many Americans (ie: Those who cannot
> >> identify
> >> basic geographical items) and compare that to the criminal actions of a
> >> handful of Aussies.
> >
> > Handful?
>
> **Yep.
>
> You mean those aren't "average Aussies".
> > Gee from watching TV who would know?
>
> **How many Aussies live in Australia? How many did you see on TV? Is there a
> significant difference?

Apply same for CNNNN.

>
> >
> >>Just because one US citizen perpetrated the worst
> >> terrorist act in US history, during the 1990s,
> >
> > I think its now the second worst..... you sure you're upto speed on
> > current events?
>
> **Was there a worse terrorist act, perpetrated by a US citizen in the US
> during the 1990s? Please elucidate.

Not what you said... try again.

>
> > Hey... somebody interview this guy for our Aussie satire program.
> >
> >>I don't imagine that all
> >> right wing, religious nutters are desirous of destroying buildings in OK
> >> City. Nor do I imagine that ALL US citizens are right wing, religious
> >> nutters (though a large numbers SEEM to be).
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Only problem is... how do we make sure people know its satire?
> >>
> >> **It's pretty easy to spot satire. It's a great shame you seem incapable
> >> of
> >> doing so, yourself.
> >
> > If its so easy... why did you let CNNNN influence your opinion at
> > all of "average americans".
>
> **You forget:
>
> * 50% of US voters, put Dubya into office, for a second term.
> * I've actually visited the US. Twice.

Yet you still spout off in gross stereotypical prejudice about the
"average american".
Is the average southerner the same as the average west coaster? how
about NoCa vs SoCal? How about San Diego vs LA? Texas vs Georgia?
Florida vs the Carolinas?

America is very diverse and I find your attempts to stereotype an
average american extremely naive.

ScottW

Trevor Wilson

December 14th 05, 09:06 PM

"ScottW" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>> >>
>> >> **The people interviewed by the CNNNN reporter did not know. Some
>> >> Americas
>> >> I've spoken to (in America) had no idea.
>> >
>> > Some Americans aren't average.
>>
>> **Then who voted Dubya in for a second term?
>
> Well.. I did for one. You conveniently forget the quality of
> choices we had.

**No, I did not. You voted for a liar and a man who has deliberately sent
Americans to their deaths, in order to bolster the fortunes of close
associates.

Unfortunately our broken primary system often leaves us
> with less than ideal choices. I wished the Repubs had a primary... I
> wish the dems didn't nominate a traitor... I wish Bush was really a
> conservative.
>
>> Clearly, these people (who
>> voted Dubya in) were a few sandwiches short of a picnic.
>>
>> Look.. we get to see these stupid
>> > shows of the reporter on the street asking questions. They spend all
>> > day to find 5 idiots who think the head of the supreme court is George
>> > Washington.
>>
>> **I don't know how long and how many people were interviewed before they
>> obtained the responses they did.
>
> Then your subsequent comments re average americans had no merit.

**Wrong. 50% of US voters put Dubya into office. Proof positve of just how
moronic 50% of American voters are. From what I have read, that constitutes
25% of the US population. That is a very significant number.

>>
>> Maybe if our schools weren't full of illegal immigrants
>> > kids we could do a better job in public education.
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Do you really think Aussies have
>> >> >> > so much to be proud of?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> **Strawman. The vast majority of Aussies know where the US and
>> >> >> France
>> >> >> are.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You keep freaking out about America while
>> >> >> > your own country seems to be far less than perfect.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> **Strawman noted.
>> >> >
>> >> > Fine... Explain why a "satire" leads you to this:
>> >> > " we always enjoy laughing at the stupidity of the
>> >> > average American. Watching that clip again, makes me realise how
>> >> > Dubya
>> >> > got
>> >> > voted in - TWICE. I guess stupid Americans got a President with the
>> >> > same
>> >> > level of intelligence. "
>> >> >
>> >> > Is that an average real american or an average satirical
>> >> > representation of a real american. Your comment on Bush leads one
>> >> > to
>> >> > think you can't draw the line between real life and satire.
>> >>
>> >> **Points:
>> >>
>> >> * The satire, you speak of (the CNNNN report) is not scripted. They
>> >> interviewed actual Americans, not actors.
>> >
>> > But silly you assume they were "average americans". How many were
>> > interviewed and how many made the cut?
>>
>> **No idea. Based on the voting habits of Americans, I'd say one out of
>> two
>> Americans would be sufficiently stupid.
>
> Thats far more than voted for Bush. You might want to think a bit
> before bogusly stereotyping half the country.

**25% of the US voting age population put Dubya into office. Correct?

>
>>
>> >
>> >> * George W Bush is a liar, a (ex)drug addict and as dumb as a pile of
>> >> rocks.
>> >> Americans installed him as President. TWICE!
>> >
>> > and your leader supported him. Go figure. I guess you're all idiots
>> > for electing him.
>>
>> **Nope. The 50% of Aussies who voted for John Howard are fools. So no,
>> not
>> ALL of us are idiots.
>
> Not ALL of us are idiots either. Not even all of us who voted for
> Bush are idiots.

**The ones who voted for Dubya ARE idiots.

>
>>Having said that, John Howard is not a fool.
>
> Did you hear Bushes speech this AM? It was pretty good. Now Reid's
> pre-speech rebuttal was incredibly stupid. He actually said the Iraqi
> election might be progress or it might be a step toward civil war... he
> almost sounded pleading for civil war.

**I don't care about speeches. I care about actions. Dubya sent thousands of
Americans to their deaths, based on lies.

>
> I actually heard a lib talk show claim the dems shouldn't commit to a
> strategy on Iraq. It's a trap, not of their making... so they
> shouldn't be forced to declare a strategy.
> Thats just childish, if they want to lead the country they better be
> prepared to deal with the times we are in.
>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > I think we should do a satire of Australians. We can call it Under
>> >> > Down Under. Lets see... what shall we cast...
>> >>
>> >> **Sure. Aussies can laugh at ourselves. Just ask a Pom.
>> >>
>> >> > I know.... one segment of the pops will be middle eastern
>> >> > immigrants
>> >> > who prowl the rich burbs looking for white women to gang rape.....
>> >>
>> >> **If you find that amusing, then you are one sick, demented human.
>> >> Australia, like the US, has it's fair share of sick individuals, who
>> >> need
>> >> to
>> >> be locked up. I find no amusement in such things.
>> >
>> > But before we lock them up we can ask them questions... like where is
>> > the Capital of the US?
>>
>> **Indeed. I fail to see how bringing the issue of sick, demented
>> criminals
>> into a discussion about satirical TV programming relates, however.
>> Perhaps
>> you'd care to enlighten me.
>
> sick demented = average australians.... can we know the difference
> from a TV satire?

**You weren't watching a satire. Can you tell the difference? Duh-Mikey
cannot.

>>
>> I mean we do need to get the average Aussie
>> > opinion on such things, right?
>>
>> **You can do what you like. I doubt that Americans would be interested,
>> nor
>> would they appreciate the humour anyway.
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> > another segment will be Islamic fundamentalists who prowl the
>> >> > beaches
>> >> > insisting bikini clad women cover themselves, who then go for a
>> >> > rowdy
>> >> > game of football and beat the hell out of the lifeguards who ask
>> >> > them
>> >> > to stop....
>> >>
>> >> **And again.
>> >>
>> >> and the final segment will be a bunch bat carrying nazi
>> >> > skinheads who prowl the streets drunk at night looking for people of
>> >> > middle eastern appearance to terrorize. The remainder will be a
>> >> > bunch
>> >> > of shrimp on the barbie, uneducated fat slobs.
>> >> > Oh.... I forgot the surfer gangs..... we need a bunch of knob legged
>> >> > hooligans (there are lots of sharks in Australia you know).
>> >>
>> >> **And again. Why do you find such things amusing? How can you relate
>> >> exposing the insular nature of many Americans (ie: Those who cannot
>> >> identify
>> >> basic geographical items) and compare that to the criminal actions of
>> >> a
>> >> handful of Aussies.
>> >
>> > Handful?
>>
>> **Yep.
>>
>> You mean those aren't "average Aussies".
>> > Gee from watching TV who would know?
>>
>> **How many Aussies live in Australia? How many did you see on TV? Is
>> there a
>> significant difference?
>
> Apply same for CNNNN.
>
>>
>> >
>> >>Just because one US citizen perpetrated the worst
>> >> terrorist act in US history, during the 1990s,
>> >
>> > I think its now the second worst..... you sure you're upto speed on
>> > current events?
>>
>> **Was there a worse terrorist act, perpetrated by a US citizen in the US
>> during the 1990s? Please elucidate.
>
> Not what you said... try again.

**Here's what I wrote:

"Just because one US citizen perpetrated the worst terrorist act in US
history, during the 1990s,"

Please elucidate. Which was worse?

>
>>
>> > Hey... somebody interview this guy for our Aussie satire program.
>> >
>> >>I don't imagine that all
>> >> right wing, religious nutters are desirous of destroying buildings in
>> >> OK
>> >> City. Nor do I imagine that ALL US citizens are right wing, religious
>> >> nutters (though a large numbers SEEM to be).
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Only problem is... how do we make sure people know its satire?
>> >>
>> >> **It's pretty easy to spot satire. It's a great shame you seem
>> >> incapable
>> >> of
>> >> doing so, yourself.
>> >
>> > If its so easy... why did you let CNNNN influence your opinion at
>> > all of "average americans".
>>
>> **You forget:
>>
>> * 50% of US voters, put Dubya into office, for a second term.
>> * I've actually visited the US. Twice.
>
> Yet you still spout off in gross stereotypical prejudice about the
> "average american".
> Is the average southerner the same as the average west coaster?

**Strawman.

how
> about NoCa vs SoCal?

**Strawman.

How about San Diego vs LA?

**Strawman.

Texas vs Georgia?
> Florida vs the Carolinas?

**Strawman. I'm talking about the people who voted Dubya into office, not
where the people live.

>
> America is very diverse and I find your attempts to stereotype an
> average american extremely naive.

**Are you suggesting that the morons who voted Dubya into office all live in
the one place?

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

December 14th 05, 09:18 PM

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>> oups.com...
>>> >
>>> > Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> >> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>> >> oups.com...
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> >> >> "Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
>>> >> >> ...
>>> >> >> > http://loosers.hn.org/www/wwiiol/waronterror.wmv
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> **You get CNNNN over there? It was a wonderful series. Much was
>>> >> >> local
>>> >> >> humour, but, of course, we always enjoy laughing at the stupidity
>>> >> >> of
>>> >> >> the
>>> >> >> average American. Watching that clip again, makes me realise how
>>> >> >> Dubya
>>> >> >> got
>>> >> >> voted in - TWICE. I guess stupid Americans got a President with
>>> >> >> the
>>> >> >> same
>>> >> >> level of intelligence.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > What I find amazingly stupid is that you havne't yet figured out
>>> >> > the
>>> >> > CNN will wander the streets of America until they find an idiot,
>>> >> > which
>>> >> > I grant isn't all that hard, but to conclude that those people are
>>> >> > "average Americans" is akin to me thinking its you out hunting
>>> >> > Lebanese
>>> >> > at the beach this weekend.
>>> >>
>>> >> **Thanks for proving my point, Scott. It's CNNNN, not CNN.
>>> >>
>>> >> Stupid Americans. Sheesh!
>>> >>
>>> >> BTW: YOU forget that I have visited America and have spoken to many.
>>> >> I
>>> >> KNOW
>>> >> exactly how stupid the average American is. Which, I hasten to add,
>>> >> is a
>>> >> subset of all Americans. Clearly a proportion of Americans do,
>>> >> actually,
>>> >> know where Australian, France, Iraq and Korea actually are. I'll
>>> >> betcha
>>> >> that
>>> >> before he launched a war on them, Dubya had absolutely no idea where
>>> >> Iraq
>>> >> was. Dubya is a part of that subset of stupid Americans. You need to
>>> >> be
>>> >> embarrassed that you have such an utter moron running your nation.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > I don't know where Australian is.
>>>
>>> **MY typo. Australia, of course. If you don't know where Australia is,
>>> hang
>>> your head in shame.
>>
>> I know where Australia is. Frankly I don't know anyone who I think
>> doesn't know where it is although its not a daily conversation.
>
> **The people interviewed by the CNNNN reporter did not know. Some Americas
> I've spoken to (in America) had no idea.
>
>>>
>>> Do you really think Aussies have
>>> > so much to be proud of?
>>>
>>> **Strawman. The vast majority of Aussies know where the US and France
>>> are.
>>>
>>> You keep freaking out about America while
>>> > your own country seems to be far less than perfect.
>>>
>>> **Strawman noted.
>>
>> Fine... Explain why a "satire" leads you to this:
>> " we always enjoy laughing at the stupidity of the
>> average American. Watching that clip again, makes me realise how Dubya
>> got
>> voted in - TWICE. I guess stupid Americans got a President with the
>> same
>> level of intelligence. "
>>
>> Is that an average real american or an average satirical
>> representation of a real american. Your comment on Bush leads one to
>> think you can't draw the line between real life and satire.
>
> **Points:
>
> * The satire, you speak of (the CNNNN report) is not scripted. They
> interviewed actual Americans, not actors.
> * George W Bush is a liar,

Proof? Of course not.

a (ex)drug addict

Your opinion only, unless you refer to alcohol.

and as dumb as a pile of rocks.

Another unsupported opinion.

> Americans installed him as President. TWICE!
>
>>
>> I think we should do a satire of Australians. We can call it Under
>> Down Under. Lets see... what shall we cast...
>
> **Sure. Aussies can laugh at ourselves. Just ask a Pom.
>
>> I know.... one segment of the pops will be middle eastern immigrants
>> who prowl the rich burbs looking for white women to gang rape.....
>
> **If you find that amusing, then you are one sick, demented human.
> Australia, like the US, has it's fair share of sick individuals, who need
> to be locked up. I find no amusement in such things.
>
>> another segment will be Islamic fundamentalists who prowl the beaches
>> insisting bikini clad women cover themselves, who then go for a rowdy
>> game of football and beat the hell out of the lifeguards who ask them
>> to stop....
>
> **And again.
>
> and the final segment will be a bunch bat carrying nazi
>> skinheads who prowl the streets drunk at night looking for people of
>> middle eastern appearance to terrorize. The remainder will be a bunch
>> of shrimp on the barbie, uneducated fat slobs.
>> Oh.... I forgot the surfer gangs..... we need a bunch of knob legged
>> hooligans (there are lots of sharks in Australia you know).
>
> **And again. Why do you find such things amusing? How can you relate
> exposing the insular nature of many Americans (ie: Those who cannot
> identify basic geographical items) and compare that to the criminal
> actions of a handful of Aussies.

It's hard enough to remember U.S Geography, since it's as big as several
other countries combined.

Just because one US citizen perpetrated the worst
> terrorist act in US history, during the 1990s, I don't imagine that all
> right wing, religious nutters are desirous of destroying buildings in OK
> City. Nor do I imagine that ALL US citizens are right wing, religious
> nutters (though a large numbers SEEM to be).
>

We have about an equal number of left wing nutters, unfortunately they seem
to be in control of the media.
>>
>> Only problem is... how do we make sure people know its satire?
>
> **It's pretty easy to spot satire. It's a great shame you seem incapable
> of doing so, yourself.
>
>
Like Global Warming, that's one of my favorite bits of satire that far to
many people think is real.

December 14th 05, 09:20 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article et>,
> > wrote:
>
>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> http://loosers.hn.org/www/wwiiol/waronterror.wmv
>> >
>> > **You get CNNNN over there? It was a wonderful series. Much was local
>> > humour, but, of course, we always enjoy laughing at the stupidity of
>> > the
>> > average American. Watching that clip again, makes me realise how Dubya
>> > got
>> > voted in - TWICE. I guess stupid Americans got a President with the
>> > same
>> > level of intelligence.
>> >
>> >
>> The stupidity is from yo thnking that there's no bias at CNN and that
>> they
>> don't cherry pick idiots to make a point.
>
> CNN's bias, if any, if FAR less than Fox's.

50% of Fox's commentary is Liberal and the other 50% of their commentary is
Conservative.
Their news reporting is objective.

December 14th 05, 09:21 PM

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> http://loosers.hn.org/www/wwiiol/waronterror.wmv
>>>
>>> **You get CNNNN over there? It was a wonderful series. Much was local
>>> humour, but, of course, we always enjoy laughing at the stupidity of the
>>> average American. Watching that clip again, makes me realise how Dubya
>>> got voted in - TWICE. I guess stupid Americans got a President with the
>>> same level of intelligence.
>>>
>>>
>> The stupidity is from yo thnking that there's no bias at CNN and that
>> they don't cherry pick idiots to make a point.
>>
>> You have no idea what the average American is like, ESPECIALLY if you
>> rely on CNN for your info.
>
> **Thank you for proving my point.
>
> Will someone else tell him?
>
>
I thought it was another typo like "Australian."

Jenn

December 14th 05, 09:46 PM

In article et>,
> wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article et>,
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > "Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> >> http://loosers.hn.org/www/wwiiol/waronterror.wmv
> >> >
> >> > **You get CNNNN over there? It was a wonderful series. Much was local
> >> > humour, but, of course, we always enjoy laughing at the stupidity of
> >> > the
> >> > average American. Watching that clip again, makes me realise how Dubya
> >> > got
> >> > voted in - TWICE. I guess stupid Americans got a President with the
> >> > same
> >> > level of intelligence.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> The stupidity is from yo thnking that there's no bias at CNN and that
> >> they
> >> don't cherry pick idiots to make a point.
> >
> > CNN's bias, if any, if FAR less than Fox's.
>
> 50% of Fox's commentary is Liberal and the other 50% of their commentary is
> Conservative.

Bull****.

> Their news reporting is objective.

More bull****.

Trevor Wilson

December 14th 05, 09:50 PM

> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article et>,
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> >
>>> > "Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
>>> > ...
>>> >> http://loosers.hn.org/www/wwiiol/waronterror.wmv
>>> >
>>> > **You get CNNNN over there? It was a wonderful series. Much was local
>>> > humour, but, of course, we always enjoy laughing at the stupidity of
>>> > the
>>> > average American. Watching that clip again, makes me realise how Dubya
>>> > got
>>> > voted in - TWICE. I guess stupid Americans got a President with the
>>> > same
>>> > level of intelligence.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> The stupidity is from yo thnking that there's no bias at CNN and that
>>> they
>>> don't cherry pick idiots to make a point.
>>
>> CNN's bias, if any, if FAR less than Fox's.
>
> 50% of Fox's commentary is Liberal and the other 50% of their commentary
> is Conservative.
> Their news reporting is objective.

**Dream on.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Goofball_star_dot_etal

December 14th 05, 10:20 PM

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 21:22:24 +0000, Signal > wrote:

>"Goofball_star_dot_etal" emitted :
>
>>>> Not as far as I know but you have my daughter over there for Xmas.
>>>
>>>**Do I? I'll need to look through my little black book. -:)
>>
>>Very recently married, note..
>
>Presumably she acquired the necessary export health certification to
>take her husbandry abroad? ;-)

We don't need papers to go to bits of the empire..
http://www.britishempire.co.uk/maproom/pacific.htm

Goofball_star_dot_etal

December 14th 05, 10:57 PM

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 22:44:22 +0000, Signal > wrote:

>"Goofball_star_dot_etal" emitted :
>
>>>>>> Not as far as I know but you have my daughter over there for Xmas.
>>>>>
>>>>>**Do I? I'll need to look through my little black book. -:)
>>>>
>>>>Very recently married, note..
>>>
>>>Presumably she acquired the necessary export health certification to
>>>take her husbandry abroad? ;-)
>>
>>We don't need papers to go to bits of the empire..
>>http://www.britishempire.co.uk/maproom/pacific.htm
>
>We??? You're not a proper Briton.

You believed the story about Howard and the Plynlimon beic?

Harry Lavo

December 14th 05, 10:58 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article et>,
> > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article et>,
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >
>> >> > "Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
>> >> > ...
>> >> >> http://loosers.hn.org/www/wwiiol/waronterror.wmv
>> >> >
>> >> > **You get CNNNN over there? It was a wonderful series. Much was
>> >> > local
>> >> > humour, but, of course, we always enjoy laughing at the stupidity of
>> >> > the
>> >> > average American. Watching that clip again, makes me realise how
>> >> > Dubya
>> >> > got
>> >> > voted in - TWICE. I guess stupid Americans got a President with the
>> >> > same
>> >> > level of intelligence.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> The stupidity is from yo thnking that there's no bias at CNN and that
>> >> they
>> >> don't cherry pick idiots to make a point.
>> >
>> > CNN's bias, if any, if FAR less than Fox's.
>>
>> 50% of Fox's commentary is Liberal and the other 50% of their commentary
>> is
>> Conservative.
>
> Bull****.
>
>> Their news reporting is objective.
>
> More bull****.

Hey, listen, Jenn. If you think that Russ Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly are
the only legitimate sources of commentary, as many conservatives do (I have
heard it from their own lips), then Fox News is indeed "fair and balanced".
As for the remainder of us...it is a sewer to be dipped into with great
discretion.

Jenn

December 14th 05, 11:47 PM

In article >,
"Harry Lavo" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article et>,
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article et>,
> >> > > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
> >> >> > ...
> >> >> >> http://loosers.hn.org/www/wwiiol/waronterror.wmv
> >> >> >
> >> >> > **You get CNNNN over there? It was a wonderful series. Much was
> >> >> > local
> >> >> > humour, but, of course, we always enjoy laughing at the stupidity of
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > average American. Watching that clip again, makes me realise how
> >> >> > Dubya
> >> >> > got
> >> >> > voted in - TWICE. I guess stupid Americans got a President with the
> >> >> > same
> >> >> > level of intelligence.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> The stupidity is from yo thnking that there's no bias at CNN and that
> >> >> they
> >> >> don't cherry pick idiots to make a point.
> >> >
> >> > CNN's bias, if any, if FAR less than Fox's.
> >>
> >> 50% of Fox's commentary is Liberal and the other 50% of their commentary
> >> is
> >> Conservative.
> >
> > Bull****.
> >
> >> Their news reporting is objective.
> >
> > More bull****.
>
> Hey, listen, Jenn. If you think that Russ Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly are
> the only legitimate sources of commentary, as many conservatives do (I have
> heard it from their own lips),

I have as well.

> then Fox News is indeed "fair and balanced".
> As for the remainder of us...it is a sewer to be dipped into with great
> discretion.

Indeed.

December 14th 05, 11:49 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article et>,
> > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article et>,
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >
>> >> > "Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
>> >> > ...
>> >> >> http://loosers.hn.org/www/wwiiol/waronterror.wmv
>> >> >
>> >> > **You get CNNNN over there? It was a wonderful series. Much was
>> >> > local
>> >> > humour, but, of course, we always enjoy laughing at the stupidity of
>> >> > the
>> >> > average American. Watching that clip again, makes me realise how
>> >> > Dubya
>> >> > got
>> >> > voted in - TWICE. I guess stupid Americans got a President with the
>> >> > same
>> >> > level of intelligence.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> The stupidity is from yo thnking that there's no bias at CNN and that
>> >> they
>> >> don't cherry pick idiots to make a point.
>> >
>> > CNN's bias, if any, if FAR less than Fox's.
>>
>> 50% of Fox's commentary is Liberal and the other 50% of their commentary
>> is
>> Conservative.
>
> Bull****.
>
>> Their news reporting is objective.
>
> More bull****.

Get out a stop watch and time the commentary programs.
As for the news I've seen nothing to indcate it is not objective reporting,
unlike virtually every other news program on cable or broadcast networks.

dave weil

December 14th 05, 11:51 PM

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 20:18:49 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
> wrote:

>>>Just because one US citizen perpetrated the worst
>>> terrorist act in US history, during the 1990s,
>>
>> I think its now the second worst..... you sure you're upto speed on
>> current events?
>
>**Was there a worse terrorist act, perpetrated by a US citizen in the US
>during the 1990s? Please elucidate.

But that's not what you said. Reread your statement again...

You need to work on your Queen's (I mean Dame Edna's) English.

December 14th 05, 11:52 PM

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article et>,
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> > In article et>,
>>> > > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>>> >> ...
>>> >> >
>>> >> > "Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
>>> >> > ...
>>> >> >> http://loosers.hn.org/www/wwiiol/waronterror.wmv
>>> >> >
>>> >> > **You get CNNNN over there? It was a wonderful series. Much was
>>> >> > local
>>> >> > humour, but, of course, we always enjoy laughing at the stupidity
>>> >> > of
>>> >> > the
>>> >> > average American. Watching that clip again, makes me realise how
>>> >> > Dubya
>>> >> > got
>>> >> > voted in - TWICE. I guess stupid Americans got a President with the
>>> >> > same
>>> >> > level of intelligence.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> The stupidity is from yo thnking that there's no bias at CNN and that
>>> >> they
>>> >> don't cherry pick idiots to make a point.
>>> >
>>> > CNN's bias, if any, if FAR less than Fox's.
>>>
>>> 50% of Fox's commentary is Liberal and the other 50% of their commentary
>>> is
>>> Conservative.
>>
>> Bull****.
>>
>>> Their news reporting is objective.
>>
>> More bull****.
>
> Hey, listen, Jenn. If you think that Russ Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly are
> the only legitimate sources of commentary, as many conservatives do (I
> have heard it from their own lips), then Fox News is indeed "fair and
> balanced". As for the remainder of us...it is a sewer to be dipped into
> with great discretion.
Why do you you lump Limbaugh and O'Reilly together? Rush is a conservative
and O"Reilly is an independant.

As for tehm being fair and blanced, that rerfers to their commntary shows
which split the time evenly between opposing viewpoints.

