U.S. Paying for positive stories in Iraqui Papers

[Roxie]

Just when I thought I couldn't dislike the media or the govn't anymore when it comes to Iraqui, they've decide to combine powers. Double the pain, double the shame.

What's the big deal about the U.S. military planting stories in the Iraqi press?
By Andisheh Nouraee

The U.S. military has a problem.The people of Iraq don't like the U.S. military as much as the U.S. military wants to be liked.

One might conclude that Iraqis' ill feelings toward the U.S. military might have something to do with the violence and disorder that has plagued Iraq since the U.S. military arrived. It seems like every day there are bombings targeting civilians and Iraqi government forces. Sectarian violence is increasing. The economy is struggling, thanks in large part to an Iraqi oil industry that, nearly three years after the U.S. invasion, is still pumping less than it did under Saddam Hussein's rule.

One might also conclude that Iraqis' ill feelings toward the U.S. military might have something to do with the fact that Iraq's U.S. military-supported government has not been able to accomplish much in the way of peace or prosperity-making. Former Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi (a Pentagon favorite) recently told the Observer newspaper that the Iraqi government is abusing human rights and killing civilians at the same rate that Saddam's regime did.

One might even conclude that Iraqis' ill feelings toward the U.S. military might have something to do with the behavior of the U.S. military itself. Being occupied by a foreign military is never pleasant. Being occupied by an undermanned, undertrained foreign military, even less so. Well-meaning or not, our military has accidentally and intentionally killed and wounded countless civilians, raided thousands of homes in the middle of the night hunting for insurgents, and targeted civilians with white phosphorous, even less so. And don't forget that whole Abu Ghraib thing.

The Pentagon, it seems, doesn't think any of that is the problem.

It thinks that the problem they're having making friends with the Iraqi people is a problem of public relations. If only Iraqis heard and saw news stories telling them how awesome we really are, they would think we're awesome, too.

So, in lieu of paying Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh to learn Arabic, the U.S. military has been doing the next best thing: It has been writing pro-U.S. military news articles for the Iraqi newspapers.

Of course, the military didn't tell the Iraqi newspapers that it wrote the articles. According to the Los Angeles Times, "information operations" soldiers wrote the articles in English, then handed them off to an outfit called the Lincoln Group, a D.C.-based defense contractor that specializes in public relations. According to a press release on its website, the Lincoln Group "worked with the Iraqi media to promote truthful reporting across Iraq" to "counter the lies, intimidation and pure evil of terror with factual stories that highlight the heroism and sacrifice of the Iraqi people and their struggle for freedom and security."

According to the L.A. Times, however, "worked with the Iraqi media" actually meant translating the articles into Arabic, posing as freelance reporters or advertising executives, and paying newspapers to run the stories, without ever revealing that they were, in fact, Pentagon propaganda.

But wait, there's more! Soon after the L.A. Times story, Knight Ridder reported that the U.S. Army was running a parallel good-news propaganda program in Iraq. Through the Baghdad Press Club (a group created by the U.S. Army in 2004), the United States has been bribing Iraqi TV, radio and print journalists to run stories about how awesome the U.S. military is.

"So what?" says my Imaginary Voice. "Isn't swaying public opinion a legitimate part of any war effort? Oh, and you look very handsome today, Andisheh."

"Thank you, Imaginary Voice."

Yes, swaying public opinion is important, but didn't we supposedly invade Iraq to give the country freedom and democracy? To turn around and undermine that by discrediting Iraq's free media as unwitting agents of Pentagon propaganda is beyond stupid. Thanks to Rummy & Co., any Iraqi journalist who reports something vaguely pro-American can now be written off by skeptics as a paid propagandist.

And what does it say about us? Taken together with the numerous "accidental" killings of Iraqi and Arab journalists by U.S. forces, along with recent reports that President Bush "joked" about bombing Al Jazeera's headquarters, news of our efforts to secretly plant pro-U.S. propaganda in Iraq's media brands the United States as a giant hypocrite.

The Bush administration supports the free press in the Arab world, but only if by "free" you mean "free of any criticism of this administration."
Discuss.
Questions? Comments? Criticisms?

[mugen]

I don't think there has ever been a war without propaganda. Hell, i would use it. It does undermine a lot of things the war against iraq stands for though. But i think we all agree the war wasn't justified in the first place. at least not with the arguments the US goverment gave.

[mangamuscle]

I don't think there has ever been a war without propaganda.
Excuse me but war ended years ago and the civil insurrection pays no attention whatsoever to the media. So in the end you can erase "freedom of speech" as another one of the values the new goverment will not have, along with "secular goverment" and "man/woman equality of rights" to name a few.

[NERD]

Excuse me but war ended years ago and the civil insurrection pays no attention whatsoever to the media. So in the end you can erase "freedom of speech" as another one of the values the new goverment will not have, along with "secular goverment" and "man/woman equality of rights" to name a few.

I wouldn't say the war ended in Iraq. The conflict between the insurrection and the American army, not to mention the American-backed Iraqi government is severe enough to be classified as a war- it changed into guerrilla warfare, and the resistance is still fierce enough to warrant more soldiers needed in Iraq. It's just that as the 'war' seems to be heading into a longer direction, with more casualities projected while proving difficult to wipe out the insurrectionists, that more countries are pulling out, and America is looking for a way out. Honestly, it's a big huge mess. Unless there was to be a dominant Iraqi government established, I don't see the insurrection going away.

[mangamuscle]

Unless there was to be a dominant Iraqi government established, I don't see the insurrection going away.
Yeah, they need a generalisimo just like Saddam Hussein ... so why oust him in the first place if you are going to put in his place someone equally or more bloodthirsty than him!!!

[Roxie]

Excuse me but war ended years ago.
Actually, if you want to get so techincal, there was never a war to begin with as congress, the only govn't body that can declare war, never declared a war. No matter what the president calls it.

[Pfalzer]

Yeha i think presidents can call engagements it wa snever a war to begin with Congress never said yes. Bush as usual got his way though.

[mangamuscle]

Actually, if you want to get so techincal, there was never a war to begin with as congress, the only govn't body that can declare war, never declared a war. No matter what the president calls it.

war (wôr) A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.

insurrection (in-s&-'rek-sh&n) The act or an instance of revolting esp. violently against civil or political authority or against an established government.

I use the dictionary to search for the meaning of words, the usa congress is a very bad place to find the truth to start with since they classified tomato as a vegetable (when in reality it is a fruit) so they could add a 10% tax on it (that is a lesson of reality warping by legislators for you).

[NERD]

war |wôr| noun
a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state : Japan declared war on Germany | Iran and Iraq had been at war for six years.

• a particular armed conflict : after the war, they emigrated to America.

• a state of competition, conflict, or hostility between different people or groups : she was at war with her parents | a price war among discount retailers.

• a sustained effort to deal with or end a particular unpleasant or undesirable situation or condition : the authorities are waging war against all forms of smuggling | a war on drugs.

[mangamuscle]

Let me put it this way neddy, I am talking about realities, not technicalities. A war and a civil insurrection might be both a fight, but are different enought to require diferent words, just like arcade and console games are very much alike but diferent from each other. Going for the technicality road will only lead you to madness (and I will be here waiting for ya), as an example, Russia and Japan are technicaly at war since they never did a peace agreament but they did declare war on each other.

[nice gaijin]

everything you see on the news is paid for. Consider the TV show "The Investigators." Don't remember them? because they were pulled for trying to tell the truth about Prosilac (bovine growth hormone) in their first story. Monsanto scared Fox into trying to butcher the story and when the reporters refused to distort the truth, they were eventually fired for refusing to lie to the public. They sued Fox using whistleblower status and won.

The case was appealed and turned over, not because the apellate court found that Fox wasn't trying to manipulate the news to protect its interest, but that lying in the news wasn't against the law.

For other fun and perhaps more relevant examples, try taking a look at American vs. Foreign coverage of the Israeli/Palestinian conflicts over the occupation of the West Bank.

[General_Admission]

Propaganda in Iraq to make the US look good? Sounds like a useful tool to me.

We've used propaganda before in Iraq to expose top officials, who the people respected, as the dirty criminals they were. They were forced on Iraqi tv to reveal acts they had done, such as as gay sex in mosques, torture, and murder. The show was really popular in Iraq.

Although there are some issues on human rights as the confessors showed signs of abuse, but the US tolerates torture to a degree as in Iraq it is impossible to have complete human rights when you are fighting such a counterinsurgent war.

[Roxie]

war (wôr) A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.

insurrection (in-s&-'rek-sh&n) The act or an instance of revolting esp. violently against civil or political authority or against an established government.

I use the dictionary to search for the meaning of words, the usa congress is a very bad place to find the truth to start with since they classified tomato as a vegetable (when in reality it is a fruit) so they could add a 10% tax on it (that is a lesson of reality warping by legislators for you).
No, you don't get it. It's not the definition of war I'm arguing with. I know what that is and I do not disagree.

Now, in order for the war, as you say, to be over, it had to have begun.

It didn't, because Congress did not declare it as such.

However, most people here would agree that it is and still is a war until all the troops come home and Iraq's infurstruction is restored.

[Idlethought]

*infrastructure

^_^

[Roxie]

thank you, baby. :cool:

[NERD]

Yeah, they need a generalisimo just like Saddam Hussein ... so why oust him in the first place if you are going to put in his place someone equally or more bloodthirsty than him!!!

Oh, dominant government does not need to be a dictatorship, and regardless of what happened, Hussein was doing more harm to Iraqis than he did good for them. The problem with US involvement in Iraq was questioned because

a) Hussein is not the only one like that in the world, and if they were going to use human rights as an issue, then there are plenty of other places that need help

b) what rights does US government has in terms of interfering with other nations business.

Anyway, I'd rather not get into the validity of US involvment in Iraq and Afghanistan. The issue was raised several times in this forum already.

[mangamuscle]

Now, in order for the war, as you say, to be over, it had to have begun.

It didn't, because Congress did not declare it as such.
Oh, but you see, here comes the bunny with the clock ...

The united states of america, never declared war on vietnam, yet, decades later how does everybody remember that conflict? correct, the vietnam war! but it was not a war since no war was declared, therefore a war is not a war :D

Oh, dominant government does not need to be a dictatorship
With the level of violence in Iraq I do not see how a benevolent goverment can bring order, specialy when the iraqi soldiers and policeman are massacred everyday like if it was some kind of DOOM(tm) game.

[Roxie]

Oh, but you see, here comes the bunny with the clock ...

The united states of america, never declared war on vietnam, yet, decades later how does everybody remember that conflict? correct, the vietnam war! but it was not a war since no war was declared, therefore a war is not a war :D

Exactly.

However, we remember it as such b/c we collectively agree that it was one, even though congress didn't declare it was, so technically, it wasn't.

[mangamuscle]

so technically, it wasn't.
But if technically a war is not a war, then if it wasn't a war it means it was :D

[NERD]

With the level of violence in Iraq I do not see how a benevolent goverment can bring order, specialy when the iraqi soldiers and policeman are massacred everyday like if it was some kind of DOOM(tm) game.

The sense of security is almost non-existant in Iraq. What they need to do is-

a)ban possession of firearm by civilians, though it is easier said then done
b)establishment of a strong police/military presence, again, easier said than done
c)counter-terrorism unit established by the Iraqi government
d)definition of Islam, possibly by a benevolent spiritual leader.

The problem with Middle East is that a good number of its people are still stuck in outdated mentality, and such changes may not be welcomed, but, in order to be prosperous, they have to make compromises. Like Dubai, Qatar, etc.

That's my take on it. But again, whatever change is made, it should be done by the Iraqis. They are the master of their own destiny.

[mangamuscle]

a)ban possession of firearm by civilians, though it is easier said then done
Ohhhhh, but they are banned. You can be peacefully asleep in your own house when the coalition soldiers break your door and search your house because of the suspicion you have arms. It works wonderfully, for the insurgency that is, there is no better way to make people enroll than having a body search at 1 am in your own bedroom.

b)establishment of a strong police/military presence, again, easier said than done
But the coalition has a very strong pressence since the end of the war in iraq and it only has increased the violence.

c)counter-terrorism unit established by the Iraqi government
You see the FOX news network, don't you? There is a basic diference between terrorism and insurgents. Terrorist want to spread fear, they randomly choose targets because it makes no diference what they hit as long as there are many dead bodies after. Insurgents do not attack randomly, they attack select targets (soldiers, policemen & their headquarters) becuase they want to overthrow a govement. Insurgent attempt to maximize the dead count of the selected targets, innocent bystanders are never select targets. Therefore your aproach is incorrect, there is no need for a counterterrorism agency because there is no terrorism in iraq. They need an anti-insurgent agency, offer them to become part of the goverment is easier than trying to kill or jail them (specialy since they know to well that they are better dead than inside an iraqi jail).

d)definition of Islam, possibly by a benevolent spiritual leader.
Ghandi-type persons are not common and even if there was one, at this moment in time he would simply be killed.

in order to be prosperous, they have to make compromises.
ha, ha, good one, even here in Mexico he have trouble with the retro-leftists and we are centuries ahead of iraq, they will never select what is right even if their lives depend on it.

That's my take on it. But again, whatever change is made, it should be done by the Iraqis. They are the master of their own destiny.
That is the answer, I hope more people reach your same conclusion.

[NERD]

That's why I said a lot of those things are easier said than done. About weapon control- the coalition has been stressing how important it is to have a tight control over the borders, because insurgents bring in weapons/recruits from other countries, and without a strong border control, it's impossible to stop the insurgents. It doesn't help that they have supporters in different Middle East nations, who are more than willing to help them out.

The coalition does not have a solid strategy. And a coalition led by foreign troops, who can barely understand the language, or the culture, or anything about Iraq, period, can barely protect their own interests. The coalition should be composed of locals who know the customs and culture of Iraq well, able to garner support from the civilians, and have an effective strategy against the insurgents. The insurgents are guerrillas, and guerrilla warfare can't last long without support from the civilians. Coalition is not popular, obviously.

I don't watch TV news. Most of the important news rarely make the spotlight, and only through careful examination of the wire you can get a better picture of what is really going on, even if the sources are somewhat questionable. Besides, I take it as an insult that I would watch Fox news. And you were rambling on about how definition hardly matters- well, in this case, counter terrorism=counter insurgents. Besides, the insurgents, with their tactics, are terrorists.

I'm not looking for a Ghandi type. Besides, people like that often end up as martyrs. Someone needs to be able to guide Islam into a more peaceful direction, as opposed to those extremists. That's my opinion, and it should happen soon or later.

But, with all things said, I honestly don't know if you are trying to mock me, or trying to deliver a proper rebuttal. This is the General Discussion, not some playground, though this forum has been tarnished by some idiots lately.

[mangamuscle]

That's why I said a lot of those things are easier said than done. About weapon control- the coalition has been stressing how important it is to have a tight control over the borders, because insurgents bring in weapons/recruits from other countries, and without a strong border control, it's impossible to stop the insurgents. It doesn't help that they have supporters in different Middle East nations, who are more than willing to help them out.
That said, have you looked lately at iraq in the map? How on this earth are you going seal those boarders? If you ask "doing a wall" let me tell you something, that worked in berlin because it is small, but look at the great chinese wall, it didn't worked back then and hell it would not work now. Besides, Iraq requires comercial trade and it is just as easy to import to iraq tons of ammunition labeled as bananas.

The coalition does not have a solid strategy. And a coalition led by foreign troops, who can barely understand the language, or the culture, or anything about Iraq, period, can barely protect their own interests. The coalition should be composed of locals who know the customs and culture of Iraq well, able to garner support from the civilians, and have an effective strategy against the insurgents. The insurgents are guerrillas, and guerrilla warfare can't last long without support from the civilians. Coalition is not popular, obviously.
Here we are in agreement, bush should have asked the arab league to be the most important part of the coalition, sadly that option is now lost.

