A just question .... by AURaptor

Niki

shorten your posts. Editing is an artform. I have to confess I don't usually read them.

Eta, sorry i really dont feel well, but also, i thought you should know. I think its the stenotyping, you can create content fast, but can it be said in fewer words. most people think not, but the few who do, are the ones that get listened to.

lao tse told me the secrets of life in 5000 words. the story goes he was leaving the city and a guard asked him for his thoughts on the tao, and he went back and spent two weeks writing them down.

i suspect the story is bogus, i think it would take years to boil it down to that. lao says more in 5000 words than the bible says in 800,000. editing is an artform,

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

Friday, May 14, 2010 3:34 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Perhaps we should all comment in Haiku.

The Angry Muslim
Declares a Jihad on Us
We Yawn, Sleepily.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

"You can lose a quark you don't girth." -Dreamtrove's words to live by, translated by Ipad

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

Saturday, May 15, 2010 7:22 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Mike, I knew what you meant, and didn't take offense, believe me. I know it's the case, but it wars with my desire to be complete and clear. Just how I am.

DT: "Just how I am". I'm not surprised you don't read my posts, and I don't think it has to do with brevity entirely. I do read yours, tho' they get long, too, and I skim through Frem's, which can rival mine in length. Nobody has to read anything they don't want to; let's leave it at that.

Anthony: Excellent, as always. You're SUCH a treasure to this place, JMHO. How about:

The Lengthy Poster
Posts What Yhey Want
We Yawn...Sleepily.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

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

Saturday, May 15, 2010 7:28 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

The Haiku Writer
Finds you are also a gem
And smiles, widely.

I think most folks here are pretty cool. Even those I disagree with.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

"You can lose a quark you don't girth." -Dreamtrove's words to live by, translated by Ipad

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

Saturday, May 15, 2010 11:36 AM

Niki,

Na, I read your posts sometime, but often they are longer than i have time for. If you don't want to communicate to a larger audience, don't worry about it. I would like to write, so I worry about it. It's nothing personal, just a comment on writing.

For example, I always read whozits even though he has nothing ton say because it's real short. The user I ignore the most is wulf, because I do not watch the videos people post, and he posts almost nothing else.

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

Saturday, May 15, 2010 10:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
This thread unraveled quicker than I expected.

The point where you abandoned reason for madness is when this thread ceased being worth while. Now troll away, to your heart's content, and drive this thread to oblivion, for all I care. It's purpose is served.

Quote:
And you know why I parrot your words back to you? To tweak you, to wind you up, make you blow your top. It works, too, as you've just shown so perfectly. Every. Damn. Time. I can go on busting you up all night.

Every. Damn. Time. Because that's all you do here, is every damn time, troll and destroy threads w/ your over the top, disingenuous bull shit. You're like the monkey who throws shit all across the board, laughs and then runs away. Only in your primate's brain does it not get old. But other folk, who have evolved long ago, .... meh, I'm wasting words on you.

Check back when your brain has learned human speech.

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

Thanks for the attempt, AURaptor. Many of us don't have the time to waste with this exercise, but we do enjoy reading the results of your proposals. Although we may hope they can develop a coherent discussion at some point, they've proven yet again that we keep giving them too much credit, our expectations for them are still far beyond their means or capacity.

Truth told, I did fully expect and was not surprised at the speed of devolution. Although that was fulfulled, I did hope to find a few stalwart souls who might try to answer your just question in between all the standard gibberish.

Thanks also to those few who honestly tried to engage and participate in discussion despite the hijackers attempts to derail it.

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

Saturday, May 15, 2010 11:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

What is a militant muslim? Is it the same as a terrorist?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

Hello, AnthonyT
The Islamic religion is one of the most popular faiths on the planet, when I was a wee lad it was touted as having the most followers. Far more than Christianity. Many are devout followers of Islam, and are well left to live and let live, side by side with others who follow other religions - this is why there are Mosques in America which have not all been bombed.
In an effort to differentiate these from the Islamic Terrorists and Combatants, these peaceful Muslims can be referred to as "non-militant Muslims" or those who do not choose as their personal duty to murder as many non-Muslims (or not-sufficiently-Muslim) as they can.
The others can be referred to as "militant Muslims" which include both Islamic Terrorists and Jihad Combatants.
Terrorists target almost exclusively non-military civilians for murder, kidnapping and execution, etc. Combatants target military forces in the Theater of Combat, which is mostly in their country now.
We do not consider a terrorist act to include bombing valid military targets/leaders even when they masquerade as wedding particiapants and are sheilded by fellow wedding participants. Muslims bombing a wedding with no valid military target, but merely to infuse terror amongst the general population, would be considered Terrorism.

