Fox News Rules & MSNBC Sucks! by Skywalken

I agree that Fox news did a better job and that the questions were much better. Chris Mathews asked the most lame debate questions I've ever heard "Do you want Bill Clinton back in the White House?" Seriously Chris? Thats your question? Rudy made a fool of himself demonstrating that he had not bothered to read the 9/11 Commission Report by saying he had never heard that al Qeada attacked us because we were over there.
Okay, Rudy here it is from the 911 Commission Report: "Bin Laden's Appeal to the Islamic World" p.48.
"[Bin Laden] promises to restore pride to people who consider themsleves the victims of successive foreign masters...He also stresses grievances against the United States widely shared in the Muslim world. He inveighed against the presence of United States troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam's holiest sites. He spoke of the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of sanctions imposed after the Gulf War, and he protested U.S. support of Israel," (pp.48-49).
According to the Report American's have asked "Why do they hate us?" Al-Qaeda has answered saying "that America had attacked Islam; America is responsible for all conflicts involving Muslims," and "America is also held responsible for the governments of Muslim countries, derided by al Qaeda as 'your agents'," (p.51).
In other words, as Ron Paul said, a contributing factor to them attacking us was we were over there. But Rudy has never heard that before. I think we need a president who has actually read the 9/11 Commission Report.

www.RonPaul2008.com

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 17, 2007 5:04 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by Skywalken:
...the legitimate journalists at Fox News

Heh. Thanks for starting my day with a laugh.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 17, 2007 5:22 AM

Quote:
posted by Skywalken- That was proven by the way each network hosted a presidential debate.

Whereas liberal Democrat political commentator Chris Matthews wasted everyone's time with silly and downright stupid questions and his goofy attitude, the legitimate journalists at Fox News asked serious, hard-hitting, intelligent and interesting questions and actually carried themselves with a sophisticated attitude and demeanor.

i agree to the extent that the actual questions and format was better. but as you could tell from the exchange between Guiliani and Paul, the audience was stacked with a bunch of Newt Gingrich neo-cons. i also didnt feel Hannity was objective or even conservative, in his interview afterwards with Ron Paul(although Colmes, for being pretty liberal, atleast seemed to identify with Pauls Libertarian positions). to me, Foxs attempt to discredit and marginalize Ron Pauls support is only serving to reveal their true neo-conservative colors. if they continue to deny congressman Paul exposure, inspite of his relatively successfull polling, i believe they will only aid in facilitating the eventual detachment of legitimate conservatives from the republican party

Quote:
posted by Early- In other words, as Ron Paul said, a contributing factor to them attacking us was we were over there.

But Rudy has never heard that before. I think we need a president who has actually read the 9/11 Commission Report.

i wonder if this is a result of an idealogy that approves of the last 50 yrs of foreign policy, some kind of flawed perception that America is entitled and obligated to police the world. IMO thats a view which no worthy republican presidential candidate ought to have

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 17, 2007 7:34 AM

SIMONF

"Fox News Rules & MSNBC Sucks!"

Have you been to their websites? The Fox one is ghastly, so cluttered and so 5 years out of date. It's like the Geocities of news sites.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 17, 2007 9:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonF:
"Fox News Rules & MSNBC Sucks!"

Have you been to their websites? The Fox one is ghastly, so cluttered and so 5 years out of date. It's like the Geocities of news sites.

The point was (at least the point I was agreeing with him on) that the questions at the debate on Fox were far and away better than the questions on MSNBC. The format was also better. I'm not a big fan of Fox Propaganda, but their debates were run better in my opinion. I have no comment on their website.

www.RonPaul2008.com

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 17, 2007 9:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Early:
Rudy made a fool of himself …

Actually Rudy catapulted himself way ahead by providing the perfect response. The foolish response would have been yours – to quote bin Laden as if he is a legitimate source to define US foreign policy. The US brought 9/ll on itself because bin Laden said so. That would have ended your political career right there.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 17, 2007 9:36 AM

MALBADINLATIN

Quote:
Originally posted by Skywalken:
That was proven by the way each network hosted a presidential debate. Whereas liberal Democrat political commentator Chris Matthews wasted everyone's time with silly and downright stupid questions and his goofy attitude, the legitimate journalists at Fox News asked serious, hard-hitting, intelligent and interesting questions and actually carried themselves with a sophisticated attitude and demeanor.