I don't watch TV news. Most of the important news rarely make the spotlight, and only through careful examination of the wire you can get a better picture of what is really going on, even if the sources are somewhat questionable. Besides, I take it as an insult that I would watch Fox news. And you were rambling on about how definition hardly matters- well, in this case, counter terrorism=counter insurgents. Besides, the insurgents, with their tactics, are terrorists.
what tactics? killing iraqi soldiers, iraqi policemen, recruits and local politicians? Hell no, those is insurgent tactics, otherwise you would have to call the founding fathers of your nation a group of terrorists.

I'm not looking for a Ghandi type. Besides, people like that often end up as martyrs. Someone needs to be able to guide Islam into a more peaceful direction, as opposed to those extremists. That's my opinion, and it should happen soon or later.
Who would hear such spiritual leader if the west keeps killing, torturing and abusing their fellow men?

But, with all things said, I honestly don't know if you are trying to mock me, or trying to deliver a proper rebuttal.
I say things as I see them.

This is the General Discussion, not some playground,
Then you come here to work?

though this forum has been tarnished by some idiots lately.
I have been here for a few days only, but if the moderators feel I am "tarnishing" this board they are free to apply Hemlock to my account.

[Invictus]

I have been here for a few days only, but if the moderators feel I am "tarnishing" this board they are free to apply Hemlock to my account.

That is an AWESOME quote. Hemlock... *chuckles* My respect for you just shot up a couple dozen points.

Here we are in agreement, bush should have asked the arab league to be the most important part of the coalition, sadly that option is now lost.

Would have been a great idea, but the Middle Eastern nations would never have gone for it. Take a look at the governments of, oh, Iran and Saudi Arabia. They're just as bad as Saddam... they've just kept their heads a bit lower in dealing with the States. Birds of a feather, you know... they wouldn't have tossed out someone who did they same stuff they're doing.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Russia is not at war with Japan. The declaration of surrender by the Japanese included surrender to Russia. And at any rate, even if that had not happened (and it did), the war was with the USSR, not Russia, so they can't be at war anymore, right?

The concept that a war has to be declared for it to be a war is silly. Was the Civil War then not a war, because the US never declared war on itself? Should we call it the civil insurrection? And what the Hell was Vietnam if not a war? A police action? Because golly gee, it sure seemed like a war to me.

[mangamuscle]

.. the war was with the USSR, not Russia, so they can't be at war anymore, right?
wrong (http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/05/9261d82c-98f5-40ae-938a-eb14fa2cea14.html)

.. runs for the hills.

[Pierrot le Fou]

wrong (http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/05/9261d82c-98f5-40ae-938a-eb14fa2cea14.html)

.. runs for the hills.
INSTRUMENT OF SURRENDER (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Japanese_Instrument_of_Surrender)

"We, acting by command of and on behalf of the Emperor of Japan, the Japanese Government and the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters, hereby accept the provisions in the declaration issued by the heads of the Governments of the United States, China, and Great Britain 26 July 1945 at Potsdam, and subsequently to by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which four powers are hereafter referred to as the Allied Powers.

"We hereby proclaim the unconditional surrender to the Allied Powers of the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters and of all Japanese Armed Forces and all Armed Forces under Japanese control wherever situated.

"We hereby command all Japanese forces wherever situated and the Japanese people to cease hostilities forthwith, to preserve and save from damage all ships, aircraft, and military and civil property, and to comply with all requirements which may be imposed by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers or by agencies of the Japanese Government at his direction.

"We hereby command the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters to issue at once orders to the commanders of all Japanese forces and all forces under Japanese control wherever situated to surrender unconditionally themselves and all forces under their control.

"We hereby command all civil, military, and naval officials to obey and enforce all proclamations, orders, and directives deemed by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers to be proper to effectuate this surrender and issued by him or under his authority; and we direct all such officials to remain at their posts and to continue to perform their non-combatant duties unless specifically relieved by him or under his authority.

"We hereby undertake for the Emperor, the Japanese Government, and their successors to carry out the provisions of the Potsdam Declaration in good faith, and to issue whatever orders and take whatever action may be required by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers or by any other designated representative of the Allied Powers for the purpose of giving effect to that declaration.

"We hereby command the Japanese Imperial Government and the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters at once to liberate all Allied Prisoners of War and civilian internees now under Japanese control and to provide for their protection, care, maintenance, and immediate transportation to places as directed.

"The authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule the State shall be subject to the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, who will take such steps as he deems proper to effectuate these terms of surrender".

Signed of TOKYO BAY, JAPAN of 09.04 on the SECOND day of SEPTEMBER, 1945

Mamoru Shigmitsu By Command and in behalf of the Emperor of Japan and the Japanese Government

Yoshijiro Umezu By Command and in behalf of the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters


Accepted at TOKYO BAY, JAPAN at 0908 on the SECOND day of SEPTEMBER, 1945, for the United States, Republic of China, United Kingdom and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and in the interests of the other United Nations at war with Japan.

Dougles MacArthur
Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers

C.W. Nimitz
United States Representative

Hsu Yung-Ch'ang
Republic of China Representative

Bruce Fraser
United Kingdom Representative

Kuzma Derevyanko Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
Representative

Thomas Blamey
Commonwealth of Australia Representative

L. Moore Cosgrave
Dominion of Canada Representative

Jacques Le Clerc Provisional Government of the French
Republic Representative

C.E.L. Helfrich
Kingdom of the Netherlands Representative

Leonard M. Isitt
Dominion of New Zealand Representative

[Jynx_lucky_j]

what tactics? killing iraqi soldiers, iraqi policemen, recruits and local politicians? Hell no, those is insurgent tactics, otherwise you would have to call the founding fathers of your nation a group of terrorists.

How about slaughtering villages that accept any US aid and supplys such as food and medicine? How about bombing voting booths full of civilians? How about capturing foreign civilians and killing them execution style when the coalition does meet there gandious demand of complete withdrawal with in an impossible time frame? These sound like terrist actions to me. More than likely there a both insurgents and terrorist. And while they are differant they share similar goals and thus intermingle freely.

As for the topic of paying for good stories about the US. As long as the stories are true I don't care. Lets face it we have two things about the media working against us. First the insurgents have controll over some news stations and constantly report bad news about the coalition and namely the US, in addition as we all know bad news sells better than good news, even here in the US, therefore there is greater incentive for the "free" media to report the bad news as well. So I don't see the problem with giving them incentive to report the good news as well as long as the stories they are reporting are true. And propaganda is such a broad term, propoganda doesn't nessasarily mean lie. We propoganda all over in the US for things like to stop smoking, or getting more exersice, both good things and they use actually facts to support the propoganda.

[Kass]

You seem to be operating under the erroneous assumption that the media is unbiased, fair and can't be bought.

News stories are bought and sold every single day. All those stories about how cool the new Xbox 360 is? Bought and paid for in the form of free gaming systems and games.

Did you know that three women in units in Iraq have received the Bronze Star? It is highly unusual for a woman to be in combat, let alone awarded a medal for her actions in a combat unit, but the US media that is routinely holding up the military as a backward, sexist organization has barely even noticed. Technically, these women aren't even in combat units, but have performed meritoriously. Why? Because overwhelmingly, the people who control the media don't support this war or like the president. (For the record, I don't either, but I also don't deny that there have been numerous successes in the region as well as numerous failures.)

Companies buy massive ads in the media and then frequently hint that those ads and the revenue that they generate will disappear if negative press comes out. I saw this all the time when I worked at a newspaper. Most papers bend to it because they don't have enough revenue to support themselves without losing more. Subscriptions almost aren't worth the money it takes to collect them. The No. 1 source of revenue is advertising.

The media is hopelessly biased and skewed. It will be that way until they are forced to change. It takes reading at least half a dozen different sources from different perspectives to glean the core facts from a story.

I'd actually love to see the source for this story. Who published it?

[mangamuscle]

How about slaughtering villages that accept any US aid and supplys such as food and medicine? How about bombing voting booths full of civilians?
I as well as Kass would like to see the source for this reports (if they exist, that is). As for killing hostages (the so called demands to retire from Iraq to release them are only an excuse, they will accept money) is just another form of financing themselves, if it was feasible back the when the u.s. fought for independence they would have done it to get money for more weapons and food; it alas it would had taken to much time do the negotiations (nowadays it takes months or even years with modern communications) and hell yes, it would have been dimmed patriotic to squezze the bloody british for money.

[drdan]

Someone else said it, but this kind of stuff happens in all wars. The U.S. probably pays for good stories, some Iraqis probably pay for bad stories about the U.S., etc...

[Pierrot le Fou]

Awwww, mangamuscle, what's wrong? Why didn't you bother to disprove me on the 'Japan at war with Russia' front? Because you were wrong perhaps?

[Praetorian]

If I had a penny for every time I could say that to you, I'd have exactly one penny and a small piece of cheese right now, Pierrot le Fou.

[mangamuscle]

Awwww, mangamuscle, what's wrong? Why didn't you bother to disprove me on the 'Japan at war with Russia' front? Because you were wrong perhaps?
... or perhaps because I had already posted all the information I had on the subject. :rolleyes:

[Roxie]

You seem to be operating under the erroneous assumption that the media is unbiased, fair and can't be bought.
Oh, no. all this I know and have known, being a Journalism major, but something about just seems extra wrong with a side of 'eww.'
I'd actually love to see the source for this story. Who published it?

www.creativeloafing.com click on "atlanta".

[mugen]

www.creativeloafing.com click on "atlanta".

not a very reliable source I would say..

@mangamuscle

your source is about Russia and Japan's territorial disputes that followed after WWII. Your own source clearly says Japan surrenderd to the USSR.

[Roxie]

not a very reliable source I would say..

And why would you say that?

[mugen]

dunno after looking here http://clnlb.us.publicus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=ATLNEWS i got the feeling it was pretty anti bush. also the layout looks..uh, dunno how to describe it. revolutionary? but I didn't read anything. Now that i have read "about us" i feel different about the webpage

[Roxie]

Hey, I never said they weren't biased! ;)

But I love Creative Loafing, especially since the Atlanta Journal Constitution can't decide what its voice should be and then tries to please everyone and fails miserably!

And CL does a heck of a lot more in-depth investigation, which I can't get enough of. I find some of their topics to mirror NPR, which I adore.

You should read it. At the very least it's entertaining.

If you're doubting that they story's theme (aka the title of this thread) isn't true. Google it, it is.

[mangamuscle]

your source is about Russia and Japan's territorial disputes that followed after WWII. Your own source clearly says Japan surrenderd to the USSR.
Yeah but the ussr never officialy accepted japans surrender (since they got nothing out of it, no doubt they wanted a piece of japan's soil as the one they got from germany.). So technicaly if the surrender was not accepted, the state of war stays in place. But I do not claim to have any more knowledge beyond the one already presented, so any one can make their own conclusions.

[raevyn]

Yeah but the ussr never officialy accepted japans surrender (since they got nothing out of it, no doubt they wanted a piece of japan's soil as the one they got from germany.). So technicaly if the surrender was not accepted, the state of war stays in place. But I do not claim to have any more knowledge beyond the one already presented, so any one can make their own conclusions.

How is a government, which is no longer in existance still in a state of war? If you are going to say that Russia is still there, that is incorrect. The Russian and Soviet were headed by different people; the USSR leader had control of the USSR countries while each individual countries had their own leader to keep local control/

[mangamuscle]

How is a government, which is no longer in existance still in a state of war? If you are going to say that Russia is still there, that is incorrect. The Russian and Soviet were headed by different people; the USSR leader had control of the USSR countries while each individual countries had their own leader to keep local control/
If you had read the link I posted, you would had come to the point where it says:

The latest contretemps surrounding the Kurile question came on 11 November 2004, when Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told NTV that Russia, as the successor to the Soviet Union, recognizes the 1956 agreement and Moscow's obligation to transfer the two islands to Tokyo. "But with this we should put a period to the territorial problem," Lavrov said.

Which is kind of obvious, i.e. are all those nuclear weapon reduction treaties (SALT I & II) suddenly void due to the breakaway of the USSR?

[Jon885]

Hey, I never said they weren't biased! ;)


Exactly. I'd like to see an objective news source about this.

I'll trust CNN, and I'm sure they did something about this, if it's true.

[Jon885]

to find out i would have to search cnn and i'm too lazy for that.

[Pierrot le Fou]

If you had read the link I posted, you would had come to the point where it says:

The latest contretemps surrounding the Kurile question came on 11 November 2004, when Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told NTV that Russia, as the successor to the Soviet Union, recognizes the 1956 agreement and Moscow's obligation to transfer the two islands to Tokyo. "But with this we should put a period to the territorial problem," Lavrov said.

Which is kind of obvious, i.e. are all those nuclear weapon reduction treaties (SALT I & II) suddenly void due to the breakaway of the USSR?

And had you read my reply, which I even copy-pasted for you, I bolded the parts where it said the surrender included a surrender to the USSR, and to the place where the USSR signed (and thereby accepted) the surrender, as well as the terms of surrender (complete and absolute).

So while you can argue that there is a problem with ownershhip of some rocks off Hokkaido (namely because of fishing rights being attached to territorial waters), it has absolutely nothing to do with a state of war, due to the fact that there IS NO STATE OF WAR.

There is no fighting. There is no aggressive action. There is no open (physical) conflict. There is no de facto war.

There is no unsigned surrender perpetuating a prior state of war. There is no new declaration of war by either parties. There is no de jure war.

So why the fuck you would go off and claim something so absurd when the evidence proving that you're making no sense is presented and even bolded for you to be able to read the important parts, absolutely baffles me.

I can only conclude that you are either irrational, stubborn, or plain dense.

[Roxie]

Exactly. I'd like to see an objective news source about this.

I'll trust CNN, and I'm sure they did something about this, if it's true.
They story is true. It's been on several news programs and papers. The fact that they paid for stories in the paper is true, that you can believe.

[mangamuscle]

So why the fuck you would go off and claim something so absurd when the evidence proving that you're making no sense is presented and even bolded for you to be able to read the important parts, absolutely baffles me.

Let me answer this by cuting and pasting in bold a part of the link I offered.
One of the most paradoxical results of World War II is the fact that Russia and Japan still have not signed a peace treaty ending the conflict.

So obviously, either your source or my source are wrong, I do not have a method to know for sure which.

I can only conclude that you are either irrational, stubborn, or plain dense.
Your conclusion mon ami is irrelevant since they do not further the search for the truth behind this argument.

[Pierrot le Fou]

So signing an acceptance of a complete and unconditional surrender does not equate to ending wartime aggression? Good job on that chief.

Surrender = End of hostilities.

Peace agreement = Agreement to not fight again.

The Surrender ended the war. The lack of a peace agreement simply means that they aren't going to agree that it will never start again. Which is really a moot point. I mean countries typically break 'peace agreements' when wars start. Not having one or having one makes no difference, and doesn't change the condition of ended hostilities.

[mangamuscle]

So signing an acceptance of a complete and unconditional surrender does not equate to ending wartime aggression? Good job on that chief.
Let me answer with the reverse question. Not signing an acceptance of a complete and unconditional surrender equate to not ending wartime aggression? Mexico also declared war to Japan in WWII but I do not see in your link a representative from Mexico's goverment signing Japan's surrender. Alas, my point remains, there seems to be a lack of information on this matter, I can not reach a conclusion with it.

Which is really a moot point. I mean countries typically break 'peace agreements' when wars start. Not having one or having one makes no difference, and doesn't change the condition of ended hostilities.
Unless you require congress aprobation to start a "new" war, but if it an "old" war you can wreak havoc ipso facto. I have no idea if modern Russia needs aprobation from the politburo to wage war, but most modern states do.