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

Saturday, May 15, 2010 11:40 PM

I mean, hell, I could ask, "Given that Rush Limbaugh should have died a horrible death choking on his own vomit years ago, but somehow didn't, and given that he's an admitted felon and drug addict and an enormous bloated bag of fat and puss with nothing to offer humanity other than his impression of a huge manatee, don't you find it curious that he keeps getting caught just flat making up shit that isn't the least bit true and trying to peddle it as factual information? Oh, and you have to agree with the first two parts to answer the last."

Wanna play?

Well played Kwicko. I'll add my 2 cents, by reiterating what you put so well in your response namely: A-Rap hasn't stated one example of MSM manipulation. Now, that said, I'm no fan of the MSM (aside from basic stories) they have no balls. When Bush "won" the election in 2000 why didn't they ever investigate the political machinery in place at the time in Florida, and, in particular, the role Katherine Harris played in all this.

Greg Pallast, an American investigative reporter, had to go to England to get support to investigate the FloridaGate fiasco. He found out, among other things, that tens of thousands of voters (mostly democratic voters) were summarily removed from the voting records based upon a flimsy and suspect loophole in the voting registry.

It had to do with criminals are not allowed to vote for major elections. A consulting firm was hired by Governor Bush to "investigate" known criminals who may have registered to vote. If the names that appeared on the list even slightly resembled the name of known criminals - they would be barred from voting. This reporter interviewed a war veteran, who's name appeared on this list culled by the consulting firm, and he said he was not allowed to vote because he was told he was a convicted felon.

This was a man who served his country, fought and risked his life, and was told he couldn't vote because his name was close to that of a convicted criminal. The veteran happened to be black, as were 90% of the people on that list, the majority of which were steadfast die-hard democrats. Hmmmm, coincidence. No one else, not Fox and any MSM outlet investigated the facts of what took place behind the scenes of the Florida Clusterfuck.

Neither was Katherine Harris' role in all of this, the infamous Secretary of State who declared "Shrub" the winner of the 2000 Elections. Hell less than 300 votes separated the two candidates. How did she know? BTW, she was summarily kicked to the curb once she finished bending over and grabbing her ankles for the republican cause. Was that good for you Kathy?, said Jeb after zipping up.

A little history 101. Where was the outcry from our friends at Fox "News", besides all this is smoke and mirrors my good friends. Nothing but smoke and mirrors. That hand you feel in your pocket is not yours, and it's not mine.

"Don't believe the hype" - Public Enemy, 1988
(It's a sequel)

SGG

Tawabawho?

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

Sunday, May 16, 2010 3:24 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

SGG,

You missed my point entirely, which I have become use to ( though not really ).

And Florida 2000? Really ? That's been beaten to death, several times over. Bush won. Get over it.

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

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

Sunday, May 16, 2010 6:11 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Thank you, Anthony, you’re very sweet.

DT, it’s not that I don’t want to communicate to a “larger audience”, it’s that I want to communicate with people who want to know the facts I present and are willing to read through to discover them before replying.

I feel it’s the same as our country; nobody wants to take the time to educate themselves, just go with the slogans. I get a lot of education just looking stuff up to put here--which is actually where I spend far more of my time than writing posts. I figure sharing what I learn might be useful to someone else, if they choose. Not saying you or anyone else here does as I described(with a few exceptions), but I believe in reading all of what someone has to say before disagreeing and stating my opinion, and I feel it necessary to quote and cite things that stand behind my opinions. If one chooses to read just what I write fr, or FORMING my opinions from what I find that backs up what others state. If someone wants to read what I write from my own perspective and ignore the quotes/cites unless they want backup, that’s fine. If they don’t want to read the whole post, or the post at all, that’s fine. I’ll discuss and debate with those who do, or who read enough to understand my point(s).

