billvon 3,084 #26 December 2, 2005 >In any event, if the details are factual as compared to being false >what would you say about it? Still a skewed source. Someone could print a newspaper showing nothing but pictures of innocent Iraqis shot by US troops, with another section showing Saddam Hussein opening new hospitals. It would all be 100% factual. What would you say about that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #27 December 2, 2005 Skewed? maybe, but if you say single sourced I would talk about it. I get your point because in the cases you list it is misleading at best. What if the info is factual and in a correct context ,what would you say?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jeiber 0 #28 December 2, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteI don't believe it, this is the president who said he'd bring dignity to the white house [/sarcasm] He has! hardly... perhaps you should reinvestigate the definition of dignity... Hardly?!?! Why, because he doesn't just tell people what they want to hear, then follow a contradictory course of action? Because he chooses the 'hard right', rather than the 'easy wrong'? Because he doesn't just kiss butt, to win favor? You're right... a REAL man of honor would be cheating on his wife with an intern, lying to the nation, fueling an economic bubble for his own benefit, knowing well it would eventually collapse... but why should he care, he won't be in office. That's dignity and honor for you... the Samurai would be proud. As far as economic debt goes - most successful companies lose money for years, prior to their success. Personally, I'm glad I have a President that's willing to be criticized for spending, just to ensure the country's success in the future. That's known as selfless service. Not to be mistaken with the self serving Clinton's. Unfortunately, by the time the gains are realized, we'll have another leader, and he'll get credit. Everybody willl have forgotten who enacted the changes... Ironic how Clinton put FEMA under Homeland Security, and now his wife is slamming Bush for it being there. Once again, there's dignity for you... JeffShhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SudsyFist 0 #29 December 2, 2005 Fanboy alert! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,084 #30 December 2, 2005 >As far as economic debt goes - most successful companies lose > money for years, prior to their success. Personally, I'm glad I have > a President that's willing to be criticized for spending, just to ensure > the country's success in the future. I wish I had a role model like that in high school! And to think I listened to my parents when they said I had to be careful with money. "Yeah, mom, I need $6000 for a new car. Sure, the Datsun works, but it's so OLD. Don't think of it as $6000 - think of it as ensuring my success in the future!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites masterblaster72 0 #31 December 2, 2005 QuoteIn any event, if the details are factual as compared to being false what would you say about it? If it's on the news, it better have more than one point of view. If it's coming from the white house, you can bet for damn sure that it won't have a legitimate opposing point of view. Even if it's factually correct, if there's one point of view, I won't buy it and it doesn't belong on the news. It's better off on an infomercial. What appears on the news (ideally) should be the product of well-trained, experienced and responsible journalists -- not the white house's PR department. Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Trent 0 #32 December 2, 2005 Like someone else pointed out, why is it okay for people and groups to fun journalism projects to put out negative articles on the war, but not okay when the Whitehouse puts together a media package showing their positions and the stories they feel are ignored in mass media? The networks don't have to air them. Now paying journalists to report what you want is crossing the line, but you do have freelancers who are anti-war or anti-Bush who get paid by news agencies to dig up shit all the time... even if it is questionable at best. And the very fact that one dude was busted taking payments should shatter your image of reporters being fair and impartial. After all, if he'd take money from one side, who's to say others wouldn't take money from another side? As far as paying Iraqi papers to print positive articles about progress in Iraq by American and Iraqi forces... what's the problem? Leafletting and propaganda have ALWAYS been a part of wars we've fought. If 90% of what Iraqis hear is our own congressmen and senators shreiking about how BAD we are and how our government fucked up and how we're only in it to steal oil... then you can't blame the military for trying to combat that. Also having clerics who preach to their mosques that we are all evil and should be destroyed, count on the ignorance of the people to blindly accept what they're being told. Trying to show them differently is fair play, otherwise "the truth" would only be what the dude screaming the loudest said it was. As far as paying the Iraqi media, it's just another swipe at the military by people who hate just about everything about our current administration. Propaganda has always been, and will always be a part of war. Just look at all the propaganda the anti-war people spew... even people here don't agree with all that. You just can't have the voice of one side being heard, especially when it puts lives at risk. If paying to get the stories published is what it takes, then that's what it takes. At least we don't tell them to print it or die.