Even if they were shown to be biased, what's the problem with that since the
other news is biased as well, just in a way you probably like.

Or are you going to claim that CBS or the NY Times are fair and balanced in
their reporting?

December 14th 05, 11:53 PM

"Signal" > wrote in message
...
> "Trevor Wilson" emitted :
>
>>>>> > **You get CNNNN over there? It was a wonderful series. Much was
>>>>> > local
>>>>> > humour, but, of course, we always enjoy laughing at the stupidity of
>>>>> > the
>>>>> > average American. Watching that clip again, makes me realise how
>>>>> > Dubya
>>>>> > got
>>>>> > voted in - TWICE. I guess stupid Americans got a President with the
>>>>> > same
>>>>> > level of intelligence.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> The stupidity is from yo thnking that there's no bias at CNN and that
>>>>> they
>>>>> don't cherry pick idiots to make a point.
>>>>
>>>> CNN's bias, if any, if FAR less than Fox's.
>>>
>>> 50% of Fox's commentary is Liberal and the other 50% of their commentary
>>> is Conservative.
>>> Their news reporting is objective.
>>
>>**Dream on.
>
> More of a nightmare..

Well after years of being branwashed by the leftists at the BBC it's no
wonder you don't get it.

dave weil

December 14th 05, 11:57 PM

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 21:06:00 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
> wrote:

>**Here's what I wrote:
>
>"Just because one US citizen perpetrated the worst terrorist act in US
>history, during the 1990s,"
>
>Please elucidate. Which was worse?

Try again. What you said was that the worst terrorist act in the US
occured in the 1990s and it happened to be perpetrated by one US
citizen. That's how you wrote it, at least.

What you MEANT was something like, The worst terrorist act in the US
in the 1990s was perpetrated by one US citizen.

And, btw, that particular act had more than one participant.

If you're STILL confused how you got it wrong, ask yourself what the
phrase "worst terrorist act in US history" means.

dave weil

December 15th 05, 12:02 AM

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 21:20:48 GMT, > wrote:

>50% of Fox's commentary is Liberal and the other 50% of their commentary is
>Conservative.
>Their news reporting is objective.

If you believe that, then you're more of a fool than you pretend to be
here on RAO.

Lionel

December 15th 05, 12:03 AM

wrote :

> Or are you going to claim that CBS or the NY Times are fair and balanced
> in their reporting?

No ! surely no !
They are only making journalism. Unlike FoxNews.

Lionel

December 15th 05, 12:11 AM

wrote :

> As for the news I've seen nothing to indcate it is not objective
> reporting,

This is why they are strong with the weak people like you. ;-)

> unlike virtually every other news program on cable or broadcast
> networks.

Don't waste your time in such metaphysical problems Mike.
Just watch FoxNews.
....It's enough for you.

dave weil

December 15th 05, 12:19 AM

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 23:49:18 GMT, > wrote:

>>> Their news reporting is objective.
>>
>> More bull****.
>
>Get out a stop watch and time the commentary programs.
>As for the news I've seen nothing to indcate it is not objective reporting,

From Shepard Smith's opening just moments ago, regarding the Patriot
Act:

"Depending on your point of view it's either an essential tool to keep
us safe from the terrorists who <cue emphasis> WANT US
DEAD...<pause><cue more subdued voice>...or a threat to civil
liberties...<almost as an aside>or something in between".

Amazing how I was able to find something like this as soon as I turned
on the channel.

Yeah, they've got the laughable Colmes (who's a milquetoast of the
highest degree). Let's not forget that that bastion of "liberalism",
PBS, had a true heavyweight, William F. Buckley for something like 25
years, and he had his own show. You should watch George Stephanopolis'
ABC Sunday morning political show if only to witness the caustic
brilliance of George Will during the "roundtable".

Yep, instead of Dan Rather, Fox has Brit Hume, who's just slightly
left of the Kaiser. That's a guy who can't even be othered to hide his
contempt.

dave weil

December 15th 05, 12:28 AM

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 23:52:55 GMT, > wrote:

>
>"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In article et>,
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>> > In article et>,
>>>> > > wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>>>> >> ...
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > "Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
>>>> >> > ...
>>>> >> >> http://loosers.hn.org/www/wwiiol/waronterror.wmv
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > **You get CNNNN over there? It was a wonderful series. Much was
>>>> >> > local
>>>> >> > humour, but, of course, we always enjoy laughing at the stupidity
>>>> >> > of
>>>> >> > the
>>>> >> > average American. Watching that clip again, makes me realise how
>>>> >> > Dubya
>>>> >> > got
>>>> >> > voted in - TWICE. I guess stupid Americans got a President with the
>>>> >> > same
>>>> >> > level of intelligence.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> The stupidity is from yo thnking that there's no bias at CNN and that
>>>> >> they
>>>> >> don't cherry pick idiots to make a point.
>>>> >
>>>> > CNN's bias, if any, if FAR less than Fox's.
>>>>
>>>> 50% of Fox's commentary is Liberal and the other 50% of their commentary
>>>> is
>>>> Conservative.
>>>
>>> Bull****.
>>>
>>>> Their news reporting is objective.
>>>
>>> More bull****.
>>
>> Hey, listen, Jenn. If you think that Russ Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly are
>> the only legitimate sources of commentary, as many conservatives do (I
>> have heard it from their own lips), then Fox News is indeed "fair and
>> balanced". As for the remainder of us...it is a sewer to be dipped into
>> with great discretion.
>Why do you you lump Limbaugh and O'Reilly together? Rush is a conservative
>and O"Reilly is an independant.

You ARE joking, right?

Here is his current column:

http://billoreilly.com/currentarticle;jsessionid=818A7707B838A38DDAFE11DE 47575820

And here's an excerpt:
<snip>

But because there is mention of a certain "Saint Nicholas" in the poem
it may, alas, have to be revised in order not to offend Americans who
don't believe in saints or even Christmas for that matter. We cannot
be having any exclusionary poems now, can we?

So with apologies to Clement Moore and everybody else, I humbly submit
this updated poem for your consideration:

'Twas the night before Solstice, and all through the land
the ACLU was watching to keep things in hand.
The children were nestled all snug in their beds,
while forces kept Christmas out of their heads.
When out on the lawn there arose such a clatter,
I sprang from my bed and heard desperate chatter.
Someone had seen my manger display,
And wailed very loudly - go away, go away.

How could I be so crass, so utterly wrong
So show the infant Jesus and sing him a song?

And then, in a twinkling, I heard on the roof
An ACLU lawyer, looking stern and aloof.
No manger! No caroling! he said with a snort,
And if you don't comply immediately, I'll take you to court!

<snip>

>As for tehm being fair and blanced, that rerfers to their commntary shows
>which split the time evenly between opposing viewpoints.

I'm guessing that you're either overmedicated or undermedicated. The
above sentence seems to back up that opinion, as well as your recent
musings on the "Media".

>Even if they were shown to be biased, what's the problem with that since the
>other news is biased as well, just in a way you probably like.

Well, for starters, they explicitly claim NOT TO BE. Biased that is.

>Or are you going to claim that CBS or the NY Times are fair and balanced in
>their reporting?

What does that have to do with your claims about Fox? Nothing.

Actualy, what I like is Jon Stewart. No problems seeing what side of
the fence he's on, and he will make you howl (in laughter if you lean
left and in protest if you lean right).

BTW, if you want "Fair and Balanced", you should read Carville and
Matalin's book on the '92 election, "All's Fair". What a great read!

Jenn

December 15th 05, 12:40 AM

In article t>,
> wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article et>,
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article et>,
> >> > > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
> >> >> > ...
> >> >> >> http://loosers.hn.org/www/wwiiol/waronterror.wmv
> >> >> >
> >> >> > **You get CNNNN over there? It was a wonderful series. Much was
> >> >> > local
> >> >> > humour, but, of course, we always enjoy laughing at the stupidity of
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > average American. Watching that clip again, makes me realise how
> >> >> > Dubya
> >> >> > got
> >> >> > voted in - TWICE. I guess stupid Americans got a President with the
> >> >> > same
> >> >> > level of intelligence.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> The stupidity is from yo thnking that there's no bias at CNN and that
> >> >> they
> >> >> don't cherry pick idiots to make a point.
> >> >
> >> > CNN's bias, if any, if FAR less than Fox's.
> >>
> >> 50% of Fox's commentary is Liberal and the other 50% of their commentary
> >> is
> >> Conservative.
> >
> > Bull****.
> >
> >> Their news reporting is objective.
> >
> > More bull****.
>
> Get out a stop watch and time the commentary programs.
> As for the news I've seen nothing to indcate it is not objective reporting,
> unlike virtually every other news program on cable or broadcast networks.

You've got to be kidding. Which Fox News show host, other than co-host
Colmes, could you POSSIBLY call "liberal"? Hannity? Obviously not.
Gibson? Ditto. Snow? Ditto. Hume? Ditto. O"Reilly? Ditto.

Can you show us some examples off CNN's bias? CNBC?

Schizoid Man

December 15th 05, 01:04 AM

dave weil wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 21:20:48 GMT, > wrote:
>
>
>>50% of Fox's commentary is Liberal and the other 50% of their commentary is
>>Conservative.
>>Their news reporting is objective.
>
> If you believe that, then you're more of a fool than you pretend to be
> here on RAO.

Dave,

Aren't you giving McKelvy too much credit here? I'm not sure he's
pretending! :)

Schizoid Man

December 15th 05, 01:12 AM

dave weil wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 23:49:18 GMT, > wrote:

> Yep, instead of Dan Rather, Fox has Brit Hume, who's just slightly
> left of the Kaiser. That's a guy who can't even be othered to hide his
> contempt.

Only just.

I suppose the following FACT will be lost on McKelvy and Scott, but I'll
throw it out anyway:

Hume has an evening news show in which he is supposed to read the news
and interview guests, just like any other news bulletin.

On this one occasion, his show ended with a piece on an anti-war
protest. At the very end of the video clip they showed a woman waving a
banner and shouting something.

The clip ended and the camera panned back to him. He chuckled,
enunciated the words "stupid woman" and then bid his viewers good night.

A very crafty and well choreographed editorial, don't you think? So much
for the fairness and balance of Fox News.

No doubt, Michael McKelvy - aka Brave Warrior and harbinger of
democracy, freedom and justice - will consider this a lawful exercise of
Hume's First Amendment.

Schizoid Man

December 15th 05, 01:19 AM

dave weil wrote:

>>Why do you you lump Limbaugh and O'Reilly together? Rush is a conservative
>>and O"Reilly is an independant.
>
>
> You ARE joking, right?

I find it interesting that this "independent" only names "far left
websites" in his section on (please try not to laugh) Media Defamamtion.

<snicker>

Given O'Reilly's solid (or is it sordid?) track record of sexual tourism
in Asia, pontificating on our morality while making sexual overtures to
those who work for him and making blatantly racist comments in public
(referring to Mexicans as 'wetbacks' and the now-famous 'I hope the Best
Men aren't stealing our hub caps'), I would have thought that O'Reilly
would have also been attacked by far-right websites?

Very strange indeed.

Trevor Wilson

December 15th 05, 04:12 AM

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 21:06:00 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
> > wrote:
>
>>**Here's what I wrote:
>>
>>"Just because one US citizen perpetrated the worst terrorist act in US
>>history, during the 1990s,"
>>
>>Please elucidate. Which was worse?
>
> Try again. What you said was that the worst terrorist act in the US
> occured in the 1990s and it happened to be perpetrated by one US
> citizen. That's how you wrote it, at least.
>
> What you MEANT was something like, The worst terrorist act in the US
> in the 1990s was perpetrated by one US citizen.

**Mea culpa.

>
> And, btw, that particular act had more than one participant.

**And yet, his execution was carried out anyway.

>
> If you're STILL confused how you got it wrong, ask yourself what the
> phrase "worst terrorist act in US history" means.

**I can see how badly I phrased it.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

ScottW

December 15th 05, 06:33 PM

Trevor Wilson wrote:
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>
> **I don't care about speeches. I care about actions. Dubya sent thousands of
> Americans to their deaths, based on lies.
>

Why are you such a staunch defender of Saddam and his murderous
regime?

I think that 70 year old Iraqi grandmother I heard a clip of on the
radio said it best,

"If you don't appreciate what America and George Bush have done for
Iraq, you can go to hell".

But if you can't accept that.. then I'm sure this guy will make you
feel better.

http://iraqirebel.blogspot.com/

ScottW

Trevor Wilson

December 15th 05, 08:41 PM

"ScottW" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>
>> **I don't care about speeches. I care about actions. Dubya sent thousands
>> of
>> Americans to their deaths, based on lies.
>>
>
> Why are you such a staunch defender of Saddam and his murderous
> regime?

**When will you stop beating the crap out of your wife?

Just to ensure that you understand my meaning, focus on the following words:

I have NEVER supported or defended Saddam. Even when successive US
governments supported and armed him. Not ever. I do not support the
murderous regime in China, either. Nor the corrupt and murderous
dictatorship in Saudi Arabia. The same regime which is fully and completely
supported by Dubya. Nor do I support the murderous regime in North Korea and
so on. OK?

I do, however, support the failed US efforts to bring to justice the
murderers who orchestrated the 9-11 atrocities. Sadly, Dubya seems to have
decided to ignore OBL and concentrate on a person who has not threatened the
US. The loved ones of those Americans who have been killed in Dubya's
illegal war have every right to be very ****ed off. Ever Aermican taxpayer
has every right to be ****ed off at the open-ended cost of a war which has
not assisted the vast majority of US citizens.

If the US WANTS to the planet's police force, then, by all means, do the
job. But do it right. Start with North Korea. North Korea is a MUCH larger
threat to the US and to the rest of the planet. Not to mention the
long-suffering North Koreans. Trouble is, North Korea doesn't have any oil.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Lionel

December 15th 05, 11:16 PM

ScottW "The Môron" a écrit :

> "If you don't appreciate what America and George Bush have done for
> Iraq, you can go to hell".

Yes the Bush have killed their family 2 times one in 1992 and one in 2003.

In 1992 Bush senior had all the world behind him so why did he decided
to stop at the frontiere of Iraq ? Just for the pleasure to see Saddam
kill more innocents ?
Why did Bush senior has abandoned Kurdes in the north and Shiite in the
South to the vengeance of Saddam.
Why did Bush junior has felt obliged to invent this grotesque story of
WMDs if hes was really acting for the *democracy* in Iraq ?

Go to watch Foxnews with you friend McKelvy you don't deserve a better
source of informaion.

--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

ScottW

December 15th 05, 11:43 PM

Trevor Wilson wrote:
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> >>
> >> **I don't care about speeches. I care about actions. Dubya sent thousands
> >> of
> >> Americans to their deaths, based on lies.
> >>
> >
> > Why are you such a staunch defender of Saddam and his murderous
> > regime?
>
> **When will you stop beating the crap out of your wife?
>
> Just to ensure that you understand my meaning, focus on the following words:
>
> I have NEVER supported or defended Saddam.

Then why aren't you celebrating his demise... regardless of the
justification?
You should check out Bush's speech. He accepted that intell was bad.

>Even when successive US
> governments supported and armed him. Not ever. I do not support the
> murderous regime in China, either. Nor the corrupt and murderous
> dictatorship in Saudi Arabia. The same regime which is fully and completely
> supported by Dubya. Nor do I support the murderous regime in North Korea and
> so on. OK?
>
> I do, however, support the failed US efforts to bring to justice the
> murderers who orchestrated the 9-11 atrocities. Sadly, Dubya seems to have
> decided to ignore OBL and concentrate on a person who has not threatened the
> US. The loved ones of those Americans who have been killed in Dubya's
> illegal war have every right to be very ****ed off. Ever Aermican taxpayer
> has every right to be ****ed off at the open-ended cost of a war which has
> not assisted the vast majority of US citizens.

Then leave all that ****ing to Americans.
>
> If the US WANTS to the planet's police force, then, by all means, do the
> job. But do it right. Start with North Korea. North Korea is a MUCH larger
> threat to the US and to the rest of the planet. Not to mention the
> long-suffering North Koreans. Trouble is, North Korea doesn't have any oil.

Stupid argument. If you can't do everything... then do nothing. Well,
obviously we can't do everything... so you shouldn't reject a good
thing just because it isn't your personal top priority. You also
forget North Korea remains a protectorate of China.

ScottW

ScottW

December 15th 05, 11:48 PM

Lionel wrote:
> ScottW "The Môron" a écrit :
>
> > "If you don't appreciate what America and George Bush have done for
> > Iraq, you can go to hell".
>
> Yes the Bush have killed their family 2 times one in 1992 and one in 2003.
>
> In 1992 Bush senior had all the world behind him so why did he decided
> to stop at the frontiere of Iraq ?

Lionel you're complete idiot and severe embarrassment to your pathetic
country. Just FYI, US forces didn't stop at the frontier of Iraq....
they stopped short of Baghdad because the UN mandate only called for
getting him out of Kuwait.

>Just for the pleasure to see Saddam
> kill more innocents ?
> Why did Bush senior has abandoned Kurdes in the north and Shiite in the
> South to the vengeance of Saddam.

France wouldn't support it in the UN you hypocritical scumbag.

ScottW

Lionel

December 16th 05, 12:11 AM

In om>, ScottW wrote :

>
> Lionel wrote:
>> ScottW "The Môron" a écrit :
>>
>> > "If you don't appreciate what America and George Bush have done for
>> > Iraq, you can go to hell".
>>
>> Yes the Bush have killed their family 2 times one in 1992 and one in
>> 2003.
>>
>> In 1992 Bush senior had all the world behind him so why did he decided
>> to stop at the frontiere of Iraq ?
>
> Lionel you're complete idiot and severe embarrassment to your pathetic
> country. Just FYI, US forces didn't stop at the frontier of Iraq....
> they stopped short of Baghdad because the UN mandate only called for
> getting him out of Kuwait.

LOL did you get a UN mandate for making war in Iraq now ?

>>Just for the pleasure to see Saddam
>> kill more innocents ?
>> Why did Bush senior has abandoned Kurdes in the north and Shiite in the
>> South to the vengeance of Saddam.
>
> France wouldn't support it in the UN you hypocritical scumbag.

That's a lie. At this time all the France was agree to sweep out Saddam from
Iraq.
The good answer is that Bush senior has complied with a South Arabian
express request. I bet that you knew that, you moronic liar...

BTW according to you coward strategy you have carefully avoid to answer to
the last question :
If the project of Bush was democracy for Iraq why did he felt obliged to
invent this grotesque WMDs lie ?

--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

Trevor Wilson

December 16th 05, 05:32 AM

"ScottW" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> >> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>> >>
>> >> **I don't care about speeches. I care about actions. Dubya sent
>> >> thousands
>> >> of
>> >> Americans to their deaths, based on lies.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Why are you such a staunch defender of Saddam and his murderous
>> > regime?
>>
>> **When will you stop beating the crap out of your wife?
>>
>> Just to ensure that you understand my meaning, focus on the following
>> words:
>>
>> I have NEVER supported or defended Saddam.
>
> Then why aren't you celebrating his demise... regardless of the
> justification?

**When will you stop beating your wife?

Ask a ****ing reasonable question and I will ****ing answer it.

You could ask the following:

* Do you think that Saddam is bad?
* Do you think it is a good thing that Saddam has been removed from power?
* Do you think it is a good thing that Dubya lied to the US public about his
reasons for attacking Iraq?

> You should check out Bush's speech. He accepted that intell was bad.

**I heard Dubya's lies. They're utterly laughable. He lied then and he lies
now. And you are suicking those lies up. Be ashamed. Very ashamed.

>
>>Even when successive US
>> governments supported and armed him. Not ever. I do not support the
>> murderous regime in China, either. Nor the corrupt and murderous
>> dictatorship in Saudi Arabia. The same regime which is fully and
>> completely
>> supported by Dubya. Nor do I support the murderous regime in North Korea
>> and
>> so on. OK?
>>
>> I do, however, support the failed US efforts to bring to justice the
>> murderers who orchestrated the 9-11 atrocities. Sadly, Dubya seems to
>> have
>> decided to ignore OBL and concentrate on a person who has not threatened
>> the
>> US. The loved ones of those Americans who have been killed in Dubya's
>> illegal war have every right to be very ****ed off. Ever Aermican
>> taxpayer
>> has every right to be ****ed off at the open-ended cost of a war which
>> has
>> not assisted the vast majority of US citizens.
>
> Then leave all that ****ing to Americans.

**All very well, but the US has managed to destabilise the Middle East, all
on it's own. It has put most Westerners in mortal danger. Had Dubya
concentrated on the important duty (catching OBL), instead of launching an
illegal, ill-conceived war, he may not have alienated the entire Mid East
and most of the rest of the world.

>>
>> If the US WANTS to the planet's police force, then, by all means, do the
>> job. But do it right. Start with North Korea. North Korea is a MUCH
>> larger
>> threat to the US and to the rest of the planet. Not to mention the
>> long-suffering North Koreans. Trouble is, North Korea doesn't have any
>> oil.
>
> Stupid argument.

**Oh really? Why? The North Korean regime is killing it's people faster than
Saddam could kill his. NOrth Korea also poses a serious risk to the entire
planet. Saddam did not.

> If you can't do everything... then do nothing.

**Nope. First, you catch OBL.

Well,
> obviously we can't do everything...

**You STILL have not managed to catch OBL.

so you shouldn't reject a good
> thing just because it isn't your personal top priority.

**Top priority should be to protect Americans. THAT is the role of the
President.

You also
> forget North Korea remains a protectorate of China.

**I forget nothing.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Schizoid Man

December 16th 05, 06:28 AM

Trevor Wilson wrote:

> **I forget nothing.

What do you make of this spin on the usual conservative agenda of
individual liberty before anything else?

How do reconcile this with Bush being a good conservative?

To quote Mickey, GMAFB.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/15/politics/15cnd-program.html?ei=5065&en=80681ada74c04ce9&ex=1135314000&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

paul packer

December 16th 05, 06:39 AM

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 20:41:16 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
> wrote:

>If the US WANTS to the planet's police force, then, by all means, do the
>job. But do it right. Start with North Korea. North Korea is a MUCH larger
>threat to the US and to the rest of the planet. Not to mention the
>long-suffering North Koreans. Trouble is, North Korea doesn't have any oil.

Trevor, cynicism can be deceptive. Whatever you may think of political
idealism, you have to ascribe a goodly portion of it to Bush and his
advisers. Given the amount of air time given to their thinking, I'm
astonished at the number of people who still believe it's just about
oil.

paul packer

December 16th 05, 06:46 AM

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 01:11:39 +0100, Lionel >
wrote:

>BTW according to you coward strategy you have carefully avoid to answer to
>the last question :
>If the project of Bush was democracy for Iraq why did he felt obliged to
>invent this grotesque WMDs lie ?

Fairly obvious, isn't it? How else to get US populace on-side? It'd be
nice if the people of great countries were always prepared to
sacrifice their sons to free the people of other, less powerful
countries, but unfortunately they rarely are unless they perceive a
threat to themselves. WMDs were the invented but necessary threat.

dave weil

December 16th 05, 06:55 AM

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 00:16:21 +0100, Lionel >
wrote:

>ScottW "The Môron" a écrit :
>
>> "If you don't appreciate what America and George Bush have done for
>> Iraq, you can go to hell".
>
>Yes the Bush have killed their family 2 times one in 1992 and one in 2003.

Don't know if it's worse than forcing their kids into technical
schools like you French do.

Trevor Wilson

December 16th 05, 08:57 AM

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 20:41:16 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>If the US WANTS to the planet's police force, then, by all means, do the
>>job. But do it right. Start with North Korea. North Korea is a MUCH larger
>>threat to the US and to the rest of the planet. Not to mention the
>>long-suffering North Koreans. Trouble is, North Korea doesn't have any
>>oil.
>
> Trevor, cynicism can be deceptive. Whatever you may think of political
> idealism, you have to ascribe a goodly portion of it to Bush and his
> advisers. Given the amount of air time given to their thinking, I'm
> astonished at the number of people who still believe it's just about
> oil.

**I'm astonished that any allegedly intelligent person STILL thinks that it
was not about the oil.

Consider:

The US could easily subdue Mugabbe and his criminals, but have chosen not
to.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Lionel

December 16th 05, 10:16 AM

paul "Heavy Troller" packer a écrit :

> On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 01:11:39 +0100, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>BTW according to you coward strategy you have carefully avoid to answer to
>>the last question :
>>If the project of Bush was democracy for Iraq why did he felt obliged to
>>invent this grotesque WMDs lie ?
>
>
> Fairly obvious, isn't it? How else to get US populace on-side? It'd be
> nice if the people of great countries were always prepared to
> sacrifice their sons to free the people of other, less powerful
> countries, but unfortunately they rarely are unless they perceive a
> threat to themselves. WMDs were the invented but necessary threat.

LOL !!!
If I have to answer to such argument I will collect a lot of Godwin
point... :-D

--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

Lionel

December 16th 05, 10:17 AM

dave weil a écrit :

>>Yes the Bush have killed their family 2 times one in 1992 and one in 2003.
>
>
> Don't know if it's worse than forcing their kids into technical
> schools like you French do.

??????????????????

--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

Lionel

December 16th 05, 10:25 AM

Trevor Wilson a écrit :
> "paul packer" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 20:41:16 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>If the US WANTS to the planet's police force, then, by all means, do the
>>>job. But do it right. Start with North Korea. North Korea is a MUCH larger
>>>threat to the US and to the rest of the planet. Not to mention the
>>>long-suffering North Koreans. Trouble is, North Korea doesn't have any
>>>oil.
>>
>>Trevor, cynicism can be deceptive. Whatever you may think of political
>>idealism, you have to ascribe a goodly portion of it to Bush and his
>>advisers. Given the amount of air time given to their thinking, I'm
>>astonished at the number of people who still believe it's just about
>>oil.
>
>
> **I'm astonished that any allegedly intelligent person STILL thinks that it
> was not about the oil.