I skim both your and Frem’s posts, sometimes reading them all, sometimes not. I find valid points within them just by skimming, and read in further depth if I’m interested in the points. I admit sometimes they get too detailed for me (in both cases), and in my opinion you are two here who most rival me for longest posts, so something about pot calling kettle, no offense intended. I don't even count PN, as what he puts up is so full of idiocy and video and picture after video and picture; THAT is one case where I don't choose to bother wasting MY time.

Part of it for me is that I also DO have the time and choose to spend it here. Since I can no longer work, it’s my choice, and tho’ I sometimes spend too MUCH time here and don’t get things I should get done, I find the stimulation and interaction important enough in my life to make the time. Like I said, just my choice and because I can. I fully understand that many others cannot.

The biggest part of it is also that I only allow myself to come here in the mornings, so almost invariably I am catching up on many posts by many people, and I try to run down the thread and respond to those I choose to until I get to the end. If I were here when posts were written, my individual posts would be shorter by some.

JSF, I would change “non-militant Muslims” to just plain “Muslims”...the other two separate themselves from that title, and I think “Christians” is equally valid for people who follow a faith but don’t give in to the rhetoric of hate. “Fundamental Christians” always makes my eyes narrow, because what they consider fundamental, I consider close-minded; and we certainly have “Militant Christians”. I won’t even go into “Born Again Christians”, as a bumpersticker I once had said: “Born just fine the first time, thank you”.

Jus’ sain’...

Shiny, best I not get started on the 2000 election. Pure fact is Gore won. I have a friend down there who detailed for me some of the methods keeping Blacks and the poor from voting, and it was out-and-out illegal, and done quite overtly. They knew Jeb wouldn’t fuss about it, so it gave them carte blanche. Daddy stuffed the Supremes just fine to hand it to Sonny (not that that was his intent), and the fraud that took place across this country WAS reported, just nobody listened to it, and I’ve a strong feeling it was kept to a minimum via methods upon which I won’t speculate. And don’t even get me STARTED on Harris!

I’ll make a flat statement that will enrage those on the right, but I ask them not to post the opposite, because I can out-quote them many times over: The Republicans are FAR more adept at and far more willing to use whatever means, legal, semi-legal and illegal, to win an election (among other things). Refute it if you will, but I will come back with facts and figures that will BURY you.

Naturally Crappy believes he won (or chooses to say it, given his modus operandi). He didn’t won, he stole. End of story. Because something has been glossed over, ignored and eventually accepted doesn’t make it true. Want facts? I got plenty! But then I know you don’t, it’s easier to make flat statements and insist they are “fact”.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

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

Sunday, May 16, 2010 7:19 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

What is a militant muslim? Is it the same as a terrorist?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

Hello, AnthonyT
The Islamic religion is one of the most popular faiths on the planet, when I was a wee lad it was touted as having the most followers. Far more than Christianity. Many are devout followers of Islam, and are well left to live and let live, side by side with others who follow other religions - this is why there are Mosques in America which have not all been bombed.
In an effort to differentiate these from the Islamic Terrorists and Combatants, these peaceful Muslims can be referred to as "non-militant Muslims" or those who do not choose as their personal duty to murder as many non-Muslims (or not-sufficiently-Muslim) as they can.
The others can be referred to as "militant Muslims" which include both Islamic Terrorists and Jihad Combatants.
Terrorists target almost exclusively non-military civilians for murder, kidnapping and execution, etc. Combatants target military forces in the Theater of Combat, which is mostly in their country now.
We do not consider a terrorist act to include bombing valid military targets/leaders even when they masquerade as wedding particiapants and are sheilded by fellow wedding participants. Muslims bombing a wedding with no valid military target, but merely to infuse terror amongst the general population, would be considered Terrorism.

Hello,

Thank you, Jewel.

When the USS Cole was bombed by Al Qaeda, that was a militant muslim act of presumably valid military warfare.

But when the WTC was dive-bombed by Al Qaeda, that was a terrorist muslim act against an invalid non-military target.

This would make Al Qaeda a muslim militant terrorist organization? One willing to target both military and non-military targets in its warfare operations?

Are these all 21st century terms, invented to deal with the changing landscape of warfare?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

"You can lose a quark you don't girth." -Dreamtrove's words to live by, translated by Ipad

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

Sunday, May 16, 2010 8:21 AM

Nikij

Yeah, I know, this place can be a time vampire, that's why I disappear.