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,084 #33 December 2, 2005 >Like someone else pointed out, why is it okay for people and groups > to fun journalism projects to put out negative articles on the war, but > not okay when the Whitehouse puts together a media package > showing their positions and the stories they feel are ignored in mass > media? Both are OK if you call them documentaries, or position pieces, or whatever. To claim they are "news" is misleading and dishonest. >As far as paying Iraqi papers to print positive articles about >progress in Iraq by American and Iraqi forces... what's the problem? > Leafletting and propaganda have ALWAYS been a part of wars we've > fought. Again, no problem with distributing propaganda. But there is a big problem paying a supposedly independent press to print what you want them to. For one thing, it makes otherwise marginal sources like Al-Jazeera more credible; the statement "at least the US isn't paying them to say only good things!" becomes true. > it's just another swipe at the military by people who hate just >about everything about our current administration. As more and more of those people ARE military people, your reasoning really doesn't fly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jeiber 0 #34 December 2, 2005 Quote"Yeah, mom, I need $6000 for a new car. Sure, the Datsun works, but it's so OLD. Don't think of it as $6000 - think of it as ensuring my success in the future!" Great analogy... There's a huge difference between spending money on a high school status symbol vs. a reliable means of transportation to get you to work, or your kids to school.... JShhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,555 #35 December 2, 2005 QuoteThere's a huge difference between spending money on a high school status symbol vs. a reliable means of transportation to get you to work, or your kids to school.... There's also a huge difference between spending money on a car that you don't have money for and a bicycle that you do. If I don't have the money for something, I either save, take out a formal load (i.e. have my credit evaluated) or readjust my priorities. I don't just spend because my credit card still has some balance left. It's easy to base one's "needs" on what others have. It's better to base one's needs on what one can afford, and design one's ends within one's means. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Trent 0 #36 December 2, 2005 QuoteBoth are OK if you call them documentaries, or position pieces, or whatever. To claim they are "news" is misleading and dishonest. The success of a military operation in nabbing a bunch of bad-guys, or the opening of 5 new schools built by our corps of engineers, or the building of water and sanitation systems are "position pieces"? Just because it's put out by a government entity, doesn't make it not "news." QuoteAgain, no problem with distributing propaganda. But there is a big problem paying a supposedly independent press to print what you want them to. For one thing, it makes otherwise marginal sources like Al-Jazeera more credible; the statement "at least the US isn't paying them to say only good things!" becomes true. Like the article said, if they're paying them to put in articles that are factual and observable in reality, then what's the problem? If it takes a few bucks to get them to print something other than "The Sky Is Falling and It's America's Fault!!"... then it takes a few bucks. You're saying that all those independant and unbiased papers in Iraq aren't subject to printing the BS they get from Joe-Cleric and Al Jazeera, regardless of its veracity or slant? You can't even say that about the media here. In a lot of countries, palm-greasing is the ONLY way to get things done. Even if it's something that is the RIGHT thing to do. I'd bet you'd have to pay any paper in Iraq to print ANYTHING from a US Military source.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SudsyFist 0 #37 December 2, 2005 Quotewhy is it okay for people and groups to fun journalism projects to put out negative articles on the war If it's presented as news, and not as an op/ed piece, then I don't think it's OK. Further, I'd prefer all op/ed stuff to be corralled into its own show and properly labeled ("The Libertarians Are Whiny Suck Asses Op/Ed Show", e.g.). QuoteAnd the very fact that one dude was busted taking payments should shatter your image of reporters being fair and impartial. After all, if he'd take money from one side, who's to say others wouldn't take money from another side? Yep. Scrutinize everything you hear. If for some reason you feel comfortable with a certain source, that's reason for even more scrutiny. QuoteLeafletting and propaganda have ALWAYS been a part of wars we've fought. To an extent, Trent. When we're espousing freedom and freedom and freedom, though, we're not doing very well by bribing or coercing propaganda into their newsstream. We're violating the very thing for which we're standing by pursuing it in that way, and the end result is going to be nasty when the locals find out they've been had. There are a number of methods by which to garner the support of the Iraqi people during the occupation, the most effective of which, IMHO, is making substantial progress in the improvement of their lives and situation, exactly which many of our uniformed personnel over there are working very hard under great duress to do. But I hear your concerns about combatting negative messages. There are more effective and less hypocritical ways than controlling the media to do that. It'll certainly take more brainpower and effort, but I think it's worth it in the long run. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ReBirth 0 #38 December 2, 2005 QuoteAs far as paying Iraqi papers to print positive articles about progress in Iraq by American and Iraqi forces... what's the problem? Leafletting and propaganda have ALWAYS been a part of wars we've fought. Personally, I don't have a problem with it at all. I think they should use propaganda in Iraq, that's part of a good strategy when at war. I do NOT think it's ok for the whitehouse to do it domestically, using public funds, to further their own political agendas re medicaid. Apparently the whitehouse position is exactly the opposite. They produce fake news stories to show the American people and criticize the military for paying Iraqi newspapers to run stories favorable to them. Like I said, hypocrisy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #39 December 2, 2005 What appears on the news (ideally) should be the product of well-trained, experienced and responsible journalists -- ........... Agreed, but unfortunalely there are dam few of them left."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,084 #30 December 2, 2005 >As far as economic debt goes - most successful companies lose > money for years, prior to their success. Personally, I'm glad I have > a President that's willing to be criticized for spending, just to ensure > the country's success in the future. I wish I had a role model like that in high school! And to think I listened to my parents when they said I had to be careful with money. "Yeah, mom, I need $6000 for a new car. Sure, the Datsun works, but it's so OLD. Don't think of it as $6000 - think of it as ensuring my success in the future!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterblaster72 0 #31 December 2, 2005 QuoteIn any event, if the details are factual as compared to being false what would you say about it? If it's on the news, it better have more than one point of view. If it's coming from the white house, you can bet for damn sure that it won't have a legitimate opposing point of view. Even if it's factually correct, if there's one point of view, I won't buy it and it doesn't belong on the news. It's better off on an infomercial. What appears on the news (ideally) should be the product of well-trained, experienced and responsible journalists -- not the white house's PR department. Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #32 December 2, 2005 Like someone else pointed out, why is it okay for people and groups to fun journalism projects to put out negative articles on the war, but not okay when the Whitehouse puts together a media package showing their positions and the stories they feel are ignored in mass media? The networks don't have to air them. Now paying journalists to report what you want is crossing the line, but you do have freelancers who are anti-war or anti-Bush who get paid by news agencies to dig up shit all the time... even if it is questionable at best. And the very fact that one dude was busted taking payments should shatter your image of reporters being fair and impartial. After all, if he'd take money from one side, who's to say others wouldn't take money from another side? As far as paying Iraqi papers to print positive articles about progress in Iraq by American and Iraqi forces... what's the problem? Leafletting and propaganda have ALWAYS been a part of wars we've fought. If 90% of what Iraqis hear is our own congressmen and senators shreiking about how BAD we are and how our government fucked up and how we're only in it to steal oil... then you can't blame the military for trying to combat that. Also having clerics who preach to their mosques that we are all evil and should be destroyed, count on the ignorance of the people to blindly accept what they're being told. Trying to show them differently is fair play, otherwise "the truth" would only be what the dude screaming the loudest said it was. As far as paying the Iraqi media, it's just another swipe at the military by people who hate just about everything about our current administration. Propaganda has always been, and will always be a part of war. Just look at all the propaganda the anti-war people spew... even people here don't agree with all that. You just can't have the voice of one side being heard, especially when it puts lives at risk. If paying to get the stories published is what it takes, then that's what it takes. At least we don't tell them to print it or die.