Don't worry Trevor, Paul Packer doesn't believe in his own troll he's
just trying to annoy me because I have vexed him weeks ago.
Since this time this lousy troller is frenetically looking for my
patriotic string to play with.

Poor Mr Packer !!! Being so intelligent and spending time to such nasty
and petty game....
What a waste of resources. :-D

--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

December 16th 05, 06:57 PM

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>> >>
>>> >> **The people interviewed by the CNNNN reporter did not know. Some
>>> >> Americas
>>> >> I've spoken to (in America) had no idea.
>>> >
>>> > Some Americans aren't average.
>>>
>>> **Then who voted Dubya in for a second term?
>>
>> Well.. I did for one. You conveniently forget the quality of
>> choices we had.
>
> **No, I did not. You voted for a liar and a man who has deliberately sent
> Americans to their deaths, in order to bolster the fortunes of close
> associates.

OSAF. As usual.
>
> Unfortunately our broken primary system often leaves us
>> with less than ideal choices. I wished the Repubs had a primary... I
>> wish the dems didn't nominate a traitor... I wish Bush was really a
>> conservative.
>>
>>> Clearly, these people (who
>>> voted Dubya in) were a few sandwiches short of a picnic.
>>>
>>> Look.. we get to see these stupid
>>> > shows of the reporter on the street asking questions. They spend
>>> > all
>>> > day to find 5 idiots who think the head of the supreme court is George
>>> > Washington.
>>>
>>> **I don't know how long and how many people were interviewed before they
>>> obtained the responses they did.
>>
>> Then your subsequent comments re average americans had no merit.
>
> **Wrong. 50% of US voters put Dubya into office. Proof positve of just how
> moronic 50% of American voters are. From what I have read, that
> constitutes 25% of the US population. That is a very significant number.
>
>>>
>>> Maybe if our schools weren't full of illegal immigrants
>>> > kids we could do a better job in public education.
>>> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Do you really think Aussies have
>>> >> >> > so much to be proud of?
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> **Strawman. The vast majority of Aussies know where the US and
>>> >> >> France
>>> >> >> are.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> You keep freaking out about America while
>>> >> >> > your own country seems to be far less than perfect.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> **Strawman noted.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Fine... Explain why a "satire" leads you to this:
>>> >> > " we always enjoy laughing at the stupidity of the
>>> >> > average American. Watching that clip again, makes me realise how
>>> >> > Dubya
>>> >> > got
>>> >> > voted in - TWICE. I guess stupid Americans got a President with the
>>> >> > same
>>> >> > level of intelligence. "
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Is that an average real american or an average satirical
>>> >> > representation of a real american. Your comment on Bush leads one
>>> >> > to
>>> >> > think you can't draw the line between real life and satire.
>>> >>
>>> >> **Points:
>>> >>
>>> >> * The satire, you speak of (the CNNNN report) is not scripted. They
>>> >> interviewed actual Americans, not actors.
>>> >
>>> > But silly you assume they were "average americans". How many were
>>> > interviewed and how many made the cut?
>>>
>>> **No idea. Based on the voting habits of Americans, I'd say one out of
>>> two
>>> Americans would be sufficiently stupid.
>>
>> Thats far more than voted for Bush. You might want to think a bit
>> before bogusly stereotyping half the country.
>
> **25% of the US voting age population put Dubya into office. Correct?
>
>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> >> * George W Bush is a liar, a (ex)drug addict and as dumb as a pile of
>>> >> rocks.

OSAF. As usual.

>>> >> Americans installed him as President. TWICE!
>>> >
>>> > and your leader supported him. Go figure. I guess you're all idiots
>>> > for electing him.
>>>
>>> **Nope. The 50% of Aussies who voted for John Howard are fools. So no,
>>> not
>>> ALL of us are idiots.
>>
>> Not ALL of us are idiots either. Not even all of us who voted for
>> Bush are idiots.
>
> **The ones who voted for Dubya ARE idiots.
>
>>
>>>Having said that, John Howard is not a fool.
>>
>> Did you hear Bushes speech this AM? It was pretty good. Now Reid's
>> pre-speech rebuttal was incredibly stupid. He actually said the Iraqi
>> election might be progress or it might be a step toward civil war... he
>> almost sounded pleading for civil war.
>
> **I don't care about speeches. I care about actions. Dubya sent thousands
> of Americans to their deaths, based on lies.
>
Based on faulty Intel, that's not the same as lies, and it was Intel that
most of the world thought was true as well.
>>
>> I actually heard a lib talk show claim the dems shouldn't commit to a
>> strategy on Iraq. It's a trap, not of their making... so they
>> shouldn't be forced to declare a strategy.
>> Thats just childish, if they want to lead the country they better be
>> prepared to deal with the times we are in.
>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> > I think we should do a satire of Australians. We can call it Under
>>> >> > Down Under. Lets see... what shall we cast...
>>> >>
>>> >> **Sure. Aussies can laugh at ourselves. Just ask a Pom.
>>> >>
>>> >> > I know.... one segment of the pops will be middle eastern
>>> >> > immigrants
>>> >> > who prowl the rich burbs looking for white women to gang rape.....
>>> >>
>>> >> **If you find that amusing, then you are one sick, demented human.
>>> >> Australia, like the US, has it's fair share of sick individuals, who
>>> >> need
>>> >> to
>>> >> be locked up. I find no amusement in such things.
>>> >
>>> > But before we lock them up we can ask them questions... like where is
>>> > the Capital of the US?
>>>
>>> **Indeed. I fail to see how bringing the issue of sick, demented
>>> criminals
>>> into a discussion about satirical TV programming relates, however.
>>> Perhaps
>>> you'd care to enlighten me.
>>
>> sick demented = average australians.... can we know the difference
>> from a TV satire?
>
> **You weren't watching a satire. Can you tell the difference? Duh-Mikey
> cannot.
>
I can when I see one.
>>>
>>> I mean we do need to get the average Aussie
>>> > opinion on such things, right?
>>>
The Average Aussie I meet here left Oz to get away from nut cases like Trev.

>>> **You can do what you like. I doubt that Americans would be interested,
>>> nor
>>> would they appreciate the humour anyway.
>>>
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> > another segment will be Islamic fundamentalists who prowl the
>>> >> > beaches
>>> >> > insisting bikini clad women cover themselves, who then go for a
>>> >> > rowdy
>>> >> > game of football and beat the hell out of the lifeguards who ask
>>> >> > them
>>> >> > to stop....
>>> >>
>>> >> **And again.
>>> >>
>>> >> and the final segment will be a bunch bat carrying nazi
>>> >> > skinheads who prowl the streets drunk at night looking for people
>>> >> > of
>>> >> > middle eastern appearance to terrorize. The remainder will be a
>>> >> > bunch
>>> >> > of shrimp on the barbie, uneducated fat slobs.
>>> >> > Oh.... I forgot the surfer gangs..... we need a bunch of knob
>>> >> > legged
>>> >> > hooligans (there are lots of sharks in Australia you know).
>>> >>
>>> >> **And again. Why do you find such things amusing? How can you relate
>>> >> exposing the insular nature of many Americans (ie: Those who cannot
>>> >> identify
>>> >> basic geographical items) and compare that to the criminal actions of
>>> >> a
>>> >> handful of Aussies.
>>> >
>>> > Handful?
>>>
>>> **Yep.
>>>
>>> You mean those aren't "average Aussies".
>>> > Gee from watching TV who would know?
>>>
>>> **How many Aussies live in Australia? How many did you see on TV? Is
>>> there a
>>> significant difference?
>>
>> Apply same for CNNNN.
>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> >>Just because one US citizen perpetrated the worst
>>> >> terrorist act in US history, during the 1990s,
>>> >
>>> > I think its now the second worst..... you sure you're upto speed on
>>> > current events?
>>>
>>> **Was there a worse terrorist act, perpetrated by a US citizen in the US
>>> during the 1990s? Please elucidate.
>>
>> Not what you said... try again.
>
> **Here's what I wrote:
>
> "Just because one US citizen perpetrated the worst terrorist act in US
> history, during the 1990s,"
>
> Please elucidate. Which was worse?

9/11 was the worst terrorist act commited on U.S. soil.
>>
>>>
>>> > Hey... somebody interview this guy for our Aussie satire program.
>>> >
>>> >>I don't imagine that all
>>> >> right wing, religious nutters are desirous of destroying buildings in
>>> >> OK
>>> >> City. Nor do I imagine that ALL US citizens are right wing, religious
>>> >> nutters (though a large numbers SEEM to be).
>>> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Only problem is... how do we make sure people know its satire?
>>> >>
>>> >> **It's pretty easy to spot satire. It's a great shame you seem
>>> >> incapable
>>> >> of
>>> >> doing so, yourself.
>>> >
>>> > If its so easy... why did you let CNNNN influence your opinion at
>>> > all of "average americans".
>>>
>>> **You forget:
>>>
>>> * 50% of US voters, put Dubya into office, for a second term.
>>> * I've actually visited the US. Twice.
>>
>> Yet you still spout off in gross stereotypical prejudice about the
>> "average american".
>> Is the average southerner the same as the average west coaster?
>
> **Strawman.
>
> how
>> about NoCa vs SoCal?
>
> **Strawman.
>
> How about San Diego vs LA?
>
> **Strawman.
>
> Texas vs Georgia?
>> Florida vs the Carolinas?
>
> **Strawman. I'm talking about the people who voted Dubya into office, not
> where the people live.
>
Given the choice between a man of Bush's character vs. John Kerry's
character, they obviously made the better decision.
>>
>> America is very diverse and I find your attempts to stereotype an
>> average american extremely naive.
>
> **Are you suggesting that the morons who voted Dubya into office all live
> in the one place?
>
>
What's moronic is your stereotyping and your false statements.

December 16th 05, 06:57 PM

December 16th 05, 07:05 PM

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> **I don't care about speeches. I care about actions. Dubya sent
>>> thousands of
>>> Americans to their deaths, based on lies.
>>>
>>
>> Why are you such a staunch defender of Saddam and his murderous
>> regime?
>
> **When will you stop beating the crap out of your wife?
>
> Just to ensure that you understand my meaning, focus on the following
> words:
>
> I have NEVER supported or defended Saddam. Even when successive US
> governments supported and armed him.

Are you as mad at the other countries who armed his as well? Given the fact
that of the people who sold him any arms at all, the U.S. is at the bottom
of the list.

Not ever. I do not support the
> murderous regime in China, either. Nor the corrupt and murderous
> dictatorship in Saudi Arabia. The same regime which is fully and
> completely supported by Dubya.

A gross oversimplification, as usual.

Nor do I support the murderous regime in North Korea and
> so on. OK?
>
> I do, however, support the failed US efforts to bring to justice the
> murderers who orchestrated the 9-11 atrocities. Sadly, Dubya seems to have
> decided to ignore OBL and concentrate on a person who has not threatened
> the US.

When did you become privy to Bush's strategy?

The loved ones of those Americans who have been killed in Dubya's
> illegal war have every right to be very ****ed off. Ever Aermican taxpayer
> has every right to be ****ed off at the open-ended cost of a war which has
> not assisted the vast majority of US citizens.

The loved ones of those who have been killed in Iraq are the most dedicated
and loyal supporters of our actions in Iraq. The war is not illegal, it is
partly in response to Saddam violating the terms of the cease fire something
like 19 times. What is crimianl is the U.N. not participating and leading
the way.

>
> If the US WANTS to the planet's police force, then, by all means, do the
> job.

Why, so the rest of the world's loonies can bitch about that as well?
Iraq is not about making Bush's freinds rich, it is however partly about
oil, sinc that's what drives the engine of the world. It's much better to
remove an nuckign fut like Saddam and allow the people of Iraq to have a
representative government.

But do it right. Start with North Korea. North Korea is a MUCH larger
> threat to the US and to the rest of the planet.

Bull****.

Not to mention the
> long-suffering North Koreans. Trouble is, North Korea doesn't have any
> oil.
>
See above.
> --
> Trevor Wilson
> www.rageaudio.com.au
>

December 16th 05, 07:10 PM

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 20:41:16 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>If the US WANTS to the planet's police force, then, by all means, do the
>>job. But do it right. Start with North Korea. North Korea is a MUCH larger
>>threat to the US and to the rest of the planet. Not to mention the
>>long-suffering North Koreans. Trouble is, North Korea doesn't have any
>>oil.
>
> Trevor, cynicism can be deceptive. Whatever you may think of political
> idealism, you have to ascribe a goodly portion of it to Bush and his
> advisers. Given the amount of air time given to their thinking, I'm
> astonished at the number of people who still believe it's just about
> oil.

It's only about oil in the sense that there's a lot of it in Iraq and the
WORLD relies on the stuff.
In that sense Saddam was a very real threat to the WORLD.

December 16th 05, 07:11 PM

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "paul packer" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 20:41:16 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If the US WANTS to the planet's police force, then, by all means, do the
>>>job. But do it right. Start with North Korea. North Korea is a MUCH
>>>larger
>>>threat to the US and to the rest of the planet. Not to mention the
>>>long-suffering North Koreans. Trouble is, North Korea doesn't have any
>>>oil.
>>
>> Trevor, cynicism can be deceptive. Whatever you may think of political
>> idealism, you have to ascribe a goodly portion of it to Bush and his
>> advisers. Given the amount of air time given to their thinking, I'm
>> astonished at the number of people who still believe it's just about
>> oil.
>
> **I'm astonished that any allegedly intelligent person STILL thinks that
> it was not about the oil.
>
> Consider:
>
> The US could easily subdue Mugabbe and his criminals, but have chosen not
> to.
>
>
He is not a threat to the world, Saddam was.

ScottW

December 16th 05, 07:15 PM

Trevor Wilson wrote:
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> >> I have NEVER supported or defended Saddam.
> >
> > Then why aren't you celebrating his demise... regardless of the
> > justification?
>
> **When will you stop beating your wife?
>
> Ask a ****ing reasonable question and I will ****ing answer it.

Its a perfectly reasonable question. You spend more time attacking
the justification for his removal from power than condoning the acts.
What happenned to you judging actions and not words?

>
> You could ask the following:
>
> * Do you think that Saddam is bad?
> * Do you think it is a good thing that Saddam has been removed from power?
> * Do you think it is a good thing that Dubya lied to the US public about his
> reasons for attacking Iraq?

Ok do you?
>
>
> > You should check out Bush's speech. He accepted that intell was bad.
>
> **I heard Dubya's lies. They're utterly laughable. He lied then and he lies
> now. And you are suicking those lies up. Be ashamed. Very ashamed.

No... I frankly don't give a **** about the lack of WMDs. Saddam was
a **** and had to go and I am glad he is gone and I don't care if the
rationale agreed with mine or not... the outcome should be applauded.
>
> >
> >>Even when successive US
> >> governments supported and armed him. Not ever. I do not support the
> >> murderous regime in China, either. Nor the corrupt and murderous
> >> dictatorship in Saudi Arabia. The same regime which is fully and
> >> completely
> >> supported by Dubya. Nor do I support the murderous regime in North Korea
> >> and
> >> so on. OK?
> >>
> >> I do, however, support the failed US efforts to bring to justice the
> >> murderers who orchestrated the 9-11 atrocities. Sadly, Dubya seems to
> >> have
> >> decided to ignore OBL and concentrate on a person who has not threatened
> >> the
> >> US. The loved ones of those Americans who have been killed in Dubya's
> >> illegal war have every right to be very ****ed off. Ever Aermican
> >> taxpayer
> >> has every right to be ****ed off at the open-ended cost of a war which
> >> has
> >> not assisted the vast majority of US citizens.
> >
> > Then leave all that ****ing to Americans.
>
> **All very well, but the US has managed to destabilise the Middle East, all
> on it's own.

When was the Middle East stable? Would you sacrifice democracy and
freedom for the people of the Middle East in the name of stability?

>It has put most Westerners in mortal danger.

You sound like a selfish whiner. Is your safety worth the suffering
of people under the rule of a tryrant like Saddam?

>Had Dubya
> concentrated on the important duty (catching OBL), instead of launching an
> illegal, ill-conceived war, he may not have alienated the entire Mid East
> and most of the rest of the world.

Where is OBL? For all I know he may have died in a cave in
Afghanistan years ago.
>
> >>
> >> If the US WANTS to the planet's police force, then, by all means, do the
> >> job. But do it right. Start with North Korea. North Korea is a MUCH
> >> larger
> >> threat to the US and to the rest of the planet. Not to mention the
> >> long-suffering North Koreans. Trouble is, North Korea doesn't have any
> >> oil.
> >
> > Stupid argument.
>
> **Oh really? Why? The North Korean regime is killing it's people faster than
> Saddam could kill his. NOrth Korea also poses a serious risk to the entire
> planet. Saddam did not.
>
> > If you can't do everything... then do nothing.
>
> **Nope. First, you catch OBL.

Do nothing till we catch OBL? So you would support 40 years of no
goodwill or humanitarian activity in the world until we catch OBL?
>
> Well,
> > obviously we can't do everything...
>
> **You STILL have not managed to catch OBL.

and we may never catch him. You can't even prove he's alive. You
may have us chasing ghosts.

>
> so you shouldn't reject a good
> > thing just because it isn't your personal top priority.
>
> **Top priority should be to protect Americans. THAT is the role of the
> President.

We accept short term risk for long term gain.

>
> You also
> > forget North Korea remains a protectorate of China.
>
> **I forget nothing.

Then you go take on N. Korea. You're much more in the range of
their nukes than we are. What's wrong with your country putting its
troops, resources, money, etc where your mouth is?

ScottW

ScottW

December 16th 05, 07:18 PM

Schizoid Man wrote:
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
> > **I forget nothing.
>
> What do you make of this spin on the usual conservative agenda of
> individual liberty before anything else?

Who made this BS line up? There have always been temporary
restraints on personal liberty
when the country is under attack.

>
> How do reconcile this with Bush being a good conservative?

Who says he's a good conservative? Not I.

ScottW

ScottW

December 16th 05, 07:19 PM

Trevor Wilson wrote:
> "paul packer" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 20:41:16 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>If the US WANTS to the planet's police force, then, by all means, do the
> >>job. But do it right. Start with North Korea. North Korea is a MUCH larger
> >>threat to the US and to the rest of the planet. Not to mention the
> >>long-suffering North Koreans. Trouble is, North Korea doesn't have any
> >>oil.
> >
> > Trevor, cynicism can be deceptive. Whatever you may think of political
> > idealism, you have to ascribe a goodly portion of it to Bush and his
> > advisers. Given the amount of air time given to their thinking, I'm
> > astonished at the number of people who still believe it's just about
> > oil.
>
> **I'm astonished that any allegedly intelligent person STILL thinks that it
> was not about the oil.
>
> Consider:
>
> The US could easily subdue Mugabbe and his criminals, but have chosen not
> to.

and what's your excuse? Is Australia that impotent?

ScottW

December 16th 05, 07:23 PM

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 23:52:55 GMT, > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> In article et>,
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>> > In article et>,
>>>>> > > wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>>>>> >> ...
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > "Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in
>>>>> >> > message
>>>>> >> > ...
>>>>> >> >> http://loosers.hn.org/www/wwiiol/waronterror.wmv
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > **You get CNNNN over there? It was a wonderful series. Much was
>>>>> >> > local
>>>>> >> > humour, but, of course, we always enjoy laughing at the stupidity
>>>>> >> > of
>>>>> >> > the
>>>>> >> > average American. Watching that clip again, makes me realise how
>>>>> >> > Dubya
>>>>> >> > got
>>>>> >> > voted in - TWICE. I guess stupid Americans got a President with
>>>>> >> > the
>>>>> >> > same
>>>>> >> > level of intelligence.
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> The stupidity is from yo thnking that there's no bias at CNN and
>>>>> >> that
>>>>> >> they
>>>>> >> don't cherry pick idiots to make a point.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > CNN's bias, if any, if FAR less than Fox's.
>>>>>
>>>>> 50% of Fox's commentary is Liberal and the other 50% of their
>>>>> commentary
>>>>> is
>>>>> Conservative.
>>>>
>>>> Bull****.
>>>>
>>>>> Their news reporting is objective.
>>>>
>>>> More bull****.
>>>
>>> Hey, listen, Jenn. If you think that Russ Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly
>>> are
>>> the only legitimate sources of commentary, as many conservatives do (I
>>> have heard it from their own lips), then Fox News is indeed "fair and
>>> balanced". As for the remainder of us...it is a sewer to be dipped into
>>> with great discretion.
>>Why do you you lump Limbaugh and O'Reilly together? Rush is a
>>conservative
>>and O"Reilly is an independant.
>
> You ARE joking, right?
>
> Here is his current column:
>
> http://billoreilly.com/currentarticle;jsessionid=818A7707B838A38DDAFE11DE 47575820
>
> And here's an excerpt:
> <snip>
>
> But because there is mention of a certain "Saint Nicholas" in the poem
> it may, alas, have to be revised in order not to offend Americans who
> don't believe in saints or even Christmas for that matter. We cannot
> be having any exclusionary poems now, can we?
>
> So with apologies to Clement Moore and everybody else, I humbly submit
> this updated poem for your consideration:
>
> 'Twas the night before Solstice, and all through the land
> the ACLU was watching to keep things in hand.
> The children were nestled all snug in their beds,
> while forces kept Christmas out of their heads.
> When out on the lawn there arose such a clatter,
> I sprang from my bed and heard desperate chatter.
> Someone had seen my manger display,
> And wailed very loudly - go away, go away.
>
> How could I be so crass, so utterly wrong
> So show the infant Jesus and sing him a song?
>
>
> And then, in a twinkling, I heard on the roof
> An ACLU lawyer, looking stern and aloof.
> No manger! No caroling! he said with a snort,
> And if you don't comply immediately, I'll take you to court!
>
> <snip>
O'Reilly is an independent who criticises anybody he feels is wrong and bad
for the country.
That it turns out to be the left most of the time is indicative of the fact
the left is bad for the country most of the time.

>
>
>>As for tehm being fair and blanced, that rerfers to their commntary shows
>>which split the time evenly between opposing viewpoints.
>
> I'm guessing that you're either overmedicated or undermedicated. The
> above sentence seems to back up that opinion, as well as your recent
> musings on the "Media".
>
>>Even if they were shown to be biased, what's the problem with that since
>>the
>>other news is biased as well, just in a way you probably like.
>
> Well, for starters, they explicitly claim NOT TO BE. Biased that is.
>

In their news reporting. Their commentators openly state their biases
unlike virtually every other network. Their other shows have opposing
viewpoints and are evenly split between at least two views on any subject
that is not an editorial comment.

>>Or are you going to claim that CBS or the NY Times are fair and balanced
>>in
>>their reporting?
>
> What does that have to do with your claims about Fox? Nothing.
>
> Actualy, what I like is Jon Stewart. No problems seeing what side of
> the fence he's on, and he will make you howl (in laughter if you lean
> left and in protest if you lean right).
>

And Stewart is a hero in my book for his appearance on Crossfire and taking
to task all the media and how they deal with issues. There is nobody trying
to get to the objective reality of what's going on in any given story, just
two poloarized viewpoints. If it's an abortion issue for example you will
likely see someone like Phyllis Schafly and someone from NOW, neither of
which can speak for the majority of women or the issue of abortion. It goes
on and on. I want news that reveals the facts and not the poalrized views
of 2 sides.

> BTW, if you want "Fair and Balanced", you should read Carville and
> Matalin's book on the '92 election, "All's Fair". What a great read!
>
There you go again, 2 polarized viewpoints. I don't hear nearly enough of
Matalin to have a strong oppinion of her, but Carville is one of the more
disgusting people on earth.

December 16th 05, 07:25 PM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> wrote :
>
>
>> As for the news I've seen nothing to indcate it is not objective
>> reporting,
>
> This is why they are strong with the weak people like you. ;-)
>
>> unlike virtually every other news program on cable or broadcast
>> networks.
>
> Don't waste your time in such metaphysical problems Mike.
> Just watch FoxNews.
> ...It's enough for you.

No, it's not. It's just better than the rest of the media which is leftist
dominated.

dave weil

December 16th 05, 07:25 PM

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 18:57:52 GMT, > wrote:

>I loved the comment from one Iraqi woman who said: "Every purple thumb is a
>shot in the heart of the terrorists."

That's kinda funny since it's the index finger that's being inked.

dave weil

December 16th 05, 07:26 PM

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 19:05:37 GMT, > wrote:

>The loved ones of those who have been killed in Iraq are the most dedicated
>and loyal supporters of our actions in Iraq.

Some are and some are not.

dave weil

December 16th 05, 07:27 PM

On 16 Dec 2005 11:18:37 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:

>> How do reconcile this with Bush being a good conservative?
>
> Who says he's a good conservative? Not I.

On that we agree. He's not even a good conservative.

Trevor Wilson

December 16th 05, 07:52 PM

"ScottW" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> >> I have NEVER supported or defended Saddam.
>> >
>> > Then why aren't you celebrating his demise... regardless of the
>> > justification?
>>
>> **When will you stop beating your wife?
>>
>> Ask a ****ing reasonable question and I will ****ing answer it.
>
> Its a perfectly reasonable question.

**It is EXACTLY as reasonable as the following question, which YOU refuse to
answer:

When will you stop beating your wife?

If you cannot figure out what constitutes a reasonable question, then ****
off you sorry piece of ****.

You spend more time attacking
> the justification for his removal from power than condoning the acts.

**Dubya lied to the US population and the rest of the Western World. His
lies have cost at least 2,000 US lives. That is very reasonable
justification.