Mal Bad In Latin is now catatonic, it was just all too much for him.........

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 17, 2007 10:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by Early:
Rudy made a fool of himself …
Actually Rudy catapulted himself way ahead by providing the perfect response. The foolish response would have been yours – to quote bin Laden as if he is a legitimate source to define US foreign policy. The US brought 9/ll on itself because bin Laden said so. That would have ended your political career right there.

It seems Rudy made a fool out of more than just himself.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 17, 2007 10:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by Early:
The US brought 9/ll on itself because bin Laden said so. That would have ended your political career right there.

But thats not what Paul said. Let me give you an analogy. I walk into a neighborhood controlled by the gang the bloods wearing a blue shirt (which is the color of their rival gang). I get shot. It's not my fault that I was shot, its the fault of the person who shot me and he has no moral or legal righteousness in doing so, but the reason I was shot was because I was wearing a blue shirt. Now I can claim that they shot me because I was white, but they really shot me because I was wearing a blue shirt. If I don't listen to the reason they told me that they shot me and just insist that it was because I was white, I might make the same mistake again. still, its not my fault, it is the fault of the shooter. Paul did not blame America, but it behooves us to understand the mentallity of those who mean us harm and their reasons.

www.RonPaul2008.com

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 17, 2007 10:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Early:
But thats not what Paul said. Let me give you an analogy.

I’m completely aware of the argument being made. Let’s try another analogy. A woman walks to work in a miniskirt, and on the way there, she is attacked and raped. But since she was wearing a miniskirt, we can conclude that woman was a slut and brought it on herself.

Probably every woman who has ever been raped, it was her fault, if we assume the rapist is authority on fault in that matter.

Almost every person who has ever been murdered, it was their fault, if we assume the murderer is the authority on the fault in the matter.

I promise you, if Rudy had responded by quoting bin Laden in this case, his career would have been over.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 17, 2007 10:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by Early:
But thats not what Paul said. Let me give you an analogy.
I’m completely aware of the argument being made. Let’s try another analogy. A woman walks to work in a miniskirt, and on the way there, she is attacked and raped. But since she was wearing a miniskirt, we can conclude that woman was a slut and brought it on herself.

Probably every woman who has ever been raped, it was her fault, if we assume the rapist is authority on fault in that matter.

Almost every person who has ever been murdered, it was their fault, if we assume the murderer is the authority on the fault in the matter.

I promise you, if Rudy had responded by quoting bin Laden in this case, his career would have been over.

But you keep using the term fault. No it is not the woman's fault. Just like it would not be my fault (which I thought I made clear) for getting shot because I wore a blue shirt. Paul never said it was America's fault. The media and Giuliani said that, putting words into his mouth. In your analogy it is the rapists fault. But if the rapist did it because she was wearing a short skirt then lets not pretend he raped her because she had blond hair. And if the woman alters her dress because of this incident to be safer, it doesn't mean that it was her fault. If after getting shot for wearing a blue shirt I never wear a blue shirt into the bloods neighborhood again thats just a lesson learned. The gunman, the rapist, and the terrorists should all go to jail for they are at fault. not the victims, but what the victims did is a contributing factor (to use Paul's words). To deny that is denying the truth.

www.RonPaul2008.com

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 17, 2007 10:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Early:
But you keep using the term fault. No it is not the woman's fault. Just like it would not be my fault (which I thought I made clear) for getting shot because I wore a blue shirt. Paul never said it was America's fault. The media and Giuliani said that, putting words into his mouth. In your analogy it is the rapists fault. But if the rapist did it because she was wearing a short skirt then lets not pretend he raped her because she had blond hair. And if the woman alters her dress because of this incident to be safer, it doesn't mean that it was her fault. If after getting shot for wearing a blue shirt I never wear a blue shirt into the bloods neighborhood again thats just a lesson learned. The gunman, the rapist, and the terrorists should all go to jail for they are at fault. not the victims, but what the victims did is a contributing factor (to use Paul's words). To deny that is denying the truth.

There are two problems with that.