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,084 #33 December 2, 2005 >Like someone else pointed out, why is it okay for people and groups > to fun journalism projects to put out negative articles on the war, but > not okay when the Whitehouse puts together a media package > showing their positions and the stories they feel are ignored in mass > media? Both are OK if you call them documentaries, or position pieces, or whatever. To claim they are "news" is misleading and dishonest. >As far as paying Iraqi papers to print positive articles about >progress in Iraq by American and Iraqi forces... what's the problem? > Leafletting and propaganda have ALWAYS been a part of wars we've > fought. Again, no problem with distributing propaganda. But there is a big problem paying a supposedly independent press to print what you want them to. For one thing, it makes otherwise marginal sources like Al-Jazeera more credible; the statement "at least the US isn't paying them to say only good things!" becomes true. > it's just another swipe at the military by people who hate just >about everything about our current administration. As more and more of those people ARE military people, your reasoning really doesn't fly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jeiber 0 #34 December 2, 2005 Quote"Yeah, mom, I need $6000 for a new car. Sure, the Datsun works, but it's so OLD. Don't think of it as $6000 - think of it as ensuring my success in the future!" Great analogy... There's a huge difference between spending money on a high school status symbol vs. a reliable means of transportation to get you to work, or your kids to school.... JShhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,555 #35 December 2, 2005 QuoteThere's a huge difference between spending money on a high school status symbol vs. a reliable means of transportation to get you to work, or your kids to school.... There's also a huge difference between spending money on a car that you don't have money for and a bicycle that you do. If I don't have the money for something, I either save, take out a formal load (i.e. have my credit evaluated) or readjust my priorities. I don't just spend because my credit card still has some balance left. It's easy to base one's "needs" on what others have. It's better to base one's needs on what one can afford, and design one's ends within one's means. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #36 December 2, 2005 QuoteBoth are OK if you call them documentaries, or position pieces, or whatever. To claim they are "news" is misleading and dishonest. The success of a military operation in nabbing a bunch of bad-guys, or the opening of 5 new schools built by our corps of engineers, or the building of water and sanitation systems are "position pieces"? Just because it's put out by a government entity, doesn't make it not "news." QuoteAgain, no problem with distributing propaganda. But there is a big problem paying a supposedly independent press to print what you want them to. For one thing, it makes otherwise marginal sources like Al-Jazeera more credible; the statement "at least the US isn't paying them to say only good things!" becomes true. Like the article said, if they're paying them to put in articles that are factual and observable in reality, then what's the problem? If it takes a few bucks to get them to print something other than "The Sky Is Falling and It's America's Fault!!"... then it takes a few bucks. You're saying that all those independant and unbiased papers in Iraq aren't subject to printing the BS they get from Joe-Cleric and Al Jazeera, regardless of its veracity or slant? You can't even say that about the media here. In a lot of countries, palm-greasing is the ONLY way to get things done. Even if it's something that is the RIGHT thing to do. I'd bet you'd have to pay any paper in Iraq to print ANYTHING from a US Military source.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SudsyFist 0 #37 December 2, 2005 Quotewhy is it okay for people and groups to fun journalism projects to put out negative articles on the war If it's presented as news, and not as an op/ed piece, then I don't think it's OK. Further, I'd prefer all op/ed stuff to be corralled into its own show and properly labeled ("The Libertarians Are Whiny Suck Asses Op/Ed Show", e.g.). QuoteAnd the very fact that one dude was busted taking payments should shatter your image of reporters being fair and impartial. After all, if he'd take money from one side, who's to say others wouldn't take money from another side? Yep. Scrutinize everything you hear. If for some reason you feel comfortable with a certain source, that's reason for even more scrutiny. QuoteLeafletting and propaganda have ALWAYS been a part of wars we've fought. To an extent, Trent. When we're espousing freedom and freedom and freedom, though, we're not doing very well by bribing or coercing propaganda into their newsstream. We're violating the very thing for which we're standing by pursuing it in that way, and the end result is going to be nasty when the locals find out they've been had. There are a number of methods by which to garner the support of the Iraqi people during the occupation, the most effective of which, IMHO, is making substantial progress in the improvement of their lives and situation, exactly which many of our uniformed personnel over there are working very hard under great duress to do. But I hear your concerns about combatting negative messages. There are more effective and less hypocritical ways than controlling the media to do that. It'll certainly take more brainpower and effort, but I think it's worth it in the long run. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #38 December 2, 2005 QuoteAs far as paying Iraqi papers to print positive articles about progress in Iraq by American and Iraqi forces... what's the problem? Leafletting and propaganda have ALWAYS been a part of wars we've fought. Personally, I don't have a problem with it at all. I think they should use propaganda in Iraq, that's part of a good strategy when at war. I do NOT think it's ok for the whitehouse to do it domestically, using public funds, to further their own political agendas re medicaid. Apparently the whitehouse position is exactly the opposite. They produce fake news stories to show the American people and criticize the military for paying Iraqi newspapers to run stories favorable to them. Like I said, hypocrisy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #39 December 2, 2005 What appears on the news (ideally) should be the product of well-trained, experienced and responsible journalists -- ........... Agreed, but unfortunalely there are dam few of them left."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #40 December 2, 2005 QuoteTo an extent, Trent. When we're espousing freedom and freedom and freedom, though, we're not doing very well by bribing or coercing propaganda into their newsstream. We're violating the very thing for which we're standing by pursuing it in that way, and the end result is going to be nasty when the locals find out they've been had. If the articles are really factual and not just "GI's Are Your Best Friends, Submit!" articles, then the people will not have been "had". If they're articles reporting the progress that people feel is going unreported because the papers are stacked with the opinions and "reports" of people who don't want any good to be seen, then there's no problem. Now, granted, the papers should report that anyway if they want to be honest and constructive... but good news doesn't sell papers, right? The only bad thing about this situation is that people (evidence on this forum) are gonna make it into a huge "US Pays for Lies" deal because someone let it out that they did have to use cash to persuade papers to publish their stories. QuoteThere are more effective and less hypocritical ways than controlling the media to do that. It'll certainly take more brainpower and effort, but I think it's worth it in the long run. With a media that neglects to report the GOOD things that are going on... how would you suggest that happen?Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SudsyFist 0 #41 December 2, 2005 QuoteNow, granted, the papers should report that anyway if they want to be honest and constructive... but good news doesn't sell papers, right? That's a good point, but I really have no idea how their press is working right now. I strongly doubt they are operating freely, but I'm not sure who's pushing what agenda on them. QuoteQuoteThere are more effective and less hypocritical ways than controlling the media to do that. It'll certainly take more brainpower and effort, but I think it's worth it in the long run. With a media that neglects to report the GOOD things that are going on... how would you suggest that happen? *If* that's the case, then I'd start by investigating why. If media cartels under the influence of the insurgency are already springing up, then investigate and dissemble the network. You know, along those lines. If it's a free and open media, and it's still neglecting the good news, then perhaps it's time for some grassroots movements among the people to be heard. After all, there are many stakeholders of the good news within the citizenry, proper. And they're the media's market, to boot -- nothing better than having some of your customers barking up your tree to get you to shift some gears. Aside from that, psyops is a very fascinating field, and there's tons of info on the 'net in which to bury one's self. You'd probably dig checking it out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #42 December 2, 2005 Quotethen perhaps it's time for some grassroots movements among the people to be heard. After all, there are many stakeholders of the good news within the citizenry, proper. And they're the media's market, to boot -- nothing better than having some of your customers barking up your tree to get you to shift some gears. Ahhh, that takes too much time. Just pay 'em. I'd imagine that grassroots movements are tough to start when there is a history of people getting killed for that in Iraq. Now they have to worry about terrorists coming after them for wanting some good news to be published. Yeah, I've read a lot of that stuff... it's cool for sure.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,084 #43 December 2, 2005 >The success of a military operation in nabbing a bunch of bad-guys, >or the opening of 5 new schools built by our corps of engineers, or the >building of water and sanitation systems are "position pieces"? Nope, that can be valid news. So can a story about ten dead Iraqi kids that were killed by US soldiers. If a group is paying for either story to be published, though, then any appearance of impartiality is lost. >Like the article said, if they're paying them to put in articles that are >factual and observable in reality, then what's the problem? And again - if a group finances the Wall Street Journal to run stories only about Iraqi kids killed by US soldiers, would you be OK with that? Would your response on finding out that they were doing that be "what's the problem?" I doubt it. >You're saying that all those independant and unbiased papers in Iraq >aren't subject to printing the BS they get from Joe-Cleric and Al Jazeera, > regardless of its veracity or slant? Of course. They also print pro-US bullshit planted by glad-handing US diplomats. Unless the whole "we want a free Iraq" line is a _complete_ lie, then they get to decide what to print. >In a lot of countries, palm-greasing is the ONLY way to get things done. >Even if it's something