> What happenned to you judging actions and not words?

**Dubya sent 2,000 US service personell to their deaths, based on his own
lies.
Dubya sent 2,000 US service personell to their deaths, in order to secure
oil supplies for his cronies.

Those are the actions of a criminal.

>
>>
>> You could ask the following:
>>
>> * Do you think that Saddam is bad?
>> * Do you think it is a good thing that Saddam has been removed from
>> power?
>> * Do you think it is a good thing that Dubya lied to the US public about
>> his
>> reasons for attacking Iraq?
>
> Ok do you?

**Yes.
Yes.
No.

If you can't figure out how to ask rational questions, then **** off. I have
better things to do than to discuss nonsense with morons like you. It's bad
enough that you asked a nonsensical question, but you can't figure out that
the questions was nonsensical in the first place. Now, how about answering
my question:

"When will you stop beating your wife?"

>>
>>
>> > You should check out Bush's speech. He accepted that intell was bad.
>>
>> **I heard Dubya's lies. They're utterly laughable. He lied then and he
>> lies
>> now. And you are suicking those lies up. Be ashamed. Very ashamed.
>
> No... I frankly don't give a **** about the lack of WMDs.

**You should. Your President sent thousands of US service personell to their
deaths, based on lies.

Saddam was
> a **** and had to go and I am glad he is gone and I don't care if the
> rationale agreed with mine or not... the outcome should be applauded.

**That is not the point. If Dubya said that he was going to sacrifice
thousands US soldiers in order to capture Saddam and secure oil supplies for
his cronies, then THAT would have been honest and reasonable.

>>
>> >
>> >>Even when successive US
>> >> governments supported and armed him. Not ever. I do not support the
>> >> murderous regime in China, either. Nor the corrupt and murderous
>> >> dictatorship in Saudi Arabia. The same regime which is fully and
>> >> completely
>> >> supported by Dubya. Nor do I support the murderous regime in North
>> >> Korea
>> >> and
>> >> so on. OK?
>> >>
>> >> I do, however, support the failed US efforts to bring to justice the
>> >> murderers who orchestrated the 9-11 atrocities. Sadly, Dubya seems to
>> >> have
>> >> decided to ignore OBL and concentrate on a person who has not
>> >> threatened
>> >> the
>> >> US. The loved ones of those Americans who have been killed in Dubya's
>> >> illegal war have every right to be very ****ed off. Ever Aermican
>> >> taxpayer
>> >> has every right to be ****ed off at the open-ended cost of a war which
>> >> has
>> >> not assisted the vast majority of US citizens.
>> >
>> > Then leave all that ****ing to Americans.
>>
>> **All very well, but the US has managed to destabilise the Middle East,
>> all
>> on it's own.
>
> When was the Middle East stable?

**Before the US and the UK ****ed the place up, by arbitrarily giving away
land which belonged to Palestinians.

Would you sacrifice democracy and
> freedom for the people of the Middle East in the name of stability?

**The US already has. The US supports one of the nastiest Dictatorships on
the planet (in Saudi Arabia).

>
>>It has put most Westerners in mortal danger.
>
> You sound like a selfish whiner. Is your safety worth the suffering
> of people under the rule of a tryrant like Saddam?

**I have a news flash for you:

The people are STILL suffering under US rule. They're being torttured and
murdered every day. Nothing has changed. Just the people doing the torturing
and murdering. The US has achieved nothing, except bringing one man before
the courts.

>
>>Had Dubya
>> concentrated on the important duty (catching OBL), instead of launching
>> an
>> illegal, ill-conceived war, he may not have alienated the entire Mid East
>> and most of the rest of the world.
>
> Where is OBL? For all I know he may have died in a cave in
> Afghanistan years ago.

**And yet, there is abundant proof that he is still alive.

>>
>> >>
>> >> If the US WANTS to the planet's police force, then, by all means, do
>> >> the
>> >> job. But do it right. Start with North Korea. North Korea is a MUCH
>> >> larger
>> >> threat to the US and to the rest of the planet. Not to mention the
>> >> long-suffering North Koreans. Trouble is, North Korea doesn't have any
>> >> oil.
>> >
>> > Stupid argument.
>>
>> **Oh really? Why? The North Korean regime is killing it's people faster
>> than
>> Saddam could kill his. NOrth Korea also poses a serious risk to the
>> entire
>> planet. Saddam did not.
>>
>> > If you can't do everything... then do nothing.
>>
>> **Nope. First, you catch OBL.
>
> Do nothing till we catch OBL?

**Apply all possible resources into catching the ONLY major threat to the US
in decades. Saddam was not a threat to the US.

So you would support 40 years of no
> goodwill or humanitarian activity in the world until we catch OBL?

**I support the US in it's endeavours to catch OBL. I do not support Dubya
in his lies.

>>
>> Well,
>> > obviously we can't do everything...
>>
>> **You STILL have not managed to catch OBL.
>
> and we may never catch him. You can't even prove he's alive. You
> may have us chasing ghosts.

**There is evidence to suggest that he was alive up until several weeks ago.

>
>>
>> so you shouldn't reject a good
>> > thing just because it isn't your personal top priority.
>>
>> **Top priority should be to protect Americans. THAT is the role of the
>> President.
>
> We accept short term risk for long term gain.

**No. Dubya allows the deaths of US citizens, for his financial gain. What
long term gain do you see out of the Iraq war? Be specific.

>
>>
>> You also
>> > forget North Korea remains a protectorate of China.
>>
>> **I forget nothing.
>
> Then you go take on N. Korea.

**Not my job. YOU were the one proclaiming that the US was going to solve
all the problems of the world.

You're much more in the range of
> their nukes than we are. What's wrong with your country putting its
> troops, resources, money, etc where your mouth is?

**Because North Korea has been allowed to become very dangerous, through the
inaction of the US and the rest of the world. Instead of confronting the
real danger, the US attacked a nation which did not have the potential to
hurt any nation outside the Middle East.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

ScottW

December 16th 05, 08:06 PM

Trevor Wilson wrote:
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >
> >> >> I have NEVER supported or defended Saddam.
> >> >
> >> > Then why aren't you celebrating his demise... regardless of the
> >> > justification?
> >>
> >> **When will you stop beating your wife?
> >>
> >> Ask a ****ing reasonable question and I will ****ing answer it.
> >
> > Its a perfectly reasonable question.
>
> **It is EXACTLY as reasonable as the following question, which YOU refuse to
> answer:
>
> When will you stop beating your wife?

I will never stop because I never started.

>
> If you cannot figure out what constitutes a reasonable question, then ****
> off you sorry piece of ****.
>
> You spend more time attacking
> > the justification for his removal from power than condoning the acts.
>
> **Dubya lied

OSAF... and frankly just a bit irrelevant to all except the fixated
Bush haters of the world.

>to the US population and the rest of the Western World. His
> lies have cost at least 2,000 US lives. That is very reasonable
> justification.
>
>
> > What happenned to you judging actions and not words?
>
> **Dubya sent 2,000 US service personell to their deaths, based on his own
> lies.

And freed how many millions from a tyrant?

> Dubya sent 2,000 US service personell to their deaths, in order to secure
> oil supplies for his cronies.

Provide some real proof rather than just spouting.

>
> Those are the actions of a criminal.
>
> >
> >>
> >> You could ask the following:
> >>
> >> * Do you think that Saddam is bad?
> >> * Do you think it is a good thing that Saddam has been removed from
> >> power?
> >> * Do you think it is a good thing that Dubya lied to the US public about
> >> his
> >> reasons for attacking Iraq?
> >
> > Ok do you?
>
> **Yes.
> Yes.
> No.

>
> If you can't figure out how to ask rational questions, then **** off.

Gladly... all you have is usual unsubstantiated lib accusations.
Bush lied.. its all for oil....blah blah...... yet your own admitted
selfish concern for your personal security would have you leave
millions under the rule of a ruthless tryrant in the interest of
stability.

I think you're little profanity laced tirade is a smoke screen from
your own little introspection. You glimpsed your motives for leaving
millions under the boot of Saddam... and they ain't very complimentary.
Thats about as nice I can put it.

ScottW

Lionel

December 16th 05, 09:43 PM

a écrit :
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
wrote :
>>
>>
>>
>>>As for the news I've seen nothing to indcate it is not objective
>>>reporting,
>>
>>This is why they are strong with the weak people like you. ;-)
>>
>>
>>>unlike virtually every other news program on cable or broadcast
>>>networks.
>>
>>Don't waste your time in such metaphysical problems Mike.
>>Just watch FoxNews.
>>...It's enough for you.
>
>
> No, it's not. It's just better than the rest of the media which is leftist
> dominated.

Your implicit definition of leftist make me laugh a lot Mike.
But it's your life so...

--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

Ruud Broens

December 16th 05, 09:50 PM

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
: On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 18:57:52 GMT, > wrote:
:
: >I loved the comment from one Iraqi woman who said: "Every purple thumb is a
: >shot in the heart of the terrorists."
:
: That's kinda funny since it's the index finger that's being inked.

that doesn't matter, dave, it's _a fact_ :-)
R.

dave weil

December 16th 05, 09:56 PM

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 19:23:37 GMT, > wrote:

>> BTW, if you want "Fair and Balanced", you should read Carville and
>> Matalin's book on the '92 election, "All's Fair". What a great read!
>>
>There you go again, 2 polarized viewpoints. I don't hear nearly enough of
>Matalin to have a strong oppinion of her, but Carville is one of the more
>disgusting people on earth.

You really should read the damn book. It's a brilliant view of both
sides of the Bush/Clinton election, from the inside and from both
sides. And I think you'll walk away with a slightly different view of
Carville after you read it.

But stay stupid if you'd like. You'll miss a hell of a read that will
keep you in stitches much of the time, especially when Matalin talks
about Carville's "Serpenthead".

Schizoid Man

December 16th 05, 10:30 PM

ScottW wrote:

> Schizoid Man wrote:

>>How do reconcile this with Bush being a good conservative?
>
> Who says he's a good conservative? Not I.

So does your love for Bush stem solely from the fact that he is letting
you keep more of your millions?

December 16th 05, 10:42 PM

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 19:05:37 GMT, > wrote:
>
>>The loved ones of those who have been killed in Iraq are the most
>>dedicated
>>and loyal supporters of our actions in Iraq.
>
> Some are and some are not.

The majority are.

December 16th 05, 10:43 PM

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 18:57:52 GMT, > wrote:
>
>>I loved the comment from one Iraqi woman who said: "Every purple thumb is
>>a
>>shot in the heart of the terrorists."
>
> That's kinda funny since it's the index finger that's being inked.

December 16th 05, 10:43 PM

December 16th 05, 10:45 PM

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
...
>
> "dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
> : On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 18:57:52 GMT, > wrote:
> :
> : >I loved the comment from one Iraqi woman who said: "Every purple thumb
> is a
> : >shot in the heart of the terrorists."
> :
> : That's kinda funny since it's the index finger that's being inked.
>
> that doesn't matter, dave, it's _a fact_ :-)
> R.
>
I corrected my mistake.

When I know I made one, I always do.

December 16th 05, 10:48 PM

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Margaret von B." > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> http://loosers.hn.org/www/wwiiol/waronterror.wmv
>>>
>>> **You get CNNNN over there? It was a wonderful series. Much was local
>>> humour, but, of course, we always enjoy laughing at the stupidity of the
>>> average American.
>>
>> Much of the "stupidity" associated with Americans is actually frivolous
>> pursuit of our own interests that is exceedingly well disguised. Usually
>> the "smart ones" end up losing.
>
> **Yep.
>
>>
>>
>>>Watching that clip again, makes me realise how Dubya got voted in -
>>>TWICE. I guess stupid Americans got a President with the same level of
>>>intelligence.
>>
>> I voted for him one time and regret it now.
>
> **I admire your forthrightness. Exactly what qualities in Dubya did you
> see that everyone else on the planet could not?
>
> However, he sure as hell
>> performed well in his previous job compared to his successor.
>
> **Not really. Cliton lied about where he stuck his penis.

He lied about almost everything, including not being able to take OBL into
custody when OBL was offered up by the Sudanese.

Dybya has lied
> about much more serious matters. The death toll of thousands of US service
> people can be directly laid at Dubya's feet. They died, because Dubya
> lied.
>

He didn't lie, he had faluty Intel.

> And it should
>> be noted that the American economy has performed well.
>
> **Sure. War is good for business.
>
Bull****. What uptick in the economy is due to the war?
>>
>> It is not as simple as you make it out to be, Trevor.
>
> **Dubya is.
>
>
OSAF.

December 16th 05, 10:53 PM

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
Cliton lied about where he stuck his penis. Dybya has lied
> about much more serious matters. The death toll of thousands of US service
> people can be directly laid at Dubya's feet. They died, because Dubya
> lied.
>
Because of Clinton's lie and his incompetence and the gutting of our
intelligence gathering by the Democrats 9/11 can be laid at the feet of
Clinton.

If Clinton hadn't been so ****ing incompetent OBL would probably have been
dead before Bush ever took office.

Lionel

December 16th 05, 10:53 PM

wrote :

> I corrected my mistake.
>
> When I know I made one, I always do.

We will try to keep you informed... :-D

--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

December 16th 05, 10:55 PM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> a écrit :
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
wrote :
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>As for the news I've seen nothing to indcate it is not objective
>>>>reporting,
>>>
>>>This is why they are strong with the weak people like you. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>>unlike virtually every other news program on cable or broadcast
>>>>networks.
>>>
>>>Don't waste your time in such metaphysical problems Mike.
>>>Just watch FoxNews.
>>>...It's enough for you.
>>
>>
>> No, it's not. It's just better than the rest of the media which is
>> leftist dominated.
>
> Your implicit definition of leftist make me laugh a lot Mike.
> But it's your life so...
>
Are you denying that most of the American media is tilted to the left?

Goofball_star_dot_etal

December 16th 05, 10:57 PM

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 22:55:11 GMT, > wrote:

>
>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>> a écrit :
>>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
wrote :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>As for the news I've seen nothing to indcate it is not objective
>>>>>reporting,
>>>>
>>>>This is why they are strong with the weak people like you. ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>unlike virtually every other news program on cable or broadcast
>>>>>networks.
>>>>
>>>>Don't waste your time in such metaphysical problems Mike.
>>>>Just watch FoxNews.
>>>>...It's enough for you.
>>>
>>>
>>> No, it's not. It's just better than the rest of the media which is
>>> leftist dominated.
>>
>> Your implicit definition of leftist make me laugh a lot Mike.
>> But it's your life so...
>>
>Are you denying that most of the American media is tilted to the left?
>
>
LOL!

December 16th 05, 10:58 PM

"Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
...
> dave weil wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 23:49:18 GMT, > wrote:
>
>> Yep, instead of Dan Rather, Fox has Brit Hume, who's just slightly
>> left of the Kaiser. That's a guy who can't even be othered to hide his
>> contempt.
>
> Only just.
>
> I suppose the following FACT will be lost on McKelvy and Scott, but I'll
> throw it out anyway:
>
> Hume has an evening news show in which he is supposed to read the news and
> interview guests, just like any other news bulletin.
>

It is not a news show, it is a show that discusses events in the news and
opinions are expressed.

> On this one occasion, his show ended with a piece on an anti-war protest.
> At the very end of the video clip they showed a woman waving a banner and
> shouting something.
>
> The clip ended and the camera panned back to him. He chuckled, enunciated
> the words "stupid woman" and then bid his viewers good night.
>
> A very crafty and well choreographed editorial, don't you think? So much
> for the fairness and balance of Fox News.
>

It's not a news show. It's a show aobut news events and opinions on them.

> No doubt, Michael McKelvy - aka Brave Warrior and harbinger of democracy,
> freedom and justice - will consider this a lawful exercise of Hume's First
> Amendment.

Hume's not doing a hard news show, it is an entirely opinion driven show.

December 16th 05, 11:12 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article t>,
> > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article et>,
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > In article et>,
>> >> > > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > "Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in
>> >> >> > message
>> >> >> > ...
>> >> >> >> http://loosers.hn.org/www/wwiiol/waronterror.wmv
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > **You get CNNNN over there? It was a wonderful series. Much was
>> >> >> > local
>> >> >> > humour, but, of course, we always enjoy laughing at the stupidity
>> >> >> > of
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > average American. Watching that clip again, makes me realise how
>> >> >> > Dubya
>> >> >> > got
>> >> >> > voted in - TWICE. I guess stupid Americans got a President with
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > same
>> >> >> > level of intelligence.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> The stupidity is from yo thnking that there's no bias at CNN and
>> >> >> that
>> >> >> they
>> >> >> don't cherry pick idiots to make a point.
>> >> >
>> >> > CNN's bias, if any, if FAR less than Fox's.
>> >>
>> >> 50% of Fox's commentary is Liberal and the other 50% of their
>> >> commentary
>> >> is
>> >> Conservative.
>> >
>> > Bull****.
>> >
>> >> Their news reporting is objective.
>> >
>> > More bull****.
>>
>> Get out a stop watch and time the commentary programs.
>> As for the news I've seen nothing to indcate it is not objective
>> reporting,
>> unlike virtually every other news program on cable or broadcast networks.
>
> You've got to be kidding. Which Fox News show host, other than co-host
> Colmes, could you POSSIBLY call "liberal"?

Greta Van Susteren, Mara Liasson, Juan Williams, Geraldo Rivera, Flavia
Colgan.
Then there are the regular guests they have like David Corn, Katrina vanden
Heuvel, and Eric Alterman.. Where the hell else do you ever see these
people?

Hannity? Obviously not.
> Gibson? Ditto. Snow? Ditto. Hume? Ditto. O"Reilly? Ditto.
>
> Can you show us some examples off CNN's bias? CNBC?

If you and the others are going to use opinion programs and call them news
programs then virtually every host they have on CNN is liberal. Try to
understand the difference between the hosts of opinion programs and news
shows. Every one of the opinion show commentators is balanced by a Liberal
with an opposing viewpoint. Just because they have many openly conservative
hosts doesn't mean they aren't balanced. For every conservative utterance
their is a corresponding Liberal one.

The fact seem to be that because they have openly Conservative hosts who
openly criticize the left that they don't have an equal amount of openly
Leftist people for balance. I suggest you check your premise.

Lionel

December 16th 05, 11:12 PM

In >,
wrote :

>
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>> a écrit :
>>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
wrote :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>As for the news I've seen nothing to indcate it is not objective
>>>>>reporting,
>>>>
>>>>This is why they are strong with the weak people like you. ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>unlike virtually every other news program on cable or broadcast
>>>>>networks.
>>>>
>>>>Don't waste your time in such metaphysical problems Mike.
>>>>Just watch FoxNews.
>>>>...It's enough for you.
>>>
>>>
>>> No, it's not. It's just better than the rest of the media which is
>>> leftist dominated.
>>
>> Your implicit definition of leftist make me laugh a lot Mike.
>> But it's your life so...
>>
> Are you denying that most of the American media is tilted to the left?

I don't deny anything since I don't really know USA and US medias.
I just would like that you realize that FoxNews is a *REAL* bull**** source.

--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

December 16th 05, 11:14 PM

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 21:20:48 GMT, > wrote:
>
>>50% of Fox's commentary is Liberal and the other 50% of their commentary
>>is
>>Conservative.
>>Their news reporting is objective.
>
> If you believe that, then you're more of a fool than you pretend to be
> here on RAO.

See my response to Jenn.

That they have Conservatives who speak their minds in a way that no other
network ever has done is what bothers you, it would seem. But until you can
demonstrate that they don't have an equal amount of leftists speaking their
minds you have no case, and are as dumb as you seem.

December 16th 05, 11:16 PM

"Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
...
> dave weil wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 21:20:48 GMT, > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>50% of Fox's commentary is Liberal and the other 50% of their commentary
>>>is Conservative.
>>>Their news reporting is objective.
>>
>> If you believe that, then you're more of a fool than you pretend to be
>> here on RAO.
>
> Dave,
>
> Aren't you giving McKelvy too much credit here? I'm not sure he's
> pretending! :)

See my response to Jenn.

There is an equal amount of left wing commentary as their is conservative.

Get out a stop watch and prove otherwise.

George M. Middius

December 16th 05, 11:58 PM

dave weil said:

> On that we agree. He's not even a good conservative.

Using the power of government to advance a religious agenda that infringes
on individuals' freedom is not a credential for being a good conservative?
My my my....

Schizoid Man

December 17th 05, 12:25 AM

wrote:

> Because of Clinton's lie and his incompetence and the gutting of our
> intelligence gathering by the Democrats 9/11 can be laid at the feet of
> Clinton.
>
> If Clinton hadn't been so ****ing incompetent OBL would probably have been
> dead before Bush ever took office.

It annoys me to no end when people brainlessly rag on Clinton. His
administration did wonders for the economy - balanced the budget and
racked up record surpluses.

More importantly, he single-handedly revived the American cigar industry.

Don't you think it's time to give credit where it's due?

Schizoid Man

December 17th 05, 12:34 AM

wrote:

> There is an equal amount of left wing commentary as their is conservative.
>
> Get out a stop watch and prove otherwise.

Here's a clipping from a Drudge Report link (which is hardly the bastion
of liberalism regarding Novak's switch from CNN to Fox News):

----

Novak said the switch to Fox had nothing to do with finding a more
comfortable home for his views.

"I don't think that's a factor," he said. "In 25 years I was never
censored by CNN and I said some fairly outrageous things and some very
conservative things. I don't want to give the impression that they were
muzzling me and I had to go to a place that wouldn't muzzle me."

----

Even Robert Novak acknowledges that Fox news is a more "comfortable"
home for him given his views.

Why can't you?

By the way, I believe Bill "Morality" O'Reilly's latest edict is that
one can only conjugate with one's spouse for the purpose of procreation,
not recreation.

:(

Jenn

December 17th 05, 12:40 AM

In article t>,
> wrote:

> "Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
> ...
> > dave weil wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 21:20:48 GMT, > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>50% of Fox's commentary is Liberal and the other 50% of their commentary
> >>>is Conservative.
> >>>Their news reporting is objective.
> >>
> >> If you believe that, then you're more of a fool than you pretend to be
> >> here on RAO.
> >
> > Dave,
> >
> > Aren't you giving McKelvy too much credit here? I'm not sure he's
> > pretending! :)
>
> See my response to Jenn.
>
> There is an equal amount of left wing commentary as their is conservative.

Which was not shown in your post. Remember, I listed all of those
conservative Foxites, vs one liberal? Unless I missed it, you didn't
respond to that.
>
> Get out a stop watch and prove otherwise.

Jenn

December 17th 05, 12:40 AM

In article t>,
> wrote:

> "dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 21:20:48 GMT, > wrote:
> >
> >>50% of Fox's commentary is Liberal and the other 50% of their commentary
> >>is
> >>Conservative.
> >>Their news reporting is objective.
> >
> > If you believe that, then you're more of a fool than you pretend to be
> > here on RAO.
>
> See my response to Jenn.
>
> That they have Conservatives who speak their minds in a way that no other
> network ever has done is what bothers you, it would seem.

And but one liberal.

> But until you can
> demonstrate that they don't have an equal amount of leftists speaking their
> minds you have no case, and are as dumb as you seem.

Margaret von B.

December 17th 05, 01:00 AM

"Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>

> More importantly, he single-handedly revived the American cigar industry.
>

Not so fast. In TX we've been slitting cigars before Monica was born and its
popularity has never waned.

Cheers,

Margaret

dave weil

December 17th 05, 01:37 AM

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 22:42:48 GMT, > wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 19:05:37 GMT, > wrote:
>>
>>>The loved ones of those who have been killed in Iraq are the most
>>>dedicated
>>>and loyal supporters of our actions in Iraq.
>>
>> Some are and some are not.
>
>The majority are.

Wrong again. The "most dedicated and loyal supporters" of our actions
in Iraq are in the Administration.

dave weil

December 17th 05, 01:37 AM

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 22:43:58 GMT, > wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 18:57:52 GMT, > wrote:
>>
>>>I loved the comment from one Iraqi woman who said: "Every purple thumb is
>>>a
>>>shot in the heart of the terrorists."
>>
>> That's kinda funny since it's the index finger that's being inked.
>
>I stand corrected, it should have been every purple finger.

Fair enough.

dave weil

December 17th 05, 01:40 AM

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 22:58:43 GMT, > wrote:

>
>"Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
...
>> dave weil wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 23:49:18 GMT, > wrote:
>>
>>> Yep, instead of Dan Rather, Fox has Brit Hume, who's just slightly
>>> left of the Kaiser. That's a guy who can't even be othered to hide his
>>> contempt.
>>
>> Only just.
>>
>> I suppose the following FACT will be lost on McKelvy and Scott, but I'll
>> throw it out anyway:
>>
>> Hume has an evening news show in which he is supposed to read the news and
>> interview guests, just like any other news bulletin.
>>
>
>It is not a news show, it is a show that discusses events in the news and
>opinions are expressed.
>
>
>
>> On this one occasion, his show ended with a piece on an anti-war protest.
>> At the very end of the video clip they showed a woman waving a banner and
>> shouting something.
>>
>> The clip ended and the camera panned back to him. He chuckled, enunciated
>> the words "stupid woman" and then bid his viewers good night.
>>
>> A very crafty and well choreographed editorial, don't you think? So much
>> for the fairness and balance of Fox News.
>>
>
>It's not a news show. It's a show aobut news events and opinions on them.
>
>> No doubt, Michael McKelvy - aka Brave Warrior and harbinger of democracy,
>> freedom and justice - will consider this a lawful exercise of Hume's First
>> Amendment.
>
>Hume's not doing a hard news show, it is an entirely opinion driven show.