First of all, quoting bin Laden’s hatred of America as justification for 9/ll, regardless of where the fault is intended to be laid, WILL be read as American’s fault and bin Laden’s right. Ergo Giuliani’s career is over.

Second, you are implying appeasement to terrorism. Gangsters shoot you for wearing a blue shirt, so you stop wearing a blue shirt.

Neither of these arguments will work. At the very very best, they are too complicated, at worst they are anti-American. Either way, they won’t go over in a debate.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 17, 2007 11:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by Early:

Second, you are implying appeasement to terrorism. Gangsters shoot you for wearing a blue shirt, so you stop wearing a blue shirt.

Neither of these arguments will work. At the very very best, they are too complicated, at worst they are anti-American. Either way, they won’t go over in a debate.

So if you were shot because you wondered into a bloods neighborhood wearing a blue shirt, you would do it again just to show 'em? That's just dumb. You need to do a little risk/reward analysis. As far as appeasing terroists, maybe the reward would outweigh the risks, but we still need to understand the reasons. As Sun Tzu said you should know your enemy and know yourself (I paraphrase).

As far as the arguments...
Well they certainly aren't anti-American. As far as too complicated, thats just a statement on the sad state of affairs of the American public. The greatest debates in U.S. history were very complicated: The Ratification Debates, the Lincoln / Douglas debates, etc. It's sad that we now have to stick to bumper-sticker slogans and mindless talking points instead of really debating the issues.

www.RonPaul2008.com

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 17, 2007 11:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Early:
So if you were shot because you wondered into a bloods neighborhood wearing a blue shirt, you would do it again just to show 'em? That's just dumb.

That’s not really what I said. But I don’t want a president who will kowtow to terrorists. That is almost never the option that will discourage terrorism, and it is, historically, the appeasement that has created Islamic terrorism in the first place. Giving into terrorists may be the easy solution in the short run, but it will not be an easy solution in the long run.

Quote:
Originally posted by Early:
As far as the arguments...
Well they certainly aren't anti-American. As far as too complicated, thats just a statement on the sad state of affairs of the American public. The greatest debates in U.S. history were very complicated: The Ratification Debates, the Lincoln / Douglas debates, etc. It's sad that we now have to stick to bumper-sticker slogans and mindless talking points instead of really debating the issues.

Welcome to the modern world.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 17, 2007 11:39 AM

FLETCH2

The point is that if you end up not wearing a blue shirt (for the understandable reason of not wanting to get shot) then your freedom to chose your form of dress has been curtailed. Now as you have a lawfull right to wear a blue shirt why should you be forced to bow to someone elses unreasonable demands?

The correct answer is to rid your neighborhood of the Bloods completely because sooner or later they will shoot you for some other reason.

There was an interesting NPR program on Bin Laden about a month ago that followed him from fighting the Russians in Afghanistan through to 9/11. After the Russians pulled out Osama decided to try to keep his fighters together as an irregular army to "defend Muslims." When Sadam invaded Kuwait he offered the Saudi king his private army to oust the Iraqi invaders. When the Saudi government chose to ask the US for help Osama felt slighted.

So to use your analogy what happened here is that you helped old Mrs Dawkins do her yardwork. A Blood that wanted that job felt you had cheated him out of it and came after you for it. This isn't like the shirt issue, you had no way of knowing you were "dissing" him because the slight is all in his head. However, once he took a dislike to you he was going to beat you up anyway. Chances are that afterwards he's going to put the best spin he can on the events, so he'll probably say you insulted him even though you never met him before.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 17, 2007 12:05 PM

You bring up a good point lets focus on the freedom issue and kowtowing to terrorists. I assume we're all in agreement that terrorists can't beat us in the traditional way. That is why they terrorize. Otherwise they'd have just used their army to push us out. The entire point of terrorism is to terrorize and when you change your country because of their terrorism you do kowtow to them, as you said. That's bad, I agree (though it doesn't fit my shirt analogy because in that analogy we were in their neighborhood). Anyway, when we discard our must fundamental document, the Constitution, because the terrorists have attacked then we have kowtowed. When we live in fear of them and change the basic fabric of our society (freedom) they win. simply stating that the reasons they attacked us is because we are over there is not Kowtowing its stating truth. What you are saying is don't take off your blus shirt, which too me sounds more like don't change our countries freedoms. And with that I entirely agree with you.

www.RonPaul2008.com

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 17, 2007 12:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Early:
When we live in fear of them and change the basic fabric of our society (freedom) they win. simply stating that the reasons they attacked us is because we are over there is not Kowtowing its stating truth. What you are saying is don't take off your blus shirt, which too me sounds more like don't change our countries freedoms. And with that I entirely agree with you.