I'm aware you type fast that's what allows you to types long, which is fine, just wanted you to understand that me not reading many lf your posts wasn't personal, it was time management.

I have the same proble, I type about as fast as I read, so I tend to type very long posts. Editing, editors always tell me, is not a subjective viewpoint, it's a burdedn which falls on the author, but only of the author wants an audience. Frem, for example, does not particularly want an audience, and ao doesn't edit. John very much does want an audience.. It's not rig or wrong, just be aware thaf you are making a conscious choice, and try not to put the onus lf that on the reader. The reader who does read what you have written is not more virtuous than the one who has not. They simply have more time.

I only edit when I feel I have something important to say that begs a wider audience. Usually I'm just responding to a partictular person, so either they will read it or they won't.

Meanwhile, iPad has gone all m happy. Aaas in lots of theemkmm mms

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

Sunday, May 16, 2010 8:46 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Not putting the onus on the reader, DT, if that's what you thought I was doing. As I said, I've no problem with people not reading my posts, I assume those who are interested (and feel it's worth their time) will, that's all. I don't read entire threads that don't interest me, and often don't respond in a thread where others have said what I would say or I'm not interested.

Most of the time I spend here isn't posting personally, it's looking for quotes and cites, believe it or not--the only other times I post really long is when I'm catching up and want to respond to everyone in a thread I'm behind on, or when I get onto a subject close to my heart...on that I either spend a lot of time looking for pix and stuff or articles (like Monterey, etc.).

To each his own, I pretty much figure. It's not about wanting an audience that I don't edit, it's more about stream of consciousness and laziness. I don't bother to take the time to edit. I know I duplicate myself when typing, but in reviewing a post I'm taking time to be clear and look for typos, not edit.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

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

Sunday, May 16, 2010 9:18 AM

FREMDFIRMA

*laughs*
Ah yes - that too, I can actually type this stuff shockingly fast, it's digging up the resources to back it that takes the time, innit ?

And I'll only do that for three reasons, if I think the folks I am addressing are actually interested, if what I am sayin absolutely requires it to be credible... or if I have a bit of time to spare and want to slam one of our resident bullshitters over the head with it for personal amusement.
(Cause I know damn well *they* won't read em)

You'd probably be appalled at how little of it I actually have to look up though, one of the benefits of a near-eidetic memory, although I do start to worry that if it ever fails I'll be next to helpess since not a whit of my code panels, phone numbers, or the like is written down anywhere... man gettin old can suck.

-F

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

Sunday, May 16, 2010 10:08 AM

No, Mr. AURaptor, I believe I directed my response squarely at your "question."

But allow me to retort: The media is owned and operated by those that have lots of money - that means not you and me - so, hence it's under "their" control and they will "share" their perspective and tell us what to think as they see fit.

You and others want to see a conspiracy, a direction, a sense of purpose. Yes, you are right. There, you see how easy that was.

One thing, it's not what you think. Does Fox News present the facts without bias? Of course they present the facts as they see fit, and so do the so-called "main stream media" (I know that's code for left leaning, liberal liars - not exactly my viewpoint, but it is what it is).

But you generalize so much I thought to present an argument and give you a specific point in time where I felt it completely true that media presentation, combined with the viewers POV, fuels these so-called arguments. In point of fact, Fox News is part of the MSM (my God forgive me for such blasphemy. In this case God is represented by Rupert Murdoch or Rush Limbaugh, they are interchangeable).

Of course, I'm being facetious. I wanted to give a specific example to stir the pot, but, in doing so, I learned something. It's all relative.
You're going to believe, what you're going to believe. There are those that believe Obama cheated to become president - the infamous birth certificate thingy - really! People can't believe that this particular black man could actually be good for this country.

As far as 2000 is concerned, I don't really care about that anymore. Actually, that's not true. It is recent history and, just like those that believe Obama is bad for America, I believed, at the time, that Bush would be bad for America. We don't have to wait until the year 3000 to see how he will be remembered. He brought us to the brink. He was in charge, was he not? Of course he was (wink, wink).