They're ALL that way.

dave weil

December 17th 05, 02:01 AM

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 23:12:04 GMT, > wrote:

>
>"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
>> In article t>,
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> > In article et>,
>>> > > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>> >> ...
>>> >> > In article et>,
>>> >> > > wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>>> >> >> ...
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > "Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in
>>> >> >> > message
>>> >> >> > ...
>>> >> >> >> http://loosers.hn.org/www/wwiiol/waronterror.wmv
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > **You get CNNNN over there? It was a wonderful series. Much was
>>> >> >> > local
>>> >> >> > humour, but, of course, we always enjoy laughing at the stupidity
>>> >> >> > of
>>> >> >> > the
>>> >> >> > average American. Watching that clip again, makes me realise how
>>> >> >> > Dubya
>>> >> >> > got
>>> >> >> > voted in - TWICE. I guess stupid Americans got a President with
>>> >> >> > the
>>> >> >> > same
>>> >> >> > level of intelligence.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> The stupidity is from yo thnking that there's no bias at CNN and
>>> >> >> that
>>> >> >> they
>>> >> >> don't cherry pick idiots to make a point.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > CNN's bias, if any, if FAR less than Fox's.
>>> >>
>>> >> 50% of Fox's commentary is Liberal and the other 50% of their
>>> >> commentary
>>> >> is
>>> >> Conservative.
>>> >
>>> > Bull****.
>>> >
>>> >> Their news reporting is objective.
>>> >
>>> > More bull****.
>>>
>>> Get out a stop watch and time the commentary programs.
>>> As for the news I've seen nothing to indcate it is not objective
>>> reporting,
>>> unlike virtually every other news program on cable or broadcast networks.
>>
>> You've got to be kidding. Which Fox News show host, other than co-host
>> Colmes, could you POSSIBLY call "liberal"?
>
>Greta Van Susteren, Mara Liasson, Juan Williams, Geraldo Rivera, Flavia
>Colgan.

According to the FoxNews website, only two of the above have their own
shows. Van Susteren has only been at Fox for a short while, she was at
CNN for a long time

>Then there are the regular guests they have like David Corn, Katrina vanden
>Heuvel, and Eric Alterman.. Where the hell else do you ever see these
>people?

I've seen Alterman elsewhere. Can't say where, though. Never heard of
the other two.

Every network has their share of people from both spectrums. William
Kristol, George Will, Charles Krauthammer, the McLaughlin Group folks,
Pat Buchanan, Newt Gingrich and many others routinely show up on the
political shows on the "other 4 networks".

> Hannity? Obviously not.
>> Gibson? Ditto. Snow? Ditto. Hume? Ditto. O"Reilly? Ditto.
>>
>> Can you show us some examples off CNN's bias? CNBC?
>
>If you and the others are going to use opinion programs and call them news
>programs then virtually every host they have on CNN is liberal. Try to
>understand the difference between the hosts of opinion programs and news
>shows. Every one of the opinion show commentators is balanced by a Liberal
>with an opposing viewpoint. Just because they have many openly conservative
>hosts doesn't mean they aren't balanced. For every conservative utterance
>their is a corresponding Liberal one.
>
>The fact seem to be that because they have openly Conservative hosts who
>openly criticize the left that they don't have an equal amount of openly
>Leftist people for balance. I suggest you check your premise.

You know, I was going to keep going and refute a lot of this, but I
just found out that John Spencer (Leo McGarry on The West Wing) has
died and I'm really not in the mood.

Schizoid Man

December 17th 05, 02:07 AM

dave weil wrote:

> On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 22:58:43 GMT, > wrote:

>>Hume's not doing a hard news show, it is an entirely opinion driven show.
>
> They're ALL that way.

If Murdoch decides to rename it Fox Opinion, I will have no qualms at
all. Is it ethical to pawn opinion off as news?

How else do you explain that (according to a Pew study), over 40% of Fox
viewers thought Saddam was responsible for 9/11 as opposed to less than
15% for MSNBC?

December 17th 05, 02:24 AM

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 22:42:48 GMT, > wrote:
>
>>
>>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 19:05:37 GMT, > wrote:
>>>
>>>>The loved ones of those who have been killed in Iraq are the most
>>>>dedicated
>>>>and loyal supporters of our actions in Iraq.
>>>
>>> Some are and some are not.
>>
>>The majority are.
>
> Wrong again. The "most dedicated and loyal supporters" of our actions
> in Iraq are in the Administration.

How many of our troops did you actually poll?

December 17th 05, 02:25 AM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> wrote :
>
>
>> I corrected my mistake.
>>
>> When I know I made one, I always do.
>
>
> We will try to keep you informed... :-D
>
>
Wow, I'll sleep so much better knowing you guys are looking out for me.

> "Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
> But what's new around here?"
>
> Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

December 17th 05, 02:27 AM

"Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>
>> Because of Clinton's lie and his incompetence and the gutting of our
>> intelligence gathering by the Democrats 9/11 can be laid at the feet of
>> Clinton.
>>
>> If Clinton hadn't been so ****ing incompetent OBL would probably have
>> been dead before Bush ever took office.
>
> It annoys me to no end when people brainlessly rag on Clinton. His
> administration did wonders for the economy - balanced the budget and
> racked up record surpluses.

It annoys me no end thatpeople think Presidents have that kind of power.
The main reason that the economy did well is because of the GOP takeover of
Congress. The surpluses IIRC were proposed and should have been returned to
the taxpayers thy were taken from.

>
> More importantly, he single-handedly revived the American cigar industry.
>
> Don't you think it's time to give credit where it's due?

December 17th 05, 02:29 AM

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 22:55:11 GMT, > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>> a écrit :
>>>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
wrote :
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>As for the news I've seen nothing to indcate it is not objective
>>>>>>reporting,
>>>>>
>>>>>This is why they are strong with the weak people like you. ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>unlike virtually every other news program on cable or broadcast
>>>>>>networks.
>>>>>
>>>>>Don't waste your time in such metaphysical problems Mike.
>>>>>Just watch FoxNews.
>>>>>...It's enough for you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, it's not. It's just better than the rest of the media which is
>>>> leftist dominated.
>>>
>>> Your implicit definition of leftist make me laugh a lot Mike.
>>> But it's your life so...
>>>
>>Are you denying that most of the American media is tilted to the left?
>>
>>
> LOL!
>
Not as far as the BBC, but definitely left.

December 17th 05, 02:31 AM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> In >,
> wrote :
>
>>
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> a écrit :
>>>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
wrote :
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>As for the news I've seen nothing to indcate it is not objective
>>>>>>reporting,
>>>>>
>>>>>This is why they are strong with the weak people like you. ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>unlike virtually every other news program on cable or broadcast
>>>>>>networks.
>>>>>
>>>>>Don't waste your time in such metaphysical problems Mike.
>>>>>Just watch FoxNews.
>>>>>...It's enough for you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, it's not. It's just better than the rest of the media which is
>>>> leftist dominated.
>>>
>>> Your implicit definition of leftist make me laugh a lot Mike.
>>> But it's your life so...
>>>
>> Are you denying that most of the American media is tilted to the left?
>
> I don't deny anything since I don't really know USA and US medias.
> I just would like that you realize that FoxNews is a *REAL* bull****
> source.
>

An opinion you get to have. They cover the same news aas everybody else.
They just make sure there are 2 sides of each story heard from in their
analysis shows.

> "Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
> But what's new around here?"
>
> Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

December 17th 05, 02:33 AM

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 22:58:43 GMT, > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
...
>>> dave weil wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 23:49:18 GMT, > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yep, instead of Dan Rather, Fox has Brit Hume, who's just slightly
>>>> left of the Kaiser. That's a guy who can't even be othered to hide his
>>>> contempt.
>>>
>>> Only just.
>>>
>>> I suppose the following FACT will be lost on McKelvy and Scott, but I'll
>>> throw it out anyway:
>>>
>>> Hume has an evening news show in which he is supposed to read the news
>>> and
>>> interview guests, just like any other news bulletin.
>>>
>>
>>It is not a news show, it is a show that discusses events in the news and
>>opinions are expressed.
>>
>>
>>
>>> On this one occasion, his show ended with a piece on an anti-war
>>> protest.
>>> At the very end of the video clip they showed a woman waving a banner
>>> and
>>> shouting something.
>>>
>>> The clip ended and the camera panned back to him. He chuckled,
>>> enunciated
>>> the words "stupid woman" and then bid his viewers good night.
>>>
>>> A very crafty and well choreographed editorial, don't you think? So much
>>> for the fairness and balance of Fox News.
>>>
>>
>>It's not a news show. It's a show aobut news events and opinions on them.
>>
>>> No doubt, Michael McKelvy - aka Brave Warrior and harbinger of
>>> democracy,
>>> freedom and justice - will consider this a lawful exercise of Hume's
>>> First
>>> Amendment.
>>
>>Hume's not doing a hard news show, it is an entirely opinion driven show.
>
> They're ALL that way.

They do hard news every half hour.

The rest is pretty much like all the other shows on all the other Cable news
channels. The big difference being that they are up front on the politics
of their hosts and analysts.

Jenn

December 17th 05, 02:34 AM

In article t>,
> wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article t>,
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article et>,
> >> > > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > In article et>,
> >> >> > > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > "Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in
> >> >> >> > message
> >> >> >> > ...
> >> >> >> >> http://loosers.hn.org/www/wwiiol/waronterror.wmv
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > **You get CNNNN over there? It was a wonderful series. Much was
> >> >> >> > local
> >> >> >> > humour, but, of course, we always enjoy laughing at the stupidity
> >> >> >> > of
> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> > average American. Watching that clip again, makes me realise how
> >> >> >> > Dubya
> >> >> >> > got
> >> >> >> > voted in - TWICE. I guess stupid Americans got a President with
> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> > same
> >> >> >> > level of intelligence.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> The stupidity is from yo thnking that there's no bias at CNN and
> >> >> >> that
> >> >> >> they
> >> >> >> don't cherry pick idiots to make a point.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > CNN's bias, if any, if FAR less than Fox's.
> >> >>
> >> >> 50% of Fox's commentary is Liberal and the other 50% of their
> >> >> commentary
> >> >> is
> >> >> Conservative.
> >> >
> >> > Bull****.
> >> >
> >> >> Their news reporting is objective.
> >> >
> >> > More bull****.
> >>
> >> Get out a stop watch and time the commentary programs.
> >> As for the news I've seen nothing to indcate it is not objective
> >> reporting,
> >> unlike virtually every other news program on cable or broadcast networks.
> >
> > You've got to be kidding. Which Fox News show host, other than co-host
> > Colmes, could you POSSIBLY call "liberal"?
>
> Greta Van Susteren,

Great; let's take your first answer as an example. What on earth has she
ever said, specifically, to show that she:
A. is liberal?
B. if shown that she is, how, specifically, does this show up in her
work?

> Mara Liasson, Juan Williams, Geraldo Rivera, Flavia
> Colgan.
> Then there are the regular guests they have like David Corn, Katrina vanden
> Heuvel, and Eric Alterman.. Where the hell else do you ever see these
> people?
>
> Hannity? Obviously not.
> > Gibson? Ditto. Snow? Ditto. Hume? Ditto. O"Reilly? Ditto.
> >
> > Can you show us some examples off CNN's bias? CNBC?
>
> If you and the others are going to use opinion programs and call them news
> programs then virtually every host they have on CNN is liberal. Try to
> understand the difference between the hosts of opinion programs and news
> shows. Every one of the opinion show commentators is balanced by a Liberal
> with an opposing viewpoint. Just because they have many openly conservative
> hosts doesn't mean they aren't balanced. For every conservative utterance
> their is a corresponding Liberal one.
>
> The fact seem to be that because they have openly Conservative hosts who
> openly criticize the left that they don't have an equal amount of openly
> Leftist people for balance. I suggest you check your premise.

December 17th 05, 04:02 AM

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article t>,
> > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article t>,
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > In article et>,
>> >> > > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> > In article
>> >> >> > et>,
>> >> >> > > wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in
>> >> >> >> message
>> >> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > "Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in
>> >> >> >> > message
>> >> >> >> > ...
>> >> >> >> >> http://loosers.hn.org/www/wwiiol/waronterror.wmv
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > **You get CNNNN over there? It was a wonderful series. Much
>> >> >> >> > was
>> >> >> >> > local
>> >> >> >> > humour, but, of course, we always enjoy laughing at the
>> >> >> >> > stupidity
>> >> >> >> > of
>> >> >> >> > the
>> >> >> >> > average American. Watching that clip again, makes me realise
>> >> >> >> > how
>> >> >> >> > Dubya
>> >> >> >> > got
>> >> >> >> > voted in - TWICE. I guess stupid Americans got a President
>> >> >> >> > with
>> >> >> >> > the
>> >> >> >> > same
>> >> >> >> > level of intelligence.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> The stupidity is from yo thnking that there's no bias at CNN and
>> >> >> >> that
>> >> >> >> they
>> >> >> >> don't cherry pick idiots to make a point.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > CNN's bias, if any, if FAR less than Fox's.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 50% of Fox's commentary is Liberal and the other 50% of their
>> >> >> commentary
>> >> >> is
>> >> >> Conservative.
>> >> >
>> >> > Bull****.
>> >> >
>> >> >> Their news reporting is objective.
>> >> >
>> >> > More bull****.
>> >>
>> >> Get out a stop watch and time the commentary programs.
>> >> As for the news I've seen nothing to indcate it is not objective
>> >> reporting,
>> >> unlike virtually every other news program on cable or broadcast
>> >> networks.
>> >
>> > You've got to be kidding. Which Fox News show host, other than co-host
>> > Colmes, could you POSSIBLY call "liberal"?
>>
>> Greta Van Susteren,
>
> Great; let's take your first answer as an example. What on earth has she
> ever said, specifically, to show that she:
> A. is liberal?
> B. if shown that she is, how, specifically, does this show up in her
> work?
>

On Fox it doesn't.

Now how about the other people I named, are going to tell me they are not
Liberals?

>
>
>> Mara Liasson, Juan Williams, Geraldo Rivera, Flavia
>> Colgan.
>> Then there are the regular guests they have like David Corn, Katrina
>> vanden
>> Heuvel, and Eric Alterman.. Where the hell else do you ever see these
>> people?
>>
>> Hannity? Obviously not.
>> > Gibson? Ditto. Snow? Ditto. Hume? Ditto. O"Reilly? Ditto.
>> >
>> > Can you show us some examples off CNN's bias? CNBC?
>>
>> If you and the others are going to use opinion programs and call them
>> news
>> programs then virtually every host they have on CNN is liberal. Try to
>> understand the difference between the hosts of opinion programs and news
>> shows. Every one of the opinion show commentators is balanced by a
>> Liberal
>> with an opposing viewpoint. Just because they have many openly
>> conservative
>> hosts doesn't mean they aren't balanced. For every conservative
>> utterance
>> their is a corresponding Liberal one.
>>
>> The fact seem to be that because they have openly Conservative hosts who
>> openly criticize the left that they don't have an equal amount of openly
>> Leftist people for balance. I suggest you check your premise.

December 17th 05, 04:16 AM

"Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>
>> There is an equal amount of left wing commentary as their is
>> conservative.
>>
>> Get out a stop watch and prove otherwise.
>
> Here's a clipping from a Drudge Report link (which is hardly the bastion
> of liberalism regarding Novak's switch from CNN to Fox News):
>
> ----
>
> Novak said the switch to Fox had nothing to do with finding a more
> comfortable home for his views.
>
> "I don't think that's a factor," he said. "In 25 years I was never
> censored by CNN and I said some fairly outrageous things and some very
> conservative things. I don't want to give the impression that they were
> muzzling me and I had to go to a place that wouldn't muzzle me."
>
> ----
And I suspect that has a lot to do with the fact that CNN started losing big
time to Fox and they wanted to let it appear that they were being fair and
balanced as well.
>
> Even Robert Novak acknowledges that Fox news is a more "comfortable" home
> for him given his views.
>
> Why can't you?
>
Because, I beleive that by more comfortable, he means that he will have more
openly conservative people to work with.

Why is it so hard to admit that just because they have several Conservative
hosts they don't also have several Liberals working for them and that they
give equal time to both sides. Not that it really advances truth, but it
does give time in equal measure to people with opposing views.

> By the way, I believe Bill "Morality" O'Reilly's latest edict is that

> one can only conjugate with one's spouse for the purpose of procreation,
> not recreation.
>
My pointing out that he is an Independent doesn't mean thaty I endorse his
Catholic viewpoint.

None of whatI said about Fox news is anything more than setting the record
straight. I enjoy hearing the twosides go at it, but I still wish along
with John Stewart that the news could be aobut finding the truth and not
about advancing agendas, unless of course it would my agenda. :-)

That's one of the reasons I drop in frequently to the Annenburg website,
factcheck.org so I can keep up with who's full of **** theis week.

Case in point: RNC Web Ad: Are Democrats Waving White Flag In Iraq?

Democratic Radio Ads Can Stand Clarification
12.06.2005
If you aren't checking with them form time to time you're missing out on
real fair and balanced reporting.

Jenn

December 17th 05, 06:06 AM

In article t>,
> wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article t>,
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article t>,
> >> > > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > In article et>,
> >> >> > > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> .
> >> >> >> ..
> >> >> >> > In article
> >> >> >> > et>,
> >> >> >> > > wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in
> >> >> >> >> message
> >> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > "Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in
> >> >> >> >> > message
> >> >> >> >> > ...
> >> >> >> >> >> http://loosers.hn.org/www/wwiiol/waronterror.wmv
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > **You get CNNNN over there? It was a wonderful series. Much
> >> >> >> >> > was
> >> >> >> >> > local
> >> >> >> >> > humour, but, of course, we always enjoy laughing at the
> >> >> >> >> > stupidity
> >> >> >> >> > of
> >> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> >> > average American. Watching that clip again, makes me realise
> >> >> >> >> > how
> >> >> >> >> > Dubya
> >> >> >> >> > got
> >> >> >> >> > voted in - TWICE. I guess stupid Americans got a President
> >> >> >> >> > with
> >> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> >> > same
> >> >> >> >> > level of intelligence.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> The stupidity is from yo thnking that there's no bias at CNN and
> >> >> >> >> that
> >> >> >> >> they
> >> >> >> >> don't cherry pick idiots to make a point.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > CNN's bias, if any, if FAR less than Fox's.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> 50% of Fox's commentary is Liberal and the other 50% of their
> >> >> >> commentary
> >> >> >> is
> >> >> >> Conservative.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Bull****.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Their news reporting is objective.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > More bull****.
> >> >>
> >> >> Get out a stop watch and time the commentary programs.
> >> >> As for the news I've seen nothing to indcate it is not objective
> >> >> reporting,
> >> >> unlike virtually every other news program on cable or broadcast
> >> >> networks.
> >> >
> >> > You've got to be kidding. Which Fox News show host, other than co-host
> >> > Colmes, could you POSSIBLY call "liberal"?
> >>
> >> Greta Van Susteren,
> >
> > Great; let's take your first answer as an example. What on earth has she
> > ever said, specifically, to show that she:
> > A. is liberal?
> > B. if shown that she is, how, specifically, does this show up in her
> > work?
> >
>
> On Fox it doesn't.

Did I miss something, or are we discussing Fox's commentators? How does
she show that she allegedly liberal?

>
> Now how about the other people I named, are going to tell me they are not
> Liberals?

I'll be happy to discuss them as soon as you answer my question about
Greta.

>
> >
> >
> >> Mara Liasson, Juan Williams, Geraldo Rivera, Flavia
> >> Colgan.
> >> Then there are the regular guests they have like David Corn, Katrina
> >> vanden
> >> Heuvel, and Eric Alterman.. Where the hell else do you ever see these
> >> people?
> >>
> >> Hannity? Obviously not.
> >> > Gibson? Ditto. Snow? Ditto. Hume? Ditto. O"Reilly? Ditto.
> >> >
> >> > Can you show us some examples off CNN's bias? CNBC?
> >>
> >> If you and the others are going to use opinion programs and call them
> >> news
> >> programs then virtually every host they have on CNN is liberal. Try to
> >> understand the difference between the hosts of opinion programs and news
> >> shows. Every one of the opinion show commentators is balanced by a
> >> Liberal
> >> with an opposing viewpoint. Just because they have many openly
> >> conservative
> >> hosts doesn't mean they aren't balanced. For every conservative
> >> utterance
> >> their is a corresponding Liberal one.
> >>
> >> The fact seem to be that because they have openly Conservative hosts who
> >> openly criticize the left that they don't have an equal amount of openly
> >> Leftist people for balance. I suggest you check your premise.

Jenn

December 17th 05, 06:08 AM

In article et>,
> wrote:

> "Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
> ...
> > wrote:
> >
> >> There is an equal amount of left wing commentary as their is
> >> conservative.
> >>
> >> Get out a stop watch and prove otherwise.
> >
> > Here's a clipping from a Drudge Report link (which is hardly the bastion
> > of liberalism regarding Novak's switch from CNN to Fox News):
> >
> > ----
> >
> > Novak said the switch to Fox had nothing to do with finding a more
> > comfortable home for his views.
> >
> > "I don't think that's a factor," he said. "In 25 years I was never
> > censored by CNN and I said some fairly outrageous things and some very
> > conservative things. I don't want to give the impression that they were
> > muzzling me and I had to go to a place that wouldn't muzzle me."
> >
> > ----
> And I suspect that has a lot to do with the fact that CNN started losing big
> time to Fox and they wanted to let it appear that they were being fair and
> balanced as well.

LOL Novak was with CNN for 25 years.

Lionel

December 17th 05, 10:50 AM

a écrit :
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
wrote :
>>
>>
>>
>>>I corrected my mistake.
>>>
>>>When I know I made one, I always do.
>>
>>
>>We will try to keep you informed... :-D
>>
>>
>
> Wow, I'll sleep so much better knowing you guys are looking out for me.

I know that.
If not how to explain your RAO assiduity ? :-D

--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

Lionel

December 17th 05, 10:53 AM

a écrit :
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>In >,
wrote :
>>
>>
>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>
a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>
wrote :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>As for the news I've seen nothing to indcate it is not objective
>>>>>>>reporting,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This is why they are strong with the weak people like you. ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>unlike virtually every other news program on cable or broadcast
>>>>>>>networks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Don't waste your time in such metaphysical problems Mike.
>>>>>>Just watch FoxNews.
>>>>>>...It's enough for you.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>No, it's not. It's just better than the rest of the media which is
>>>>>leftist dominated.
>>>>
>>>>Your implicit definition of leftist make me laugh a lot Mike.
>>>>But it's your life so...
>>>>
>>>
>>>Are you denying that most of the American media is tilted to the left?
>>
>>I don't deny anything since I don't really know USA and US medias.
>>I just would like that you realize that FoxNews is a *REAL* bull****
>>source.
>>
>
>
> An opinion you get to have. They cover the same news aas everybody else.
> They just make sure there are 2 sides of each story heard from in their
> analysis shows.

Oh I see that you don't know that their coin is phoney.

--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

dave weil

December 17th 05, 01:59 PM

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 11:53:26 +0100, Lionel >
wrote:

>> An opinion you get to have. They cover the same news aas everybody else.
>> They just make sure there are 2 sides of each story heard from in their
>> analysis shows.
>
>
>Oh I see that you don't know that their coin is phoney.

Time to put your pomposity to bed for the weekend and enjoy your
family while you can.

dave weil

December 17th 05, 02:25 PM

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 02:33:18 GMT, > wrote:

>>>Hume's not doing a hard news show, it is an entirely opinion driven show.
>>
>> They're ALL that way.
>
>They do hard news every half hour.

So does CNN and HNN for the most part and you couldn't tell WHAT those
somewhat anonymous newsreaders leanings are.

Besides, you've always got the FoxNews crawler and the captions to the
news stories. The captions especially are usually laced with bias.
They are hardly ANYTHING but "fair and balanced".

BTW, last night I tuned in MSNBC to see if they had anything about
John Spencer and I saw part of "The Scarborough Report". I could have
been watching most of FoxNews. It's was quite right-wing, and he had
Pat Buchanan on, and both of them beat up on this poor liberal lady.
Now I would hardly take your tack and say that because of this and
people like Chris Matthews, suddenly they are "Fair and Balanced".

dave weil

December 17th 05, 02:30 PM

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 04:02:52 GMT, > wrote:

>> Great; let's take your first answer as an example. What on earth has she
>> ever said, specifically, to show that she:
>> A. is liberal?
>> B. if shown that she is, how, specifically, does this show up in her
>> work?
>>
>
>On Fox it doesn't.
>
>Now how about the other people I named, are going to tell me they are not
>Liberals?

You tried to imply that these people had their own shows (until you
were called on it). They don't. A couple of them are on loan from that
notorious bastion of liberalism, PBS, the network that was apparently
actually "Fair and Balanced" because one of their lone political shows
for decades was "Firing Line", hosted by William F. Buckley.

>>> Mara Liasson, Juan Williams, Geraldo Rivera, Flavia
>>> Colgan.

And just so you know, Rivera is sorta like the leftist version of
Jerry Falwell. Most leftists wouldn't want anything to do with him.

Lionel

December 17th 05, 03:02 PM

dave weil a écrit :
> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 11:53:26 +0100, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>
>>>An opinion you get to have. They cover the same news aas everybody else.
>>>They just make sure there are 2 sides of each story heard from in their
>>>analysis shows.
>>
>>
>>Oh I see that you don't know that their coin is phoney.
>
>
> Time to put your pomposity to bed for the weekend and enjoy your
> family while you can.

Oh seems that for the first time you are speaking about something you
know. :-D

--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

dave weil

December 17th 05, 03:30 PM

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 16:02:10 +0100, Lionel >
wrote:

>> Time to put your pomposity to bed for the weekend and enjoy your
>> family while you can.
>
>
>Oh seems that for the first time you are speaking about something you
>know. :-D

Yep. i know all about enjoyment AND your pomposity.