One of the basic fabrics of our society is our sovereignty. Our right to make our own decision. What does “over there” mean? In bin Laden’s case, it means we put American bases in the Middle East, in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait for instance. Those American bases were not there to occupy Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, rather we were there at the pleasure of the Saudi and Kuwaiti government. Bin Laden doesn’t like the Saudi or the Kuwaiti government and he doesn’t like the US, so he’s going to dictate American policy by telling the US how to run its government. If sovereign US policy can be dictated by some rogue with a gun, what does our sovereignty mean? And if bin laden can decide how our government is run, what policies will he decide next time? The execution of women who do not wear Burkas?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 17, 2007 7:31 PM

Quote:
posted by Finn mac Cumhal-
If sovereign US policy can be dictated by some rogue with a gun, what does our sovereignty mean? And if bin laden can decide how our government is run, what policies will he decide next time? The execution of women who do not wear Burkas?

i dont know.. the basic tenet seems to be 'treat others as youd want to be treated'; there are many more secular societies in the world than US, and "alqaeda" isnt attacking them. but because of bad foreign policy and interference in the region, we have left a bad repor evidently. while in the end the blame is placed solely on the individual, it has to be considered that if we had been minding our own business to begin with, none of this would have taken place as it did.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 2:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by Early:
If sovereign US policy can be dictated by some rogue with a gun, what does our sovereignty mean?

Think about what you just said and now pretend you're an average Saudi or Iraqi citizen, and substitute the word US with Saudi Arabia or Iraq.

www.RonPaul2008.com

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 2:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
i dont know.. the basic tenet seems to be 'treat others as youd want to be treated'; there are many more secular societies in the world than US, and "alqaeda" isnt attacking them. but because of bad foreign policy and interference in the region, we have left a bad repor evidently. while in the end the blame is placed solely on the individual, it has to be considered that if we had been minding our own business to begin with, none of this would have taken place as it did.

So you don’t consider France, Germany, Spain and the UK to be “secular societies?”

And if we had cowered in some hole and ignored the world, maybe Al Qaeda would ignore us. But it would be Al Qaeda defining our foreign policy, not us, and that’s not really a good strategy anyway.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 2:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Early:
Think about what you just said and now pretend you're an average Saudi or Iraqi citizen, and substitute the word US with Saudi Arabia or Iraq.

I’m not sure what Saudi Arabia has to do with this, but Iraq has more sovereignty today then it had under Saddam Hussein. The Ba’ath regime in Iraq was a classic example of the kind of government you get when your policy is to kowtow to armed thugs. All of Iraq’s sovereignty rested on one man, who took power through acts of terrorism.

The problems we are dealing with in Iraq right now is that there are still many people who want to continue that policy of government by terrorist, and they believe, perhaps correctly, that if they kill enough innocent people and terrorize Baghdad enough that they will gain power. Only time and American/Iraqi resolve will tell if Iraq will remain a sovereign nation of people under elected leaders or become a nation whose sovereignty rests on one terrorist lord.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 3:23 AM

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Skywalken:
Whereas liberal Democrat political commentator Chris Matthews wasted everyone's time with silly and downright stupid questions and his goofy attitude, the legitimate journalists at Fox News asked serious, hard-hitting, intelligent and interesting questions and actually carried themselves with a sophisticated attitude and demeanor.

I'm always astounded at how far political threads drift as 2 or more posters debate, in this case Early and Finn. That's why I copied the orginal text from the thread starter above.

I watched both debates. As a libertarian who supports the Fair Tax and has no Red/Blue bias I agree that the Fox debate was a real debate. The MSNBC event was a farce.

I will also say I enjoyed watching Jon Stewart mock the Fox debate on the Daily Show.

