Fact and Foxtion!
Cbass
03-31-2004, 07:45 PM
Fox News and the Iraq War: Fact vs. Fox-tion
A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by Congressman Bernie Sanders
One of the leading media corporations that advocated for a U.S. invasion of Iraq was News Corp and its subsidiary Fox Television. Rupert Murdoch's Fox News acted as a megaphone for the Bush Administration's march to war. Over and over Fox News' hosts and contributors made misleading comments -- many of which have been proven to be 100% false. The question now is whether or not Fox hosts and contributors will admit they were wrong and apologize to their viewers for giving them unfair and unbalanced information.
* * *
Fox Host - Sean Hannity
FOX-TION: (November 13, 2002 ): "We can handle the situation in Iraq, which I think needs to be dealt with and in fairly short order, and we can still finish the job of protecting against al Qaeda and another attack. I don't see why you think we're incapable really of doing both and doing both well."
FACT: Afghanistan remains unstable. Last February the UN released a report stating that opium production in Afghanistan is contributing to the instability and terror campaigns in Afghanistan. [Scoop.co.nw]
FOX-TION: (December 9, 2002): "And in northern Iraq today, this very day, al Qaeda is operating camps there, and they are attacking the Kurds in the north, and this has been well-documented and well chronicled. Now, if you're going to go after al Qaeda in every aspect, and obviously they have the support of Saddam, or we're not."
FACT: "Sec. of State Colin Powell conceded Thursday that despite his assertions to the United Nations last year, he had no 'smoking gun' proof of a link between the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and terrorists of al-Qaeda. 'I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection,' Powell said." [NY Times, 1/9/04]
FOX-TION: (January 29, 2003): "Iraqis are not going to be bombed by the United States. The United States will use pinpoint accuracy, like we always do."
FACT: "But nonprofit groups in Iraq and the United States say there were thousands of civilian casualties, many more than in the recent conflict in Afghanistan or the Persian Gulf War of 1991." [NY Times 3/18/03].
FOX-TION: "But one of the things that I am…really, really, really good [sic] about is David Kay, who's the chief weapons inspector now, he's compiled what he believes to be the mother load of documents and evidence that we have the case, we have the proof. He's not coming out until it's all been verified and all been put together. And I think a lot of these guys on the left that weren't there to help us defeat this animal and this madman and his two raping, vicious, murdering sons, I think they're going to have an awful lot of egg on their face."
FACT: "We have not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material."
-Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay [CIA.gov]
FOX-TION: (August 20, 2003): "Mr. Speaker, did you notice that not only were all the predictions of liberals and Democrats in this country wrong on every front leading up to this war about environmental disasters, thousands of people would be dead, innocent civilians murdered by the thousands and thousands, we'd so anger the Arab world we'd have problems for decades and all this."
FACT: From CBS's 60 Minutes 3/28/03:
Ed Bradley questioning National Security Advisory Condi Rice: "But it's been reported that if you look at the 30 months since 9/11, there have been more attacks by al Qaeda than in the 30 months prior to 9/11." [CBS News]
FOX-TION: "Saddam Hussein has harbored, promoted, helped, sheltered al Qaeda members. We know that." [Ann Coulter, Hannity&Colmes, (September 17, 2003)]
FACT: Senior US officials confirm that they have found "no provable connection between Saddam and al Qaeda." [Miami Herald 3/3/04], The bipartisan September 11th commission report "undercuts Bush administration claims before the war that Hussein had links to Al Qaeda." [LA Times, 7/19/03]. [Miami Herald]
FOX-TION: "I think we have done it well, despite the complaints. And I've mentioned at this point after World War II, when we had American troops in Germany. They were complaining. They wanted to come home. They were being attacked by young Nazis." [Ann Coulter, Hannity&Colmes, (August 4, 2003)]
FACT: Insurgent attacks on allied troops in post-war Germany were almost non-existent. There were no guerilla campaigns or coordinated efforts at sabotage. There were zero combat casualties in post-war Germany. [Slate.com]
* * *
Fox Host - Brit Hume
FOX-TION: "We know beyond a shadow of a doubt that [Saddam Hussein] has been pursuing aggressively weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons." [Fred Barnes, Fox Special Report with Brit Hume, (August 9, 2002)]
FACT: The Iraq Survey Group has reported that inspectors have found no evidence that Iraq was pursuing or stockpiling chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. As lead inspector Dr. David Kay concluded: "I'm personally convinced that there were not large stockpiles of newly produced weapons of mass destruction. We don't find the people, the documents or the physical plants that you would expect to find if the production was going on." [NY Times, 1/26/04]
FOX-TION: "There has to be substantial chemical weapons, manufacturing plant someplace. Now, maybe it is a brewery or something like that." [Mort Kondracke, Fox Special Report with Brit Hume, (January 24, 2003)]
FACT: Lead inspector of the Iraq Survey Group, Dr. David Kay reported in October 2003 that "Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new [chemical weapons] munitions was reduced - if not entirely destroyed -during Operation Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of UN sanctions and UN inspections."*
*Statement by David Kay on the Interim Progress Report on the Activities of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Defense, and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (Oct. 2, 2003).
* * *
Fox Contributor - Bill O'Reilly
FOX-TION: In March of 2003, O'Reilly told Good Morning America viewers that "if the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush administration again."