[Pierrot le Fou]

You're being a semantic twat ignoring the relevant information at hand.

This is not a very difficult concept. The USSR took islands from Japan in the surrender. Japan was okay with that. The USSR was okay with that. The time limit on it was apparently limited, much like colonial Hong Kong's lease was, but nobody thought it would expire on their watch. Then the USSR disappeared, Russia's economy blew, and the lease ran out meaning that Japan wanted the islands (which would increase their territorial waters, and give them cash), which means the two countries are bickering about it.

So people drag shit out like, "THEY'RE STILL AT WAR!" to make it sound more sensationalistic than it is.

They're islands. Russians live on them. The Japanese want them. There will be no invasion. There is no war.

[TS-]

If you've looked at any newspaper in the last month, you've probably seen this story.
The writer quoted in the first post is rather obviously biased, I can't believe people would question that.

Generally speaking, from what I've read about the story, the tone of the writers makes it seem it's something journalists are pissed about, and so they want to make it a big deal....jourlaists obviously do a lot of journalism, and so there was never any doubt that this story would get into newspapers. Funny that even the starter of this thread is a journalism student.

Regarding the actual story: As another poster said, if the stories are true, I don't have too much of a problem with it. Just as there is media bias in America, I would hope nobdoy in this thread expects Iraqi media, or media in general, particularly in the middle east, to be completely netural, particuarly about America, especially the Iraq war. I'm rather sure people actually get death threats for reporting anything pro-America, even if it's true. Shit, it happens here (though you can assume the people are less serious).


Even if some of the stories wern't true, you could argue that turnabout is fair play; there are people who will tell you that America is 70% Jewish, because that's what they've been "informed." The truth is closer to 1 or 2%, but there are a great many quotes which can be taken out of context, words that can be translated in different ways to change the meaning of what's said, exaggerations and flat-out lies that are reported by various media sources across the world. That "misinformation is a weapon of mass destruction" nonsense from the mediocre song isn't limited to Amerca.

Luckily enough, the truthfulness of the stories doesn't seem to be an issue.

My concern, is that anyone reporting anything pro-coalition or even something objective about the new governement will be labled as someone either in league with them, or someone who doesn't even exist. I'd rather it didn't happen, but I'd also prefer these thing to be reported on their own...that not being the case, I've little issue with this story, and the news media (particularly the print media) are making this a big issue because it hits home.

[lurker]

Wow, this forum reeks of liberalism doesn't it? It's worse than college.

[Roxie]

Wow, this forum reeks of liberalism doesn't it? It's worse than college.
Welcome, Captin Obvious!

[Jon885]

They story is true. It's been on several news programs and papers. The fact that they paid for stories in the paper is true, that you can believe.

You yourself said the news article is biased though. So that's why I questioned it.

lurker, i noticed that also. that's how it is almost everywhere i go on the internet. it's because Al Gore created the internet. ;)

[drdan]

Wow, this forum reeks of liberalism doesn't it? It's worse than college.

Sad, but true. It would be nice to have more of a mix.

[Kass]

One, both the website and the article are grossly biased. I'd find a more respectable and reliable source for public distribution if I were you, Roxie. Reputation and reliability matters.

That doesn't make it untrue though. Every single day in every single newspaper, stories are bought and sold. Our media, like our congress, is the best money can buy and it gets bought a LOT.

Roxie being a journalism major explains a lot. You've not yet had to try an earn a living in journalism (a virtually impossible task). The reality is that newspapers are going to die and die fairly soon because they hemorrhage money like there is no end to it. Paper and payroll costs are bleeding them dry. Advertising is way down. The only papers not in desperate need of assistance are the major metropolitan papers like the NY Times, the Washington Post, etc. Even they are downsizing and eliminating bureaus. The internet is putting them out of business.

So to survive, they kiss the asses of every advertiser they have left. If that means sugar coating a story or just plain ignoring it, they do. You can be disappointed with a side of "ewww" all you want, but that is reality. It isn't changing until the media starts turning a profit enough to be able to afford to tell an advertiser to go screw.

All media is biased. Period. Even the most fair reporter has bias and it shows in the questions they ask or don't ask and in the facts they include or leave out. No story can give ALL the facts, so the reporter filters in what they believe is important. Then an editor weeds out what they feel is unimportant. When you're done, you ahve a nicely vetted, incomplete story skewed towards the biases of the staff of the paper, who have taken into large account the biases of the publisher because they like getting a paycheck. That is the MOST fair and 95% of the media are not remotely that fair.

Every media organization has their sacred cows that they never touch. Every media organization also has their favorite targets. The mainstream media's favorite target right now is Bush. The man could cure cancer and the mainstream media would find a way to villify him for it.

Cindy Sheehan is a sacred cow. Not a single media organization reported that her arrest in DC was staged. She informed the police she intended to break the law, where and when. The DC police said they'd have to arrest her. She said that is what she wanted done. She set up a time and place, agreed to peacefully surrender and there was a PLANNED ARREST. Everyone knew it was going to happen. She put out a notice to the media saying she would be arrested at such and such a time and place. Everyone knew it ahead of time, yet it was reported like it was some scandalous, impromtu silencing of the voice of opposition. Poor Sheehan. She's being persecuted for opposing the war. Right. She's being arrested because the woman made arrangements to break the law and be arrested. I'd have loved to have seen that story make the news.

(Note: That happens all the time. It is a very popular technique in protests.)

The major networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN) are all skewed hopelessly to the left. Fox is skewed hopelessly to the right. It isn't fair and balanced. It is balance. It is the counterweight to a media that has appointed itself Leftist Moral Superior. In retaliation, you have a thousand websites that have sprung up proclaiming the "true news," which is really their own colored version of it.

The simple reality is there have been numerous successes in Iraq. there have been numerous failures. Unfortunately, no one hears the successes unless they go digging for them and even then, they are hard to find. No one reports on all the schools and hospitals that have re-opened and have been rebuilt by the US. That would be a sin against the media.

I spent enough time as a reporter to find out it was not the noble profession the journalism schools like to portray it as. Quite the contrary, it is a corrupt, self-important puppet of corporate interests. You know... Just like the government to which it claims to be superior. Different corporations, same outcome.

Besides, someone has to pay those Iraqi journalists. They have to eat too.

[Druid]

Damn straight.

[Jynx_lucky_j]

Wonderful Post Kass, your one of the posters that I don't always agree with, but I love to hear from regardless of wether we're on the same side or not (PLF is another one that comes to mind). Well said all around ^^

[Roxie]

While Creative Loafing is totally a leftist mag, at least it fully admits it to be so. Which is why I love it. Make no mistakes, I do not agree with every thing that they print and find my self at odds with some of the rhetoric used.

However, outside of the opinion pieces, it is quite reliable. I find the stories and alot of the facts they use, used by other news media outlets.

However, television news is is completely hanging out at the right. Fox news is just the extreme. They say CNN is leftist, ehh, I'd say slightly.

We're not talking paying Iraqi journalists, but paying for certain stories to be told a certain way. Not just payroll. It's like payola.

Yeah, I know all about the advertising and papers being intertwined and the internet vs. print challenges. I'm a sucker for that stuff.

However, I do not intended to go into newspaper journalism. I want a magazine. Although they do have the same pressures as newspapers face, they get to retain some sort of identity through it.

[drdan]

One, both the website and the article are grossly biased. I'd find a more respectable and reliable source for public distribution if I were you, Roxie. Reputation and reliability matters.

That doesn't make it untrue though. Every single day in every single newspaper, stories are bought and sold. Our media, like our congress, is the best money can buy and it gets bought a LOT.

Roxie being a journalism major explains a lot. You've not yet had to try an earn a living in journalism (a virtually impossible task). The reality is that newspapers are going to die and die fairly soon because they hemorrhage money like there is no end to it. Paper and payroll costs are bleeding them dry. Advertising is way down. The only papers not in desperate need of assistance are the major metropolitan papers like the NY Times, the Washington Post, etc. Even they are downsizing and eliminating bureaus. The internet is putting them out of business.

So to survive, they kiss the asses of every advertiser they have left. If that means sugar coating a story or just plain ignoring it, they do. You can be disappointed with a side of "ewww" all you want, but that is reality. It isn't changing until the media starts turning a profit enough to be able to afford to tell an advertiser to go screw.

All media is biased. Period. Even the most fair reporter has bias and it shows in the questions they ask or don't ask and in the facts they include or leave out. No story can give ALL the facts, so the reporter filters in what they believe is important. Then an editor weeds out what they feel is unimportant. When you're done, you ahve a nicely vetted, incomplete story skewed towards the biases of the staff of the paper, who have taken into large account the biases of the publisher because they like getting a paycheck. That is the MOST fair and 95% of the media are not remotely that fair.

Every media organization has their sacred cows that they never touch. Every media organization also has their favorite targets. The mainstream media's favorite target right now is Bush. The man could cure cancer and the mainstream media would find a way to villify him for it.

Cindy Sheehan is a sacred cow. Not a single media organization reported that her arrest in DC was staged. She informed the police she intended to break the law, where and when. The DC police said they'd have to arrest her. She said that is what she wanted done. She set up a time and place, agreed to peacefully surrender and there was a PLANNED ARREST. Everyone knew it was going to happen. She put out a notice to the media saying she would be arrested at such and such a time and place. Everyone knew it ahead of time, yet it was reported like it was some scandalous, impromtu silencing of the voice of opposition. Poor Sheehan. She's being persecuted for opposing the war. Right. She's being arrested because the woman made arrangements to break the law and be arrested. I'd have loved to have seen that story make the news.

(Note: That happens all the time. It is a very popular technique in protests.)

The major networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN) are all skewed hopelessly to the left. Fox is skewed hopelessly to the right. It isn't fair and balanced. It is balance. It is the counterweight to a media that has appointed itself Leftist Moral Superior. In retaliation, you have a thousand websites that have sprung up proclaiming the "true news," which is really their own colored version of it.

The simple reality is there have been numerous successes in Iraq. there have been numerous failures. Unfortunately, no one hears the successes unless they go digging for them and even then, they are hard to find. No one reports on all the schools and hospitals that have re-opened and have been rebuilt by the US. That would be a sin against the media.

I spent enough time as a reporter to find out it was not the noble profession the journalism schools like to portray it as. Quite the contrary, it is a corrupt, self-important puppet of corporate interests. You know... Just like the government to which it claims to be superior. Different corporations, same outcome.

Besides, someone has to pay those Iraqi journalists. They have to eat too.

Wow, nice post. I had no idea that Sheehan pulled that kind of crap. I never liked her from the get go but that says a lot about her.

[KKF]

So to survive, they kiss the asses of every advertiser they have left. If that means sugar coating a story or just plain ignoring it, they do. You can be disappointed with a side of "ewww" all you want, but that is reality. It isn't changing until the media starts turning a profit enough to be able to afford to tell an advertiser to go screw.

Who owns all the news media's? And what party do they lean too? Here's some help. http://www.mediachannel.org/ownership/chart.shtml I'll let you look up the owners and what party they vote for. But I'll give you one guess.


Every media organization has their sacred cows that they never touch. Every media organization also has their favorite targets. The mainstream media's favorite target right now is Bush. The man could cure cancer and the mainstream media would find a way to villify him for it.

I wonder why? Maybe, just maybe, since he is the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES? Come on now be a little bit realistic here, he has made some MAJOR screw ups and hence it is pointed out by the news media. They don't need to villify him he has made enough mistakes on his own. (Brown, WMD, spying on us etc...) Also look back at the time Clinton was president and tell me they didn't mention him all the time either?


Cindy Sheehan is a sacred cow. Not a single media organization reported that her arrest in DC was staged. She informed the police she intended to break the law, where and when. The DC police said they'd have to arrest her. She said that is what she wanted done. She set up a time and place, agreed to peacefully surrender and there was a PLANNED ARREST. Everyone knew it was going to happen. She put out a notice to the media saying she would be arrested at such and such a time and place. Everyone knew it ahead of time, yet it was reported like it was some scandalous, impromtu silencing of the voice of opposition. Poor Sheehan. She's being persecuted for opposing the war. Right. She's being arrested because the woman made arrangements to break the law and be arrested. I'd have loved to have seen that story make the news.
Hey your in luck! They did and they even say they contacted the police before hand!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/26/AR2005092600143.html


The major networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN) are all skewed hopelessly to the left. Fox is skewed hopelessly to the right. It isn't fair and balanced. It is balance. It is the counterweight to a media that has appointed itself Leftist Moral Superior. In retaliation, you have a thousand websites that have sprung up proclaiming the "true news," which is really their own colored version of it.

You really should read up on who owns those networks. I think you'll be suprised at who owns what and what party they lean too. As I mentioned before you'll find out you are mistaken. And please don't tell me the owners have no say on what is reported. Anyone remember the Sinclair TV company? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30113-2004Oct13_2.html

The simple reality is there have been numerous successes in Iraq. there have been numerous failures. Unfortunately, no one hears the successes unless they go digging for them and even then, they are hard to find. No one reports on all the schools and hospitals that have re-opened and have been rebuilt by the US. That would be a sin against the media.

No, unfortunately Iraq is screwed. Bush screwed up big time by going into Iraq the way he did. And your telling me you heard nothing about the elections in Iraq? Are you kidding me?


I spent enough time as a reporter to find out it was not the noble profession the journalism schools like to portray it as. Quite the contrary, it is a corrupt, self-important puppet of corporate interests. You know... Just like the government to which it claims to be superior. Different corporations, same outcome.

And this is where you need to really think about what you have been saying earlier. You just verified exactly what I said up above. The corporations are almost ALL leaning towards the right. Yet you say that only one is to the right? That just doesn't add up. Care to explain? Oh and not all journalist are for sale.

[Kass]

The owners might lean toward the right, but the producers and reporters are overwhelmingly left leaning. CNN is leftist. They wouldn't know right with a road map. Fox is miserable. When it isn't the All-kidnapping All-day News Network, it is the president's PR machine. Blech.

Besides, not all corporations lean right. If they did, democrats would never get elected. WorldCom, for example, was a major Clinton/Gore contributer. Murdoch is left.

Did you look at what page the Sheehan story ran on? I read that one in print. The Post arrives on my doorstep every morning, thanks. Second section. The part about the staging the ARREST isn't in there. She specifically requested and arranged to be arrested. Yes, it says they arranged the demonstration but every legal demonstration in DC is arranged with the police. That is how you get the permit and you have to have a permit to march or protest in DC. You have to know the cops out there to know that they were told ahead of time they would be arresting Sheehan by her request.

Now, I am not a fan of hers because of her attitude towards parents who support their sons' enlistments, but in her defense, many major protest arrests are handled this way. She certainly is not the only one to do this. (Sheehan uses the names of men killed in action even if their parents request that she not use their names to justify her position. One man repeatedly removed placards with his son's name on it from her demonstration in Waco, but it was put back up over his wishes.)

About the president, he's a boob. I don't like him or 90% of his policies, but that doesn't change that he cannot get a fiar shake in the mainstream media. The wiretap nonsense going on right now? How many of you heard on the news that this has been LEGAL for decades and that Bill Clinton and Bush the Elder BOTH used this law to eavesdrop on the conversations of US citizens? This is not new, nor is it unusual. It is only news now because of who the president is. If it is so morally repugnant, why was it not an outrage when Clinton used it? The law isn't being condemned, Bush is. The law sucks. If a one party to a call is international and suspected of being associated with a questionable organization, the call can be intercepted without a warrant. If one party is a resident of the US, a warrant should be required. Bush is irrelevant since several presidents have used this law on numerous occasions.

The Patriot Act is a well intentioned but horribly thought out and implemented act. It's disgustingly bad. And it passed initially almost without any opposition. Exactly ONE senator voted against it and guess who the co-sponsor of the re-authorization is? Dianne Feinstein, Ms. Liberal Loon herself. I don't see anyone blasting the Dems for this act and she's listed as the first co-sponsor. In the house, only 66 of the 430+ Representatives voted against it.