ScottW

December 17th 05, 07:32 PM

Schizoid Man wrote:
> ScottW wrote:
>
> > Schizoid Man wrote:
>
> >>How do reconcile this with Bush being a good conservative?
> >
> > Who says he's a good conservative? Not I.
>
> So does your love for Bush stem solely from the fact that he is letting
> you keep more of your millions?

No love for Bush... I simply think that Saddam was a curse on the
planet and I'm glad he is out of power. I don't really care the WMDs
weren't found, I don't think they lied and I think there was plenty of
simple humanitarian justification for his removale. I also think a
democratic Iraq will be a positive for the people of the middle east
and ultimately the world. It isn't a trivial undertaking and the
outcome can't be judged for decades to come.

Domestically, Bush is a nightmare. But what did the dems offer that
was better? IMO, nothing.
As far as taxes go... you obviously don't have a clue how little you
can make in ordinary income before the government starts taking 40+%
and eliminating all your deductions. You start feeling it well before
200K in ordinary income. How about a nice one time bonus like a
non-qualified stock option? It can be upto 47% in taxes, eliminated
deductions and AMT.
And you don't need to be close to 7 figure income to get there. So
how much is enough? Maybe everyone should just be limited to 100K.
Government takes everything over 100K and nothing before. You'd
probably like that just fine.

ScottW

ScottW

December 17th 05, 08:36 PM

Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >
> > You sound like a selfish whiner. Is your safety worth the suffering
> > of people under the rule of a tryrant like Saddam?
>
> **I have a news flash for you:
>
> The people are STILL suffering under US rule. They're being torttured and
> murdered every day. Nothing has changed. Just the people doing the torturing
> and murdering. The US has achieved nothing, except bringing one man before
> the courts.
>
She doesn't agree with you

http://thepoliticalteen.net/2005/12/13/gotohell/

ScottW

December 17th 05, 10:44 PM

Schizoid Man

December 17th 05, 11:16 PM

wrote:

> Case in point: RNC Web Ad: Are Democrats Waving White Flag In Iraq?

In my view, any political party that can reject Charles Darwin for the
sole purpose of political gain is nothing but pure evil.

How are the right-wing Bible thumpers any different from insane Islamic
militants? Ultimately, they both have the same agenda. One achieves it
by distorting history and science and corrupting minds. The other by
blowing **** up.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the majority of the elected Republican
party is completely divorced from science.

December 17th 05, 11:16 PM

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 02:33:18 GMT, > wrote:
>
>>>>Hume's not doing a hard news show, it is an entirely opinion driven
>>>>show.
>>>
>>> They're ALL that way.
>>
>>They do hard news every half hour.
>
> So does CNN and HNN for the most part and you couldn't tell WHAT those
> somewhat anonymous newsreaders leanings are.
>
> Besides, you've always got the FoxNews crawler and the captions to the
> news stories. The captions especially are usually laced with bias.
> They are hardly ANYTHING but "fair and balanced".
>
> BTW, last night I tuned in MSNBC to see if they had anything about
> John Spencer and I saw part of "The Scarborough Report". I could have
> been watching most of FoxNews. It's was quite right-wing, and he had
> Pat Buchanan on, and both of them beat up on this poor liberal lady.

It's very right wing and for my tastes over the top, as is Sean Hannity.

> Now I would hardly take your tack and say that because of this and
> people like Chris Matthews, suddenly they are "Fair and Balanced".
>
Did they have an opposing viewpoint reprsented on Scarborough?

December 17th 05, 11:20 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article t>,
> > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article t>,
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > In article t>,
>> >> > > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> > In article
>> >> >> > et>,
>> >> >> > > wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> >> >> >> .
>> >> >> >> ..
>> >> >> >> > In article
>> >> >> >> > et>,
>> >> >> >> > > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in
>> >> >> >> >> message
>> >> >> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > "Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in
>> >> >> >> >> > message
>> >> >> >> >> > ...
>> >> >> >> >> >> http://loosers.hn.org/www/wwiiol/waronterror.wmv
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > **You get CNNNN over there? It was a wonderful series. Much
>> >> >> >> >> > was
>> >> >> >> >> > local
>> >> >> >> >> > humour, but, of course, we always enjoy laughing at the
>> >> >> >> >> > stupidity
>> >> >> >> >> > of
>> >> >> >> >> > the
>> >> >> >> >> > average American. Watching that clip again, makes me
>> >> >> >> >> > realise
>> >> >> >> >> > how
>> >> >> >> >> > Dubya
>> >> >> >> >> > got
>> >> >> >> >> > voted in - TWICE. I guess stupid Americans got a President
>> >> >> >> >> > with
>> >> >> >> >> > the
>> >> >> >> >> > same
>> >> >> >> >> > level of intelligence.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> The stupidity is from yo thnking that there's no bias at CNN
>> >> >> >> >> and
>> >> >> >> >> that
>> >> >> >> >> they
>> >> >> >> >> don't cherry pick idiots to make a point.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > CNN's bias, if any, if FAR less than Fox's.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> 50% of Fox's commentary is Liberal and the other 50% of their
>> >> >> >> commentary
>> >> >> >> is
>> >> >> >> Conservative.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Bull****.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Their news reporting is objective.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > More bull****.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Get out a stop watch and time the commentary programs.
>> >> >> As for the news I've seen nothing to indcate it is not objective
>> >> >> reporting,
>> >> >> unlike virtually every other news program on cable or broadcast
>> >> >> networks.
>> >> >
>> >> > You've got to be kidding. Which Fox News show host, other than
>> >> > co-host
>> >> > Colmes, could you POSSIBLY call "liberal"?
>> >>
>> >> Greta Van Susteren,
>> >
>> > Great; let's take your first answer as an example. What on earth has
>> > she
>> > ever said, specifically, to show that she:
>> > A. is liberal?
>> > B. if shown that she is, how, specifically, does this show up in her
>> > work?
>> >
>>
>> On Fox it doesn't.
>
> Did I miss something, or are we discussing Fox's commentators? How does
> she show that she allegedly liberal?
>
AFAIK that show doesn't, I rarely watch it since she comes on at a time when
I am otherwise engaged. I simply recall reading someplace that she is a
Liberal. Her show on Fox doesn't deal much with politics so I doubt there's
much opportunity for her to comment on such things.

Check with Sackman, I beleive I recall him commenting on her.
>>
>> Now how about the other people I named, are going to tell me they are not
>> Liberals?
>
> I'll be happy to discuss them as soon as you answer my question about
> Greta.
>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >> Mara Liasson, Juan Williams, Geraldo Rivera, Flavia
>> >> Colgan.
>> >> Then there are the regular guests they have like David Corn, Katrina
>> >> vanden
>> >> Heuvel, and Eric Alterman.. Where the hell else do you ever see these
>> >> people?
>> >>
>> >> Hannity? Obviously not.
>> >> > Gibson? Ditto. Snow? Ditto. Hume? Ditto. O"Reilly? Ditto.
>> >> >
>> >> > Can you show us some examples off CNN's bias? CNBC?
>> >>
>> >> If you and the others are going to use opinion programs and call them
>> >> news
>> >> programs then virtually every host they have on CNN is liberal. Try
>> >> to
>> >> understand the difference between the hosts of opinion programs and
>> >> news
>> >> shows. Every one of the opinion show commentators is balanced by a
>> >> Liberal
>> >> with an opposing viewpoint. Just because they have many openly
>> >> conservative
>> >> hosts doesn't mean they aren't balanced. For every conservative
>> >> utterance
>> >> their is a corresponding Liberal one.
>> >>
>> >> The fact seem to be that because they have openly Conservative hosts
>> >> who
>> >> openly criticize the left that they don't have an equal amount of
>> >> openly
>> >> Leftist people for balance. I suggest you check your premise.

December 17th 05, 11:23 PM

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 04:02:52 GMT, > wrote:
>
>>> Great; let's take your first answer as an example. What on earth has she
>>> ever said, specifically, to show that she:
>>> A. is liberal?
>>> B. if shown that she is, how, specifically, does this show up in her
>>> work?
>>>
>>
>>On Fox it doesn't.
>>
>>Now how about the other people I named, are going to tell me they are not
>>Liberals?
>
> You tried to imply that these people had their own shows (until you
> were called on it).

I did no such thing, I simply said they are on FOX regularly. Anything you
read into that is of your own making.

They don't. A couple of them are on loan from that
> notorious bastion of liberalism, PBS, the network that was apparently
> actually "Fair and Balanced" because one of their lone political shows
> for decades was "Firing Line", hosted by William F. Buckley.
>
Which I miss tremendously.

>>>> Mara Liasson, Juan Williams, Geraldo Rivera, Flavia
>>>> Colgan.
>
> And just so you know, Rivera is sorta like the leftist version of
> Jerry Falwell. Most leftists wouldn't want anything to do with him.

Yet because he is on Fox news he is a target for slander from Liberals at
the NYTimes who made false accusations about him while he was covering the
hurricane aftermath in Louisiana.

December 17th 05, 11:31 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article et>,
> > wrote:
>
>> "Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> There is an equal amount of left wing commentary as their is
>> >> conservative.
>> >>
>> >> Get out a stop watch and prove otherwise.
>> >
>> > Here's a clipping from a Drudge Report link (which is hardly the
>> > bastion
>> > of liberalism regarding Novak's switch from CNN to Fox News):
>> >
>> > ----
>> >
>> > Novak said the switch to Fox had nothing to do with finding a more
>> > comfortable home for his views.
>> >
>> > "I don't think that's a factor," he said. "In 25 years I was never
>> > censored by CNN and I said some fairly outrageous things and some very
>> > conservative things. I don't want to give the impression that they were
>> > muzzling me and I had to go to a place that wouldn't muzzle me."
>> >
>> > ----
>> And I suspect that has a lot to do with the fact that CNN started losing
>> big
>> time to Fox and they wanted to let it appear that they were being fair
>> and
>> balanced as well.
>
> LOL Novak was with CNN for 25 years.

As I found out today in the LA Times. But the bit on CNN changing their
ways with regard to Fox was also reported in the LA Times. Indeed many TV
news organizations have tried to catch up and emulate Fox because of
criticism that they weren't showing anything but onesided viewpoints. Look
at how outnumbered George Will is.

None of this changes the fact that Fox always presents an alternate opposing
viewpoint.
You may not like the fact that so many conservatives host shows there, but
they still do more to present 2 sides of any story than any other news
channel. I happen to think it is part of the reason that the Dems have
suffered so many defeats, not because of bias from Fox but because when teh
left is given an equal opportunity to speak directly opposite conservatives,
they tend to suffer by comparison. It also points up the fact that they have
nothing in the way of an agenda other than bash Bush or bash whoever the
Republican is.

Jenn

December 17th 05, 11:39 PM

In article t>,
> wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article et>,
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> "Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> There is an equal amount of left wing commentary as their is
> >> >> conservative.
> >> >>
> >> >> Get out a stop watch and prove otherwise.
> >> >
> >> > Here's a clipping from a Drudge Report link (which is hardly the
> >> > bastion
> >> > of liberalism regarding Novak's switch from CNN to Fox News):
> >> >
> >> > ----
> >> >
> >> > Novak said the switch to Fox had nothing to do with finding a more
> >> > comfortable home for his views.
> >> >
> >> > "I don't think that's a factor," he said. "In 25 years I was never
> >> > censored by CNN and I said some fairly outrageous things and some very
> >> > conservative things. I don't want to give the impression that they were
> >> > muzzling me and I had to go to a place that wouldn't muzzle me."
> >> >
> >> > ----
> >> And I suspect that has a lot to do with the fact that CNN started losing
> >> big
> >> time to Fox and they wanted to let it appear that they were being fair
> >> and
> >> balanced as well.
> >
> > LOL Novak was with CNN for 25 years.
>
> As I found out today in the LA Times. But the bit on CNN changing their
> ways with regard to Fox was also reported in the LA Times. Indeed many TV
> news organizations have tried to catch up and emulate Fox because of
> criticism that they weren't showing anything but onesided viewpoints. Look
> at how outnumbered George Will is.

You're getting off topic. You can't point to any bias by CNN, CNBC, et
al. Neither can you point out how Greta, your first example of a
"liberal" on Fox, shows any supposed liberal thought. Point remains
that there are FAR more conservatives on Fox, particularly among the
hosts, than there are liberals.

Jenn

December 17th 05, 11:42 PM

In article t>,
> wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article t>,
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article t>,
> >> > > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > In article t>,
> >> >> > > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> .
> >> >> >> ..
> >> >> >> > In article
> >> >> >> > et>,
> >> >> >> > > wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> om.
> >> >> >> >> ..
> >> >> >> >> > In article
> >> >> >> >> > et>,
> >> >> >> >> > > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in
> >> >> >> >> >> message
> >> >> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> > "Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in
> >> >> >> >> >> > message
> >> >> >> >> >> > ...
> >> >> >> >> >> >> http://loosers.hn.org/www/wwiiol/waronterror.wmv
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> > **You get CNNNN over there? It was a wonderful series. Much
> >> >> >> >> >> > was
> >> >> >> >> >> > local
> >> >> >> >> >> > humour, but, of course, we always enjoy laughing at the
> >> >> >> >> >> > stupidity
> >> >> >> >> >> > of
> >> >> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> >> >> > average American. Watching that clip again, makes me
> >> >> >> >> >> > realise
> >> >> >> >> >> > how
> >> >> >> >> >> > Dubya
> >> >> >> >> >> > got
> >> >> >> >> >> > voted in - TWICE. I guess stupid Americans got a President
> >> >> >> >> >> > with
> >> >> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> >> >> > same
> >> >> >> >> >> > level of intelligence.
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> The stupidity is from yo thnking that there's no bias at CNN
> >> >> >> >> >> and
> >> >> >> >> >> that
> >> >> >> >> >> they
> >> >> >> >> >> don't cherry pick idiots to make a point.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > CNN's bias, if any, if FAR less than Fox's.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> 50% of Fox's commentary is Liberal and the other 50% of their
> >> >> >> >> commentary
> >> >> >> >> is
> >> >> >> >> Conservative.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Bull****.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> Their news reporting is objective.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > More bull****.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Get out a stop watch and time the commentary programs.
> >> >> >> As for the news I've seen nothing to indcate it is not objective
> >> >> >> reporting,
> >> >> >> unlike virtually every other news program on cable or broadcast
> >> >> >> networks.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You've got to be kidding. Which Fox News show host, other than
> >> >> > co-host
> >> >> > Colmes, could you POSSIBLY call "liberal"?
> >> >>
> >> >> Greta Van Susteren,
> >> >
> >> > Great; let's take your first answer as an example. What on earth has
> >> > she
> >> > ever said, specifically, to show that she:
> >> > A. is liberal?
> >> > B. if shown that she is, how, specifically, does this show up in her
> >> > work?
> >> >
> >>
> >> On Fox it doesn't.
> >
> > Did I miss something, or are we discussing Fox's commentators? How does
> > she show that she allegedly liberal?
> >
> AFAIK that show doesn't, I rarely watch it since she comes on at a time when
> I am otherwise engaged. I simply recall reading someplace that she is a
> Liberal. Her show on Fox doesn't deal much with politics so I doubt there's
> much opportunity for her to comment on such things.

Thanks for admitting that your use of her as your first example of a
liberal on Fox was bogus.

>
> Check with Sackman, I beleive I recall him commenting on her.
> >>
> >> Now how about the other people I named, are going to tell me they are not
> >> Liberals?
> >
> > I'll be happy to discuss them as soon as you answer my question about
> > Greta.
> >
> >>
> >> >
Next:
> >> >> Mara Liasson,

What view has she expressed on Fox that forwards the liberal view?

dizzy

December 18th 05, 12:06 AM

Schizoid Man wrote:

wrote:
>
>> Case in point: RNC Web Ad: Are Democrats Waving White Flag In Iraq?
>
>In my view, any political party that can reject Charles Darwin for the
>sole purpose of political gain is nothing but pure evil.
>
>How are the right-wing Bible thumpers any different from insane Islamic
>militants? Ultimately, they both have the same agenda. One achieves it
>by distorting history and science and corrupting minds. The other by
>blowing **** up.

Oh, our right-wingers blow **** up, too. They're just rich enough to
have the hired-help do the heavy lifting.

>There is no doubt whatsoever that the majority of the elected Republican
>party is completely divorced from science.

Well, look who they elected...

paul packer

December 18th 05, 03:31 AM

Lionel wrote:
> >>Trevor, cynicism can be deceptive. Whatever you may think of political
> >>idealism, you have to ascribe a goodly portion of it to Bush and his
> >>advisers. Given the amount of air time given to their thinking, I'm
> >>astonished at the number of people who still believe it's just about
> >>oil.
> >
> >
> > **I'm astonished that any allegedly intelligent person STILL thinks that it
> > was not about the oil.

I'm astonished that any allegedly intelligent person can over-simplify
to such an astonishing degree. These things are never "just" about
anything. The political idealism of Bush and his advisers has been well
documented. It was NOT just about oil.

> Don't worry Trevor, Paul Packer doesn't believe in his own troll he's
> just trying to annoy me because I have vexed him weeks ago.
> Since this time this lousy troller is frenetically looking for my
> patriotic string to play with.
>
> Poor Mr Packer !!! Being so intelligent and spending time to such nasty
> and petty game....
> What a waste of resources. :-D

Lionel, you are living in Narnia. I have no idea in what way you
"vexed" me, nor would I waste time trying to annoy you--frankly, you're
not important enough to me. Please nick off, find the nearest church
and pray hard that France may be forgiven all her sins--a task which
will keep you occupied for a good while, I expect.

Schizoid Man

December 18th 05, 07:31 AM

ScottW wrote:
> Schizoid Man wrote:

> Domestically, Bush is a nightmare. But what did the dems offer that
> was better? IMO, nothing.
> As far as taxes go... you obviously don't have a clue how little you
> can make in ordinary income before the government starts taking 40+%
> and eliminating all your deductions. You start feeling it well before
> 200K in ordinary income. How about a nice one time bonus like a
> non-qualified stock option? It can be upto 47% in taxes, eliminated
> deductions and AMT.

Yes. I am led to believe that we're expecting a bumper bonus this year,
which will naturally be taxed at 50%. :(

> And you don't need to be close to 7 figure income to get there. So
> how much is enough? Maybe everyone should just be limited to 100K.
> Government takes everything over 100K and nothing before. You'd
> probably like that just fine.

I don't mind paying my fair share of taxes, and quite honestly, I think
I do.

Lionel

December 18th 05, 11:19 AM

paul packer a écrit :
> Lionel wrote:
>
>>>>Trevor, cynicism can be deceptive. Whatever you may think of political
>>>>idealism, you have to ascribe a goodly portion of it to Bush and his
>>>>advisers. Given the amount of air time given to their thinking, I'm
>>>>astonished at the number of people who still believe it's just about
>>>>oil.
>>>
>>>
>>>**I'm astonished that any allegedly intelligent person STILL thinks that it
>>>was not about the oil.
>
>
> I'm astonished that any allegedly intelligent person can over-simplify
> to such an astonishing degree. These things are never "just" about
> anything. The political idealism of Bush and his advisers has been well
> documented. It was NOT just about oil.
>
>
>>Don't worry Trevor, Paul Packer doesn't believe in his own troll he's
>>just trying to annoy me because I have vexed him weeks ago.
>>Since this time this lousy troller is frenetically looking for my
>>patriotic string to play with.
>>
>>Poor Mr Packer !!! Being so intelligent and spending time to such nasty
>>and petty game....
>>What a waste of resources. :-D
>
>
> Lionel, you are living in Narnia. I have no idea in what way you
> "vexed" me, nor would I waste time trying to annoy you--frankly, you're
> not important enough to me. Please nick off, find the nearest church
> and pray hard that France may be forgiven all her sins--a task which
> will keep you occupied for a good while, I expect.

:-D

--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

Trevor Wilson

December 18th 05, 09:21 PM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> paul packer a écrit :
>> Lionel wrote:
>>
>>>>>Trevor, cynicism can be deceptive. Whatever you may think of political
>>>>>idealism, you have to ascribe a goodly portion of it to Bush and his
>>>>>advisers. Given the amount of air time given to their thinking, I'm
>>>>>astonished at the number of people who still believe it's just about
>>>>>oil.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>**I'm astonished that any allegedly intelligent person STILL thinks that
>>>>it
>>>>was not about the oil.
>>
>>
>> I'm astonished that any allegedly intelligent person can over-simplify
>> to such an astonishing degree. These things are never "just" about
>> anything. The political idealism of Bush and his advisers has been well
>> documented. It was NOT just about oil.

**Quite true. It was MOSTLY about the oil. It was also about some twisted
sense of honour, from the Bush cabal. But it was and is mostly about the
oil. Saddam's viciousness and the fact that Dubya figured he could convince
the US public into believing that Saddam had WMDs (despite Blix's constant
denials) allowed him to attack.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

George M. Middius

December 18th 05, 09:36 PM

Trevor Wilson said:

> **Quite true. It was MOSTLY about the oil. It was also about some twisted
> sense of honour, from the Bush cabal. But it was and is mostly about the
> oil. Saddam's viciousness and the fact that Dubya figured he could convince
> the US public into believing that Saddam had WMDs (despite Blix's constant
> denials) allowed him to attack.

I hate to give credit to that band of slimers, but after 9/11, maybe Bush &
Co. realized it was up to them to do *something* about Arab terrorists. Even
if deposing Saddam wouldn't counter terrorism against the West directly, he
was as you say, a vicious monster whose passing would be beneficial to all.

ScottW

December 18th 05, 11:35 PM

Schizoid Man wrote:
> ScottW wrote:
> > Schizoid Man wrote:
>
> > Domestically, Bush is a nightmare. But what did the dems offer that
> > was better? IMO, nothing.
> > As far as taxes go... you obviously don't have a clue how little you
> > can make in ordinary income before the government starts taking 40+%
> > and eliminating all your deductions. You start feeling it well before
> > 200K in ordinary income. How about a nice one time bonus like a
> > non-qualified stock option? It can be upto 47% in taxes, eliminated
> > deductions and AMT.
>
> Yes. I am led to believe that we're expecting a bumper bonus this year,
> which will naturally be taxed at 50%. :(
>
I think that rate is excessive, nothing fair about it. And the
whole tax law is getting worse when it comes to the "make the rich pay
for it". There was a bond initiative for something in Ca that came up
on the ballot every other year and never passed. This year they put a
wrinkle in it by funding it with a tweak in the tax code so only people
making over 100K income got tagged for it. It finally passed.
Follow that path to its natural conclusion.

ScottW

Trevor Wilson

December 19th 05, 01:09 AM

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Trevor Wilson said:
>
>> **Quite true. It was MOSTLY about the oil. It was also about some twisted
>> sense of honour, from the Bush cabal. But it was and is mostly about the
>> oil. Saddam's viciousness and the fact that Dubya figured he could
>> convince
>> the US public into believing that Saddam had WMDs (despite Blix's
>> constant
>> denials) allowed him to attack.
>
> I hate to give credit to that band of slimers, but after 9/11, maybe Bush
> &
> Co. realized it was up to them to do *something* about Arab terrorists.

**There's the rub. The vast majority of terrorists are Saudis. It is
disingenuous to label ALL Middle East inhabitants as 'Arab Terrorists'. Much
as we would like to make our lives easier, by doing so.

Even
> if deposing Saddam wouldn't counter terrorism against the West directly,
> he
> was as you say, a vicious monster whose passing would be beneficial to
> all.

**No argument from me. I maintain that it is Dubya's job to protect US
citizens, first and Iraqi citizens last.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

December 19th 05, 01:55 AM

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article t>,
> > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article et>,
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> There is an equal amount of left wing commentary as their is
>> >> >> conservative.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Get out a stop watch and prove otherwise.
>> >> >
>> >> > Here's a clipping from a Drudge Report link (which is hardly the
>> >> > bastion
>> >> > of liberalism regarding Novak's switch from CNN to Fox News):
>> >> >
>> >> > ----
>> >> >
>> >> > Novak said the switch to Fox had nothing to do with finding a more
>> >> > comfortable home for his views.
>> >> >
>> >> > "I don't think that's a factor," he said. "In 25 years I was never
>> >> > censored by CNN and I said some fairly outrageous things and some
>> >> > very
>> >> > conservative things. I don't want to give the impression that they
>> >> > were
>> >> > muzzling me and I had to go to a place that wouldn't muzzle me."
>> >> >
>> >> > ----
>> >> And I suspect that has a lot to do with the fact that CNN started
>> >> losing
>> >> big
>> >> time to Fox and they wanted to let it appear that they were being fair
>> >> and
>> >> balanced as well.
>> >
>> > LOL Novak was with CNN for 25 years.
>>
>> As I found out today in the LA Times. But the bit on CNN changing their
>> ways with regard to Fox was also reported in the LA Times. Indeed many
>> TV
>> news organizations have tried to catch up and emulate Fox because of
>> criticism that they weren't showing anything but onesided viewpoints.
>> Look
>> at how outnumbered George Will is.
>
>
> You're getting off topic. You can't point to any bias by CNN, CNBC, et
> al. Neither can you point out how Greta, your first example of a
> "liberal" on Fox, shows any supposed liberal thought. Point remains
> that there are FAR more conservatives on Fox, particularly among the
> hosts, than there are liberals.

Which was never really th point at all. The point is and has been tta they
always offer both a liberal and a conservative viewpoint for every topic
they discuss.