FACT: No WMD have been found. According to Reuters on 9/15/03, the Administration's hand picked weapons inspector has come up with no WMD on his visit to Iraq. "A draft report on the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq provides no solid evidence that Iraq had such arms when the United States invaded the country in March." (Note: the chemical weapons Bush was referring to at the time never materialized.)
FOX-TION: "However, once the war against Saddam begins, we expect every American to support our military and if they can't do that, to shut up. Americans and, indeed, our allies who actively work against our military once the war is underway will be considered enemies of the state by me. Just fair warning to you, Barbara Streisand, and others who see the world as you do." Fox News - Feb. 26, 2003
FACT: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. -- U.S. Constitution - 1st Amendment
FOX-TION: "The fact that a load of weapons grade plutonium has disappeared from Nigeria should send a signal to all Americans that a nuclear device could be planted here. It is possible. And those with the mindset to do that have to be confronted…But you will not refute. You cannot refute, and neither can anyone else, that we have plutonium missing in Nigeria, we have two rogue governments, North Korea and Iraq, who are certainly capable of aiding and abetting people who will plant an atomic device, a nuclear device in a city in this country." [Bill O'Reilly, The O'Reilly Factor, March 4, 2003]
FACT: FACT: After the Nigerian government reported that a quantity of radioactive material had been stolen from a foreign oil company operating in the Niger Delta, the International Atomic Energy Agency sent a team to ascertain the nature of the problem. As it happened, the company which had lost its radioactive material was Halliburton. The missing materials were radioactive elements (beryllium and americium) used in locating cracks in oil pipelines. None of this material can be used to make a nuclear weapon. None of this material is plutonium. Nigeria has no known nuclear weapons program, and no means of producing weapons grade plutonium. Halliburton has no known nuclear weapons program, and no means of producing weapons grade plutonium. Neither beryllium nor americiums are lethal. [LA Times, 3/1/03; Houston Chronicle, 3/7/03; AP 2/21/03] [EPA.gov]
A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
Congressman Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is the longest-serving Independent in the history of the House of Representatives. Congressman Sanders has been re-elected five times.
You can contact Bernie Sanders via his web site: http://bernie.house.gov/.
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/04/03/con04139.html
A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by Congressman Bernie Sanders
One of the leading media corporations that advocated for a U.S. invasion of Iraq was News Corp and its subsidiary Fox Television. Rupert Murdoch's Fox News acted as a megaphone for the Bush Administration's march to war. Over and over Fox News' hosts and contributors made misleading comments -- many of which have been proven to be 100% false. The question now is whether or not Fox hosts and contributors will admit they were wrong and apologize to their viewers for giving them unfair and unbalanced information.
* * *
Fox Host - Sean Hannity
FOX-TION: (November 13, 2002 ): "We can handle the situation in Iraq, which I think needs to be dealt with and in fairly short order, and we can still finish the job of protecting against al Qaeda and another attack. I don't see why you think we're incapable really of doing both and doing both well."
FACT: Afghanistan remains unstable. Last February the UN released a report stating that opium production in Afghanistan is contributing to the instability and terror campaigns in Afghanistan. [Scoop.co.nw]
FOX-TION: (December 9, 2002): "And in northern Iraq today, this very day, al Qaeda is operating camps there, and they are attacking the Kurds in the north, and this has been well-documented and well chronicled. Now, if you're going to go after al Qaeda in every aspect, and obviously they have the support of Saddam, or we're not."
FACT: "Sec. of State Colin Powell conceded Thursday that despite his assertions to the United Nations last year, he had no 'smoking gun' proof of a link between the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and terrorists of al-Qaeda. 'I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection,' Powell said." [NY Times, 1/9/04]
FOX-TION: (January 29, 2003): "Iraqis are not going to be bombed by the United States. The United States will use pinpoint accuracy, like we always do."
FACT: "But nonprofit groups in Iraq and the United States say there were thousands of civilian casualties, many more than in the recent conflict in Afghanistan or the Persian Gulf War of 1991." [NY Times 3/18/03].
FOX-TION: "But one of the things that I am…really, really, really good [sic] about is David Kay, who's the chief weapons inspector now, he's compiled what he believes to be the mother load of documents and evidence that we have the case, we have the proof. He's not coming out until it's all been verified and all been put together. And I think a lot of these guys on the left that weren't there to help us defeat this animal and this madman and his two raping, vicious, murdering sons, I think they're going to have an awful lot of egg on their face."
FACT: "We have not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material."
-Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay [CIA.gov]
FOX-TION: (August 20, 2003): "Mr. Speaker, did you notice that not only were all the predictions of liberals and Democrats in this country wrong on every front leading up to this war about environmental disasters, thousands of people would be dead, innocent civilians murdered by the thousands and thousands, we'd so anger the Arab world we'd have problems for decades and all this."