I believe that anyone, not Bush or Bush related, would have won in the last election. Hell, Sarah would have won were it not for the fact that she's CRAZY. That's just my POV, based solely on watching her act in the days and months that followed McCain's monumental decision. Wow, in all this it's been forgotten that he ran for president and not Palin. Pit bull indeed. And no, I didn't reach that conclusion based upon what some talking head told me, from any media outlet. I can think for myself, I have eyes and ears. I did not like what I saw, nor what I heard - period.

You are absolutely right though. Media does influence greatly what we think and do on a daily basis. It cannot be denied. So yes, they are biased. I'm actually losing my breath, say it ain't so. My beloved MSM - Liars and beggars all.

What channel is Fox News on again?

-Don't believe the Hype, Public Enemy, 1988

SGG

Tawabawho?

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

Sunday, May 16, 2010 10:34 AM

"man gettin old can suck."

-Ain't the truth, Frem, ain't it the truth.
(this must be said in the Cowardly Lion voice)

Hee, Hee

SGG

Tawabawho?

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

Sunday, May 16, 2010 10:36 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Bush and his policies didn't " bring us to the brink ". Sorry. 6 years of recovery and steady growth, after the dot com bubble burst, and oh yeah, a massive, crippling attack on the country.... Ignore the fact that it was post 2006, post Democratic control of both houses of Congress, that things started to really hit the fan.

I see so many ( mostly on the Left ) attribute cause and causation of who OWNS the media as to what gets reported. Yet Dan Rather's stunt, as well as Contessa Brewer's personal views, her on air remarks, perpetually reinforce the TRUE bias that is found in the media, while so many choose not to see.

Yes, folks with money own things that take a great deal of money to run. Because such things ( historically ) have MADE money, which is generally why folks HAVE money .... see the cycle we've got going here ?

Poor folk don't hire writers, reporters, editors, or buy buildings, printing presses, satellite communications systems.... Is any of this getting through to you ?

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

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

Sunday, May 16, 2010 11:08 AM

I used to havoc a n eidetic memory before my guineaig days. Avoid mental health care, trust me, it's better to be insane.

Isn't it odd that rap felt the need to adopt a per-defensive posture with his post?

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

Sunday, May 16, 2010 11:20 AM

Blame the democrats game. That is your game, but I thought we were playing media bias. I agreed with you that there is media bias - all across the spectrum. And one cannot talk about bias solely coming from one side of the spectrum.
Certain media outlets are left leaning, while others are right leaning. You have your answer, bias exists.

And yes, I brought up the fact that that bias has an origin, owned by those who control it, namely the owners. I'm not going to fast am I?

As far as our country being led to the brink. Paulson and company was hand-picked by the president himself, ousting Snow, and giving him carte blanche in regards to the Wall Street created crisis under his watch. Was he not in charge?

I have more but I need to go right now, I have a date.

Bias exists. So YES, you are right!

SGG

Tawabawho?

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

Sunday, May 16, 2010 11:21 AM

PIRATENEWS

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

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Why is (militant) Islam being so seemingly coddled and protected by the MSM at every turn ?

Because the MSM is owned and Operated by the Military Industrial Intelligence Complex, and "militant islam" is founded/funded by fundamentalist Zionist "jews" who also own the MSM.

Joe Stack designed robot drone Terminator aircraft for the Military Industrial Intelligence Complex, when he wasn't playin in a band. Clue that he never flew any plane into an empty IRS building is MSM's impossible allegation that a 55-gal fuel can was loaded in the back seat of his tiny plane thru its tiny door.

But as a GOPerative you already know all that.

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

Sunday, May 16, 2010 11:28 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

So, in PN world, we have a Star Wars scenario, where the Emperor pulls the strings on both sides.....

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

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

Sunday, May 16, 2010 3:05 PM

Rap,

Don't we tho?

I mean, Not entirely, and I'm still not buying the evil Jews story, but at some level tptb have be playing both sides, or at least be taking advantage of the situation.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but you are pro GOP past a logical point, which is fine, I know people who work for the Republican party, and also military intelligence, but there is an issue which comes to an obvious head:

Assuming your not a moron, which I do because i have nothing to indicate you are, and given that you have more information than most of us, you must have figured it out.

So, the only security issue there is in islamic terrorist is job security, am I right? If the people collectively realize that there is no threat in Islamic terrorism, then there is no need for the military intelligence apparatus to disarm it.

I actually know someone who has this same job, he works for military intelligence intercepting Al Qaeda communications, and he's a firefly fan, so I always assumed he was on this board...