Accountability is held only to those unpopular. Kind of like how Bush takes it on the chin for the Defense of Marriage act when it is BILL CLINTON who signed the first one. Did you miss that? This mess we are in now with the whole Defense of Marriage BS began with Mr. Hollywood Morals President himself.

Iraq is hardly screwed. In the end, this action will work to their benefit. That doesn't mean I think it should have been undertaken, but they were far worse off under Saddam Hussein and when all is said and done, we'll leave and they can set up whatever government they want. It speaks volumes that the party most opposed to the US presence there said before the last election that they encouraged all Sunnis to participate and that attempts to disrupt the election would be met with force. These are the people who oppose us and they are defending the elections brought about by the invasion. They actually have elections. They have rebuilt infrastructure courtesy of our tax dollars. They don't have Hussein. Those are good things. There are lots of bad too and I don't think we should have been the ones to do this or do it alone, but it's too late to fix that.

The person most screwed by this war is whomever runs as a republican in the next presidential election.

You have got to read more than the Post, by the way. The publisher of the Post is openly critical/hostile toward Republicans in general and the president in particular. Of course, the Washington Times is one of his biggest apologists.

You should also note I very specifically identified the major television networks. Of those five, yes, only one leans right. You'd have to go paper by paper to identify their leanings. My first job was for a very right leaning mid-sized paper. It got absorbed by a Belo paper which was very left leaning.

Despite Hillary's claims to the opposite, the media was very kind to Clinton. He got very little negative press for signing the first Defense of Marriage act, but Bush is getting gutted for it. Clinton LIED under oath about possibly the dumbest thing ever. He is hardly the first president to get a blow job in the Oval Office or play naughty games with a human humidor, but he had to tap dance, lie and spin around it and the media portayed him as a victim of the Republicans. The Reps. certainly blew it way out of proportion, but sheesh. He lied under oath and he admitted he lied. Clinton also hung his cronies out to dry and the jury is still out on the Vince Foster death. I doubt we'll ever know the truth on that one. Oh yeah, let's not forget the missing documents under subpoena that appeared magically on a coffee table a year after they were subpoenaed.

When you step back and look objectively (or as objectively as anyone can), you can see how differently presidents are treated dependent solely on whether the mainstream media apporves of their policies or not. The documents Dan Rather used in his infamous report were bogus and not a single expert would say they were genuine or authentic, but he has YET to say he's sorry for running a story based on false information. He was misled. My ass. He's been doing this for 30+years.

Shrub takes all the blame for Sept. 11, but do a little math. All reports indicate that the events of Sept. 11 had been in the works for FIVE years. Bush had been president for nine months at that point. if we go back to his election, that's 11 months. That is four years still to go. Who was president and setting policy four years five years prior to Sept. 11? Six years? Seven years? Eight years? Realisitcally, the Persian Gulf war to liberate Kuwait set the stage, but Clinton's attitudes and policies didn't help at all. He had four years to change the minds of the terrorists and didn't. His policies exacerbated the problem and his policies allowed these people into the US to carry out their plans. For four years, these terrorists merrily planned the murder of thousands and Clinton bears as much responsibility as Bush does.

And bear in mind when you read all this, I think Shrub and Clinton both are lousy presidents. I dislike them pretty much equally for different reasons.

The media organizations are for sale. Individual journalists were never the point. The media organizations are unreliable if taken independently. I never rely on a single news source for a story. I read all the major media outlets, a few newspapers, some international press and some independent web resources. From there, I figure I can get the basic facts, but rarely the whole story. The people in day to day control of the news have appointed themselves the arbiters of morality in this country and they decide what policies are good and bad and cover them accordingly. The average Joe Reporter in Boise, Idaho has about zero influence on the mainstream media.

Oh yeah, it is not the media's place to vilify anyone. If they take their mandate seriously, they simply put the facts out there for the people to interpret. They don't do that though, do they?

[KKF]

The owners might lean toward the right, but the producers and reporters are overwhelmingly left leaning. CNN is leftist. They wouldn't know right with a road map. Fox is miserable. When it isn't the All-kidnapping All-day News Network, it is the president's PR machine. Blech.

I didn't say all are right leaning, but the majority are. You stated earlier that they follow corporate interests and the coporate intrest of these Networks is mostly right leaning. Thats where you are not making sense and I disagree with you. It doesn't matter what the producers want its all about the owners.

Besides, not all corporations lean right. If they did, democrats would never get elected. WorldCom, for example, was a major Clinton/Gore contributer. Murdoch is left.

Again I never stated that all corporations leaned to the right but that the majority did. Its for their own benifit that they lean to the right. Since generally the right is for bigger buisness, less taxes on said buisnesses and so on. Of course some will break the mold but the majority don't.

blah blah Sheehan blah blah

I'm not going to "argue" about Sheehan because in all honesty, while I think we are wrong for being in Iraq, I think she is well a little off. (Also the "blah" is not ment in offense just the only thing I could think of to shorten what you said.)

About the president, he's a boob. I don't like him or 90% of his policies, but that doesn't change that he cannot get a fiar shake in the mainstream media. The wiretap nonsense going on right now? How many of you heard on the news that this has been LEGAL for decades and that Bill Clinton and Bush the Elder BOTH used this law to eavesdrop on the conversations of US citizens? This is not new, nor is it unusual. It is only news now because of who the president is. If it is so morally repugnant, why was it not an outrage when Clinton used it? The law isn't being condemned, Bush is. The law sucks. If a one party to a call is international and suspected of being associated with a questionable organization, the call can be intercepted without a warrant. If one party is a resident of the US, a warrant should be required. Bush is irrelevant since several presidents have used this law on numerous occasions.

This is where you are wrong. It is illegal what he is doing. There is a legal way of doing this and thats what Clinton followed contrary to the "The Echelon Myth." (I admit I could be wrong about Clinton but I doubt it.) The legal way of doing this is as follows on this link http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10536559/site/newsweek/ or you can look up the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Now on to even more juicy stuff about what is happening with this aspect of the Bush administration. Your "liberal media" sat on this information for over a year. And all of who have been taped has not been disclosed. I've heard from some sources of my family that we have not heard the full story yet. Not to mention this is a rank violation of the fourth amendment. Also Nixon anyone?

The Patriot Act is a well intentioned but horribly thought out and implemented act. It's disgustingly bad. And it passed initially almost without any opposition. Exactly ONE senator voted against it and guess who the co-sponsor of the re-authorization is? Dianne Feinstein, Ms. Liberal Loon herself. I don't see anyone blasting the Dems for this act and she's listed as the first co-sponsor. In the house, only 66 of the 430+ Representatives voted against it.

The Patriot Act is, was, and will always be a horrible idea. It is exactly the wrong way to deal with terrorism. I think most voted for it because of what was going on and how it would of been political sucide not to vote for it at that time. I think they where all idiots for that. And actually the person that voted against it was Senator Feingold. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051216/ap_on_go_co/patriot_act As Cato's said, "Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Accountability is held only to those unpopular. Kind of like how Bush takes it on the chin for the Defense of Marriage act when it is BILL CLINTON who signed the first one. Did you miss that? This mess we are in now with the whole Defense of Marriage BS began with Mr. Hollywood Morals President himself.

I think you should read it before you make such a statement. And also you should read who came up with and was a driving force behind it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act Here's a start notice the first bullet point. The mess we are in now is because of the religious rights homophobic tendencies. And also things progress overtime the mentality of 1996 is not the same as nine years later concerning homosexuals.

Iraq is hardly screwed. In the end, this action will work to their benefit. That doesn't mean I think it should have been undertaken, but they were far worse off under Saddam Hussein and when all is said and done, we'll leave and they can set up whatever government they want. It speaks volumes that the party most opposed to the US presence there said before the last election that they encouraged all Sunnis to participate and that attempts to disrupt the election would be met with force. These are the people who oppose us and they are defending the elections brought about by the invasion. They actually have elections. They have rebuilt infrastructure courtesy of our tax dollars. They don't have Hussein. Those are good things. There are lots of bad too and I don't think we should have been the ones to do this or do it alone, but it's too late to fix that.

Ok, not to sound rude but you have no clue what you are talking about concerning Iraq. Iraq is screwed and is heading in a direction way way worse than Hussein had ever taken them. Yes he was a bad individual but he was a secular government with woman rights that didn't like Iran. The government now forming is heading into a theocracy with close ties to Iran. Which one do you think is worse?

The person most screwed by this war is whomever runs as a republican in the next presidential election.

No the person's most screwed by this war are all the people that have died, lost family, lost limbs, and friends.

You have got to read more than the Post, by the way. The publisher of the Post is openly critical/hostile toward Republicans in general and the president in particular. Of course, the Washington Times is one of his biggest apologists.

I read a lot more than the Post, that was just a quick link I found, I actually read the international media more than anything. It's better to have a outside look, in my opinion, than what parties with their own intrest have to tell you.

You should also note I very specifically identified the major television networks. Of those five, yes, only one leans right. You'd have to go paper by paper to identify their leanings. My first job was for a very right leaning mid-sized paper. It got absorbed by a Belo paper which was very left leaning.

No, of those five one is extreemly right biased. The others still lean more to the right than the left. The papers have a history of being left leaning, I'm not arguing that, I'm arguing that the Networks do lean to the right. And it is evident in the owners and how easily Bush has gotten away with things that should be headlines. (For example Bin Laden anyone?)

Despite Hillary's claims to the opposite, the media was very kind to Clinton. He got very little negative press for signing the first Defense of Marriage act, but Bush is getting gutted for it. Clinton LIED under oath about possibly the dumbest thing ever. He is hardly the first president to get a blow job in the Oval Office or play naughty games with a human humidor, but he had to tap dance, lie and spin around it and the media portayed him as a victim of the Republicans. The Reps. certainly blew it way out of proportion, but sheesh. He lied under oath and he admitted he lied. Clinton also hung his cronies out to dry and the jury is still out on the Vince Foster death. I doubt we'll ever know the truth on that one. Oh yeah, let's not forget the missing documents under subpoena that appeared magically on a coffee table a year after they were subpoenaed.

Again re-read the marriage act and think of it in terms of 1996. Also you can not even compare Clinton to what Bush has been doing, you just can't. Bush has done way more things wrong than Clinton ever has. By Bush and by Clinton I mean both them and their administrations. Think of all the major screws up that Bush has done then compare them to a blow job or whatever else you can think of. This president is hardly getting beat up by the media as much as he should be. If anything he is getting off easy. Just think back to how the Iraq war happened. It shouldn't of happened and the news networks should of helped stopped it by pointing out known mistakes in what Bush was saying. Of course it only seemed that outside media sources had it right. (For example Bush's constantly trying to connect Al Qaeda with Iraq.)

When you step back and look objectively (or as objectively as anyone can), you can see how differently presidents are treated dependent solely on whether the mainstream media apporves of their policies or not. The documents Dan Rather used in his infamous report were bogus and not a single expert would say they were genuine or authentic, but he has YET to say he's sorry for running a story based on false information. He was misled. My ass. He's been doing this for 30+years.

Of course each President is treated diffferently, thats a given. But this one has had way more leway than Clinton on cruicial things. Its pretty hard to dispute that Bush was not very well liked after 9/11 and that he was a media darling. Now that the media has "woken up" a little things are starting to change. But they still do not blast him as much as he deserves. As someone that has met Bush several times I can tell you from my experience that this guy is a idiot.


Shrub takes all the blame for Sept. 11, but do a little math. All reports indicate that the events of Sept. 11 had been in the works for FIVE years. Bush had been president for nine months at that point. if we go back to his election, that's 11 months. That is four years still to go. Who was president and setting policy four years five years prior to Sept. 11? Six years? Seven years? Eight years? Realisitcally, the Persian Gulf war to liberate Kuwait set the stage, but Clinton's attitudes and policies didn't help at all. He had four years to change the minds of the terrorists and didn't. His policies exacerbated the problem and his policies allowed these people into the US to carry out their plans. For four years, these terrorists merrily planned the murder of thousands and Clinton bears as much responsibility as Bush does.

What are you talking about? Did you sleep though the aftermath after 9/11? Bush was portrayed as our hero and nothing was said about him being at fault for 9/11. He had full control of this country and the direction it was headed towards. If you disagreed you were called un-american. What people point out about Bush was his lack of action when he was told that the country was under attack. That is were his personality showed true.

And bear in mind when you read all this, I think Shrub and Clinton both are lousy presidents. I dislike them pretty much equally for different reasons.

Thats your point of view. :) But I'd like to point out this and only this one thing. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v337/lojasmo/deficit-805.gif

The media organizations are for sale. Individual journalists were never the point. The media organizations are unreliable if taken independently. I never rely on a single news source for a story. I read all the major media outlets, a few newspapers, some international press and some independent web resources. From there, I figure I can get the basic facts, but rarely the whole story. The people in day to day control of the news have appointed themselves the arbiters of morality in this country and they decide what policies are good and bad and cover them accordingly. The average Joe Reporter in Boise, Idaho has about zero influence on the mainstream media.

Oh yeah, it is not the media's place to vilify anyone. If they take their mandate seriously, they simply put the facts out there for the people to interpret. They don't do that though, do they?

I think we can both agree on that. But I just disagree on who's buying them now. ;) But yes I agree with you on this.

[Masa the Masta]

Okay, we spent tax dollars on making Iraq "democratic". We've spent billions on the war effort. Now I ask, "How is this beneficial?" Is it the oil? Please, I know oil prices are going up, but it's a bit much to slaughter some tens of thousands (if not hundreds) of Iraqui's who DON'T want us there just so we can continue to drive our SUV's at a cheap, affordable price.

And as far as that graph goes, some people speculate that it was the previous president's deficit spending that boosted the economy, thus making Clinton look like an economic genius.

I personally don't believe that, but it's a point I wanted to bring up. At what point does balancing a budget that YOU handled (you being clinton), and made a surplus out of it...how is it that you give credit to that to the previous presidents? I don't think the GDP rose unnaturally due to deficit spending in the 80's to suddenly reach an economic expansion.

Reaganomics my ass.

And if there's a few things Clinton DID do wrong, it was doing nothing in the Genocide in Rwanda (sp?), not acting quickly enough or appropriately at Waco, and not doing enough in respect to the cruise missle attacks in '98 to Afghanistan. Clinton should have just caught Osama, and spared us the trouble later.

[TS-]

Who owns the company does not necessarily dictate how it reports the news, broadly speaking. If Fox News makes money, does it matter that it's owner holds political views which may differ greatly? The same with CNN, etc. News is essentially entertainment. Saying that all TV news leans to the right is silly. It will first report whatever will make money (ie. Clinton sex scandal). It has a lot to do with catering to the viewing audience.

Do you think if you went into a journalsim class that it would be mostly hardcore Republicans? Do you think it wold even close to 50/50? Applying that to the professional level, how could you say that all TV news leans to the right? Perhaps your perception of what is the center is off.


Some people might point out that the economic situation had a lot to do with the "dot com boom" of the late '90s, and not so much to do with Clinton's unique presidential l337 sk1llz. Also, you can't just look at a chart of the budget and decide who was the best president. Nixon was pretty great, then, right...? All presidents have unique issues in their administrations, and sometimes money needs to be spent, and sometimes it stops coming in.


Iraq is not screwed any more now than it was 4 years ago. It's actually heading in a better direction. Don't confuse what's good for America and what is good for Iraq to always be the same thing. On some issues, they are the opposite thing. It would have been better for us (at least in the short term). to leave as soon as we found Saddam. The retarded "no more blood for oil!!!11" is tired and retarded, slightly more so than it was when the war started, and the retards were chanting it then.