that is the RIGHT thing to do. I'd bet you'd have to >pay any paper in Iraq to print ANYTHING from a US Military source. If we have to pay a free Iraqi press to print anything good about us - then we should give up now. We're done. If, as you say, Iraqis like the US for opening schools and whatnot, then surely a free press will report that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #44 December 2, 2005 Quoteif a group finances the Wall Street Journal to run stories only about Iraqi kids killed by US soldiers, would you be OK with that? Would your response on finding out that they were doing that be "what's the problem?" I doubt it. The Journal can do whatever it wants. If the story is true and not just propaganda, then what's the problem. Of course, I'd be pissed that a business journal was getting rid of business news to print what I could read in the Times. And, Bill, newspapers DO get paid to print bullshit that panders to their audience. Look at the Times. Just because someone doesn't say, "hey, print this and I'll give you $10000" doesn't mean that the newspaper doesn't profit from printing the BIG STORIES, that turn out to be BS in the end. QuoteOf course. They also print pro-US bullshit planted by glad-handing US diplomats. Unless the whole "we want a free Iraq" line is a _complete_ lie, then they get to decide what to print. If a few bucks gets them to willingly print something we want to tell the readers, they're still free. If we tell them to print what we want or we'll kill them... that's different. You can see that, can't you? QuoteIf we have to pay a free Iraqi press to print anything good about us - then we should give up now. We're done. If, as you say, Iraqis like the US for opening schools and whatnot, then surely a free press will report that. OUR media rarely reports that in comparison to the negative and opinion pieces!! Do you think it's completely different in Iraq?Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SudsyFist 0 #45 December 2, 2005 QuoteI'd imagine that grassroots movements are tough to start when there is a history of people getting killed for that in Iraq. Now they have to worry about terrorists coming after them for wanting some good news to be published. I think you grossly underestimate the power of the people and their desire to be heard. If this resource isn't yet being tapped to its fullest, then there are some seriously critical failures going on over there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SudsyFist 0 #46 December 2, 2005 QuoteIf a few bucks gets them to willingly print something we want to tell the readers, they're still free. If we tell them to print what we want or we'll kill them... that's different. You can see that, can't you? It gets way more convoluted than that. Way more. It's not just a slippery slope; it's a sun-facing glacier wall. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #47 December 2, 2005 Too bad everything is some kind of evil plot to the left. Unless of course they are doing it. Hard for me to see much difference in the, paying for a news story, complaint or acepting George Soros money to run political adds. Of course, they agree with George Soros. I think George Soros involvement is much more dangerous........"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,084 #48 December 2, 2005 >There's a huge difference between spending money on a high school > status symbol vs. a reliable means of transportation to get you to > work, or your kids to school.... Right. The analogy here would be spending money on armor for US troops, as opposed to giving two billion in tax breaks to corporations that are making record profits. Good thing we'd never do something like that! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SudsyFist 0 #49 December 2, 2005 QuoteToo bad everything is some kind of evil plot to the left. Unless of course they are doing it. Serious question: do you really think that way, or are you just pushing buttons? If it's the former, I'm really fascinated as to how you've come to this, and, if you don't mind, I'd love to study you for a paper I'm writing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,084 #50 December 2, 2005 >If the story is true and not just propaganda, then what's the problem. I don't know. The media doesn't do anything close to that now, but the right wingers are still screaming "LYING LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS!" at the top of their lungs. So you'd have to ask them. >Just because someone doesn't say, "hey, print this and I'll give you > $10000" doesn't mean that the newspaper doesn't profit from > printing the BIG STORIES, that turn out to be BS in the end. I think you're digging yourself into a hole, here. I know you see the ethical problem in doing that; heck, I think that if you ran a paper you'd have too much integrity to think that was OK. >OUR media rarely reports that in comparison to the negative and >opinion pieces!! What the heck are you talking about? Bush makes a "everything is great in Iraq" and it's front page news, under a "Bush Touts Progress in Iraq" banner headline. An Iraqi family gets killed at a checkpoint by US soldiers and it's page three, under "Today in Iraq." You have to stop hanging out on the extremist websites! Left wing extremist websites say nothing but bad stuff about the war, and right wing extremist websites claim that the left wing websites ARE mainstream media. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