Jenn

December 19th 05, 02:06 AM

In article et>,
> wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article t>,
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article et>,
> >> > > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> There is an equal amount of left wing commentary as their is
> >> >> >> conservative.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Get out a stop watch and prove otherwise.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Here's a clipping from a Drudge Report link (which is hardly the
> >> >> > bastion
> >> >> > of liberalism regarding Novak's switch from CNN to Fox News):
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ----
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Novak said the switch to Fox had nothing to do with finding a more
> >> >> > comfortable home for his views.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "I don't think that's a factor," he said. "In 25 years I was never
> >> >> > censored by CNN and I said some fairly outrageous things and some
> >> >> > very
> >> >> > conservative things. I don't want to give the impression that they
> >> >> > were
> >> >> > muzzling me and I had to go to a place that wouldn't muzzle me."
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ----
> >> >> And I suspect that has a lot to do with the fact that CNN started
> >> >> losing
> >> >> big
> >> >> time to Fox and they wanted to let it appear that they were being fair
> >> >> and
> >> >> balanced as well.
> >> >
> >> > LOL Novak was with CNN for 25 years.
> >>
> >> As I found out today in the LA Times. But the bit on CNN changing their
> >> ways with regard to Fox was also reported in the LA Times. Indeed many
> >> TV
> >> news organizations have tried to catch up and emulate Fox because of
> >> criticism that they weren't showing anything but onesided viewpoints.
> >> Look
> >> at how outnumbered George Will is.
> >
> >
> > You're getting off topic. You can't point to any bias by CNN, CNBC, et
> > al. Neither can you point out how Greta, your first example of a
> > "liberal" on Fox, shows any supposed liberal thought. Point remains
> > that there are FAR more conservatives on Fox, particularly among the
> > hosts, than there are liberals.
>
> Which was never really th point at all. The point is and has been tta they
> always offer both a liberal and a conservative viewpoint for every topic
> they discuss.

A "liberal viewpoint" by people you call "liberal" who don't give that
viewpoint, such as Greta.

December 19th 05, 06:43 AM

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
> wrote in message ...
>>
>>
>> Trevor Wilson said:
>>
>>> **Quite true. It was MOSTLY about the oil. It was also about some
>>> twisted
>>> sense of honour, from the Bush cabal. But it was and is mostly about the
>>> oil. Saddam's viciousness and the fact that Dubya figured he could
>>> convince
>>> the US public into believing that Saddam had WMDs (despite Blix's
>>> constant
>>> denials) allowed him to attack.
>>
>> I hate to give credit to that band of slimers, but after 9/11, maybe Bush
>> &
>> Co. realized it was up to them to do *something* about Arab terrorists.
>
> **There's the rub. The vast majority of terrorists are Saudis. It is
> disingenuous to label ALL Middle East inhabitants as 'Arab Terrorists'.
> Much as we would like to make our lives easier, by doing so.
>
> Even
>> if deposing Saddam wouldn't counter terrorism against the West directly,
>> he
>> was as you say, a vicious monster whose passing would be beneficial to
>> all.
>
> **No argument from me. I maintain that it is Dubya's job to protect US
> citizens, first and Iraqi citizens last.
>
Not that it's you job to woory about his duty to the U.S.

In removing the dictator and establish a constitution republic in Iraq, he
is doing just that.
There will be protection of one os the biggest supplies of oil in the world,
thereby keeping prices stable and the American economy stable as well.

It also allows for a base of operation likely to be more friendly than that
in Saudi Arabia, where things are not all that stable and the royal family
is by virtue of it's ever incrfeasing size getting to a bit of a looney bin.

December 19th 05, 06:51 AM

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article et>,
> > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article t>,
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > In article et>,
>> >> > > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> "Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> There is an equal amount of left wing commentary as their is
>> >> >> >> conservative.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Get out a stop watch and prove otherwise.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Here's a clipping from a Drudge Report link (which is hardly the
>> >> >> > bastion
>> >> >> > of liberalism regarding Novak's switch from CNN to Fox News):
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > ----
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Novak said the switch to Fox had nothing to do with finding a
>> >> >> > more
>> >> >> > comfortable home for his views.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > "I don't think that's a factor," he said. "In 25 years I was
>> >> >> > never
>> >> >> > censored by CNN and I said some fairly outrageous things and some
>> >> >> > very
>> >> >> > conservative things. I don't want to give the impression that
>> >> >> > they
>> >> >> > were
>> >> >> > muzzling me and I had to go to a place that wouldn't muzzle me."
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > ----
>> >> >> And I suspect that has a lot to do with the fact that CNN started
>> >> >> losing
>> >> >> big
>> >> >> time to Fox and they wanted to let it appear that they were being
>> >> >> fair
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> balanced as well.
>> >> >
>> >> > LOL Novak was with CNN for 25 years.
>> >>
>> >> As I found out today in the LA Times. But the bit on CNN changing
>> >> their
>> >> ways with regard to Fox was also reported in the LA Times. Indeed
>> >> many
>> >> TV
>> >> news organizations have tried to catch up and emulate Fox because of
>> >> criticism that they weren't showing anything but onesided viewpoints.
>> >> Look
>> >> at how outnumbered George Will is.
>> >
>> >
>> > You're getting off topic. You can't point to any bias by CNN, CNBC, et
>> > al. Neither can you point out how Greta, your first example of a
>> > "liberal" on Fox, shows any supposed liberal thought. Point remains
>> > that there are FAR more conservatives on Fox, particularly among the
>> > hosts, than there are liberals.
>>
>> Which was never really th point at all. The point is and has been tta
>> they
>> always offer both a liberal and a conservative viewpoint for every topic
>> they discuss.
>
> A "liberal viewpoint" by people you call "liberal" who don't give that
> viewpoint, such as Greta.

It is AFAIK a fact that she is a liberal. It is also a fact that the hosts
of the shows on FNC are not told what they can and cannot say.

It is also a fact that there are many people on FNC that are Liberal and
espouse a Liberal viewpoint.

It is also a fact that they give opposing viewpoints on every topic they
discuss.
When the bias of the persons hosting the shows is known and always subjected
to an opposing viewpoint I see no bias towards the GOP or any other
political party.

If they were the GOP news channel no other views would be represented, and
certainly not half of the time.

If you want to know what and when the Liberal hosts views are expressed, I
guess you will just have to watch more.

December 19th 05, 06:58 AM

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article t>,
> > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article t>,
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > In article t>,
>> >> > > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> > In article t>,
>> >> >> > > wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> >> >> >> .
>> >> >> >> ..
>> >> >> >> > In article
>> >> >> >> > et>,
>> >> >> >> > > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> om.
>> >> >> >> >> ..
>> >> >> >> >> > In article
>> >> >> >> >> > et>,
>> >> >> >> >> > > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote
>> >> >> >> >> >> in
>> >> >> >> >> >> message
>> >> >> >> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > "Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote
>> >> >> >> >> >> > in
>> >> >> >> >> >> > message
>> >> >> >> >> >> > ...
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> http://loosers.hn.org/www/wwiiol/waronterror.wmv
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > **You get CNNNN over there? It was a wonderful series.
>> >> >> >> >> >> > Much
>> >> >> >> >> >> > was
>> >> >> >> >> >> > local
>> >> >> >> >> >> > humour, but, of course, we always enjoy laughing at the
>> >> >> >> >> >> > stupidity
>> >> >> >> >> >> > of
>> >> >> >> >> >> > the
>> >> >> >> >> >> > average American. Watching that clip again, makes me
>> >> >> >> >> >> > realise
>> >> >> >> >> >> > how
>> >> >> >> >> >> > Dubya
>> >> >> >> >> >> > got
>> >> >> >> >> >> > voted in - TWICE. I guess stupid Americans got a
>> >> >> >> >> >> > President
>> >> >> >> >> >> > with
>> >> >> >> >> >> > the
>> >> >> >> >> >> > same
>> >> >> >> >> >> > level of intelligence.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> The stupidity is from yo thnking that there's no bias at
>> >> >> >> >> >> CNN
>> >> >> >> >> >> and
>> >> >> >> >> >> that
>> >> >> >> >> >> they
>> >> >> >> >> >> don't cherry pick idiots to make a point.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > CNN's bias, if any, if FAR less than Fox's.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> 50% of Fox's commentary is Liberal and the other 50% of their
>> >> >> >> >> commentary
>> >> >> >> >> is
>> >> >> >> >> Conservative.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Bull****.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> Their news reporting is objective.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > More bull****.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Get out a stop watch and time the commentary programs.
>> >> >> >> As for the news I've seen nothing to indcate it is not objective
>> >> >> >> reporting,
>> >> >> >> unlike virtually every other news program on cable or broadcast
>> >> >> >> networks.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > You've got to be kidding. Which Fox News show host, other than
>> >> >> > co-host
>> >> >> > Colmes, could you POSSIBLY call "liberal"?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Greta Van Susteren,
>> >> >
>> >> > Great; let's take your first answer as an example. What on earth has
>> >> > she
>> >> > ever said, specifically, to show that she:
>> >> > A. is liberal?
>> >> > B. if shown that she is, how, specifically, does this show up in her
>> >> > work?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> On Fox it doesn't.
>> >
>> > Did I miss something, or are we discussing Fox's commentators? How
>> > does
>> > she show that she allegedly liberal?
>> >
>> AFAIK that show doesn't, I rarely watch it since she comes on at a time
>> when
>> I am otherwise engaged. I simply recall reading someplace that she is a
>> Liberal. Her show on Fox doesn't deal much with politics so I doubt
>> there's
>> much opportunity for her to comment on such things.
>
> Thanks for admitting that your use of her as your first example of a
> liberal on Fox was bogus.
>
>>
>> Check with Sackman, I beleive I recall him commenting on her.
>> >>
>> >> Now how about the other people I named, are going to tell me they are
>> >> not
>> >> Liberals?
>> >
>> > I'll be happy to discuss them as soon as you answer my question about
>> > Greta.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >
> Next:
>> >> >> Mara Liasson,
>
> What view has she expressed on Fox that forwards the liberal view?

Since I haven't seen the show on which she is a panel member in some time, I
couldn't nor will I try to recall her overtly Liberal viewpoint on, watch
the show. She is also employed by NPR and is considered to be a Liberal and
compared to the other people on that panel that would seem to be the case,
considerting one is a formt eh Weekly Standard, and the other from "The
Hill."

I've listed a number of known Liberals who are either hosts, cohosts, or
regular contributors to the programming on FNC. If yo have a difficult time
finding views that are Liberal expressed on FNC then perhaps it is because
you are so far left that they seem moderate to you.

They give half of their airtime when discussing any issue to an opposing
viewpoint, I don't know any other network that does so.

December 19th 05, 07:28 AM

> wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article t>,
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> > In article t>,
>>> > > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>> >> ...
>>> >> > In article t>,
>>> >> > > wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>> >> >> ...
>>> >> >> > In article
>>> >> >> > t>,
>>> >> >> > > wrote:
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>> >> >> >> .
>>> >> >> >> ..
>>> >> >> >> > In article
>>> >> >> >> > et>,
>>> >> >> >> > > wrote:
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >> om.
>>> >> >> >> >> ..
>>> >> >> >> >> > In article
>>> >> >> >> >> > et>,
>>> >> >> >> >> > > wrote:
>>> >> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >> >> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote
>>> >> >> >> >> >> in
>>> >> >> >> >> >> message
>>> >> >> >> >> >> ...
>>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >> >> > "Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote
>>> >> >> >> >> >> > in
>>> >> >> >> >> >> > message
>>> >> >> >> >> >> > ...
>>> >> >> >> >> >> >> http://loosers.hn.org/www/wwiiol/waronterror.wmv
>>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >> >> > **You get CNNNN over there? It was a wonderful series.
>>> >> >> >> >> >> > Much
>>> >> >> >> >> >> > was
>>> >> >> >> >> >> > local
>>> >> >> >> >> >> > humour, but, of course, we always enjoy laughing at the
>>> >> >> >> >> >> > stupidity
>>> >> >> >> >> >> > of
>>> >> >> >> >> >> > the
>>> >> >> >> >> >> > average American. Watching that clip again, makes me
>>> >> >> >> >> >> > realise
>>> >> >> >> >> >> > how
>>> >> >> >> >> >> > Dubya
>>> >> >> >> >> >> > got
>>> >> >> >> >> >> > voted in - TWICE. I guess stupid Americans got a
>>> >> >> >> >> >> > President
>>> >> >> >> >> >> > with
>>> >> >> >> >> >> > the
>>> >> >> >> >> >> > same
>>> >> >> >> >> >> > level of intelligence.
>>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >> >> The stupidity is from yo thnking that there's no bias at
>>> >> >> >> >> >> CNN
>>> >> >> >> >> >> and
>>> >> >> >> >> >> that
>>> >> >> >> >> >> they
>>> >> >> >> >> >> don't cherry pick idiots to make a point.
>>> >> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >> > CNN's bias, if any, if FAR less than Fox's.
>>> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >> 50% of Fox's commentary is Liberal and the other 50% of
>>> >> >> >> >> their
>>> >> >> >> >> commentary
>>> >> >> >> >> is
>>> >> >> >> >> Conservative.
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> > Bull****.
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >> Their news reporting is objective.
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> > More bull****.
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> Get out a stop watch and time the commentary programs.
>>> >> >> >> As for the news I've seen nothing to indcate it is not
>>> >> >> >> objective
>>> >> >> >> reporting,
>>> >> >> >> unlike virtually every other news program on cable or broadcast
>>> >> >> >> networks.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > You've got to be kidding. Which Fox News show host, other than
>>> >> >> > co-host
>>> >> >> > Colmes, could you POSSIBLY call "liberal"?
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Greta Van Susteren,
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Great; let's take your first answer as an example. What on earth
>>> >> > has
>>> >> > she
>>> >> > ever said, specifically, to show that she:
>>> >> > A. is liberal?
>>> >> > B. if shown that she is, how, specifically, does this show up in
>>> >> > her
>>> >> > work?
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >> On Fox it doesn't.
>>> >
>>> > Did I miss something, or are we discussing Fox's commentators? How
>>> > does
>>> > she show that she allegedly liberal?
>>> >
>>> AFAIK that show doesn't, I rarely watch it since she comes on at a time
>>> when
>>> I am otherwise engaged. I simply recall reading someplace that she is a
>>> Liberal. Her show on Fox doesn't deal much with politics so I doubt
>>> there's
>>> much opportunity for her to comment on such things.
>>
>> Thanks for admitting that your use of her as your first example of a
>> liberal on Fox was bogus.
>>
>>>
>>> Check with Sackman, I beleive I recall him commenting on her.
>>> >>
>>> >> Now how about the other people I named, are going to tell me they are
>>> >> not
>>> >> Liberals?
>>> >
>>> > I'll be happy to discuss them as soon as you answer my question about
>>> > Greta.
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> >
>> Next:
>>> >> >> Mara Liasson,
>>
>> What view has she expressed on Fox that forwards the liberal view?
>
> Since I haven't seen the show on which she is a panel member in some time,
> I couldn't nor will I try to recall her overtly Liberal viewpoint on,
> watch the show. She is also employed by NPR and is considered to be a
> Liberal and compared to the other people on that panel that would seem to
> be the case, considerting one is a formt eh Weekly Standard, and the other
> from "The Hill."
>
Let's fix the above paragraph.

It should go more like this:

Since I haven't seen the show she is a panel member of, in a long time, I
couldn't nor will I try to recall any overtly Liberal statements she might
have made. She is also employed by NPR and is considered to be Liberal,
especially compared to the other panel members, the editor of the Weekly
Standard, and the editor of Roll Call.

> I've listed a number of known Liberals who are either hosts, cohosts, or
> regular contributors to the programming on FNC. If yo have a difficult
> time finding views that are Liberal expressed on FNC then perhaps it is
> because you are so far left that they seem moderate to you.
>
> They give half of their airtime when discussing any issue to an opposing
> viewpoint, I don't know any other network that does so.
>

Clyde Slick

December 19th 05, 12:38 PM

> wrote in message
nk.net...
>
>>>
>>> What view has she expressed on Fox that forwards the liberal view?
>>
>> Since I haven't seen the show on which she is a panel member in some
>> time, I couldn't nor will I try to recall her overtly Liberal viewpoint
>> on, watch the show. She is also employed by NPR and is considered to be
>> a Liberal and compared to the other people on that panel that would seem
>> to be the case, considerting one is a formt eh Weekly Standard, and the
>> other from "The Hill."
>>
> Let's fix the above paragraph.
>
> It should go more like this:
>
> Since I haven't seen the show she is a panel member of, in a long time, I
> couldn't nor will I try to recall any overtly Liberal statements she might
> have made. She is also employed by NPR and is considered to be Liberal,
> especially compared to the other panel members, the editor of the Weekly
> Standard, and the editor of Roll Call.
>
>
>> I've listed a number of known Liberals who are either hosts, cohosts, or
>> regular contributors to the programming on FNC. If yo have a difficult
>> time finding views that are Liberal expressed on FNC then perhaps it is
>> because you are so far left that they seem moderate to you.
>>
>> They give half of their airtime when discussing any issue to an opposing
>> viewpoint, I don't know any other network that does so.
>>
>

some interesting sidebars:

http://www.scientology-kills.org/celebrities/vansusteren.htm

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/columnists/orl-pubcol11130505nov13,0,5604093.column

her sister is running as a Democrat for the Maryland US Senate seat.
BUT, I never heard of this till this morning.

http://www.vansusterenforsenate.com/bio

Ruud Broens

December 19th 05, 06:46 PM

"ScottW" > wrote in message
ups.com...
: I think that rate is excessive, nothing fair about it. And the
: whole tax law is getting worse when it comes to the "make the rich pay
: for it". There was a bond initiative for something in Ca that came up
: on the ballot every other year and never passed. This year they put a
: wrinkle in it by funding it with a tweak in the tax code so only people
: making over 100K income got tagged for it. It finally passed.
: Follow that path to its natural conclusion.
:
: ScottW
:
sounds like a chessgame where the rich may get checkmated
too few queens..

;-)

what about taking the following to it's conclusion ?

there is always ample opportunity to realize a return on investment
that is well above inflation levels if you have the capital to invest

all true, then, money makes money,
but with it comes power, not only _buying power_,
evidently,

and forces creating counter forces
great difference makes for great outrage

so a society that let's capital _pile up unchecked_
will become more and more unstable

there is no easy solution for stability and prosperity,
it seems

Rudy

dave weil

December 19th 05, 06:52 PM

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 06:51:15 GMT, > wrote:

>If you want to know what and when the Liberal hosts views are expressed, I
>guess you will just have to watch more.

You just have to struggle to find them, since they are in the extreme
minority. By your own list, there are exactly TWO, and I"m not sure
that van Susteren really counts. If she's doing the same sort of show
that she did on CNN for years, she predominately focuses on court
cases (like Nancy Grace, a pretty conservative host on CNN).

BTW, I'm sure that you are pleased as punch that Federal Homeland
Security agents are starting to call on students who check out Mao's
"Little Black Book" from the library while doing school research. They
probably didn't scare this one too much though because he probably
thought that they were Jehovah's Witnesses. President Bush is making
your "Brave New World" a little bit closer every day. I'm sure you and
ScottW are "over the moon" over the prospect about losing a few more
rights every day, because...well just because this is a new world post
9/11. Government is there to protect you. I know how much you trust
them anyway...

December 19th 05, 08:45 PM

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>>>>
>>>> What view has she expressed on Fox that forwards the liberal view?
>>>
>>> Since I haven't seen the show on which she is a panel member in some
>>> time, I couldn't nor will I try to recall her overtly Liberal viewpoint
>>> on, watch the show. She is also employed by NPR and is considered to be
>>> a Liberal and compared to the other people on that panel that would seem
>>> to be the case, considerting one is a formt eh Weekly Standard, and the
>>> other from "The Hill."
>>>
>> Let's fix the above paragraph.
>>
>> It should go more like this:
>>
>> Since I haven't seen the show she is a panel member of, in a long time, I
>> couldn't nor will I try to recall any overtly Liberal statements she
>> might have made. She is also employed by NPR and is considered to be
>> Liberal, especially compared to the other panel members, the editor of
>> the Weekly Standard, and the editor of Roll Call.
>>
>>
>>> I've listed a number of known Liberals who are either hosts, cohosts, or
>>> regular contributors to the programming on FNC. If yo have a difficult
>>> time finding views that are Liberal expressed on FNC then perhaps it is
>>> because you are so far left that they seem moderate to you.
>>>
>>> They give half of their airtime when discussing any issue to an opposing
>>> viewpoint, I don't know any other network that does so.
>>>
>>
>
>
> some interesting sidebars:
>
> http://www.scientology-kills.org/celebrities/vansusteren.htm
>
Aw ****. Scientology, Nation of Isalm, and Mormonism, IMO 3 of the most
ridiculous "religions" ever conceived.

> http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/columnists/orl-pubcol11130505nov13,0,5604093.column
>
Seems like Mr. Moore was reaching just a bit too far in his attempt to
slander.

> her sister is running as a Democrat for the Maryland US Senate seat.
> BUT, I never heard of this till this morning.
>
> http://www.vansusterenforsenate.com/bio

December 19th 05, 08:49 PM

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 06:51:15 GMT, > wrote:
>
>>If you want to know what and when the Liberal hosts views are expressed, I
>>guess you will just have to watch more.
>
> You just have to struggle to find them, since they are in the extreme
> minority.

The hosts might be, but the liberal viewpoint is presented daily, in every
item they discuss.

By your own list, there are exactly TWO, and I"m not sure
> that van Susteren really counts. If she's doing the same sort of show
> that she did on CNN for years, she predominately focuses on court
> cases (like Nancy Grace, a pretty conservative host on CNN).
>
> BTW, I'm sure that you are pleased as punch that Federal Homeland
> Security agents are starting to call on students who check out Mao's
> "Little Black Book" from the library while doing school research. They
> probably didn't scare this one too much though because he probably
> thought that they were Jehovah's Witnesses. President Bush is making
> your "Brave New World" a little bit closer every day. I'm sure you and
> ScottW are "over the moon" over the prospect about losing a few more
> rights every day, because...well just because this is a new world post
> 9/11. Government is there to protect you. I know how much you trust
> them anyway...

I think what has been reported about the eavesdropping, has as usual, been
blown out of proprtion.

Trevor Wilson

December 19th 05, 09:44 PM

> wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
>> wrote in message ...
>>>
>>>
>>> Trevor Wilson said:
>>>
>>>> **Quite true. It was MOSTLY about the oil. It was also about some
>>>> twisted
>>>> sense of honour, from the Bush cabal. But it was and is mostly about
>>>> the
>>>> oil. Saddam's viciousness and the fact that Dubya figured he could
>>>> convince
>>>> the US public into believing that Saddam had WMDs (despite Blix's
>>>> constant
>>>> denials) allowed him to attack.
>>>
>>> I hate to give credit to that band of slimers, but after 9/11, maybe
>>> Bush &
>>> Co. realized it was up to them to do *something* about Arab terrorists.
>>
>> **There's the rub. The vast majority of terrorists are Saudis. It is
>> disingenuous to label ALL Middle East inhabitants as 'Arab Terrorists'.
>> Much as we would like to make our lives easier, by doing so.
>>
>> Even
>>> if deposing Saddam wouldn't counter terrorism against the West directly,
>>> he
>>> was as you say, a vicious monster whose passing would be beneficial to
>>> all.
>>
>> **No argument from me. I maintain that it is Dubya's job to protect US
>> citizens, first and Iraqi citizens last.
>>
> Not that it's you job to woory about his duty to the U.S.

**It is, when Dubya's actions have affected EVERY Westerner on the planet.
Moreover, YOU should be very concerned that Dubya is not defending US
citizens. On the contrary, he is sending thousands to their deaths in Iraq.

>
> In removing the dictator and establish a constitution republic in Iraq, he
> is doing just that.
> There will be protection of one os the biggest supplies of oil in the
> world, thereby keeping prices stable and the American economy stable as
> well.

**If Iraq becomes a soveriegn nation, the US has no guarantees in this area.

>
> It also allows for a base of operation likely to be more friendly than
> that in Saudi Arabia, where things are not all that stable and the royal
> family is by virtue of it's ever incrfeasing size getting to a bit of a
> looney bin.

**Which the US continues to support, despite the fact that the terrorists
who hurt the US are Saudis. Let's examine the facts:

* Saudis invade the US and kill US citizens.
* Dubya invades Iraq and sends more US citizens to their deaths.

That makes sense.

NOT!

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

dave weil

December 19th 05, 09:51 PM

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 20:49:19 GMT, > wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 06:51:15 GMT, > wrote:
>>
>>>If you want to know what and when the Liberal hosts views are expressed, I
>>>guess you will just have to watch more.
>>
>> You just have to struggle to find them, since they are in the extreme
>> minority.
>
>The hosts might be, but the liberal viewpoint is presented daily, in every
>item they discuss.

Well, YOU said "when the Liberal hosts views are expressed".

>By your own list, there are exactly TWO, and I"m not sure
>> that van Susteren really counts. If she's doing the same sort of show
>> that she did on CNN for years, she predominately focuses on court
>> cases (like Nancy Grace, a pretty conservative host on CNN).
>>
>> BTW, I'm sure that you are pleased as punch that Federal Homeland
>> Security agents are starting to call on students who check out Mao's
>> "Little Black Book" from the library while doing school research. They
>> probably didn't scare this one too much though because he probably
>> thought that they were Jehovah's Witnesses. President Bush is making
>> your "Brave New World" a little bit closer every day. I'm sure you and
>> ScottW are "over the moon" over the prospect about losing a few more
>> rights every day, because...well just because this is a new world post
>> 9/11. Government is there to protect you. I know how much you trust
>> them anyway...
>
>I think what has been reported about the eavesdropping, has as usual, been
>blown out of proprtion.

