[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
I like the term “mongering”, it’s a fun word really. I think I think I’ll start refering to Hillary as a “government program mongerer”. What do you think? or maybe “taxmongering”. I like it.
If the shoe fits…
Some way or another our taxes are funding government; whether it is going to the nanny state or the police state is irrelevant. It still sucks donkey-balls.
welfare-mongering – yeah that has a nice ring to it.
[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Look at the OJ goat screw, or the fucking Brittany Spears crap - seeing as how that’s what passes for news these days.
Not to be technical, but celebrity gossip crap is what made Murdoch the media mogul he is today.
News sources don’t pick you. You pick them, and if you’d rather watch something about OJ or Spears than a lively and educational debate on a political hot potato, it’s your choice. The current trend is a testimony to the complacency and intellectual laziness of people today.[/quote]
Let me say it again. Evidently saying it twice is not enough: I was speaking specifically about the cable news channels. I challenge you to find one of the channels that has not run the OJ or BS stories 40 minutes of every hour.
It has nothing to do with what news I want to watch. It’s what gets ratings for CNN/MSNBC/Fox.
Like I said - I am not going to have the “Fox is a whore of the vast right-wing conspiracy” discussion again. It has been done to death.
What’s being a bully about telling someone to go back and read old threads?
Now this has the makings of a good discussion. I doubt your poll estimates are nearly as accurate as you want them to be, but good fodder for discussion.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Let me say it again. Evidently saying it twice is not enough: I was speaking specifically about the cable news channels. I challenge you to find one of the channels that has not run the OJ or BS stories 40 minutes of every hour. [/quote]
So…? I really don’t see the point you’re trying to make here.
It’s not like cable news channels are the only ones allowed to broadcast news. Surely, if you’re looking for substance - as opposed to sensationalism -, you could tune in to somewhere else.
[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Let me say it again. Evidently saying it twice is not enough: I was speaking specifically about the cable news channels. I challenge you to find one of the channels that has not run the OJ or BS stories 40 minutes of every hour.
So…? I really don’t see the point you’re trying to make here.
It’s not like cable news channels are the only ones allowed to broadcast news. Surely, if you’re looking for substance - as opposed to sensationalism -, you could tune in to somewhere else.[/quote]
Go back and re-read if you are confused. This was not a discussion about the quality of news programming.
[quote]lixy wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Does Fox News own Janes?
No.
Here’s one question for you though: Does Janes lack of association with Fox lend credibility to their story?[/quote]
lixy,
Changing the subject is a no-no.
Your reponse to this story was a very WEAK attempt to discredit it using Murdoch’s name.
I showed you a LARGE number of outlets that had nothing to do with Murdoch.
Further, I think Jane’s is pretty good.
Oh, it has nothing to do with Murdoch.
Therefore, you have admitted that Jane’s has nothing to do with Murdoch.
In summary, your earlier assertion that Murdoch had anything to do with this story, was incorrect.
Kudos for admitting your error.
Now, you still haven’t responded to the meat of the story.
This is a serious development. Your usual blather and scapegoating doesn’t cover this situation. You are going to have to either improvise or call your handlers.
I wanted you to know I realize why this particular story makes you uncomfortable.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
I like the term “mongering”, it’s a fun word really. I think I think I’ll start refering to Hillary as a “government program mongerer”. What do you think? or maybe “taxmongering”. I like it.
If the shoe fits…
Some way or another our taxes are funding government; whether it is going to the nanny state or the police state is irrelevant. It still sucks donkey-balls.
welfare-mongering – yeah that has a nice ring to it.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
I like the term “mongering”, it’s a fun word really. I think I think I’ll start refering to Hillary as a “government program mongerer”. What do you think? or maybe “taxmongering”. I like it.
If the shoe fits…
Some way or another our taxes are funding government; whether it is going to the nanny state or the police state is irrelevant. It still sucks donkey-balls.
welfare-mongering – yeah that has a nice ring to it.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Fitnessdiva wrote:
The spin machine at Fox tells totally different stories much of the time when compared to the moderate news sources.
I’d LOVE TO HEAR what you consider “moderate” news sources.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
North Korea + Actually HAS Nukes = Worse
North Korea has Nukes but is starving to death.
And Iran is such a greater threat?
Iran isn’t really a threat to the U.S., certainly not an existential one. They don’t have nuclear weapons, and even if they did, we’d have a couple thousand more than them.
[/quote]
I guess you dont comprehend what nuclear warfare really is.
[quote]UB07 wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
North Korea + Actually HAS Nukes = Worse
North Korea has Nukes but is starving to death.
And Iran is such a greater threat?