In the long term, it's good for us to have a friendly Iraq, both for financial reasons, so so they'll cockblock the countries we wish them to (perhaps more the latter than the former, but that's just a crazy theory...). Likewise, if surrounding countries see Iraq doing well with it's new form of government, they might start getting ideas. Worst-case scenario, we get a place to fight our enemies that isn't on our own soil; it's easier for the people who don't like us and want to do something aboout it to get to Iraq, than to America. We use Iraq as a battlefield, while building it up good-as-new.

[KKF]

Who owns the company does not necessarily dictate how it reports the news, broadly speaking. If Fox News makes money, does it matter that it's owner holds political views which may differ greatly? The same with CNN, etc. News is essentially entertainment. Saying that all TV news leans to the right is silly. It will first report whatever will make money (ie. Clinton sex scandal). It has a lot to do with catering to the viewing audience.

While I some what agree with your point of view of catering to the viewers. I disagree on your point of view of the leaders of those newstations. For example if you are the owner of a company do you want it follow what your convictions are or what your employs want?

Do you think if you went into a journalsim class that it would be mostly hardcore Republicans? Do you think it wold even close to 50/50? Applying that to the professional level, how could you say that all TV news leans to the right? Perhaps your perception of what is the center is off.

I never said journalist were right leaning in general. But out all those journalist if you run a company and you are right leaning who do you think you are going to pick to represent your company? A liberal? I don't think so. It has nothing to do with what the majority of the journalistic community is, it has to do who gets the jobs and what their employers want.

Some people might point out that the economic situation had a lot to do with the "dot com boom" of the late '90s, and not so much to do with Clinton's unique presidential l337 sk1llz. Also, you can't just look at a chart of the budget and decide who was the best president. Nixon was pretty great, then, right...? All presidents have unique issues in their administrations, and sometimes money needs to be spent, and sometimes it stops coming in.

I disagree I think Clinton's policies while in office helped the boom. Im not giving him 100% credit but I am giving him credit in what he did to try and balance the budget. Where I also give credit is on what Bush has done to increase the deficit. Off the top of my head tax cuts while we are at war come to mind as one of the major reasons. That makes no sense at all ask any economics professor. Also I'm glad that you pointed out Nixon because its scary that he did basically the samething Bush is doing now.

Iraq is not screwed any more now than it was 4 years ago. It's actually heading in a better direction. Don't confuse what's good for America and what is good for Iraq to always be the same thing. On some issues, they are the opposite thing. It would have been better for us (at least in the short term). to leave as soon as we found Saddam. The retarded "no more blood for oil!!!11" is tired and retarded, slightly more so than it was when the war started, and the retards were chanting it then.

Wrong wrong wrong wong! No matter how many times you repeat that Iraq is fine it won't change the hard facts about the situation. First off we had no reason to be in Iraq. Second off they are heading in the wrong direction for both of us. A theocracy is not the direction we wanted or the way they should be headed. In fact the woman of Iraq face a real danger of losing all the little power they have. Not to mention that their close ties to Iran only makes the middle east more volatile. This is hardly the stable region Bush invisioned, lets not mention that now its a terrorist hot bed. And guess what it wasn't before we entered. And the list goes on and on. Iraq is screwed even though with all my heart I wish it wasn't. One last thing oil has played a major role in the dealings with Iraq. It would be very naive of you to ignore that fact.

In the long term, it's good for us to have a friendly Iraq, both for financial reasons, so so they'll cockblock the countries we wish them to (perhaps more the latter than the former, but that's just a crazy theory...). Likewise, if surrounding countries see Iraq doing well with it's new form of government, they might start getting ideas. Worst-case scenario, we get a place to fight our enemies that isn't on our own soil; it's easier for the people who don't like us and want to do something aboout it to get to Iraq, than to America. We use Iraq as a battlefield, while building it up good-as-new.

Are you kidding me? Iraq is turning into a theocracy not a democracy. What don't you understand about that? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21679-2005Feb13.html (Don't hate me Kass for posting a link from the Post but I don't feel like searching to much at 4:30am. ;) ) The surrounding countries are going to love Iraq especially Iran. Wait isn't Iran our "enemy", oh damn it that isn't so good now. Also you're ignorant on how terrorism works. I would love for you to tell the Spanish or the English that we are fighting those dang pesty terrorist in Iraq and that they have nothing to worry about. You are again being very very naive in thinking that since we have made a terrorist training ground in Iraq that they will just attack us in Iraq. Also here's another hint on the war on terror. You can't win a war on idea's, its impossible.

[Kass]

The government is not in business and not in existence to make money. I don't expect it to run at a surplus or profit. I expect it to take in enough to fund the programs necessary to keep this country safe and running. If the government has a surplus, it is doing something WRONG. That money should go back to the people in the form of services and defense. They are neither a bank nor a corporation.

Psssttt. Bush does take the blame for Sept. 11. Every damn day. He had six months grace period where he was a media darling, but that ended pretty quickly.

Corporations can have interests one way and allow their media outlets to swing the other way because it is good business. Leaning left makes money and that is all the corporations are out there to do.

Oh, and Clinton could have vetoed the defense of marriage act, but he didn't, did he. Clinton actually had enough votes to sustain a veto since it takes 2/3 to override it. One of my best friends is a lawyer fighting provisions of that act and just got through a lengthy (approaching a decade now) fight to allow her same-sex spouse to stay in the country, something Clinton siging that act made virtually impossible.

I never said Iraq was fine. READ AGAIN. I said that even though there are a lot of failures, there are successes too. You vastly underestimate the horrors the people lived under Saddam's regime. I did a briefing on Hussein several years ago. The things he did literally made me vomit. Like it or not, the elected regime will be better than he was and even more of an improvement of what his screwed up sons would have been when they took over from dad (his kids were worse than Hussein could ever be). It won't be easy, pretty or even terribly successful, but it will be better.

It doesn't matter if we don't want a theocracy in place. If a theocracy is what the majority of Iraqis want, that is THEIR RIGHT TO CHOOSE IT and like it or not, they are choosing their government. It is not YOUR place to say that a theocracy is not the form of government they should have. That is the whole point. That is my fundamental reason for not liking the war, but even I admit that the Iraqis are not being forced to adopt a government the US wants them to have. That is painfully clear. If they were, we wouldn't be having nearly as many problems there as we are. We'd have suppressed all the opposition, put only the people we wanted into power and executed Hussein on the spot.

There are women in the govenrment and there are women who are steering how the government turns out. Women are voting in very large numbers in the election. Do not confuse not having to wear a burka with having a good life or any real rights. Women were victimized as much as men under Hussein. He was an equal opportunity butcher. (I apologize to butchers everywhere.)

"Now a terrorist hotbed." You are kidding right? It has always been a terrorist hotbed. Always. Are you even old enough to have lived through the terrorist attacks in Europe in the 80s? Were you there in Ramstein when the hostages were released? Was your school ever closed because of terrorist threats? ALL of those people came from the Middle East. Iraq has always allowed terrorists to train there. So has Iran and Afghanistan and Pakistan and Syria. Iraq isn't a terrorist training ground now because of this. They ALWAYS were. Now, we just have people in place to kill terrorists. Terrorists were living there in luxury. Every so often they killed one to appease the UN.

You're also mistaken if you think the Middle East will ever be stable (at least in the next couple hundred years). Mr. Bush is an idiot on this. Carter was a bigger idiot on it. It has never been and will never be stable. There are three distinct religions that HATE each other in that region and that will always destabilize it. The fundamental differences in culture and religion are too great to be overcome by mere politics.

Iran is a problem, but it Iraq having friendly ties with them can be a benefit IF we allow them to form a government they want and can use them as an intermediary to normalize our relations with them. Jordan does this quite a bit right now, but having more than one government that we can work through would further our goal of having stable relationships (not necessarily friendly) in the area. We had stable relationships with the Soviet Union for decades and they were our enemy too.

Iraq was never a war to end all terrorism. It was a war, in part, to neutralize the Iraqi government as a financial and asset supporter of terrorism, which has been done. You might not be able to win a war on ideas, but you can win a war on governments and changing how governments handle terrorism is acheivable.

[Bob]

The government is not in business and not in existence to make money. I don't expect it to run at a surplus or profit. I expect it to take in enough to fund the programs necessary to keep this country safe and running. If the government has a surplus, it is doing something WRONG. That money should go back to the people in the form of services and defense. They are neither a bank nor a corporation.

Psssttt. Bush does take the blame for Sept. 11. Every damn day. He had six months grace period where he was a media darling, but that ended pretty quickly.

Corporations can have interests one way and allow their media outlets to swing the other way because it is good business. Leaning left makes money and that is all the corporations are out there to do.

Oh, and Clinton could have vetoed the defense of marriage act, but he didn't, did he. Clinton actually had enough votes to sustain a veto since it takes 2/3 to override it. One of my best friends is a lawyer fighting provisions of that act and just got through a lengthy (approaching a decade now) fight to allow her same-sex spouse to stay in the country, something Clinton siging that act made virtually impossible.

I never said Iraq was fine. READ AGAIN. I said that even though there are a lot of failures, there are successes too. You vastly underestimate the horrors the people lived under Saddam's regime. I did a briefing on Hussein several years ago. The things he did literally made me vomit. Like it or not, the elected regime will be better than he was and even more of an improvement of what his screwed up sons would have been when they took over from dad (his kids were worse than Hussein could ever be). It won't be easy, pretty or even terribly successful, but it will be better.

It doesn't matter if we don't want a theocracy in place. If a theocracy is what the majority of Iraqis want, that is THEIR RIGHT TO CHOOSE IT and like it or not, they are choosing their government. It is not YOUR place to say that a theocracy is not the form of government they should have. That is the whole point. That is my fundamental reason for not liking the war, but even I admit that the Iraqis are not being forced to adopt a government the US wants them to have. That is painfully clear. If they were, we wouldn't be having nearly as many problems there as we are. We'd have suppressed all the opposition, put only the people we wanted into power and executed Hussein on the spot.

There are women in the govenrment and there are women who are steering how the government turns out. Women are voting in very large numbers in the election. Do not confuse not having to wear a burka with having a good life or any real rights. Women were victimized as much as men under Hussein. He was an equal opportunity butcher. (I apologize to butchers everywhere.)

"Now a terrorist hotbed." You are kidding right? It has always been a terrorist hotbed. Always. Are you even old enough to have lived through the terrorist attacks in Europe in the 80s? Were you there in Ramstein when the hostages were released? Was your school ever closed because of terrorist threats? ALL of those people came from the Middle East. Iraq has always allowed terrorists to train there. So has Iran and Afghanistan and Pakistan and Syria. Iraq isn't a terrorist training ground now because of this. They ALWAYS were. Now, we just have people in place to kill terrorists. Terrorists were living there in luxury. Every so often they killed one to appease the UN.

You're also mistaken if you think the Middle East will ever be stable (at least in the next couple hundred years). Mr. Bush is an idiot on this. Carter was a bigger idiot on it. It has never been and will never be stable. There are three distinct religions that HATE each other in that region and that will always destabilize it. The fundamental differences in culture and religion are too great to be overcome by mere politics.

Iran is a problem, but it Iraq having friendly ties with them can be a benefit IF we allow them to form a government they want and can use them as an intermediary to normalize our relations with them. Jordan does this quite a bit right now, but having more than one government that we can work through would further our goal of having stable relationships (not necessarily friendly) in the area. We had stable relationships with the Soviet Union for decades and they were our enemy too.

Iraq was never a war to end all terrorism. It was a war, in part, to neutralize the Iraqi government as a financial and asset supporter of terrorism, which has been done. You might not be able to win a war on ideas, but you can win a war on governments and changing how governments handle terrorism is acheivable.

Just about everything you said in that post was wrong. If I feel like it i'll correct you when i wake up

[TS-]

While I some what agree with your point of view of catering to the viewers. I disagree on your point of view of the leaders of those newstations. For example if you are the owner of a company do you want it follow what your convictions are or what your employs want?



I never said journalist were right leaning in general. But out all those journalist if you run a company and you are right leaning who do you think you are going to pick to represent your company? A liberal? I don't think so. It has nothing to do with what the majority of the journalistic community is, it has to do who gets the jobs and what their employers want.


I would prefer it, but business is business. In any line of work your employees and fellows don't need to share your political or philosophical beliefs. Do you think the guys making millions of dollars off of these networks really care...?

At a certain point it stops being about who represents you, and becomes about who does the better job.


Wrong wrong wrong wong! No matter how many times you repeat that Iraq is fine it won't change the hard facts about the situation.

I didnt say that Iraq was fine. Actually, I've never said that in my entire ife, so I certainly haven't repeated it, as you seem to telling me that I need to stop.

But, since you asked so nicely....Done!


Are you kidding me? Iraq is turning into a theocracy not a democracy. What don't you understand about that?

That is your assertion. Whether it will actually happen, I don't know. I'm sure you can't tell a bunch of people who have been teaching each othe certain beliefs since timeimmemorial to just drop it and form a completely secular government. Your contention that Iraq is surely going to become a theocracy is based on what, exactly?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21679-2005Feb13.html (Don't hate me Kass for posting a link from the Post but I don't feel like searching to much at 4:30am. ;) ) The surrounding countries are going to love Iraq especially Iran. Wait isn't Iran our "enemy", oh damn it that isn't so good now.
"The surrounding countries," such as...? I think you mean mostly just Iran. Despite the fact that it isn't at all the focus of the story, it says in the very article you posted that while the two countries might have friendly relations (for what amount of time, I don't know), that it doesn't mean they're going to do the fusion dance or anything.
You're sort of saying that early America was surely going to fall into the hands of France. Not only did they help us against the British, by God, BENJAMIN FRANKLIN himself was a "francophile." The end is nigh!


Also you're ignorant on how terrorism works.

Thanks! :D


I would love for you to tell the Spanish or the English that we are fighting those dang pesty terrorist in Iraq and that they have nothing to worry about. You are again being very very naive in thinking that since we have made a terrorist training ground in Iraq that they will just attack us in Iraq.

Well, I didn't mention the Brits or the Spanish. I was talking about America. I also didn't say that nobody wanted to atack America. So...

If you're in, say, Syria, which is easier to get to, if you want to kill some Americans:

A) America
B) Iraq or Afghanistan
C) Narnia

The answer, is clearly Narnia. Wardrobes are EVERYWHERE. If there is an American presence in the middle east, it is much eaiser to get to another place in the middle east if you wish to attack them, yes? It requires a great deal less sophistication to hop over a country or two than it does to get into America and make some grand gesture. Not to say that it can't happen, but there are only so many crazy people, and they will often go the path of least resistence.

Europe has a larger problem with fundamentalist Islam than America does, and that is not a new thing. It's just recently become violent (again).


Also here's another hint on the war on terror. You can't win a war on idea's, its impossible.
Not to worry.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Kass has tried logic, and it's fallen on deaf ears.

The media doesn't lean right, you're just so skewed to the left, your concept of 'center' is further left than Clinton was.

Iraq was a very bad place prior to this war, and regardless of whether the war was good or bad on the whole, for the Iraqis, it has a huge upside.

One of those upsides is being able to choose their government -- theocracy, democracy, or otherwise. The beauty of 'choice' is that it allows for a plurality of opinions. Considering your view on this issue, I'm no suprised that you are suggesting Saddam should still be in power -- at least it wouldn't have been a theocracy, right?

If you want to slam Bush on his economics, you should really carry some better ammo than, "he ran a record deficit." Because honestly, your understanding of economics as displayed in this thread has been laughably miserable. Comparing a president's deficit spending (in millions and billions of dollars) from 30 years ago to today is foolish. Perhaps had the graph had something to do with deficit spending in regards to GDP growth as a percentage of the total GDP, then we could get something out of it.