FACT: From CBS's 60 Minutes 3/28/03:
Ed Bradley questioning National Security Advisory Condi Rice: "But it's been reported that if you look at the 30 months since 9/11, there have been more attacks by al Qaeda than in the 30 months prior to 9/11." [CBS News]
FOX-TION: "Saddam Hussein has harbored, promoted, helped, sheltered al Qaeda members. We know that." [Ann Coulter, Hannity&Colmes, (September 17, 2003)]
FACT: Senior US officials confirm that they have found "no provable connection between Saddam and al Qaeda." [Miami Herald 3/3/04], The bipartisan September 11th commission report "undercuts Bush administration claims before the war that Hussein had links to Al Qaeda." [LA Times, 7/19/03]. [Miami Herald]
FOX-TION: "I think we have done it well, despite the complaints. And I've mentioned at this point after World War II, when we had American troops in Germany. They were complaining. They wanted to come home. They were being attacked by young Nazis." [Ann Coulter, Hannity&Colmes, (August 4, 2003)]
FACT: Insurgent attacks on allied troops in post-war Germany were almost non-existent. There were no guerilla campaigns or coordinated efforts at sabotage. There were zero combat casualties in post-war Germany. [Slate.com]
* * *
Fox Host - Brit Hume
FOX-TION: "We know beyond a shadow of a doubt that [Saddam Hussein] has been pursuing aggressively weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons." [Fred Barnes, Fox Special Report with Brit Hume, (August 9, 2002)]
FACT: The Iraq Survey Group has reported that inspectors have found no evidence that Iraq was pursuing or stockpiling chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. As lead inspector Dr. David Kay concluded: "I'm personally convinced that there were not large stockpiles of newly produced weapons of mass destruction. We don't find the people, the documents or the physical plants that you would expect to find if the production was going on." [NY Times, 1/26/04]
FOX-TION: "There has to be substantial chemical weapons, manufacturing plant someplace. Now, maybe it is a brewery or something like that." [Mort Kondracke, Fox Special Report with Brit Hume, (January 24, 2003)]
FACT: Lead inspector of the Iraq Survey Group, Dr. David Kay reported in October 2003 that "Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new [chemical weapons] munitions was reduced - if not entirely destroyed -during Operation Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of UN sanctions and UN inspections."*
*Statement by David Kay on the Interim Progress Report on the Activities of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Defense, and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (Oct. 2, 2003).
* * *
Fox Contributor - Bill O'Reilly
FOX-TION: In March of 2003, O'Reilly told Good Morning America viewers that "if the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush administration again."
FACT: No WMD have been found. According to Reuters on 9/15/03, the Administration's hand picked weapons inspector has come up with no WMD on his visit to Iraq. "A draft report on the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq provides no solid evidence that Iraq had such arms when the United States invaded the country in March." (Note: the chemical weapons Bush was referring to at the time never materialized.)
FOX-TION: "However, once the war against Saddam begins, we expect every American to support our military and if they can't do that, to shut up. Americans and, indeed, our allies who actively work against our military once the war is underway will be considered enemies of the state by me. Just fair warning to you, Barbara Streisand, and others who see the world as you do." Fox News - Feb. 26, 2003
FACT: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. -- U.S. Constitution - 1st Amendment
FOX-TION: "The fact that a load of weapons grade plutonium has disappeared from Nigeria should send a signal to all Americans that a nuclear device could be planted here. It is possible. And those with the mindset to do that have to be confronted…But you will not refute. You cannot refute, and neither can anyone else, that we have plutonium missing in Nigeria, we have two rogue governments, North Korea and Iraq, who are certainly capable of aiding and abetting people who will plant an atomic device, a nuclear device in a city in this country." [Bill O'Reilly, The O'Reilly Factor, March 4, 2003]
FACT: FACT: After the Nigerian government reported that a quantity of radioactive material had been stolen from a foreign oil company operating in the Niger Delta, the International Atomic Energy Agency sent a team to ascertain the nature of the problem. As it happened, the company which had lost its radioactive material was Halliburton. The missing materials were radioactive elements (beryllium and americium) used in locating cracks in oil pipelines. None of this material can be used to make a nuclear weapon. None of this material is plutonium. Nigeria has no known nuclear weapons program, and no means of producing weapons grade plutonium. Halliburton has no known nuclear weapons program, and no means of producing weapons grade plutonium. Neither beryllium nor americiums are lethal. [LA Times, 3/1/03; Houston Chronicle, 3/7/03; AP 2/21/03] [EPA.gov]
A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
Congressman Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is the longest-serving Independent in the history of the House of Representatives. Congressman Sanders has been re-elected five times.
You can contact Bernie Sanders via his web site: http://bernie.house.gov/.
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/04/03/con04139.html
TexasF355F1
04-01-2004, 12:48 AM
It's the same 'ol stuff. They're just trying to bring down Fox news. A lot of that can be interpreted in many different meanings.
I just reviewed it again and caught the Bill O'Reilly appology thing. Pretty funny that it doesn't say FACT: He did appologize for his assurtion of WMD existance was wrong.
I just reviewed it again and caught the Bill O'Reilly appology thing. Pretty funny that it doesn't say FACT: He did appologize for his assurtion of WMD existance was wrong.
justacruiser
04-01-2004, 12:27 PM
It's all about how you can interpret those quotes. As for Fox lying, I said a while back that you can't trust any american media sources, they lie to get ratings. CNN is the worst, but I wouldn't trust the word of the others unless it coincides with several other sources.
T4 Primera
04-03-2004, 03:51 AM
As for Fox lying, I said a while back that you can't trust any american media sources, they lie to get ratings. CNN is the worst, but I wouldn't trust the word of the others unless it coincides with several other sources.
I disagree - I say they lie to keep their jobs. And to retain access to the press conferences. And so that they can continue to broadcast as determined by government appointed officials.