But seriously, you have figured it out, right?

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

Monday, May 17, 2010 6:04 AM

BYTEMITE

Quote:
He's not interested in the question of *IF* the media is biased in any particular direction; he's accepted that as given fact, and sees no need to question what he already "knows". He's only interested in why we allow the media to BE so biased.

Ehm, well. Isn't it? I mean, you got the POTUS and the pentagon giving out their soundbites/orders for the day on what to cover, that is when the whitehouse/pentagon has anything they want the media to cover.

The only difference between Fox News and the other News is what filter they run the information through. Muslim extremists/terrorists are equally covered as far as I can tell on both, because the government is at war with them. The liberal side serves the government's purpose by whitewashing the issue that we tend to be targeting people based on religion over in the middle east, whatserface and her "too bad it was a Muslim" is all about trying to present the appearance that the War on Terror is politically correct. The conservative side serves the government by spooning out patriotism for army recruitment and by focusing the anger that came after 9-11. All the same propaganda machine, ain't it? Just two sides serve slightly different purposes.

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

Monday, May 17, 2010 6:19 AM

Quote:

I see so many ( mostly on the Left ) attribute cause and causation of who OWNS the media as to what gets reported. Yet Dan Rather's stunt, as well as Contessa Brewer's personal views, her on air remarks, perpetually reinforce the TRUE bias that is found in the media, while so many choose not to see.

You continually point to Rather and Brewer, yet you continually REFUSE to acknowledge such stunts as Beck, O'Reilly, and Limbaugh have engaged in. Limbaugh holding up a "thesis" he claimed was written by Obama, which was a complete and total fabrication, and which he not only wasn't fired for, but didn't even apologize for, is but one example.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

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

Monday, May 17, 2010 6:21 AM

BYTEMITE

Aw, crapcakes. PN posts the point first, so now I'm irrelevant by association.

But yeah, AU, this is one case where I agree with PN, and I see that as an accurate description of all of the news organizations. Fox, MSNBC, CNN, whatever, all doing what they're told because of where the stories come from. Used to be journalists liked to investigate stuff, now it's "don't bite the hand that feeds you," and the corporate heads of the news orgs enforce it because they have their own agendas they can see fulfilled by being lapdogs.

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

Monday, May 17, 2010 7:25 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
Used to be journalists liked to investigate stuff, now it's "don't bite the hand that feeds you," and the corporate heads of the news orgs enforce it because they have their own agendas they can see fulfilled by being lapdogs.

Right on. Been increasingly that way in my lifetime, and boy, do I miss actual "investigative journalists". "Newstainment" SUX! THAT is where I agree with you; politically, I see it as a bias, perhaps omissions, but definitely not what was described. But in other aspects, I see the corporate heads maybe giving SLACK to whichever politics benefit them, while at the same time reporting what SELLS...as in "newstainment", going for ratings, paying more attention to stupid stories about celebrities rather than dealing with truly important things.

However, I don't agree that the MSM "coddles" terrorists, at all. I recognize bias, slant and lying by omission, but I don't see it as black and white. FauxNews DOES see only black and white (which can change on a time, depending on who they're for and against). It's my opinion that other MSM DOES see grey--how many times have I heard other news organizations rag on Obama or the dems for this or that, and when have I EVER seen ClusterFox do the same to their "side"? I think there is a very, very vast difference between the bias of the MSM and that of FoxNoise. Huge enough that I think FauxNews would be very happily content to have lived in the time of "V for Vendetta" or "Farenheit 451" and "Big Brother". It would suit them just fine: One viewpoint, no questions asked.

The rest of the MSM; yes, I certainly perceive bias, but nothing like the same.

I think a corollary to your question and how it was phrased would actually be "Why does Fox distort, lie, cheat and fake the news to make it seem like the MSM coddles terrorists?" They don't consider themselves MSM as far as I know, and if YOU were asked that question... Actually I had a momentary impulse to POST that question and see how you felt, except that I know there are only a couple here who don't see ClusterFox for what it is, so it would be a short thread

The point is: THAT's how you posed your question; take a stand you got from somewhere (and sorry, I think it WAS FauxNews, sounds just like them) and ask why it "is" that way, without even considering the concept MIGHT possibly be wrong.