After all, if the government is growing proportional to the deficit, it's no real problem. Just like your average Joe's credit card, charging an extra 20% in a year when you got a 20% raise makes perfect sense because you can proportionally pay it off. And since most economists will agree that deficit spending is a good way to control the economy to a degree to avoid disaster, merely waving a figure in billions spend over budget doesn't mean much without further reasoning.

Hell, I think Bush's spending is out of control too, but not simply because of some random deficit figure, more because of the state of the economy, and the deficit being just one part of the problem with his economic model.

But you know what? Fuck it. Kass already tried explaining the folly of your situation, and you've ignored it many times over. It's pretty clear you have no interest in actually understanding what you're talking about, it seems pretty obvious you'd rather rant until blue in the face without understanding anything. You'll follow in the well-trodden footsteps of Al Franken and Michael Moore in making some really moronic criticism that people who agree with your premise will eat up despite being absolutely fault-tastic.

Alternatively, you could understand the issues, and make well-reasoned arguments. Like so many on Fox News do towards Bush's economic policies.

[denjin]

I'd just like to note that criticizing US policy does no denote one as a liberal, nor is it un-American (I hate that last phrase).

No way, btw, someone didn't seriously just use Fox News and well-reasoned in close proximity, did they?

[Pierrot le Fou]

I'd just like to note that criticizing US policy does no denote one as a liberal, nor is it un-American (I hate that last phrase).

No way, btw, someone didn't seriously just use Fox News and well-reasoned in close proximity, did they?
I wish I could single Specter and Barton out for their buffoonish grandstanding, but this arrogant, delusional assumption that a concerned congressman can, ought to, and has the power to meddle in the sports world — not to mention just about every other area of our lives — isn't limited to Texas and Pennsylvania.

This Republican Congress has come a long way since it took over in 1994. The limited government principles that swept the GOP into power are — like a steroid-infused home run — going, going, and gone. With its high profile, its intense loyalties and its mass appeal, there's no better grandstanding opportunity for a politician than big-time sports.

Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,178017,00.html)

And there are plenty more Fox News stories which bash republicans. Hell, just read through some of Radley Balko's writing on the site alone. I could also point you to places where Mr. O'Reilly himself bashes the sitting president, but you'd probably shake it off because it's from Fox News.

I prefer Fox News to other News Broadcasts, because at least I know what their angle is, and they tend to be a Hell of a lot more interesting to watch (namely due to the fact that they tend to put a high premium on reasoned logic rather than ranting like certain liberal commentators out there). If there's one phrase I would use to describe Fox News it's "well-reasoned." The one phrase I wouldn't use is "unbiased."

[Roxie]

wow...this thread blew up..

[KKF]

I would prefer it, but business is business. In any line of work your employees and fellows don't need to share your political or philosophical beliefs. Do you think the guys making millions of dollars off of these networks really care...?

At a certain point it stops being about who represents you, and becomes about who does the better job.

No and thats where you are wrong. If they promote policies that help them in the long run I think they will stick with their party. Do you think a company wants more taxes put on it? Their was a study done a while back showing how it leaned to the right.

I didnt say that Iraq was fine. Actually, I've never said that in my entire ife, so I certainly haven't repeated it, as you seem to telling me that I need to stop.

But, since you asked so nicely....Done!

You implied it.


That is your assertion. Whether it will actually happen, I don't know. I'm sure you can't tell a bunch of people who have been teaching each othe certain beliefs since timeimmemorial to just drop it and form a completely secular government. Your contention that Iraq is surely going to become a theocracy is based on what, exactly?

Who they have been voting for during their elections? Not to mention had you been paying attention to the news its been stated over and over.

"The surrounding countries," such as...? I think you mean mostly just Iran. Despite the fact that it isn't at all the focus of the story, it says in the very article you posted that while the two countries might have friendly relations (for what amount of time, I don't know), that it doesn't mean they're going to do the fusion dance or anything.
You're sort of saying that early America was surely going to fall into the hands of France. Not only did they help us against the British, by God, BENJAMIN FRANKLIN himself was a "francophile." The end is nigh!

Do you think Iraq is a shining example of American successes in the middle east? Why do you think Iraq turning into a friendship with Iran might possibly be a bad thing? And you made the wrong correlation, I'm saying that Iraq and Iran coming together in any form is bad for us. That does not mean it is bad for Iraq. But you were worried about them having nuclear weapons back with Hussein now the possiblities are even greater and real.

Well, I didn't mention the Brits or the Spanish. I was talking about America. I also didn't say that nobody wanted to atack America. So...

If you're in, say, Syria, which is easier to get to, if you want to kill some Americans:

A) America
B) Iraq or Afghanistan
C) Narnia


Again you have no understanding about how terrorism works. Have you ever even lived in a country that had to deal with it? It has nothing to do with hitting the military it has everything to do with changing public opinion of civilians. What do you think would effect you more, a soldier dieing or a person you know? Get it yet?

The answer, is clearly Narnia. Wardrobes are EVERYWHERE. If there is an American presence in the middle east, it is much eaiser to get to another place in the middle east if you wish to attack them, yes? It requires a great deal less sophistication to hop over a country or two than it does to get into America and make some grand gesture. Not to say that it can't happen, but there are only so many crazy people, and they will often go the path of least resistence.

Saying retarded analogies doesn't detrack from reality. If their is an American presences in the middle east you just make more and more terrorist. That is a major reason why a lot of extreemest hate us. Its not that hard to comprehend now. You also underestimate the drive these individuals have to cause damage. It might not happen today or tomorrow but it will happen eventually here again. What we are doing in Iraq is the exact opposite we should of done in fighting terrorism.

Europe has a larger problem with fundamentalist Islam than America does, and that is not a new thing. It's just recently become violent (again).

I wonder why? Maybe its because they found that wardrobe after all. :rolleyes:

Not to worry.

Atleast you understand one thing.

[KKF]

Kass has tried logic, and it's fallen on deaf ears.

The media doesn't lean right, you're just so skewed to the left, your concept of 'center' is further left than Clinton was.

Iraq was a very bad place prior to this war, and regardless of whether the war was good or bad on the whole, for the Iraqis, it has a huge upside.

One of those upsides is being able to choose their government -- theocracy, democracy, or otherwise. The beauty of 'choice' is that it allows for a plurality of opinions. Considering your view on this issue, I'm no suprised that you are suggesting Saddam should still be in power -- at least it wouldn't have been a theocracy, right?

If you want to slam Bush on his economics, you should really carry some better ammo than, "he ran a record deficit." Because honestly, your understanding of economics as displayed in this thread has been laughably miserable. Comparing a president's deficit spending (in millions and billions of dollars) from 30 years ago to today is foolish. Perhaps had the graph had something to do with deficit spending in regards to GDP growth as a percentage of the total GDP, then we could get something out of it.

After all, if the government is growing proportional to the deficit, it's no real problem. Just like your average Joe's credit card, charging an extra 20% in a year when you got a 20% raise makes perfect sense because you can proportionally pay it off. And since most economists will agree that deficit spending is a good way to control the economy to a degree to avoid disaster, merely waving a figure in billions spend over budget doesn't mean much without further reasoning.

Hell, I think Bush's spending is out of control too, but not simply because of some random deficit figure, more because of the state of the economy, and the deficit being just one part of the problem with his economic model.

But you know what? Fuck it. Kass already tried explaining the folly of your situation, and you've ignored it many times over. It's pretty clear you have no interest in actually understanding what you're talking about, it seems pretty obvious you'd rather rant until blue in the face without understanding anything. You'll follow in the well-trodden footsteps of Al Franken and Michael Moore in making some really moronic criticism that people who agree with your premise will eat up despite being absolutely fault-tastic.

Alternatively, you could understand the issues, and make well-reasoned arguments. Like so many on Fox News do towards Bush's economic policies.

All I can do is laugh at you. I can't believe what you just wrote. I gave one example and suddenly thats my whole reasoning behind disliking Bush and his spending. You sir are a genius on top of that you correlate the fact that Iraq is going into a theocracy as good thing because it was their choice. It doesn't fucking matter if it was their choice its the WRONG choice its not that hard to comprehend. What I am saying is that we should of never entered Iraq. It was a HUGE mistake.

And fox news well-reasoned. LOL HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH This is the channel with Bill O'reilly and you call it well-reasoned HAHAHAHAHAH Then you have the nerve to call me far from center. HAHAHAH oh god you kill me with your insightful point of view. HAHAHAHAHHAHA If anything I believe in alot of the TRUE republican values which is NOTHING that this adminstration stands for. But good try there. Oh and I have never even listened to Al Franken in my life and only saw Micheal Moore's movie but good try again you are after all a genius with such a great ability to call like it is! roflol!

[KKF]

Just about everything you said in that post was wrong. If I feel like it i'll correct you when i wake up

Take it from the top Bob.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Let's see, I propose that you have faulty reasoning, and explain why.

Your retort? "You think THAT'S my reasoning?"

Well golly gee KKF! If that's NOT your reasoning, why did you present it as such? Sounds to me that it would be quite silly to take what you wrote as justification for your position and assume that it's NOT your reasoning.

You laugh at me for stating that Fox News is rational, yet your justification is "Bill O'Reilly is on that channel!" and you laugh. Well, ain't that swell. Pity I didn't actually present Bill O'Reilly as evidence (though his reasoning does seem to be better than yours at present). I presented something from Fox News that WAS well-reasoned.

What a shocker.

I sense a new additional to my ignore list coming on as January pulls closer.

[KKF]

Let's see, I propose that you have faulty reasoning, and explain why.

Your retort? "You think THAT'S my reasoning?"

Yes, what don't you understand? It's not that hard I post a picture of the deficit and you go off the deep end. I stated no reasons behind that picture besides this is a reason I dislike Bush more than Clinton. You made a lot of assumptions off that simple statement.

Well golly gee KKF! If that's NOT your reasoning, why did you present it as such? Sounds to me that it would be quite silly to take what you wrote as justification for your position and assume that it's NOT your reasoning.

Well gee wilkers, why don't you ask me next time the meaning behind the picture instead of making huge assumptions? Where did I state that my only reason to dislike Bushes economics was the deficit? Please I would love for you to quote me on that? I just pointed out one major difference between Clinton's presidency and Bush's. I guess that automatically makes me a moron about economics. :rolleyes:

You laugh at me for stating that Fox News is rational, yet your justification is "Bill O'Reilly is on that channel!" and you laugh. Well, ain't that swell. Pity I didn't actually present Bill O'Reilly as evidence (though his reasoning does seem to be better than yours at present). I presented something from Fox News that WAS well-reasoned.

Lets see Fox News consists of more than one show correct? When you say "Fox News is rational" that includes all of the shows in it. And oh my Bill O'Reilly is on it! Who would of thought that? Impossible that I would include a person that is on a channel that you said was rational as evidence against that reasoning. What a major jump in logic I must of made! And not just any person that is on that channel but the most well known! Damn me and my glaring example of how prosperous your views are concerning Fox News.


What a shocker.

What a shocker that someone like you watches Fox News.

I sense a new additional to my ignore list coming on as January pulls closer.

Awww, Im hurt really I am! Coming from such an intelligent individual like yourself! I guess I'm off to cry in a corner about some Fox News watching individual not liking me! lol :rolleyes:

[Pierrot le Fou]

Well KKF, welcome to my ignore list.

I never stated Fox News was wholly rational. I stated that it was not entirely irrational to disprove a point. Funny how you try to present that as otherwise.

[KKF]

Well KKF, welcome to my ignore list.

I never stated Fox News was wholly rational. I stated that it was not entirely irrational to disprove a point. Funny how you try to present that as otherwise.


I'm hurt really I am.

You really should learn to express yourself better then because thats not what you stated. I find it amusing that you are saying the contrary now, especially considering I can use a feature called "quote".

For example.

If there's one phrase I would use to describe Fox News it's "well-reasoned."

and


Alternatively, you could understand the issues, and make well-reasoned arguments. Like so many on Fox News do towards Bush's economic policies.

Do you just like to make yourself look like a fool on purpose?

[Pierrot le Fou]

If there's one phrase I would use to describe Fox News it's "well-reasoned."

Note the quotes. Well-reasoned is in them. To ignore them would be folly. And you wouldn't be into folly, would you KKF?

Alternatively, you could understand the issues, and make well-reasoned arguments. Like so many on Fox News do towards Bush's economic policies.

When did 'so many' become a synonym for 'absolutely all' as you seem to parse it? Are you looking to paint my arguments as something they aren't? Because that would be folly again.

Do I really need to break out the guide to logical fallacies and highlight your quoted posts with links to the slew of fallacies you seem to be so intent on presenting? In comparison to you, Fox News is incredibly well-reasoned and rational. And that's sad.

[KKF]

If there's one phrase I would use to describe Fox News it's "well-reasoned."

Note the quotes. Well-reasoned is in them. To ignore them would be folly. And you wouldn't be into folly, would you KKF?

Are you kidding me? You are now changing your whole argument and trying to say that you didn't mean that Fox News was "well-reasoned"? What did you mean then? Please do tell because this is becoming more and more amusing seeing how many ways you can try and twist your own words. Funny little guy aren't you.

Alternatively, you could understand the issues, and make well-reasoned arguments. Like so many on Fox News do towards Bush's economic policies.

When did 'so many' become a synonym for 'absolutely all' as you seem to parse it? Are you looking to paint my arguments as something they aren't? Because that would be folly again.

Nothing is "absolute". But when you read what you just wrote its pretty easy to tell that you think the overwhelming majority are "well-reasoned". Since after all you said that the one phrase you would use to describe Fox News is "well-reasoned". Shit you even gave an example of this. So what is it? Does "Fox News" no longer fit the bill of your own description? After all it is one of the most biased and un-educated news stations out there. And if you think Bill O'reilly is the only one that is full of it on Fox News, I got a bridge to sell you.

Do I really need to break out the guide to logical fallacies and highlight your quoted posts with links to the slew of fallacies you seem to be so intent on presenting? In comparison to you, Fox News is incredibly well-reasoned and rational. And that's sad.

Whats sad is that now you are back tracking like a little girl. Now you are using Fox News as an insult after calling it "well-reasoned." Oh and before you even start to try break down my fallacies you might want to try and learn about them a bit more. For starters read, "Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals" by Immanuel Kant. Thats a start and if you need more help in your education let me know, I'm sure I can point you in the right direction.

Damn and I was all excited that this doofus had put me on his ignore list. :mad:

[MeneerDijk]

Ok kids, let's keep it down in here. Keep it on topic instead of attacking eachother. If i see one more insult this thread is going down. And you will have to go to your room without dinner!

[Pierrot le Fou]

Are you kidding me? You are now changing your whole argument and trying to say that you didn't mean that Fox News was "well-reasoned"? What did you mean then? Please do tell because this is becoming more and more amusing seeing how many ways you can try and twist your own words. Funny little guy aren't you.

You're lucky January is my 'be nice to OP9' month.

If there's one phrase I would use to describe Fox News it's "well-reasoned." The one phrase I wouldn't use is "unbiased."

Clearly Fox News is biased. I never claimed it was anything but biased. The reason I put 'well-reasoned' in quotes as I did is two-fold: firstly it was the phrase being used in the thread, and secondly because while the reasoning in Fox News is well-reasoned for a large part, I don't find it reasonable, which some people may find to be contradictory.

Nothing is "absolute". But when you read what you just wrote its pretty easy to tell that you think the overwhelming majority are "well-reasoned". Since after all you said that the one phrase you would use to describe Fox News is "well-reasoned". Shit you even gave an example of this. So what is it? Does "Fox News" no longer fit the bill of your own description? After all it is one of the most biased and un-educated news stations out there. And if you think Bill O'reilly is the only one that is full of it on Fox News, I got a bridge to sell you.

Look before you leap.