Do not fear me. Our's is a peaceful race and we must live in harmony.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 4:00 AM

KANEMAN

"The point is that if you end up not wearing a blue shirt (for the understandable reason of not wanting to get shot) then your freedom to chose your form of dress has been curtailed. Now as you have a lawfull right to wear a blue shirt why should you be forced to bow to someone elses unreasonable demands?"

This is not the point at all. How can we take Paul's view and actually use words like"loss of freedom" when debating it? How does not interfering in another country = loss of freedom?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 4:04 AM

KANEMAN

"but Iraq has more sovereignty today then it had under Saddam Hussein.'

Not our business. Iraqi sovereignty should be decided by Iraqis.........

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 4:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Iraqi sovereignty should be decided by Iraqis.........

Yeah, I feel the same way.

Quote:
Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:
I'm always astounded at how far political threads drift as 2 or more posters debate, in this case Early and Finn. That's why I copied the orginal text from the thread starter above.

Okay, you’re right. Early and I did hijack the thread a little, I guess. I’ll shut up.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 6:03 AM

FLETCH2

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
"The point is that if you end up not wearing a blue shirt (for the understandable reason of not wanting to get shot) then your freedom to chose your form of dress has been curtailed. Now as you have a lawfull right to wear a blue shirt why should you be forced to bow to someone elses unreasonable demands?"

This is not the point at all. How can we take Paul's view and actually use words like"loss of freedom" when debating it? How does not interfering in another country = loss of freedom?

I'm not commenting on Paul's statement I'm commenting on Early's example which I think I've already established is inaccurate.

In a way Ron Paul is absolutely right, if the US was not involved in the region chances are it wouldn't be a target. The problem is that while 80% of America's oil comes from that region the US can't afford NOT to be involved in the Mid East. World politics has always been driven by the need to access resources, be that European Imperialism or modern market economics. Because US industry needs Mid East oil it is a foreign policy objective of the US govenment to secure supplies both in the case of physical security and in ensuring the continuation of US friendly governments in oil producing states. That's just real life.

I love Ron Paul, it is good to see someone that stands by his principles and does what he's elected to do in Washington but I still think he's naive. In the real world the US needs to maintain access to materials and markets for finished goods. If it can't do that then it's economy suffers and so do the standards of living of the people who live here.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 7:13 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Quote:
Originally posted by Skywalken:
the legitimate journalists at Fox News

oh thats funny, oh geez, oh no, no, stop, thats so funny, oh I can't breathe, I can't breathe

*FMF wipes the tears from her eyes*

---- plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose

Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre, Owner of a too big Turnippy smelling coat with MR scratched in the neck (thanks FollowMal!)

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 7:42 AM

Paul's statement was not naive. It's been reinterpreted by political opportunists (giuliani) for use in their own demagoguery. Insecure morons eat this stuff up, but it's nonsense.

I don't have much to say regarding the opinion that Finn has expressed here. It's a popular one, but I'm tired of trying to communicate with people who can't separate justification and blame from a reasonable desire to understand what happened and why. They'd have us all stick our heads in the sand and pretend that the terrorists attacked us "because of our freedom of religion, because of our freedom for women..." - to quote our boy Rudy. This is the willful ignorance that's been driving our country into the ground since 9/11.

Fletch, you're assuming Dr. Paul is making some kind of isolationist argument. It only looks isolationist when compared to the full-blown interventionist policies advocated by the Republicrats. There's plenty of room between isolationism and imperialism and that's where Rep. Paul's very realistic ideas reside. We can protect our interests without lording it over everyone else. We can protect our country without military bases in every country on the planet. We can even promote freedom and democracy without invading and regime-changing every nation that dares to reject our values.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 7:47 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Exactly Sarge.

Consider that we'd prolly be paying LESS per barrel for that oil without this dickheaded invasion, AND without going into debt to pay for the invasion and occupation neither.

Gorram stupid of us, you ask me, which, I know, nobody did, but I said it beforehand too.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 8:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
So you don’t consider France, Germany, Spain and the UK to be “secular societies?”

i do.. and so is China and many other prominant countries... but despite their secular leanings, the middle east doesnt dominant their foreign and domestic policies, and they arent leading an ambiguous global war on dissent either. my point being that our culture alone is not what is causing this clash, but our policies

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 9:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Paul's statement was not naive. It's been reinterpreted by political opportunists (giuliani) for use in their own demagoguery. Insecure morons eat this stuff up, but it's nonsense.