I'm so thankful for the internet, where I am not limited to having media conglomerates and government statements as my only sources.
I disagree - I say they lie to keep their jobs. And to retain access to the press conferences. And so that they can continue to broadcast as determined by government appointed officials.
I'm so thankful for the internet, where I am not limited to having media conglomerates and government statements as my only sources.
T4 Primera
04-03-2004, 03:59 AM
It's the same 'ol stuff. They're just trying to bring down Fox news. A lot of that can be interpreted in many different meanings.
I just reviewed it again and caught the Bill O'Reilly appology thing. Pretty funny that it doesn't say FACT: He did appologize for his assurtion of WMD existance was wrong.
The apology is too late after the fact. The damage was already done with regard to media influence on public opinion.
It's kinda like a false headline on the front page of a newspaper, followed by a retraction 3 days later buried deep in the classifieds.
The only just outcome would be if his apology had an equal and opposite effect/impact to that of his original assertion.
Then again, they say a man can never put his feet in the same river twice. The original river has since moved on. So it is with life.
I just reviewed it again and caught the Bill O'Reilly appology thing. Pretty funny that it doesn't say FACT: He did appologize for his assurtion of WMD existance was wrong.
The apology is too late after the fact. The damage was already done with regard to media influence on public opinion.
It's kinda like a false headline on the front page of a newspaper, followed by a retraction 3 days later buried deep in the classifieds.
The only just outcome would be if his apology had an equal and opposite effect/impact to that of his original assertion.
Then again, they say a man can never put his feet in the same river twice. The original river has since moved on. So it is with life.
TexasF355F1
04-03-2004, 03:28 PM
The apology is too late after the fact. The damage was already done with regard to media influence on public opinion.
It's kinda like a false headline on the front page of a newspaper, followed by a retraction 3 days later buried deep in the classifieds.
The only just outcome would be if his apology had an equal and opposite effect/impact to that of his original assertion.
Then again, they say a man can never put his feet in the same river twice. The original river has since moved on. So it is with life.
No its not too late. He said at the start of the war if there are no WMD's after one year he will apologize for his assumption. And a year later he lived up to his promise.
It's kinda like a false headline on the front page of a newspaper, followed by a retraction 3 days later buried deep in the classifieds.
The only just outcome would be if his apology had an equal and opposite effect/impact to that of his original assertion.
Then again, they say a man can never put his feet in the same river twice. The original river has since moved on. So it is with life.
No its not too late. He said at the start of the war if there are no WMD's after one year he will apologize for his assumption. And a year later he lived up to his promise.
T4 Primera
04-03-2004, 03:49 PM
Before the war - We need to invade Iraq because of WMD.
After the war - Oops!, sorry.
...anyway, my next assumption is that.....
After the war - Oops!, sorry.
...anyway, my next assumption is that.....
Cbass
04-03-2004, 05:57 PM
My point in posting this is that Fox News is definately not a source you can trust. They will say anything, and everything they can to sway public opinion towards whatever the right wing wants. They're practically a mouthpiece for the Bush administration.
CNN is more filler than anything else. They still post teh same BS stories Fox does, but they at least do it in a more moderate sense.
CNN is more filler than anything else. They still post teh same BS stories Fox does, but they at least do it in a more moderate sense.
justacruiser
04-04-2004, 05:50 PM
They still post teh same BS stories Fox does, but they at least do it in a more moderate sense.
Translation: Liberal
Don't forget CNN was started by Ted Turner who was married to 'Hanoi Jane' Fonda. You can't get more of a traitorous liberal than that.
Translation: Liberal
Don't forget CNN was started by Ted Turner who was married to 'Hanoi Jane' Fonda. You can't get more of a traitorous liberal than that.
carrrnuttt
04-04-2004, 06:14 PM
Translation: Liberal
Don't forget CNN was started by Ted Turner who was married to 'Hanoi Jane' Fonda. You can't get more of a traitorous liberal than that.
YOU BUSH LOVERS AND YOUR LABELS!
Can you come up with something a bit more imaginative, or are you guys really like Bush, and can only comprehend things, one small phrase at a time?
Don't forget CNN was started by Ted Turner who was married to 'Hanoi Jane' Fonda. You can't get more of a traitorous liberal than that.
YOU BUSH LOVERS AND YOUR LABELS!
Can you come up with something a bit more imaginative, or are you guys really like Bush, and can only comprehend things, one small phrase at a time?
T4 Primera
04-04-2004, 06:16 PM
There's a name for those phrases - soundbites.
justacruiser
04-04-2004, 07:50 PM
YOU BUSH LOVERS AND YOUR LABELS!
Can you come up with something a bit more imaginative, or are you guys really like Bush, and can only comprehend things, one small phrase at a time?
Ok... lets see here....
Translation: hippie
Translation: tree-hugger
Translation: when a commie goes bad
Translation: child of marx
Translation: loves the idea of cummunism but wont move to a communist country, (guess they enjoy their freedom too much)
Translation: Benedict Arnold in disguise
Translation: Product of Baboon lovin
Translation: When this http://files.automotiveforums.com/gallery/watermark.php?file=/503/87538saddam_republicanguard.jpg
Happens.