Fox News broadcasts 24 hours a day, say 18 hours of new content a day. I have no idea about the bulk of the broadcast, seeing as how I have watched a whopping total of 0 hours of Fox News programming in the past 2.5 years or so. In addition, they have a slew of online commentary and other content that I occasionally read, but don't make a dent in as far as volume is concerned.

So whether or not the majority of Fox News is 'well-reasoned' or not, I haven't the foggiest idea. I do, however, think that the majority of people who bash Fox News (people like you) tend to vastly overstate the problems with Fox News. Once you get around the fact that they have a heavily conservative bias, the reporting itself, keeping that in mind, is pretty good and well-reasoned.

Watch, for instance, this clip (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127236,00.html) of Michael Moore on the O'Reilly Factor. Now I don't particularly like O'Reilly. And I don't particularly like Michael Moore. But when you watch this interview, it's pretty-clear which one is 'well-reasoned' and which one is just blowing hot air. And unlike Moore's films, O'Reilly didn't need to use trick editing to make his point.

That's what I mean by well-reasoned. A position that I don't agree with, when defended rationally, holds a lot more water than an argument like you're making in this thread which consists of hurling insults at me not because my arguments are bunko, but because you disagree with my viewpoint.

You have no idea what my political views are, yet you presume to know them because I argued against people making bogus criticisms of conservative figures and media. That isn't to say that there aren't valid criticisms, just that the ones that were made were bogus. On the other hand, I have you sitting here and making lots of arguments predicated on logical fallacies.

Namely ad hominem attacks, but there are more. Ignoring my points because you disagree with my viewpoint is fallacious. But I'm sure a bright guy like you knew that, right?

Whats sad is that now you are back tracking like a little girl. Now you are using Fox News as an insult after calling it "well-reasoned." Oh and before you even start to try break down my fallacies you might want to try and learn about them a bit more. For starters read, "Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals" by Immanuel Kant. Thats a start and if you need more help in your education let me know, I'm sure I can point you in the right direction.

Damn and I was all excited that this doofus had put me on his ignore list.

I have a BS in political theory. I've read Kant, thanks. Are you going to try to sell me on the categorical imperative too?

Is it that difficult for you to consider the fact that someone who is well-read could actually defend against arguments they find fallacious, whether they feel the targets deserving of criticism or not? If someone tried to criticize Hitler for being an artist, I'd defend Hitler -- not because I think he was a good person, but because I find no fault with artists.

I believe in using rational thought to figure things out. Coupled with rational argument. Insulting me, my education, my political beliefs, and talking to me as if I'm a child while entirely ignoring my arguments isn't one of them.

You're wrong. Simply. You're trying to toss out rationality in this thread with semantics. And it's a sophomoric attempt to win a lost argument. I have never claimed that Fox News was the pinnacle of journalism, let alone in this thread where I have pointed out that I wouldn't call it unbiased. I have never claimed that all its articles were well-reasoned either. I have claimed that condemning all articles on Fox News, wholesale, as irrational/anti-'well-reasoned' is a folly. And I've explained why.

If you want to turn this into how I'm an uneducated conservative freak who worships Bill O'Reilly and needs to read Kant, then it just shows your lack of reading comprehension, while having little bearing on what I actually believe or have stated.

So good-day to you. If you can't play nice, then just don't bother playing anymore.

[paul]

Little Girls backtrack?
in what way :bored:

[KKF]

You're lucky January is my 'be nice to OP9' month.

I feel so lucky! :rolleyes:

If there's one phrase I would use to describe Fox News it's "well-reasoned." The one phrase I wouldn't use is "unbiased."

Clearly Fox News is biased. I never claimed it was anything but biased. The reason I put 'well-reasoned' in quotes as I did is two-fold: firstly it was the phrase being used in the thread, and secondly because while the reasoning in Fox News is well-reasoned for a large part, I don't find it reasonable, which some people may find to be contradictory.

When you say "Fox News is well-reasoned," I thought it was pretty clear cut. :bang: So how do you find something that is not reasonable if its well-reasoned? :duh:

Look before you leap.

Fox News broadcasts 24 hours a day, say 18 hours of new content a day. I have no idea about the bulk of the broadcast, seeing as how I have watched a whopping total of 0 hours of Fox News programming in the past 2.5 years or so. In addition, they have a slew of online commentary and other content that I occasionally read, but don't make a dent in as far as volume is concerned.

So whether or not the majority of Fox News is 'well-reasoned' or not, I haven't the foggiest idea. I do, however, think that the majority of people who bash Fox News (people like you) tend to vastly overstate the problems with Fox News. Once you get around the fact that they have a heavily conservative bias, the reporting itself, keeping that in mind, is pretty good and well-reasoned.

So why did you make that assertation then if you don't even have the "foggiest idea"? You also must not know the history of Fox News if you believe what you stated is true.

Watch, for instance, this clip (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127236,00.html) of Michael Moore on the O'Reilly Factor. Now I don't particularly like O'Reilly. And I don't particularly like Michael Moore. But when you watch this interview, it's pretty-clear which one is 'well-reasoned' and which one is just blowing hot air. And unlike Moore's films, O'Reilly didn't need to use trick editing to make his point.

Very, very bad example. If you decide not to explore all the facts about a situation and then are proven wrong about making a asserition are you lieing? If you decide to turn a blind eye to everything that points to what you don't want are you lieing? Also a lot of the things that O'Reilly says are not true and have been proven to be false a long time ago. You really should find better examples and I wouldn't start with O'Reilly. He is known for and mocked for his argumentative style that he does on his show.

That's what I mean by well-reasoned. A position that I don't agree with, when defended rationally, holds a lot more water than an argument like you're making in this thread which consists of hurling insults at me not because my arguments are bunko, but because you disagree with my viewpoint.

You are the one that called me a moron before I even replied to you. And your arguments are bunk, even what you stated earlier about economics was wrong.

You have no idea what my political views are, yet you presume to know them because I argued against people making bogus criticisms of conservative figures and media. That isn't to say that there aren't valid criticisms, just that the ones that were made were bogus. On the other hand, I have you sitting here and making lots of arguments predicated on logical fallacies.

Hello pot, meet kettle. I can't believe you all of all people are actually saying this with a straight face. Find in any of my post where I call you a Republican? In fact the only person making assumptions about others is you. First you called my economic point of view moronic without even knowning what it was. Then you called me a "far from center" without even knowing my political standing or points of view. But yet I'm the one making assumptions on your political views? I argued what you wrote, which was pretty clear, "Fox News is well-reasoned". While in fact it is not and its known for this. Oh and the kicker to all this is that before you posted things were civil and a little heated. But good job.

Namely ad hominem attacks, but there are more. Ignoring my points because you disagree with my viewpoint is fallacious. But I'm sure a bright guy like you knew that, right?

Oh god, I feel like I'm talking to a five year old.

I have a BS in political theory. I've read Kant, thanks. Are you going to try to sell me on the categorical imperative too?

I have years of experience in politics (That should of been obvious when I had stated that I had met Bush Jr. before.) and have members in my family that are still working for political leaders. Woot! I'm special too! :bored:

Is it that difficult for you to consider the fact that someone who is well-read could actually defend against arguments they find fallacious, whether they feel the targets deserving of criticism or not? If someone tried to criticize Hitler for being an artist, I'd defend Hitler -- not because I think he was a good person, but because I find no fault with artists.

So, basically you are arguing because you don't want to admit that you are wrong. I get it now.


I believe in using rational thought to figure things out. Coupled with rational argument. Insulting me, my education, my political beliefs, and talking to me as if I'm a child while entirely ignoring my arguments isn't one of them.

Hello pot, meet kettle! :bang:


You're wrong. Simply. You're trying to toss out rationality in this thread with semantics. And it's a sophomoric attempt to win a lost argument. I have never claimed that Fox News was the pinnacle of journalism, let alone in this thread where I have pointed out that I wouldn't call it unbiased. I have never claimed that all its articles were well-reasoned either. I have claimed that condemning all articles on Fox News, wholesale, as irrational/anti-'well-reasoned' is a folly. And I've explained why.

I'm arguing semantics? What I am arguing is that Fox News is not well-reasoned at all. They might have some exceptions to the rule but as a whole they are not. But you didn't state that, you said, "If there's one phrase I would use to describe Fox News it's 'well-reasoned.'" And that sadly is not the case, since after all you are talking about a pundit news station.


If you want to turn this into how I'm an uneducated conservative freak who worships Bill O'Reilly and needs to read Kant, then it just shows your lack of reading comprehension, while having little bearing on what I actually believe or have stated.

First I never called you a conservative. Second I never even said you watched Bill O'Reilly, but I guess even if I did it wouldn't matter since apperantly you do. Third you do need to read Kant again since you obviously don't know how to argue. But hey this is the internet and I doubt you came here to have a real debate.


So good-day to you. If you can't play nice, then just don't bother playing anymore.

Hello pot, meet kettle! Oh the irony you call me a moron but once someone calls you out on how stupid you sound you start crying foul? :clap:

[TS-]

For anyone who couldn't figure it out, the reason people don't want to reply to KKF is because replying to things that aren't said. Whether it's a reading comprenension issue, or trying to twist people's words as a debate tactic, nobody wants to waste time typing something to someone who isn't paying attention, and is reading to respond and not to understand.

I get bored with political conversations anyway, as they tend to break down into semantics and people just arguing for it's own sake, so that they can get the last word in . In this case, there are also insults being hurled about...KKF would be the pot calling the kettle black, because the kettle was responding to the pot in kind.

With that in mind-

KKF, is English your first language? I'm not sure whether you're misinterpreting what's actually being said, or if you seriously don't understand that you're replying to what you want to respond to, regardless of whether or not it was stated.

Also, what's your favorite color? I think blue is overrated.

If you were a tree, what kind of tree would you be? :confused:

[Pierrot le Fou]

When you say "Fox News is well-reasoned," I thought it was pretty clear cut. So how do you find something that is not reasonable if its well-reasoned?

Let's review.

And bear in mind when you read all this, I think Shrub and Clinton both are lousy presidents. I dislike them pretty much equally for different reasons.
Kass in post #62 (http://outpostnine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=98977&postcount=62)

Thats your point of view. But I'd like to point out this and only this one thing. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...deficit-805.gif
KKF in post #63 (http://outpostnine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=99273&postcount=63)

Alternatively, you could understand the issues, and make well-reasoned arguments. Like so many on Fox News do towards Bush's economic policies.
Me in post #70 (http://outpostnine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=99740&postcount=70)

No way, btw, someone didn't seriously just use Fox News and well-reasoned in close proximity, did they?
denjin in post #71 (http://outpostnine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=99741&postcount=71)

I prefer Fox News to other News Broadcasts, because at least I know what their angle is, and they tend to be a Hell of a lot more interesting to watch (namely due to the fact that they tend to put a high premium on reasoned logic rather than ranting like certain liberal commentators out there). If there's one phrase I would use to describe Fox News it's "well-reasoned." The one phrase I wouldn't use is "unbiased."
Me in post #72 (http://outpostnine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=99744&postcount=72)

Kass said she thought that Clinton and Bush were both bad presidents for different reasons. Your response was to state that was 'just her point of view' and wanted to add 'just one thing' which was a graph of the deficit across the terms of different presidents.

So I called nonsense on that. Stating that rather than make simplistic arguments which don't really hold water, you could criticize Bush's economic policies using well-reasoned sensible arguments as they do on Fox News. Rather than doing that, you whined about how your argument wasn't actually just that one thing, yet have since refused to, y'know, actually present any evidence on Bush's poor economics other than that point.

However, when I pointed out that Fox News had well-reasoned arguments against Bush's economic policies, I got a knee-jerk reaction to the use of 'well-reasoned' coupled with Fox News. So I presented evidence of criticism of the GOP using well-reasoned argumentation to show that Fox News can indeed be well-reasoned, and it can be well-reasoned against conservatives as well.

Yes I stated that I believed that Fox News is well-reasoned. I do think it is, when you accept that they are coming from a conservative bias and that means that they are starting from a different set of base assumptions than more liberal folk are. Hence the quotes around 'well-reasoned.' When talking to someone with a liberal bias (which I'm sure you'll deny having), stating that a conservative philosophy is 'well-reasoned' won't be received well, as we're seeing with your continued arguments on the issue here.

So how do I find Fox News well-reasoned but not reasonable? Because I think that the base assumptions that Fox News tends to take with its reporting aren't reasonable -- that doesn't mean that the logic following from those fundamental assumptions aren't well-reasoned.

There are plenty of people with flawed assumptions about the world who make perfectly well-reasoned arguments stemming from those flawed principles. Do I need to list the scientists throughout history who have made perfectly usable well-reasoned theories based on faulty data or assumptions only to be disproved later?

So why did you make that assertation then if you don't even have the "foggiest idea"? You also must not know the history of Fox News if you believe what you stated is true.

Because I wasn't ever trying to prove that all of Fox is well-reasoned, just that the phrase 'well-reasoned' and 'Fox News' can be used together in the same sentence with good reason and without the fabric of the universe and reality tearing. You're the one who's trying to attribute to me the concept that all of Fox News should be accepted as perfectly well-reasoned without quotation marks or qualifiers.

Very, very bad example. If you decide not to explore all the facts about a situation and then are proven wrong about making a asserition are you lieing? If you decide to turn a blind eye to everything that points to what you don't want are you lieing? Also a lot of the things that O'Reilly says are not true and have been proven to be false a long time ago. You really should find better examples and I wouldn't start with O'Reilly. He is known for and mocked for his argumentative style that he does on his show.

Was Newton lying when he wrote the equation for calculating the force of gravity?

Hello pot, meet kettle. I can't believe you all of all people are actually saying this with a straight face. Find in any of my post where I call you a Republican? In fact the only person making assumptions about others is you. First you called my economic point of view moronic without even knowning what it was. Then you called me a "far from center" without even knowing my political standing or points of view. But yet I'm the one making assumptions on your political views? I argued what you wrote, which was pretty clear, "Fox News is well-reasoned". While in fact it is not and its known for this. Oh and the kicker to all this is that before you posted things were civil and a little heated. But good job.

And fox news well-reasoned. LOL HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH This is the channel with Bill O'reilly and you call it well-reasoned HAHAHAHAHAH Then you have the nerve to call me far from center. HAHAHAH oh god you kill me with your insightful point of view. HAHAHAHAHHAHA If anything I believe in alot of the TRUE republican values which is NOTHING that this adminstration stands for. But good try there. Oh and I have never even listened to Al Franken in my life and only saw Micheal Moore's movie but good try again you are after all a genius with such a great ability to call like it is! roflol!
Post #75 (http://outpostnine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=99928&postcount=75) (emphasis mine)

You implied that I was the one far from center in response to me stating the same about you. And you're not talking about me being left of center, so I find it rather hard to take this in a way other than you calling me conservative/republican/right-wing.

I also have never claimed that you actually did read Al Franken or watch Michael Moore, just that you were walking in their well-trodden footsteps (using semantics and rhetoric rather than reason).

I have been on enough forums to be able to relatively accurately place someone's views, left or right, given enough information. You praise Clinton for balancing the budget (despite the fact that he didn't balance it), you criticize Bush for cutting taxes during war (despite the fact that he started pushing for tax cuts well before there was a war, and before there was even 9/11, not to mention the fact that presidents do not pass tax cuts -- Congress does). You state that the war in Iraq is wrong, state that Bush is far worse than Clinton (implying that all Clinton did wrong was getting a blowjob in the Oval Office), and then go on to compare what Nixon did to what Bush did.

Gee, I'm sure you truly believe in 'REAL Republican values'...

I have years of experience in politics (That should of been obvious when I had stated that I had met Bush Jr. before.) and have members in my family that are still working for political leaders. Woot! I'm special too!