If you had asked IF the MSM...etc., you might have had an interesting thread. As it is, you got people pissed off from the get-go by indicating flatly that they DO coddle.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

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

Monday, May 17, 2010 8:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Aw, crapcakes. PN posts the point first, so now I'm irrelevant by association.

You're not irrelevant by any stretch of the imagination, Byte. PN posts so much crazy stuff that I tend to view even his less-crazy rants as the ravings of a lunatic broken clock; might be right sometimes, but are you going to ever trust when those times might be? :)

DT says Rappy is supportive of the GOP beyond a logical point, which seems to be the case. In full disclosure mode, I tend to be supportive of the DNC to a similar degree. But even so, I definitely have misgivings with some of the crap that's going on, and have the distinct impression that it's being shoveled from both sides, and the scary thing is, the "conservatives" and the tea partiers seem equally happy shoveling the idea that Big Brother Gubmint needs to step in and protect us, while the supposedly big-government-supporting Democrats and knee-jerk liberals are the ones saying, "Hold on a minute - this isn't right!"

So if that's the case, then WHO is behind this kind of crap? Does security theatre have a party affiliation? Does the military-industrial and or terrorism-industrial complex register to vote with only one party? Or are both sides playing against the middle in a simple move to drive up donations and fundraising, all while getting us (the people) to vote against and support measures that are in clear contradiction to our own best interests?

Quote:

But yeah, AU, this is one case where I agree with PN, and I see that as an accurate description of all of the news organizations. Fox, MSNBC, CNN, whatever, all doing what they're told because of where the stories come from. Used to be journalists liked to investigate stuff, now it's "don't bite the hand that feeds you," and the corporate heads of the news orgs enforce it because they have their own agendas they can see fulfilled by being lapdogs.

In truth, a good chunk of that traces back to the Clinton years, and it can be summed up in one word: "Access". If you play nice with the administration, you get access; if you don't, you don't. The Bush admin got it down to an art, not only refusing access to those who didn't play the game (MSNBC, for one), but actually PAYING people who DID tote the Administration's water. Of course, Fox being in the hip pocket of BushCo., it's no surprise that they're crying loudest now, about having their precious access limited or denied by the Obama Crew (I *almost* said "Clan", but that just wouldn't have played right, would it?).

I don't like Obama doing it any more than I liked it when Clinton or Bush did it, but I can see why they think they have the right. Which is, once again, why I'm not real big on setting new precedents when it comes to a lot of this kind of crap; One guy does it, the next guy figures he's entitled, and pretty soon it's a tradition, and a damned bad one at that. Hold press conferences, talk to the press pool, but give it up already with the "exclusive" interviews, because those are naught but a free hand-job and happy ending for someone massaging your message just the right way, and it's too painfully obvious to anyone with a brain, and such interviews should be widely ignored as the pure fluff they truly are.

But that's just one man's opinion... Your mileage may vary.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

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

Monday, May 17, 2010 11:47 AM

BYTEMITE

Good explanation, thanks Kwicko.

I do wonder if there wasn't always SOME element of government suggesting or controlling news. I mean, those old WWII newsreels have the fingerprints of intervention and not investigative journalism all over them. Maybe it just got more subtle for a while, and is now back to being overt.

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

Monday, May 17, 2010 3:32 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Well shit, it's not like Project Mockingbird is any kinda secret no more, and muchlike Cointelpro, do you really believe known liars when they promise they don't do it anymore with a snicker and a giggle ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird

Really ?

Shit, remember Gannon ? Talon News Service ?
Or those planted Kuwati incubartor stories ?
Or those pentagon-planted bullshit stories ?

Hell, they don't even try to fuckin hide it no more.

-F

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

Tuesday, May 18, 2010 11:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:

JSF, I would change “non-militant Muslims” to just plain “Muslims”...the other two separate themselves from that title, and I think “Christians” is equally valid for people who follow a faith but don’t give in to the rhetoric of hate.
i]"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." "Hero", 3/1/10

Niki, you are correct and your understood my point mostly.
Anthony was asking about a subgroup of Muslims. If only for the purposes of discussion, in order to be very clear that we understand that many - or most - of Muslims are "non-militant" we can specify so, for there are many instances where "Muslim" has become euphimism for Terrorist or Person of Suspicion. I was trying to avoid any confusion on the matter.