Iran isn’t really a threat to the U.S., certainly not an existential one. They don’t have nuclear weapons, and even if they did, we’d have a couple thousand more than them.
I guess you dont comprehend what nuclear warfare really is.
[/quote]
I guess you don’t have a grasp of basic logic. Let’s say Iran gets a nuclear weapon. Let’s even say they get to North Korea’s level and build a half dozen. Leaving aside the issue of how those bombs get to the U.S., we’ll go the Hollywood route and say Iran can smuggle “suitcase nukes” into the U.S. and blow up three cities. All of these things are pretty big leaps, but I’ll indulge you here.
The minute the above happens, America’s nuclear arsenal, which does have ICBMs, bombers, MIRV warheads, etc., turns all of Iran into a sea of glass. Deterrence. Simple concept. Iran can be contained just like the Soviet Union was, in fact far, far more easily. So remind me again why we should be in hysterics here?
We’ve managed to survive a North Korean and Pakistani bomb OK, and those are both far scarier situations for the U.S. any way you measure it.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
North Korea + Actually HAS Nukes = Worse
North Korea has Nukes but is starving to death.
And Iran is such a greater threat?
Iran isn’t really a threat to the U.S., certainly not an existential one. They don’t have nuclear weapons, and even if they did, we’d have a couple thousand more than them. If you think Iran would hand nuclear weapons to terrorists, you need a course in common sense.
Let’s try logic here, huh? If we take this story at face value, it’s the Post, a tabloid, but Jane’s is pretty reputable, great, Syria has lots of chemical weapons and is mounting them on short range ballistic missiles. Big fucking deal. Mustard gas has been around since the First World War, sarin almost as long.
Chemical weapons are less deadly than high explosives of equal weight - that’s why the term WMD is a politicized term for idiots and for those who con idiots. Not entirely sure which of the two categories best fits the NY Post.
Syria has chemical weapons. Israel has nukes. Syria is not even a threat to Israel, let alone to us. Instead of this stupid cowardly hide-under-the-bed fear mongering WMD stuff, a smart administration would be pushing the Israelis to negotiate with Syria (which the Israelis are already doing at low levels) to break them off from Iran, which helps Israel, us, Iraq, the Palestinians, etc. Instead we get moronic WMD fears.
gdol,
I would like you to go back and read your most recent post. Then read it again.
It is filled with assumptions that are pretty damn thin.
Your mind seemingly CANNOT grasp the concept of using front groups to do the dirty work.
First off Jeffry, do you even know who the Reform Party of Syria is? It’s founder and leader is a man who embraces the title of “Syria’s Ahmed Chalabi.” I’m gonna hope you’ve read enough to realize why that’s not a good thing.
The man hasn’t been to the country since he was 10, and he can’t even fucking speak Arabic well!!! So forgive me if I treat this source with just a little bit of skepticism. In the future, you might want to get slightly more solid evidence than the words of a “4th-rate Lebanese con man”:
Again, I think I covered why “WMD” is a politicized word for idiots. Didn’t see even an attempt at a rebuttal there.
And remind me again why Syria would help Al Qaeda get (incredibly overrated) chemical weapons when it would ensure the destruction of the Syrian regime were Al Qaeda to use these weapons. Does that make any sense?
A secular, kleptocrat dictator is going to hand fundamentalist terrorists chemical weapons so that his regime will be swiftly destroyed by a superpower. Does that make any fucking sense? You can’t be this stupid. You really can’t be.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
USA + Largest Military on Planet + Stupid warmongering neocons in power == Perpetual Warfare
Who will you blame when Bush and his crew are out of office?
You think warmongering neocons are limited to the Republican party only?
Guess again.[/quote]
Hey, you said it, not me.
Edit: Neocon = Republican, at least that’s what I’ve been told.
[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
99% of the shit on Fox is the same shit that is shown on all the cable news channels.
While I agree in essence, I’ll say that the 99% is an exaggeration. Fox is notorious for shamelessly spinning stories and misinforming its audience, and for good reasons.
[/quote]
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Deterrence. Simple concept. Iran can be contained just like the Soviet Union was, in fact far, far more easily. So remind me again why we should be in hysterics here?
[/quote]
What if the Iranian regime puts out propaganda that a nuclear war with the US can bring about the return of the 12th Imam?
You think it’s crazy? Radical Christians in this country support Israel, not because they like Jews, but because they read the Bible and to them it says “Jesus will only return if the Jews live in Israel.” So they think that by supporting Israel, right or wrong, they are hastening the return of Christ to earth.
So if Christians believe something this crazy, it is not off base to think that radical Muslims would think something equally as crazy.