Am I getting warmer here? CNN isn't 'moderate' it's liberal all the way. All of the above and 'liberal' are the same thing you know, or at least 'liberal' is on the razors edge of being one of the above and Ted Turner, but most especially Jane 'the traitoress' Fonda, fit the bill on all of the above.
Can you come up with something a bit more imaginative, or are you guys really like Bush, and can only comprehend things, one small phrase at a time?
Ok... lets see here....
Translation: hippie
Translation: tree-hugger
Translation: when a commie goes bad
Translation: child of marx
Translation: loves the idea of cummunism but wont move to a communist country, (guess they enjoy their freedom too much)
Translation: Benedict Arnold in disguise
Translation: Product of Baboon lovin
Translation: When this http://files.automotiveforums.com/gallery/watermark.php?file=/503/87538saddam_republicanguard.jpg
Happens.
Am I getting warmer here? CNN isn't 'moderate' it's liberal all the way. All of the above and 'liberal' are the same thing you know, or at least 'liberal' is on the razors edge of being one of the above and Ted Turner, but most especially Jane 'the traitoress' Fonda, fit the bill on all of the above.
YogsVR4
04-04-2004, 09:01 PM
YOU BUSH LOVERS AND YOUR LABELS!
Can you come up with something a bit more imaginative, or are you guys really like Bush, and can only comprehend things, one small phrase at a time?
YOU BUSH BASHERS AND YOUR USE OF CAPITAL LETTERS! :lol:
Pot, kettle and the color black.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
Can you come up with something a bit more imaginative, or are you guys really like Bush, and can only comprehend things, one small phrase at a time?
YOU BUSH BASHERS AND YOUR USE OF CAPITAL LETTERS! :lol:
Pot, kettle and the color black.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
carrrnuttt
04-04-2004, 11:30 PM
Pot, kettle and the color black.
Right.
Why don't you show me where I labeled anybody, except for the man and his Administration himself that apparently blinded you guys. Well...with everything I've put up about him in such short time, I'd call it more of a novel I have attached to him, rather than a label...
I know there have been name-calling on both sides, but I don't get how you rabid Bushites get-off calling other Americans such derogatory terms as justacruiser just demonstrated. I doubt if he knows one-tenth about the people he decides to label, besides what the propaganda machine has told him.
Why don't you go into my "Fascist indeed" thread and refute ANY of the information that is presented on there?
Why don't you refute the fact that the Republican Party, with the leadership of your puppetmaster, has OUTSPENT the Democratic Party in modern times, with The Chimp in power? "Conservative" that you are...
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/bush30mar04.html
I know you are an intelligent man, Yogs, and I won't refute that, but it just seems all traces of skepticism, one of the inherent traits of an intellectual, tends to escape you and most of all, your lessers, when it comes to Bush's propaganda.
Whenever I read the threads here in this forum, the one's against Bush are usually the ones that show apparent thought behind their posts. The ones for him only tend to repeat the mob sentiment that Bush's Administration has carefully cultivated. Basically, the ones posting for him didn't have to think. All the thinking had been done for them.
It really scares me that an intelligent man such as you fails to see that.
You want balanced?
Here's balanced:
I am not the author of these. The author is actually somebody that is leaning towards Bush. I cannot stand Kerry myself, but I feel it will be a bigger detriment for the country to let his Republican equivalent in the Liberal Bush Administration (check his spending and policy record).
If Bush is reelected:
-The economy will improve slightly for about 2 years until the massive spending of fighting the war on terror catches up to him. (Under Bush, the Republican congress has spent more in adjusted $$ than LBJ at the height of Vietnam)
-USA PATRIOT ACT will be renewed in 2005, and the VICTORY ACT and PATRIOT II will scrap what little is left of the Bill of Rights
-The world will hate us
-More jobs will be lost overseas
-Iraq's constitutional government will collapse, and within months (not years) of our leaving, they will go the way of Iran
-Israel will be forced into a death pact known as the "Roadmap to Peace"
-Americans will never see the tax cuts promised to them
-Some progress will be made in getting the U.S. back to the Moon, but will be cut by later administrations
-Illegals will get amnesty and immigration will increase, along with racism against them
-The nation will remain dependent of foriegn oil (thanks to GW's
black gold buddies)
-International trade blocks will comprimise our (and others') national soverignty
-Liberal, Libertarian, and fringe Republicans will be alienated, touching off a crisis in the party, giving the upper hand to Democrats at the time Hillary would be most likely to run
-The economy will crash in 2008 as our nation's major lines of credit run out with a $7 trillion+ national debt
-Americans will come to live in a surveillance/ voyer state similar to Britain
-Liberals will become more radicalized
-Don Rummy gets to pay for four more years (that's scary)
-Our forces and allies will continue to be attacked, sending some of them the way of Spain, and creating hostile gov'ts
-Lobbyists will be silenced by McCain-Feingold (and by lobbyists I mean things like the AMA and AARP, as well as the ones like the NRA)
-The media will be ever more monopolized and dogmatic
-Patriotism will be a blindfold
-Say hello to Me.C.H.A., and goodbye to Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California
-If it is close, Democrats will contest the election, allowing the Supreme Court to appoint the president, and setting a precident that will undermine the public's confidence in the electoral system (in other words, it sends the message: **** your vote, my unelected judges will decide who goes in office since you people obviously are too stupid to vote properly)
-The Republic will slowly die
==============================================
If Kerry wins:
-The economy will improve slightly for about six months as tax cuts are rolled back, then sink again as taxation is raised on the middle class and rich, reducing job growth
-Social(ist) programs will supplement military spending to bring on a full scale fiscal crisis
-The U.S. will become a doormat for E.U. countries militarily and economicaly by acting through the U.N.