I don't have much to say regarding the opinion that Finn has expressed here. It's a popular one, but I'm tired of trying to communicate with people who can't separate justification and blame from a reasonable desire to understand what happened and why. They'd have us all stick our heads in the sand and pretend that the terrorists attacked us "because of our freedom of religion, because of our freedom for women..." - to quote our boy Rudy. This is the willful ignorance that's been driving our country into the ground since 9/11.

Fletch, you're assuming Dr. Paul is making some kind of isolationist argument. It only looks isolationist when compared to the full-blown interventionist policies advocated by the Republicrats. There's plenty of room between isolationism and imperialism and that's where Rep. Paul's very realistic ideas reside. We can protect our interests without lording it over everyone else. We can protect our country without military bases in every country on the planet. We can even promote freedom and democracy without invading and regime-changing every nation that dares to reject our values.

i have to agree with that

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 21, 2007 10:22 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

MSNBC BANNED on Comcast ATT cable TV service

In East Tennessee, and perhaps nationwide, MSNBC is now BANNED on Comcast ATT cable TV service, even for premium customers! This started last week. MSNBC is the most anti-Bush network, thanks to Keith Olbermann's rants. And of course Ron Paul won the MSNBC debate with 85% of the vote.

Why not ban Fox News and Fox TV and FX Channel, et al, since they are literally owned by the Communist Party in China, home of Sir Rupert Murdoch Australian Knight of the British Empire, and his Communist Chinese wife. The Communist Manifesto was written by Karl Marx in London England, and bans the ownership of private property.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendi_Deng

"Son, you're not the first man to piss off a woman and end up stranded on the side of the road. That's why I always take my keys with me when I get out."
-Trucker, Drive

DRIVE VS POLICE STATE: FREE TV EPISODES ONLINE
OOPS! CANCELLED!!! FINAL EPPS ON JULY 4 8PM EST
www.myspace.com/driveonfox

FIREFLY SERENITY PILOT MUSIC VIDEO
Tangerine Dream - Thief Soundtrack: Confrontation
https://video.indymedia.org/en/2007/02/716.shtml
http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=8cd2bd0379340120e7a6ed00f2a53ee5
.1044556
www.myspace.com/piratenewsctv

Does that seem right to you?
www.scifi.com/onair/

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 21, 2007 2:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
i do.. and so is China and many other prominant countries... but despite their secular leanings, the middle east doesnt dominant their foreign and domestic policies, and they arent leading an ambiguous global war on dissent either. my point being that our culture alone is not what is causing this clash, but our policies

Okay, but Al Qaeda has attacked France, the UK, Germany and Spain. Attacks in the UK and Spain were particularly bloody, and Germany and French citizens have been hit as well. So it is not really US Middle East policy either. Rather a more accurate characterization would be that it is bin Laden’s twisted perception of US policy, but not just that either. Bin Laden and his goons want to dominate the Middle East. They want to re-establish the Caliphate or at least their twisted impression of it. That is their raison d'être.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 5:13 PM

Quote:
posted by Finn Mac Cumhal- Okay, but Al Qaeda has attacked France, the UK, Germany and Spain. Attacks in the UK and Spain were particularly bloody, and Germany and French citizens have been hit as well. So it is not really US Middle East policy either.

to be fair though, most western countries have been(what the constitution would consider anyway) meddling in ME affairs quite extensively for a few centuries at the least. i have heard the arguments that they hate us for our culture and so on, but i genuinely believe its due to our presence in their region. i would say that a better way to pre-empt a terrorist, rather than foil his plot, would be to dissuade him from committing such an act to begin with. in that regard, i would suggest our current policies do nothing to address these issues, and only increase tension and hostilities

Quote:
Rather a more accurate characterization would be that it is bin Laden’s twisted perception of US policy, but not just that either.