What's overblown? That two agents showed up on a college student's
doorstep to question him? I'm not sure if that's blowing something out
of proportion. For tomorrow, they might be showing up YOURS because
you don't believe that the government has the right to do many things.
I doubt that you will feel like it's overblown to be concerned about
your right to privacy.

Oh wait, you probably don't believe in that, do you?

Schizoid Man

December 19th 05, 11:03 PM

Trevor Wilson wrote:

> **Which the US continues to support, despite the fact that the terrorists
> who hurt the US are Saudis. Let's examine the facts:
>
> * Saudis invade the US and kill US citizens.
> * Dubya invades Iraq and sends more US citizens to their deaths.
>
> That makes sense.

Only to capture, and then release, Iraqi war criminals.

Apparently, catching that peasant Saddam is enough for the neocons. No
need to bring the real perpetrators to justice after all.

I must admit that even I was surprised after I read this:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/iraq_dc;_ylt=AlI4YLV_5QmkJEG1QJFXdbtX6GMA;_ylu=X3o DMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

December 20th 05, 12:41 AM

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 20:49:19 GMT, > wrote:
>
>>
>>I think what has been reported about the eavesdropping, has as usual, been
>>blown out of proprtion.
>
> What's overblown? That two agents showed up on a college student's
> doorstep to question him? I'm not sure if that's blowing something out
> of proportion. For tomorrow, they might be showing up YOURS because
> you don't believe that the government has the right to do many things.
> I doubt that you will feel like it's overblown to be concerned about
> your right to privacy.
>
Why did they show up to question him?
Nobody is going to show up on my doorstep because I don't have any long
distance phone calls that I make or rececive fro andybody linked to Al
Qadea.

> Oh wait, you probably don't believe in that, do you?
>
Of course I do, it's one of the fundamentals, like property and life.

December 20th 05, 06:40 AM

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
>>> wrote in message ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Trevor Wilson said:
>>>>
>>>>> **Quite true. It was MOSTLY about the oil. It was also about some
>>>>> twisted
>>>>> sense of honour, from the Bush cabal. But it was and is mostly about
>>>>> the
>>>>> oil. Saddam's viciousness and the fact that Dubya figured he could
>>>>> convince
>>>>> the US public into believing that Saddam had WMDs (despite Blix's
>>>>> constant
>>>>> denials) allowed him to attack.
>>>>
>>>> I hate to give credit to that band of slimers, but after 9/11, maybe
>>>> Bush &
>>>> Co. realized it was up to them to do *something* about Arab terrorists.
>>>
>>> **There's the rub. The vast majority of terrorists are Saudis. It is
>>> disingenuous to label ALL Middle East inhabitants as 'Arab Terrorists'.
>>> Much as we would like to make our lives easier, by doing so.
>>>

Nobody is labeling all Middle Easterneers asArab Terrorists but you seem to
think that because a few Saudi's were part of 9/11 that we should have
invaded them.

>>> Even
>>>> if deposing Saddam wouldn't counter terrorism against the West
>>>> directly, he
>>>> was as you say, a vicious monster whose passing would be beneficial to
>>>> all.
>>>
>>> **No argument from me. I maintain that it is Dubya's job to protect US
>>> citizens, first and Iraqi citizens last.
>>>
>> Not that it's you job to worry about his duty to the U.S.
>
> **It is, when Dubya's actions have affected EVERY Westerner on the planet.
> Moreover, YOU should be very concerned that Dubya is not defending US
> citizens. On the contrary, he is sending thousands to their deaths in
> Iraq.
>
In any other war to ever fought for as long a time as this one has been and
considering the territory involved, the number of casulties is exteremely
small. Then there's the fact that everyone in the military is a volunteer,
and Congress gave Bush the authority to go to war.

The was in Iraq is makng every one in teh Western world better of. It is
going to wind up stabilziing oil prices, showing the rest of the Arab world
the benefits of Demcoratic government, and allowing the US to have a base of
operations that is very strategic.

>>
>> In removing the dictator and establish a constitution republic in Iraq,
>> he is doing just that.
>> There will be protection of one os the biggest supplies of oil in the
>> world, thereby keeping prices stable and the American economy stable as
>> well.
>
> **If Iraq becomes a soveriegn nation, the US has no guarantees in this
> area.
>
Much better than under the former ruler. I suspect there will be some sort
of deal regarding oil and teh payback for giving the citizens back their
country.

Of course if our dumb ass legislators would allow oil companies to make a
living taking oil out the ground in our own country, none the Arab oil would
matter, or at least not nearly as much.

>>
>> It also allows for a base of operation likely to be more friendly than
>> that in Saudi Arabia, where things are not all that stable and the royal
>> family is by virtue of it's ever incrfeasing size getting to a bit of a
>> looney bin.
>
> **Which the US continues to support, despite the fact that the terrorists
> who hurt the US are Saudis. Let's examine the facts:
>
> * Saudis invade the US and kill US citizens.
> * Dubya invades Iraq and sends more US citizens to their deaths.
>
> That makes sense.
>
> NOT!
>
The Saudi government does not have a policy of rewarding terrorists the way
Saddam did.
Saudi Arabia never invaded it's neighbor.
Saudi Arabia did not violate a UN cease fire agreement multiple times.

Clyde Slick

December 20th 05, 12:50 PM

> wrote in message
nk.net...
>

>>
>> some interesting sidebars:
>>
>> http://www.scientology-kills.org/celebrities/vansusteren.htm
>>
> Aw ****. Scientology, Nation of Isalm, and Mormonism, IMO 3 of the most
> ridiculous "religions" ever conceived.
>

Judaism has some ridiculous rules.
Its ok to wipe your ass on the Sabbath,
yet it is NOT ok to tear a sheet
of toilet paper off the roll.

dave weil

December 20th 05, 02:43 PM

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 00:41:17 GMT, > wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 20:49:19 GMT, > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>I think what has been reported about the eavesdropping, has as usual, been
>>>blown out of proprtion.
>>
>> What's overblown? That two agents showed up on a college student's
>> doorstep to question him? I'm not sure if that's blowing something out
>> of proportion. For tomorrow, they might be showing up YOURS because
>> you don't believe that the government has the right to do many things.
>> I doubt that you will feel like it's overblown to be concerned about
>> your right to privacy.
>>
>Why did they show up to question him?

Here's the story.

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-05/12-17-05/a09lo650.htm

You decide.

>Nobody is going to show up on my doorstep because I don't have any long
>distance phone calls that I make or rececive fro andybody linked to Al
>Qadea.

Hmmm, neither did this Dartmouth senior. Apparently he had the gall to
travel outside of the US. According to many conservatives, this alone
can be an indictment.

>> Oh wait, you probably don't believe in that, do you?
>>
>Of course I do, it's one of the fundamentals, like property and life.

According to many conservatives, it's not in the constitution, so who
cares?

December 20th 05, 05:10 PM

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 00:41:17 GMT, > wrote:
>
>>
>>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 20:49:19 GMT, > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>I think what has been reported about the eavesdropping, has as usual,
>>>>been
>>>>blown out of proprtion.
>>>
>>> What's overblown? That two agents showed up on a college student's
>>> doorstep to question him? I'm not sure if that's blowing something out
>>> of proportion. For tomorrow, they might be showing up YOURS because
>>> you don't believe that the government has the right to do many things.
>>> I doubt that you will feel like it's overblown to be concerned about
>>> your right to privacy.
>>>
>>Why did they show up to question him?
>
> Here's the story.
>
> http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-05/12-17-05/a09lo650.htm
>
> You decide.

So he wasn't arrested., just questioned. While it may be a bit over the
top, it's not like they snatched himoff the street and gave him the 3rd
degree. I prefer this approach over the do nothing one the preceded it.

>
>>Nobody is going to show up on my doorstep because I don't have any long
>>distance phone calls that I make or rececive fro andybody linked to Al
>>Qadea.
>
> Hmmm, neither did this Dartmouth senior. Apparently he had the gall to
> travel outside of the US. According to many conservatives, this alone
> can be an indictment.
>
>>> Oh wait, you probably don't believe in that, do you?
>>>
>>Of course I do, it's one of the fundamentals, like property and life.
>
> According to many conservatives, it's not in the constitution, so who
> cares?
>
It's no specifically in the Constitution, but non of the other rights in the
Constitution could exist without it. That some folks on the right don't
acknowledge this fact is one of many reasons why I'm not a Conservative, or
a member of the GOP. Some people wrongly perceive that if you defend a
Conservative, that makes you one, but for me it's more about fairness, since
I would have the same reactions to someone on the left being treated
unfairly. It just seems to me there's less opportunity since the Left IME
pushes the envelope on honesty far more than the right does in most cases.
Again, check with factcheck.org regularly and get a more objective view of
who is telling the truth. Also look at the report out from UCLA about bias
in the media.

dave weil

December 20th 05, 05:45 PM

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 17:10:29 GMT, > wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 00:41:17 GMT, > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 20:49:19 GMT, > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I think what has been reported about the eavesdropping, has as usual,
>>>>>been
>>>>>blown out of proprtion.
>>>>
>>>> What's overblown? That two agents showed up on a college student's
>>>> doorstep to question him? I'm not sure if that's blowing something out
>>>> of proportion. For tomorrow, they might be showing up YOURS because
>>>> you don't believe that the government has the right to do many things.
>>>> I doubt that you will feel like it's overblown to be concerned about
>>>> your right to privacy.
>>>>
>>>Why did they show up to question him?
>>
>> Here's the story.
>>
>> http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-05/12-17-05/a09lo650.htm
>>
>> You decide.
>
>So he wasn't arrested., just questioned.

Well, that's exactly what I said. Did you think I said anything
different?

>While it may be a bit over the
>top, it's not like they snatched himoff the street and gave him the 3rd
>degree. I prefer this approach over the do nothing one the preceded it.

Great. Next, your neighbors might be questioned because you were in
Vietnam and have been monitored checking out right wing websites. It
sounds absurd on its face, but so does investigating an American
college Ivy league senior because he checked out a library book and
travelled overseas.

>>>Nobody is going to show up on my doorstep because I don't have any long
>>>distance phone calls that I make or rececive fro andybody linked to Al
>>>Qadea.
>>
>> Hmmm, neither did this Dartmouth senior. Apparently he had the gall to
>> travel outside of the US. According to many conservatives, this alone
>> can be an indictment.
>>
>>>> Oh wait, you probably don't believe in that, do you?
>>>>
>>>Of course I do, it's one of the fundamentals, like property and life.
>>
>> According to many conservatives, it's not in the constitution, so who
>> cares?
>>
>It's no specifically in the Constitution, but non of the other rights in the
>Constitution could exist without it.

Well, we agree for a change. However, you seem to be in favor of
throwing out this very basic implied right.

>That some folks on the right don't
>acknowledge this fact is one of many reasons why I'm not a Conservative, or
>a member of the GOP. Some people wrongly perceive that if you defend a
>Conservative, that makes you one, but for me it's more about fairness,

Perhaps I should have said "rightist", which you certainly are.
However, I would think that as a Libertarian, you'd be very concerned
about The Government overstepping its bounds on the pretext of
"protecting the people". Sure, you guys don't mind The Government
performing security functions, but I suspect that most Libertarians
would be suspicious about allowing The Government to function contrary
to the Constitution, regardless of the circumstances.

>since
>I would have the same reactions to someone on the left being treated
>unfairly. It just seems to me there's less opportunity since the Left IME
>pushes the envelope on honesty far more than the right does in most cases.
>Again, check with factcheck.org regularly and get a more objective view of
>who is telling the truth. Also look at the report out from UCLA about bias
>in the media.

I saw it. I wasn't surprised about it. I can see how YOU were
surprised since it didn't really support your ideas bout the sinister
nature of the media, although I don't know what this sudden veer in
the discussion has to do with the subject at hand.

December 20th 05, 08:13 PM

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 17:10:29 GMT, > wrote:
>
>>
>>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 00:41:17 GMT, > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>>>>> On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 20:49:19 GMT, > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I think what has been reported about the eavesdropping, has as usual,
>>>>>>been
>>>>>>blown out of proprtion.
>>>>>
>>>>> What's overblown? That two agents showed up on a college student's
>>>>> doorstep to question him? I'm not sure if that's blowing something out
>>>>> of proportion. For tomorrow, they might be showing up YOURS because
>>>>> you don't believe that the government has the right to do many things.
>>>>> I doubt that you will feel like it's overblown to be concerned about
>>>>> your right to privacy.
>>>>>
>>>>Why did they show up to question him?
>>>
>>> Here's the story.
>>>
>>> http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-05/12-17-05/a09lo650.htm
>>>
>>> You decide.
>>
>>So he wasn't arrested., just questioned.
>
> Well, that's exactly what I said. Did you think I said anything
> different?
>
>>While it may be a bit over the
>>top, it's not like they snatched himoff the street and gave him the 3rd
>>degree. I prefer this approach over the do nothing one the preceded it.
>
> Great. Next, your neighbors might be questioned because you were in
> Vietnam and have been monitored checking out right wing websites. It
> sounds absurd on its face, but so does investigating an American
> college Ivy league senior because he checked out a library book and
> travelled overseas.
>
>>>>Nobody is going to show up on my doorstep because I don't have any long
>>>>distance phone calls that I make or rececive fro andybody linked to Al
>>>>Qadea.
>>>
>>> Hmmm, neither did this Dartmouth senior. Apparently he had the gall to
>>> travel outside of the US. According to many conservatives, this alone
>>> can be an indictment.
>>>
>>>>> Oh wait, you probably don't believe in that, do you?
>>>>>
>>>>Of course I do, it's one of the fundamentals, like property and life.
>>>
>>> According to many conservatives, it's not in the constitution, so who
>>> cares?
>>>
>>It's no specifically in the Constitution, but non of the other rights in
>>the
>>Constitution could exist without it.
>
> Well, we agree for a change. However, you seem to be in favor of
> throwing out this very basic implied right.
>
>>That some folks on the right don't
>>acknowledge this fact is one of many reasons why I'm not a Conservative,
>>or
>>a member of the GOP. Some people wrongly perceive that if you defend a
>>Conservative, that makes you one, but for me it's more about fairness,
>
> Perhaps I should have said "rightist", which you certainly are.
> However, I would think that as a Libertarian, you'd be very concerned
> about The Government overstepping its bounds on the pretext of
> "protecting the people". Sure, you guys don't mind The Government
> performing security functions, but I suspect that most Libertarians
> would be suspicious about allowing The Government to function contrary
> to the Constitution, regardless of the circumstances.
>
>>since
>>I would have the same reactions to someone on the left being treated
>>unfairly. It just seems to me there's less opportunity since the Left IME
>>pushes the envelope on honesty far more than the right does in most cases.
>>Again, check with factcheck.org regularly and get a more objective view of
>>who is telling the truth. Also look at the report out from UCLA about
>>bias
>>in the media.
>
> I saw it. I wasn't surprised about it. I can see how YOU were
> surprised since it didn't really support your ideas bout the sinister
> nature of the media,

The part that's sinister is that the tendency towards bias from certain
places has been denied.
Take the New York Times decision to run the story on the eavesdropping story
on the day of the Iraqi eclections when it was a story they had for a year.
What possible motive would there be for releasing it that day?

although I don't know what this sudden veer in
> the discussion has to do with the subject at hand.

Fox News is part of the report in that they talk about the Brit Hume show
Special Report, plus we were talking about the perceived bias of Fox News,
so it seemed relevant to me that a report on bias be mentioned.

Trevor Wilson

December 20th 05, 09:15 PM

> wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> nk.net...
>>>
>>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
>>>> wrote in message ...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Trevor Wilson said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> **Quite true. It was MOSTLY about the oil. It was also about some
>>>>>> twisted
>>>>>> sense of honour, from the Bush cabal. But it was and is mostly about
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> oil. Saddam's viciousness and the fact that Dubya figured he could
>>>>>> convince
>>>>>> the US public into believing that Saddam had WMDs (despite Blix's
>>>>>> constant
>>>>>> denials) allowed him to attack.
>>>>>
>>>>> I hate to give credit to that band of slimers, but after 9/11, maybe
>>>>> Bush &
>>>>> Co. realized it was up to them to do *something* about Arab
>>>>> terrorists.
>>>>
>>>> **There's the rub. The vast majority of terrorists are Saudis. It is
>>>> disingenuous to label ALL Middle East inhabitants as 'Arab Terrorists'.
>>>> Much as we would like to make our lives easier, by doing so.
>>>>
>
> Nobody is labeling all Middle Easterneers asArab Terrorists but you seem
> to think that because a few Saudi's were part of 9/11 that we should have
> invaded them.

**Let's examine the facts:

* The vast majority (all?) of the 9/11 perps were Saudis.
* OBL is a Saudi
* The Saudi Royal Family has (and probably still is) funding OBL.
* I said nothing about invading anyone.

So, it is Saudis which caused the problems for the US and the US invaded
Iraq. That makes perfect sense.

NOT!

>
>>>> Even
>>>>> if deposing Saddam wouldn't counter terrorism against the West
>>>>> directly, he
>>>>> was as you say, a vicious monster whose passing would be beneficial to
>>>>> all.
>>>>
>>>> **No argument from me. I maintain that it is Dubya's job to protect US
>>>> citizens, first and Iraqi citizens last.
>>>>
>>> Not that it's you job to worry about his duty to the U.S.
>>
>> **It is, when Dubya's actions have affected EVERY Westerner on the
>> planet. Moreover, YOU should be very concerned that Dubya is not
>> defending US citizens. On the contrary, he is sending thousands to their
>> deaths in Iraq.
>>
> In any other war to ever fought for as long a time as this one has been
> and considering the territory involved, the number of casulties is
> exteremely small. Then there's the fact that everyone in the military is
> a volunteer, and Congress gave Bush the authority to go to war.

**Strawman noted. Dubya is not defending US citizens or territory. The real
enemy is in Saudi Arabia, yet Dubya does nothing.

>
> The was in Iraq is makng every one in teh Western world better of.

**Really? How's that? In your answer, please feel free to include references
to the bombing in Madrid, London, Bali, Jakarta and in Iraq, itself. Also
account for the massive extra security costs throughout the world.

It is
> going to wind up stabilziing oil prices, showing the rest of the Arab
> world the benefits of Demcoratic government, and allowing the US to have a
> base of operations that is very strategic.

**Now you can predict the future? Wow!

>
>>>
>>> In removing the dictator and establish a constitution republic in Iraq,
>>> he is doing just that.
>>> There will be protection of one os the biggest supplies of oil in the
>>> world, thereby keeping prices stable and the American economy stable as
>>> well.
>>
>> **If Iraq becomes a soveriegn nation, the US has no guarantees in this
>> area.
>>
> Much better than under the former ruler.

**And again. You're predicting the future.

I suspect there will be some sort
> of deal regarding oil and teh payback for giving the citizens back their
> country.

**And that justifies the death of 2,000+ US service personel how? Give me a
number. How much oil is each dead soldier worth?

>
> Of course if our dumb ass legislators would allow oil companies to make a
> living taking oil out the ground in our own country, none the Arab oil
> would matter, or at least not nearly as much.

**Your inability to understand the processes involved is duly noted. The oil
in the US now costs more to extract, than is provided in energy by that same
amount of oil.

>
>>>
>>> It also allows for a base of operation likely to be more friendly than
>>> that in Saudi Arabia, where things are not all that stable and the royal
>>> family is by virtue of it's ever incrfeasing size getting to a bit of a
>>> looney bin.
>>
>> **Which the US continues to support, despite the fact that the terrorists
>> who hurt the US are Saudis. Let's examine the facts:
>>
>> * Saudis invade the US and kill US citizens.
>> * Dubya invades Iraq and sends more US citizens to their deaths.
>>
>> That makes sense.
>>
>> NOT!
>>
> The Saudi government does not have a policy of rewarding terrorists the
> way Saddam did.

**Oh really? The Saudi Royal Family (the government) funds OBL.

> Saudi Arabia never invaded it's neighbor.

**Yep.

> Saudi Arabia did not violate a UN cease fire agreement multiple times.

**Yep. Saudi Arabia invaded and killed US citizens.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

December 21st 05, 11:43 PM

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>
>>>
>>> some interesting sidebars:
>>>
>>> http://www.scientology-kills.org/celebrities/vansusteren.htm
>>>
>> Aw ****. Scientology, Nation of Isalm, and Mormonism, IMO 3 of the most
>> ridiculous "religions" ever conceived.
>>
>
> Judaism has some ridiculous rules.
> Its ok to wipe your ass on the Sabbath,
> yet it is NOT ok to tear a sheet
> of toilet paper off the roll.
>
>
Yeah but some of the rules are what is repsonsible for them being alive at
all, can you say Kosher?

December 21st 05, 11:46 PM

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> nk.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
>>>>> wrote in message ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Trevor Wilson said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **Quite true. It was MOSTLY about the oil. It was also about some
>>>>>>> twisted
>>>>>>> sense of honour, from the Bush cabal. But it was and is mostly about
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> oil. Saddam's viciousness and the fact that Dubya figured he could
>>>>>>> convince
>>>>>>> the US public into believing that Saddam had WMDs (despite Blix's
>>>>>>> constant
>>>>>>> denials) allowed him to attack.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I hate to give credit to that band of slimers, but after 9/11, maybe
>>>>>> Bush &
>>>>>> Co. realized it was up to them to do *something* about Arab
>>>>>> terrorists.
>>>>>
>>>>> **There's the rub. The vast majority of terrorists are Saudis. It is
>>>>> disingenuous to label ALL Middle East inhabitants as 'Arab
>>>>> Terrorists'. Much as we would like to make our lives easier, by doing
>>>>> so.
>>>>>
>>
>> Nobody is labeling all Middle Easterneers asArab Terrorists but you seem
>> to think that because a few Saudi's were part of 9/11 that we should have
>> invaded them.
>
> **Let's examine the facts:
>
> * The vast majority (all?) of the 9/11 perps were Saudis.
> * OBL is a Saudi
> * The Saudi Royal Family has (and probably still is) funding OBL.
> * I said nothing about invading anyone.
>
> So, it is Saudis which caused the problems for the US and the US invaded
> Iraq. That makes perfect sense.
>
> NOT!
>
>>
>>>>> Even
>>>>>> if deposing Saddam wouldn't counter terrorism against the West
>>>>>> directly, he
>>>>>> was as you say, a vicious monster whose passing would be beneficial
>>>>>> to all.
>>>>>
>>>>> **No argument from me. I maintain that it is Dubya's job to protect US
>>>>> citizens, first and Iraqi citizens last.
>>>>>
>>>> Not that it's you job to worry about his duty to the U.S.
>>>
>>> **It is, when Dubya's actions have affected EVERY Westerner on the
>>> planet. Moreover, YOU should be very concerned that Dubya is not
>>> defending US citizens. On the contrary, he is sending thousands to their
>>> deaths in Iraq.
>>>
>> In any other war to ever fought for as long a time as this one has been
>> and considering the territory involved, the number of casulties is
>> exteremely small. Then there's the fact that everyone in the military is
>> a volunteer, and Congress gave Bush the authority to go to war.
>
> **Strawman noted. Dubya is not defending US citizens or territory. The
> real enemy is in Saudi Arabia, yet Dubya does nothing.
>
>>
>> The was in Iraq is makng every one in teh Western world better of.
>
> **Really? How's that? In your answer, please feel free to include
> references to the bombing in Madrid, London, Bali, Jakarta and in Iraq,
> itself. Also account for the massive extra security costs throughout the
> world.
>
> It is
>> going to wind up stabilziing oil prices, showing the rest of the Arab
>> world the benefits of Demcoratic government, and allowing the US to have
>> a base of operations that is very strategic.
>
> **Now you can predict the future? Wow!
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> In removing the dictator and establish a constitution republic in Iraq,
>>>> he is doing just that.
>>>> There will be protection of one os the biggest supplies of oil in the
>>>> world, thereby keeping prices stable and the American economy stable as
>>>> well.
>>>
>>> **If Iraq becomes a soveriegn nation, the US has no guarantees in this
>>> area.
>>>
>> Much better than under the former ruler.
>
> **And again. You're predicting the future.
>
> I suspect there will be some sort
>> of deal regarding oil and teh payback for giving the citizens back their
>> country.
>
> **And that justifies the death of 2,000+ US service personel how? Give me
> a number. How much oil is each dead soldier worth?
>
>>
>> Of course if our dumb ass legislators would allow oil companies to make a
>> living taking oil out the ground in our own country, none the Arab oil
>> would matter, or at least not nearly as much.
>
> **Your inability to understand the processes involved is duly noted. The
> oil in the US now costs more to extract, than is provided in energy by
> that same amount of oil.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> It also allows for a base of operation likely to be more friendly than
>>>> that in Saudi Arabia, where things are not all that stable and the
>>>> royal family is by virtue of it's ever incrfeasing size getting to a
>>>> bit of a looney bin.
>>>
>>> **Which the US continues to support, despite the fact that the
>>> terrorists who hurt the US are Saudis. Let's examine the facts:
>>>
>>> * Saudis invade the US and kill US citizens.
>>> * Dubya invades Iraq and sends more US citizens to their deaths.
>>>
>>> That makes sense.
>>>
>>> NOT!
>>>
>> The Saudi government does not have a policy of rewarding terrorists the
>> way Saddam did.
>
> **Oh really? The Saudi Royal Family (the government) funds OBL.
>
No, some members of the Royal family do,. It is not official policy of the
saudi government.

>> Saudi Arabia never invaded it's neighbor.
>
> **Yep.
>
>> Saudi Arabia did not violate a UN cease fire agreement multiple times.
>
> **Yep. Saudi Arabia invaded and killed US citizens.
>
>
NO, some Saudis did, it was not an act of the Saudi government.