-Hillary's vision of socialized state wellcare (national healthcare) will be realized, and hasten the bankruptcy of the nation. (Even the AMA once fought the idea, decades ago)
-Taiwan will be invaded by the PRC, and we will do almost nothing
-USA PATRIOT ACT will be renewed in 2005, the VICTORY ACT and PATRIOT II will scrap what little is left of the Bill of Rights after false opposition by Kerry
-The world will still hate us
-Islamic fundamentalists will continue to teach racism and murder in Islamic Academies
-Israel will be forced into a death pact known as the "Roadmap to Peace"
-Americans will never see the tax cuts promised to them, instead, they will see ever increasing burdens
-More jobs will be lost to globalization as the higher taxes and increased regulation force more companies to seek employees elsewhere (**** Kerry's bullshit about protecting American jobs, to do that, he would have to LOWER TAXES, which he would never voluntarily do)
-Iraq's constitutional government will collapse, and within months (not years) of our leaving, they will go the way of Iran
-If it is close, Republicans will contest the election, allowing the Supreme Court to appoint the president, and setting a precident that will undermine the public's confidence in the electoral system
-North Korea will develop nukes and true ICBM's and could just be crazy enough to use them
-International trade blocks will comprimise our (and others') national soverignty
-The economy will crash in 2008 as our nation's major lines of credit run out with a $7 trillion+ national debt
-Americans will come to live in a surveillance/ voyer state similar to Britain
-Republicans will become more radicalized
-Lobbyists will become more powerful
-Patriots will be ridiculed
-The 2nd Amendment will go down the toilet
-The internet will be taxed
-Hillary is next in line
-Say goodbye to the Trucks, SUV's, Musclecars, and pretty muck anything that gets less than 30 MPG, or anything that's worth driving (I guess those military jets are so fuel efficient that the are exempt from CAFE)
-We will have another major attack on our soil
-The Republic will slowly die.
Right.
Why don't you show me where I labeled anybody, except for the man and his Administration himself that apparently blinded you guys. Well...with everything I've put up about him in such short time, I'd call it more of a novel I have attached to him, rather than a label...
I know there have been name-calling on both sides, but I don't get how you rabid Bushites get-off calling other Americans such derogatory terms as justacruiser just demonstrated. I doubt if he knows one-tenth about the people he decides to label, besides what the propaganda machine has told him.
Why don't you go into my "Fascist indeed" thread and refute ANY of the information that is presented on there?
Why don't you refute the fact that the Republican Party, with the leadership of your puppetmaster, has OUTSPENT the Democratic Party in modern times, with The Chimp in power? "Conservative" that you are...
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/bush30mar04.html
I know you are an intelligent man, Yogs, and I won't refute that, but it just seems all traces of skepticism, one of the inherent traits of an intellectual, tends to escape you and most of all, your lessers, when it comes to Bush's propaganda.
Whenever I read the threads here in this forum, the one's against Bush are usually the ones that show apparent thought behind their posts. The ones for him only tend to repeat the mob sentiment that Bush's Administration has carefully cultivated. Basically, the ones posting for him didn't have to think. All the thinking had been done for them.
It really scares me that an intelligent man such as you fails to see that.
You want balanced?
Here's balanced:
I am not the author of these. The author is actually somebody that is leaning towards Bush. I cannot stand Kerry myself, but I feel it will be a bigger detriment for the country to let his Republican equivalent in the Liberal Bush Administration (check his spending and policy record).
If Bush is reelected:
-The economy will improve slightly for about 2 years until the massive spending of fighting the war on terror catches up to him. (Under Bush, the Republican congress has spent more in adjusted $$ than LBJ at the height of Vietnam)
-USA PATRIOT ACT will be renewed in 2005, and the VICTORY ACT and PATRIOT II will scrap what little is left of the Bill of Rights
-The world will hate us
-More jobs will be lost overseas
-Iraq's constitutional government will collapse, and within months (not years) of our leaving, they will go the way of Iran
-Israel will be forced into a death pact known as the "Roadmap to Peace"
-Americans will never see the tax cuts promised to them
-Some progress will be made in getting the U.S. back to the Moon, but will be cut by later administrations
-Illegals will get amnesty and immigration will increase, along with racism against them
-The nation will remain dependent of foriegn oil (thanks to GW's
black gold buddies)
-International trade blocks will comprimise our (and others') national soverignty
-Liberal, Libertarian, and fringe Republicans will be alienated, touching off a crisis in the party, giving the upper hand to Democrats at the time Hillary would be most likely to run
-The economy will crash in 2008 as our nation's major lines of credit run out with a $7 trillion+ national debt
-Americans will come to live in a surveillance/ voyer state similar to Britain
-Liberals will become more radicalized
-Don Rummy gets to pay for four more years (that's scary)
-Our forces and allies will continue to be attacked, sending some of them the way of Spain, and creating hostile gov'ts
-Lobbyists will be silenced by McCain-Feingold (and by lobbyists I mean things like the AMA and AARP, as well as the ones like the NRA)
-The media will be ever more monopolized and dogmatic
-Patriotism will be a blindfold
-Say hello to Me.C.H.A., and goodbye to Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California
-If it is close, Democrats will contest the election, allowing the Supreme Court to appoint the president, and setting a precident that will undermine the public's confidence in the electoral system (in other words, it sends the message: **** your vote, my unelected judges will decide who goes in office since you people obviously are too stupid to vote properly)
-The Republic will slowly die
==============================================
If Kerry wins:
-The economy will improve slightly for about six months as tax cuts are rolled back, then sink again as taxation is raised on the middle class and rich, reducing job growth
-Social(ist) programs will supplement military spending to bring on a full scale fiscal crisis
-The U.S. will become a doormat for E.U. countries militarily and economicaly by acting through the U.N.