theres no doubt that no one is justified in committing terrorism. Ron Paul makes a fair point when he says that fighting a war on terrorism is the equivelant to fighting a war on crime. terrorism is a method or tactic used to achieve a goal or agenda. but either way you slice it, the result is still a crime, just like any other

if alqaeda exists to any organized, tangeable degree, then they are certainly worth pursuing(Ron Paul voted for this authorization). the danger is accepting a vague definition of terrorism, and going after every person(muslim in this case) who breaks a law, or threatens the states status quo(maybe as in ours). the question really becomes what is our role in the world? as far as Iraq, it shouldnt be our responsibility to police the globe and enfore UN resolutions and sanctions, and one could argue that its this flawed ideology which is responsible for the current climate in the ME

Quote:
Bin Laden and his goons want to dominate the Middle East. They want to re-establish the Caliphate or at least their twisted impression of it. That is their raison d'être.

im sure this is a factor, but i believe we ought to understand better this doctrine of a world wide muslim caliphate, and whether this is even a legitimate or accurate interpretation of their scriptures, and also whether its truly a threat to western civilization. i think a lot of proponents of this view neglect to actually research these doctrines, or attempt to seek solutions by understanding the rationality behind their actions. i believe that a state solution would not be required to address terrorism, if we had an effective spiritual campaign. the best way to pre-empt the crime is to pre-empt the criminal.

what seems more dangerous to me is the current neoconservative view, because it fuels support for aggressive, somewhat xenophobic foreign political interventionism based on fear and irrationality.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 7:34 PM

It’s naïve to think that all terrorism can be dealt with as a criminal activity. Some of it can be, like much of the European and American terrorist groups, but to attempt to treat the large multi-national apocalyptic terrorist organizations, like Al Qaeda, strictly as a criminal organization is foolish and likely to fail. Criminal organizations are almost always motivated by personal gain, because the point of crime is personal gain, generally in the form of wealth. That is not necessarily the case with terrorists, particularly the apocalyptic kind. They are not motivated by wealth, and that makes terrorism potentially far too dangerous to treat simply as a crime.

Trying to understand the motivations of terrorist organization is a constant effort within Western intelligence agencies, but understanding is never likely to be complete or enough. These kinds of people cannot be reasoned with. Can you really understand the Nazi’s Final Solution, and is there really any other response to it other then war? The only people who will ever fully grasp why apocalyptic terrorists do what they do are madmen, but in the end, it will always come down to their way or force. What we know is that bin Laden and his goons want to re-establish their particular version of an Islamic Caliphate across the Muslim world. The odds that they could achieve such a thing is probably very remote, so the threat is not their end goal. Rather it’s the irrationality in seeking that goal that is the true threat. The reason why Al Qaeda attacked us is because they view our presence in the Middle East as being a threat to the realization (as remote as it may be) of their goals. To say that we should appease these goals is not sound. And historically, it is not likely to dissuade Al Qaeda from attacking us, but may actually increase those attacks.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 5:39 PM

Quote:
post by Finn mac Cumhal- The reason why Al Qaeda attacked us is because they view our presence in the Middle East as being a threat to the realization (as remote as it may be) of their goals. To say that we should appease these goals is not sound. And historically, it is not likely to dissuade Al Qaeda from attacking us, but may actually increase those attacks.

for the most part i agree, but are you suggesting that the war in Iraq, or a future war in Iran, is neccessary to avoid appeasing terrorists? i would pursue alqaeda, considering what theyve done... but we have been led wayyy off course and are now attacking entire muslim nations. we cant afford to police the globe, and its not our responsibilty. Jesus said 'a good seed cannot produce bad fruit', and that 'you will know them by their fruits..'. i believe that the current situatation in Iraq is bearing out the rotten fruits of the neocon idealogy, and we need a new philosophy to handle this conflict. what we are doing now only seems to be making matters worse

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 6:19 PM

TRUEBLUE

I am an Australian, but since I got pay-TV I have been watching some US FoxNews broadcasts.

It is so bad, I can't find the words to adequately describe it! I thought the News Ltd papers here in Australia were bad enough, But the FoxNews broadcasts are almost completely biased utter neo-con tripe! The journalists don't offer news, they simply voice (or yell) their own veiws. Good journalism is activist, but unbiased: passionate about facts. Sadly all I have seen from that network is the antithesis of good journalism.