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

Tuesday, May 18, 2010 11:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Quote:
Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

What is a militant muslim? Is it the same as a terrorist?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

Hello, AnthonyT
The Islamic religion is one of the most popular faiths on the planet, when I was a wee lad it was touted as having the most followers. Far more than Christianity. Many are devout followers of Islam, and are well left to live and let live, side by side with others who follow other religions - this is why there are Mosques in America which have not all been bombed.
In an effort to differentiate these from the Islamic Terrorists and Combatants, these peaceful Muslims can be referred to as "non-militant Muslims" or those who do not choose as their personal duty to murder as many non-Muslims (or not-sufficiently-Muslim) as they can.
The others can be referred to as "militant Muslims" which include both Islamic Terrorists and Jihad Combatants.
Terrorists target almost exclusively non-military civilians for murder, kidnapping and execution, etc. Combatants target military forces in the Theater of Combat, which is mostly in their country now.
We do not consider a terrorist act to include bombing valid military targets/leaders even when they masquerade as wedding particiapants and are sheilded by fellow wedding participants. Muslims bombing a wedding with no valid military target, but merely to infuse terror amongst the general population, would be considered Terrorism.

Hello,

Thank you, Jewel.

When the USS Cole was bombed by Al Qaeda, that was a militant muslim act of presumably valid military warfare.

But when the WTC was dive-bombed by Al Qaeda, that was a terrorist muslim act against an invalid non-military target.

This would make Al Qaeda a muslim militant terrorist organization? One willing to target both military and non-military targets in its warfare operations?

Are these all 21st century terms, invented to deal with the changing landscape of warfare?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

Anthony,
USS Cole was attacked Oct 2000. We were not at War with identifiable country or nation at the time. A Valid Military Target is one which you are at war with. Would you really consider an attack by the U.S. upon a Military unit of Canada to be a Valid military target? Or Mexico? Or France? Last I checked, we had not made a Declaration of War against any of them and they would have no valid reason to respond to our great proximity with deadly force, so by the Rules of Engagement our attack would be taking advantage of their lack of Military Standing Orders.
With 9-11 Al-Queda made it clear that they were at war with us, and on our shores, not merely in remote areas where we largely ingored their goofing around, and President Bush declared this so for all to understand that we were in fact at war with the Axis of Evil, the creators and supporters of Terrorists.

I think these terms are not in response to changing forms of warfare, which is ongoing - but to more fairly address the various facets of Islam.

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

Tuesday, May 18, 2010 12:10 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Jewel,

I don't recall the U.S. declaring war in my lifetime, although I may be forgetting a pertinent detail. I was under the impression that a U.S. President was incapable of making such a declaration. He can move troops, however. Perhaps it is sufficient that he can use those troops to perform acts of war.

I think an attack on a warship is an act of war, and I do think that various Muslim terrorist organizations had made clear their intention to war against the United States before 9/11. So... Yes, I consider the USS Cole to have been a valid military target for them. I also consider it rather vile and reprehensible. But that is mostly because I don't like being attacked.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

"You can lose a quark you don't girth." -Dreamtrove's words to live by, translated by Ipad

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

Tuesday, May 18, 2010 1:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:

Anthony,
USS Cole was attacked Oct 2000. We were not at War with identifiable country or nation at the time. A Valid Military Target is one which you are at war with. Would you really consider an attack by the U.S. upon a Military unit of Canada to be a Valid military target? Or Mexico? Or France?

Or Iraq?

Quote:
Last I checked, we had not made a Declaration of War against any of them and they would have no valid reason to respond to our great proximity with deadly force, so by the Rules of Engagement our attack would be taking advantage of their lack of Military Standing Orders.

Last I checked, we have not made a valid declaration of war against anyone since June 5, 1942.

Quote:

With 9-11 Al-Queda made it clear that they were at war with us, and on our shores, not merely in remote areas where we largely ingored their goofing around, and President Bush declared this so for all to understand that we were in fact at war with the Axis of Evil, the creators and supporters of Terrorists.

Hate to burst your bubble, but it's not his call to make, according to the Constitution. And there was never a valid case made for any "Axis of Evil" creating or supporting anything, except that they generally don't play by our rules.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

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

Wednesday, May 19, 2010 6:04 PM