-Hillary's vision of socialized state wellcare (national healthcare) will be realized, and hasten the bankruptcy of the nation. (Even the AMA once fought the idea, decades ago)
-Taiwan will be invaded by the PRC, and we will do almost nothing
-USA PATRIOT ACT will be renewed in 2005, the VICTORY ACT and PATRIOT II will scrap what little is left of the Bill of Rights after false opposition by Kerry
-The world will still hate us
-Islamic fundamentalists will continue to teach racism and murder in Islamic Academies
-Israel will be forced into a death pact known as the "Roadmap to Peace"
-Americans will never see the tax cuts promised to them, instead, they will see ever increasing burdens
-More jobs will be lost to globalization as the higher taxes and increased regulation force more companies to seek employees elsewhere (**** Kerry's bullshit about protecting American jobs, to do that, he would have to LOWER TAXES, which he would never voluntarily do)
-Iraq's constitutional government will collapse, and within months (not years) of our leaving, they will go the way of Iran
-If it is close, Republicans will contest the election, allowing the Supreme Court to appoint the president, and setting a precident that will undermine the public's confidence in the electoral system
-North Korea will develop nukes and true ICBM's and could just be crazy enough to use them
-International trade blocks will comprimise our (and others') national soverignty
-The economy will crash in 2008 as our nation's major lines of credit run out with a $7 trillion+ national debt
-Americans will come to live in a surveillance/ voyer state similar to Britain
-Republicans will become more radicalized
-Lobbyists will become more powerful
-Patriots will be ridiculed
-The 2nd Amendment will go down the toilet
-The internet will be taxed
-Hillary is next in line
-Say goodbye to the Trucks, SUV's, Musclecars, and pretty muck anything that gets less than 30 MPG, or anything that's worth driving (I guess those military jets are so fuel efficient that the are exempt from CAFE)
-We will have another major attack on our soil
-The Republic will slowly die.
YogsVR4
04-05-2004, 10:32 AM
Right.
Why don't you show me where I labeled anybody, except for the man and his Administration himself that apparently blinded you guys. Well...with everything I've put up about him in such short time, I'd call it more of a novel I have attached to him, rather than a label...
Don't get me started on the times you've labeled people here. You're as guilty as anyone here, including me.
I know there have been name-calling on both sides, but I don't get how you rabid Bushites get-off calling other Americans such derogatory terms as justacruiser just demonstrated. I doubt if he knows one-tenth about the people he decides to label, besides what the propaganda machine has told him.
I'm not sure if you are having problems understanding that other people can have a different opinion then yourself and not be 'blinded' or taken in by 'propaganda' as you've repeated over and over or if you are so full of fire and brimstone that you are unwilling to accept that you might be wrong. Why don't you go into my "Fascist indeed" thread and refute ANY of the information that is presented on there?
I am not wasting my time going through every item in that list. Why don't we take a simple one. George W. Bush appointed President by 5-4 vote of the Supreme Court. When did that happen? Where is the appointment opinion pieces that the court wrote? 90% of the items written in there are nothing but the author's creative use of synonyms.
Why don't you refute the fact that the Republican Party, with the leadership of your puppetmaster, has OUTSPENT the Democratic Party in modern times, with The Chimp in power? "Conservative" that you are...
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/bush30mar04.html
And I have a problem with that. I do not like the spending thats going on. I've complained about it repeatedly. Whats your point? That if I disagree with Bush on anything that means I have to disagree with him on everything? btw - notice the use of 'your puppetmaster' and then reread your complaint about labeling people.
I know you are an intelligent man, Yogs, and I won't refute that, but it just seems all traces of skepticism, one of the inherent traits of an intellectual, tends to escape you and most of all, your lessers, when it comes to Bush's propaganda.
These threads always turn into generalized Bush/anti-Bush screaming matches. You want to keep a topic on course of something specific I don't like about Bush - immigration and spending and you'll see a lot of complaints. Put it on tax policy, tort reform and national defense and you'll see me singing a different tune. What you don't see me doing is singing *his* praises. You see me singing praises to specific *policies*. Those of you who hate the man are having a hard time seeing the difference.
Whenever I read the threads here in this forum, the one's against Bush are usually the ones that show apparent thought behind their posts. The ones for him only tend to repeat the mob sentiment that Bush's Administration has carefully cultivated. Basically, the ones posting for him didn't have to think. All the thinking had been done for them. It really scares me that an intelligent man such as you fails to see that.
That’s a strange attitude. The Bush bashers tend to regurgitate the spite that is written by someone else. Not a whole lot of thought put into doing that either.
You want balanced?