You told me to read Kant. I said I had because I got a degree in political science. There is nothing 'special' about that. You tried to tell me I was poorly read, and you tried to come back and tell me I was trying to brag or seem overly special, in the same breath as stating that you've met Bush Jr. and that your family is in politics. Clearly I'm just being arrogant.

I'm arguing semantics? What I am arguing is that Fox News is not well-reasoned at all. They might have some exceptions to the rule but as a whole they are not. But you didn't state that, you said, "If there's one phrase I would use to describe Fox News it's 'well-reasoned.'" And that sadly is not the case, since after all you are talking about a pundit news station.

So Fox News is not well-reasoned at all.

Except when they are.

But overall they aren't.

Yet you take issue with me, clearly putting something in quotes (although admittedly I put them in double-quotes rather than single which would have been more appropriate, perhaps that's what confused you?), when you are willing to follow up an absolute statement with a phrase that entirely contradicts the one you just said.

A -> B
Except when !(A -> B)
But for most cases (A -> B)

This is what I'm trying to get at when I talk about irrationality, and what I tend to see Fox News avoid when I call them 'well-reasoned.'

You are the one that called me a moron before I even replied to you. And your arguments are bunk, even what you stated earlier about economics was wrong.

Oh god, I feel like I'm talking to a five year old.

So, basically you are arguing because you don't want to admit that you are wrong. I get it now.

Hello pot, meet kettle!

First I never called you a conservative. Second I never even said you watched Bill O'Reilly, but I guess even if I did it wouldn't matter since apperantly you do. Third you do need to read Kant again since you obviously don't know how to argue. But hey this is the internet and I doubt you came here to have a real debate.

Hello pot, meet kettle! Oh the irony you call me a moron but once someone calls you out on how stupid you sound you start crying foul?

I am returning to you these otherwise perfectly fine pieces of bandwidth because somebody wrote insults all over them and attached your name to them KKF.

[KKF]

Let's review.

Ok.

Kass said she thought that Clinton and Bush were both bad presidents for different reasons. Your response was to state that was 'just her point of view' and wanted to add 'just one thing' which was a graph of the deficit across the terms of different presidents.

So now it wasn't her opinion? What was it then? Did I miss something or did opinions become facts now? Oh and you obviously missed the SMILE I put right beside that. Please correct me if I'm wrong but when did opinion become fact?


So I called nonsense on that. Stating that rather than make simplistic arguments which don't really hold water, you could criticize Bush's economic policies using well-reasoned sensible arguments as they do on Fox News. Rather than doing that, you whined about how your argument wasn't actually just that one thing, yet have since refused to, y'know, actually present any evidence on Bush's poor economics other than that point.

What was my argument in showing that picture? What was my reasoning behind it? I find it amusing that you even stated that I have yet to say what I ment by it. Do you know why? Because I find it amusing to see what you come up with. You say I made all these assumptions about you but obviously you did about me and my point of view.

However, when I pointed out that Fox News had well-reasoned arguments against Bush's economic policies, I got a knee-jerk reaction to the use of 'well-reasoned' coupled with Fox News. So I presented evidence of criticism of the GOP using well-reasoned argumentation to show that Fox News can indeed be well-reasoned, and it can be well-reasoned against conservatives as well.

And then you continued to say, "The one phrase I would use to describe Fox news is "well-reasoned"." Which means what exactly? It does not mean that they come up with well-reasoned arguments once in a while but that the majority of the time they are "well-reasoned". Now you are saying whatever possible to contradict that. Its not that hard to say that you stated that wrongly.

Yes I stated that I believed that Fox News is well-reasoned. I do think it is, when you accept that they are coming from a conservative bias and that means that they are starting from a different set of base assumptions than more liberal folk are. Hence the quotes around 'well-reasoned.' When talking to someone with a liberal bias (which I'm sure you'll deny having), stating that a conservative philosophy is 'well-reasoned' won't be received well, as we're seeing with your continued arguments on the issue here.

What?! Are you kidding me? Do you even know the definition of well-reasoned? I'm starting to have my doubts now. Oh and clearly I do have liberal bias, and in general I actually believe true conservative philosophy is "well-reasoned". But Fox News is not that. Fox News does everything possible to justifiy the actions of the current president. It use fallacies to get its point across. So do you consider something that includes fallacies "well-reasoned"?

So how do I find Fox News well-reasoned but not reasonable? Because I think that the base assumptions that Fox News tends to take with its reporting aren't reasonable -- that doesn't mean that the logic following from those fundamental assumptions aren't well-reasoned.

So, Fox News makes false well-reasoned arguments? :bang:


There are plenty of people with flawed assumptions about the world who make perfectly well-reasoned arguments stemming from those flawed principles. Do I need to list the scientists throughout history who have made perfectly usable well-reasoned theories based on faulty data or assumptions only to be disproved later?

Scientist do not compare to what Fox News does. Simply put, scientist are making arguments based on the facts they have at present time. Those facts can change overtime and hence at that point in time their arguments was "well-reasoned". Fox News in general does not do this. They argue on false pretenses even if the facts are known, hence not well-reasoned. I'm starting to see where we differ in our points of views. You believe that even if something is reasoned under false pretenses it can still be "well-reasoned". In my point of view it can not be "well-reasoned" if it starts off under false pretenses. Since it is using known faulty logic to begin with.


Because I wasn't ever trying to prove that all of Fox is well-reasoned, just that the phrase 'well-reasoned' and 'Fox News' can be used together in the same sentence with good reason and without the fabric of the universe and reality tearing. You're the one who's trying to attribute to me the concept that all of Fox News should be accepted as perfectly well-reasoned without quotation marks or qualifiers.

No actually I'm not. What I'm getting at is when you stated that the best description for Fox News is well-reasoned. It doesn't mean I took that statement to be absolute, which I pointed out earlier, but that you think as a whole Fox News is usually well-reasoned.

Was Newton lying when he wrote the equation for calculating the force of gravity?

Again, I think you don't "get" what I was trying to saying. Newton was trying to look for the truth. He didn't ignore certain facts just to make his principle work. He might of been ignorant of some but that is not because he didn't try to find out about it. Bush on the other hand ignored and turned a blind eye to people telling him there where no WMD. Thats nothing like Newton at all, since had other facts presented themselves he would of investigated them.

You implied that I was the one far from center in response to me stating the same about you. And you're not talking about me being left of center, so I find it rather hard to take this in a way other than you calling me conservative/republican/right-wing.

Yes, because you didn't call me far from center? What I implied was that you made a assumption on me based off some trivial matter and hence I did the same. I was implying how stupid it is to make such a assumption without knowning someones real political stance on all the issues. I was mocking you and doing exactly what you did to me in turn.

I also have never claimed that you actually did read Al Franken or watch Michael Moore, just that you were walking in their well-trodden footsteps (using semantics and rhetoric rather than reason).

You implied it. But if thats not what you ment, then I was wrong.

I have been on enough forums to be able to relatively accurately place someone's views, left or right, given enough information. You praise Clinton for balancing the budget (despite the fact that he didn't balance it), you criticize Bush for cutting taxes during war (despite the fact that he started pushing for tax cuts well before there was a war, and before there was even 9/11, not to mention the fact that presidents do not pass tax cuts -- Congress does). You state that the war in Iraq is wrong, state that Bush is far worse than Clinton (implying that all Clinton did wrong was getting a blowjob in the Oval Office), and then go on to compare what Nixon did to what Bush did.

No offense but basing your opinion on someones political standing based off of those few things is very naive. I would gladly enter the rest of those things you stated and point out where you are wrong on some but that would take all together to much time.

Gee, I'm sure you truly believe in 'REAL Republican values'...

Gee, ever hear of small government and personal liberties? Oh, I guess you know what I believe now before I even type it down.

You told me to read Kant. I said I had because I got a degree in political science. There is nothing 'special' about that. You tried to tell me I was poorly read, and you tried to come back and tell me I was trying to brag or seem overly special, in the same breath as stating that you've met Bush Jr. and that your family is in politics. Clearly I'm just being arrogant.

No, what I tried to tell you is that you do not know how to argue. And that you should read up on Kant. You threw out that I was using fallacies in my argument and hence I'm not well-reasoned but yet thats exactly what Fox News does and you call them well-reasoned. Had you read Kant you would see why this is amusing to me. Instead you say, I have because I have a political science degree, in a argument about politics. Had I wanted to be arrogant I'm sure I could of come up with a lot more than that.


So Fox News is not well-reasoned at all.

Except when they are.

But overall they aren't.

Yet you take issue with me, clearly putting something in quotes (although admittedly I put them in double-quotes rather than single which would have been more appropriate, perhaps that's what confused you?), when you are willing to follow up an absolute statement with a phrase that entirely contradicts the one you just said.


Sigh, this is getting no where fast. No I take issue with you with ignorning everything you said before that. You didn't say, Fox News sometimes comes out with well-reasoned arguments. Instead you said the one phrase you would use to describe them is well-reasoned. What does that mean to you? To me it means, for the most part Fox News comes out with well-reasoned arguments. And I have stated time and time again that Fox News in general does not come out with well-reasoned arguments since they are full of fallacies.


A -> B
Except when !(A -> B)
But for most cases (A -> B)
This is what I'm trying to get at when I talk about irrationality, and what I tend to see Fox News avoid when I call them 'well-reasoned.'

So you are saying that Fox News talks in absolutes and then call it well-reasoned?
No exceptions ( A->B )

I don't even know where to begin with that. You consider things being painted black and white as a well-reasoned? Even though most of the issues they talk about are not black and white. Please if I got this wrong explain because I really can't comprehend how you could be saying this.

I am returning to you these otherwise perfectly fine pieces of bandwidth because somebody wrote insults all over them and attached your name to them KKF.

How cute. :rolleyes:

[paul]

Whats sad is that now you are back tracking like a little girl. Now you are using Fox News as an insult after calling it "well-reasoned." Oh and before you even start to try break down my fallacies you might want to try and learn about them a bit more. For starters read, "Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals" by Immanuel Kant. Thats a start and if you need more help in your education let me know, I'm sure I can point you in the right direction.

Damn and I was all excited that this doofus had put me on his ignore list.



No, what I tried to tell you is that you do not know how to argue. And that you should read up on Kant. You threw out that I was using fallacies in my argument and hence I'm not well-reasoned but yet thats exactly what Fox News does and you call them well-reasoned. Had you read Kant you would see why this is amusing to me. Instead you say, I have because I have a political science degree, in a argument about politics. Had I wanted to be arrogant I'm sure I could of come up with a lot more than that.


It doesn't look like thats what you meant to me...
but then again maybe its because I'm not you, I don't know you, and I can't read your mind.

[Pierrot le Fou]

I'll let you in on a secret, KKF. I can read. I am semi-competent at it in fact. I may not be as good at reading Kant as you are, but I'm pretty sure I could fumble through it again if need be.

So I'm rather shocked that you keep telling me that I don't understand.

I know I can read the words you're writing, but you keep claiming that I'm reading them wrong. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt the first few times, reading through your explanations of what you meant to say, but I'm done with that.

You cannot express yourself properly through writing. I am sick of the semantic games. I am sick of this point-by-point bickering where you are simply refusing to concede a point and piling on bullshit on top of it for the sake of feeling like you 'won' some argument that you couldn't even summarize if you tried.

You have no idea what this is about any more.

I was criticizing your incredibly lacking graph of the debt to prove why Bush was a worse president than Clinton. You have yet to actually show that you know more than that other than criticizing me for not being able to read your mind, and assuming that you actually meant what you wrote.

You are just arguing for the sake of arguing. I have no idea WHAT point you're trying to make, if any. You seem to want to prove that I think Fox News is swell, and that there are never any logical gaffes in Fox News. Despite the fact that I've never implied as much. In fact, I've stated that I think they're biased and aren't what I'd consider 'reasonable' much of the time, even if they use good logic in coming to a batty conclusion.

You want to prove that you're smarter than me. You tell me to read Kant, that you can help me further my education, that your family is involved in politics.

Guess what? I don't care. Because all I know about you is what you actually present in the way of arguments.

And you've presented absolutely nothing of value. Nothing. You've spewed insults, claimed that I am incapable of reading, stating that I don't know what you're saying, and all the while presenting yourself as a savant who knows exactly what I'm thinking.

You're just embarrassing yourself.

Anyone who reads through your posts can see the lack of reason. And they're pointing it out. Read the other comments in this thread:

For anyone who couldn't figure it out, the reason people don't want to reply to KKF is because replying to things that aren't said. Whether it's a reading comprenension issue, or trying to twist people's words as a debate tactic, nobody wants to waste time typing something to someone who isn't paying attention, and is reading to respond and not to understand.

...

KKF, is English your first language? I'm not sure whether you're misinterpreting what's actually being said, or if you seriously don't understand that you're replying to what you want to respond to, regardless of whether or not it was stated.

...

It doesn't look like thats what you meant to me...
but then again maybe its because I'm not you, I don't know you, and I can't read your mind.

You are failing to make any rational points. You are failing to be well-reasoned. And you're just tossing out insults like there's no tomorrow. You claim I called you a moron? Not quite. I didn't even call your current arguments moronic. I called your potential future arguments moronic, which they seem to have become.

You can keep bickering. But this time I'm really done with you.

[KKF]

It doesn't look like thats what you meant to me...
but then again maybe its because I'm not you, I don't know you, and I can't read your mind.


Have you read Kant? If you had you know he talks a great deal about... fallacies and how to have a real discussion/argument. Hence why I suggest he reads it since its a fairly well known work that talks about this very subject. Especially in the light of him saying that I am full of fallacies.

[KKF]

blah blah

Hello pot, meet kettle.

[Psychochink]

Have you read Kant? If you had you know he talks a great deal about... fallacies and how to have a real discussion/argument. Hence why I suggest he reads it since its a fairly well known work that talks about this very subject. Especially in the light of him saying that I am full of fallacies.

The thing that keeps standing out for me here is your constant stance of apparent intellectual superiority, accusing your opponent of making a fallacious argument, while at the same time refusing to attack his argument by pointing out the specific fallacy that makes it invalid.

It must be your political background showing, as fallacious ad hominem arguments tend to be the norm in that particular field (e.g. the above quote).

Me, I'm from a philosophy background (my second major done out of interest, just in case you're tempted to make an argumentum ad personam against me) and yes, I've read Kant and many other theorists in the field. I was always under the impression that your particular style of debating was by its very nature fallacious. You know, the ad hominem fallacy? (You do know that one, right? You've an extensive background in the field of logic.)

No, I'm not going to go into the specifics (well, I guess I already have, but I'm not going to go into a wasted in-depth analysis), as since you're so well-read the ad hominem fallacies inherent in your argument should be obvious to you. I will admit to having my doubts about your actual understanding of logic, however, given the arguments you've made around this whole "well reasoned" issue.

What?! Are you kidding me? Do you even know the definition of well-reasoned? I'm starting to have my doubts now...

...So, Fox News makes false well-reasoned arguments? :bang:

...You believe that even if something is reasoned under false pretenses it can still be "well-reasoned". In my point of view it can not be "well-reasoned" if it starts off under false pretenses.


It is a very basic principle of logic that it is perfectly possible to have a 'well reasoned', or valid if you prefer, argument based upon a false premise. If you know so much about logic, you surely know that...don't you?

Case in point: As an exercise I once decided to construct a 'well-reasoned', extensive argument that had as its conclusion that Hitler was the single greatest world leader the world has ever known for a philosophy tutorial. Watching students attempt to argue against it really pointed out the same kind of mistake that you're making here, precisely because it was an emotive topic - they lost their objectivity and resorted to things like, "But Hitler was bad because he did..." and failed to attack the construction of the opposing argument.

What you're doing is examining the conclusion of the argument, deciding you don't like it and using psudo-intellectualism to try to claim that it's fallacious, without pointing out any of these apparent fallacies. Kant would be proud of you.