In Australia we also have a problem with quality journalists and journalism, though the Australian ABC 7:30 Report has always attracted quality journalists, in particular Kerry O'Brien is the best interveiwer EVER! Unbiased, never pulling any punches, plus he is smart and always knows his issues (sometimes better than the person he is interviewing).

The world needs more journalists like him.

---------
I will think of a signature later. It will be so stunningly brilliant your entire life will pale into insignificance when compared to the few words that will be written here.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 6:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
It’s naïve to think that all terrorism can be dealt with as a criminal activity.

Then it's flat out insane to think it can be dealt with as a military problem. They're not an army. They don't have borders, uniforms or flags. They can't be negotiated with so no reliable surrender can ever occur. In that sense no victory can ever occur (how are you ever going to be sure you got them all?). The only thing they do have, and are thanking us for daily, is the seething anger of people fed up with the US throwing its weight around.

Quote:
The reason why Al Qaeda attacked us is because they view our presence in the Middle East as being a threat to the realization (as remote as it may be) of their goals.

Their goals, as you point out, aren't material. What is important is their ability to recruit new zealots to their cause. As long as they can crank 'em out of terrorist academy faster than we can find them and kill them, we're only losing ground. If we don't face the anger and frustration that's causing people in and out of the middle east to join their cause, if we stick our heads in the sand and ignore what's plain in front of us, we'll continue to spin our wheels.

Quote:
To say that we should appease these goals is not sound. And historically, it is not likely to dissuade Al Qaeda from attacking us, but may actually increase those attacks.

You're just looking for a strawman here. No one is suggesting we should appease them.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 24, 2007 3:44 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
You're just looking for a strawman here. No one is suggesting we should appease them.

Cannot treat them as criminals per se and cannot fight them militarily. Cannot appease them either. What are we left with besides total isolation which is not a viable alternative IMHO.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 24, 2007 5:15 AM

Michael Scheuer has some ideas:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Scheuer

He appeared this morning at a press conference with Dr. Paul to address exactly this issue. It's the most important unanswered question facing us today.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 24, 2007 6:02 AM

SEVENPERCENT

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
You're just looking for a strawman here. No one is suggesting we should appease them.

Cannot treat them as criminals per se and cannot fight them militarily. Cannot appease them either. What are we left with besides total isolation which is not a viable alternative IMHO.

I actually think we need to find out what the roots of the problem are, as (I believe it was) Sarge said. If people are hungry and starving and feel opressed, they turn to religion and fundamental traditions. You'd think they'd do the opposite - "This didn't work for us, let's try a new tack" - but they don't. It's why people can easily find the imaginary villains to them; it's whoever is "meddling" in what appeared to be working for them, even though it wasn't.

The solution, which admittedly is frighteningly scary I think, is to give them what they need to advance. New technologies and methods of food production, and stop allying ourselves with their overlords to get things for ourselves. The Sauds are repressive thugs, but we back them over their own people because they temporarily are running things. When they go, and go they will eventually, the next rulers might not think so kindly about our relationship with them - and where will we be then?

Also, our kiss and cuddle relationship with the Israelis isn't helping either. Are they our allies? Yes, and we should not abandon them. But sometimes they blunder, and the US needs to say "you blew it" sometimes instead of "aw, it wasn't really your fault" all the time.

Dunno. It's a head scratcher. Just my 7%.

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 24, 2007 7:06 AM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Michael Scheuer has some ideas:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Scheuer

He appeared this morning at a press conference with Dr. Paul to address exactly this issue. It's the most important unanswered question facing us today.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

http://thenewliberty.com/?p=173

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 24, 2007 7:14 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
The solution, which admittedly is frighteningly scary I think, is to give them what they need to advance. New technologies and methods of food production, and stop allying ourselves with their overlords to get things for ourselves.

I don't mean to quibble here but isn't your solution a form of appeasement? And where does it end? Does the West keep giving the Mid East what it needs or asks for while completely leaving the area altogether? When does or should the aid be stopped? If the aid is stopped will terror attacks begin anew, that is to say if they stopped in the first place. Does the aid go to the accepted local governing body and if it does, how do we make sure it is utilized properly?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 24, 2007 8:03 AM