This has nothing to do with balanced.
I have problems with most of Kerry's ideas. If a thread were around I would address the issue - not the man. There are character traits about everyone that I don't like. Again, so what. The point, again, is that I'd rather talk about what I like or don't like about a policy decision then having to do these generalized bash and refute threads.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
Why don't you show me where I labeled anybody, except for the man and his Administration himself that apparently blinded you guys. Well...with everything I've put up about him in such short time, I'd call it more of a novel I have attached to him, rather than a label...
Don't get me started on the times you've labeled people here. You're as guilty as anyone here, including me.
I know there have been name-calling on both sides, but I don't get how you rabid Bushites get-off calling other Americans such derogatory terms as justacruiser just demonstrated. I doubt if he knows one-tenth about the people he decides to label, besides what the propaganda machine has told him.
I'm not sure if you are having problems understanding that other people can have a different opinion then yourself and not be 'blinded' or taken in by 'propaganda' as you've repeated over and over or if you are so full of fire and brimstone that you are unwilling to accept that you might be wrong. Why don't you go into my "Fascist indeed" thread and refute ANY of the information that is presented on there?
I am not wasting my time going through every item in that list. Why don't we take a simple one. George W. Bush appointed President by 5-4 vote of the Supreme Court. When did that happen? Where is the appointment opinion pieces that the court wrote? 90% of the items written in there are nothing but the author's creative use of synonyms.
Why don't you refute the fact that the Republican Party, with the leadership of your puppetmaster, has OUTSPENT the Democratic Party in modern times, with The Chimp in power? "Conservative" that you are...
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/bush30mar04.html
And I have a problem with that. I do not like the spending thats going on. I've complained about it repeatedly. Whats your point? That if I disagree with Bush on anything that means I have to disagree with him on everything? btw - notice the use of 'your puppetmaster' and then reread your complaint about labeling people.
I know you are an intelligent man, Yogs, and I won't refute that, but it just seems all traces of skepticism, one of the inherent traits of an intellectual, tends to escape you and most of all, your lessers, when it comes to Bush's propaganda.
These threads always turn into generalized Bush/anti-Bush screaming matches. You want to keep a topic on course of something specific I don't like about Bush - immigration and spending and you'll see a lot of complaints. Put it on tax policy, tort reform and national defense and you'll see me singing a different tune. What you don't see me doing is singing *his* praises. You see me singing praises to specific *policies*. Those of you who hate the man are having a hard time seeing the difference.
Whenever I read the threads here in this forum, the one's against Bush are usually the ones that show apparent thought behind their posts. The ones for him only tend to repeat the mob sentiment that Bush's Administration has carefully cultivated. Basically, the ones posting for him didn't have to think. All the thinking had been done for them. It really scares me that an intelligent man such as you fails to see that.
That’s a strange attitude. The Bush bashers tend to regurgitate the spite that is written by someone else. Not a whole lot of thought put into doing that either.
You want balanced?
This has nothing to do with balanced.
I have problems with most of Kerry's ideas. If a thread were around I would address the issue - not the man. There are character traits about everyone that I don't like. Again, so what. The point, again, is that I'd rather talk about what I like or don't like about a policy decision then having to do these generalized bash and refute threads.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
TexasF355F1
04-05-2004, 10:50 AM
I have problems with most of Kerry's ideas. If a thread were around I would address the issue - not the man. There are character traits about everyone that I don't like. Again, so what. The point, again, is that I'd rather talk about what I like or don't like about a policy decision then having to do these generalized bash and refute threads.
Has anyone watched the Choose or Lose: John Kerry thing on MTV(I'm sure a big campaign contributor)? I have yet to see it in its entirety, but have caught bits a pieces. The biggest problems I have with Kerry are his very apparant arrogance and cockiness. And the fact that I can't see him really wanting to or even giving a rats ass about the poor he claims to want to help. Since he is married to Mrs. Heinz he is worth hundreds of millions with houses everywhere. He keeps saying how he can relate to them and that bothers me b/c he can't.
Has anyone watched the Choose or Lose: John Kerry thing on MTV(I'm sure a big campaign contributor)? I have yet to see it in its entirety, but have caught bits a pieces. The biggest problems I have with Kerry are his very apparant arrogance and cockiness. And the fact that I can't see him really wanting to or even giving a rats ass about the poor he claims to want to help. Since he is married to Mrs. Heinz he is worth hundreds of millions with houses everywhere. He keeps saying how he can relate to them and that bothers me b/c he can't.
YogsVR4
04-11-2004, 09:23 PM
Has anyone watched the Choose or Lose: John Kerry thing on MTV(I'm sure a big campaign contributor)? I have yet to see it in its entirety, but have caught bits a pieces. The biggest problems I have with Kerry are his very apparant arrogance and cockiness. And the fact that I can't see him really wanting to or even giving a rats ass about the poor he claims to want to help. Since he is married to Mrs. Heinz he is worth hundreds of millions with houses everywhere. He keeps saying how he can relate to them and that bothers me b/c he can't.
I think the gated community that he comes from is big on lip service. It plays well with the democrat base for the primaries. We'll see what he says after the conventions this summer. It'll be when it provides some insight.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
I think the gated community that he comes from is big on lip service. It plays well with the democrat base for the primaries. We'll see what he says after the conventions this summer. It'll be when it provides some insight.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2025