President

[ghostposts]

Let's get somebody in there who we can atleast tolerate.

A'm for Foamy. Although Wolfmoon would be a good choice, I gotta go with Foamy or face his squirrley wrath.

[TeapotScar]

Originally Posted by AlKilyu

You have proof otherwise? And I'm not talking about a documentry that came out just as Fox was on top rating-wise. Serious, have you watched it?

Yeah... there's no way I'm ever going to believe that Fox news is un-biased. Sure, there's a report or two that snuck through the right-wing filters as un-biased, but c'mon, the president and founder of Fox News is Roger Ailes... Read this.

http://www.fair.org/extra/0108/fox-main.html

Here's a few of the highlights...

Fox's founder and president, Roger Ailes, was for decades one of the savviest and most pugnacious Republican political operatives in Washington, a veteran of the Nixon and Reagan campaigns. Ailes is most famous for his role in crafting the elder Bush's media strategy in the bruising 1988 presidential race.

He was in charge of Bush's media strategy... media strategy... this guy isn't going to be running anything *un-biased* for a looooong time.

The abundance of conservatives and Republicans at Fox News Channel does not seem to be a coincidence. In 1996, Andrew Kirtzman, a respected New York City cable news reporter, was interviewed for a job with Fox and says that management wanted to know what his political affiliation was. "They were afraid I was a Democrat," he told the Village Voice (10/15/96). When Kirtzman refused to tell Fox his party ID, "all employment discussion ended," according to the Voice.

*Hmmmmmmmm* They ask for political party affiliation during job interviews, and yet they *still* have an un-canny amount of Republicans. Proof? http://www.fair.org/extra/0108/sources.html

What I do for news is the NY Times and AP, mainly. But the only way to get truly un-biased news is to read the same news stories over and over, reported by different news people, and then talk to even more people who have read different stories, still. Eventually, the truth will come out, somehow.

[TeapotScar]

No need to call Alanis, she just e-mailed me, I know it's ironic that I just posted links to a biased news site about another one being un-biased..

:twisted:

[AlKilyu]

Good reporting, but I've seen otherwise. I mean Scarborough is a former GOP senator. He's with MSN. I forget the name of the reporter at CNN who is involved with Kerry's campaign.

My point with Fox is that they have shows like Hannit & Colmbs (sp), a conservative and a liberal who each get equal time. When they debate an issue they usually have someone from each party representing.

NY TIMES?!?!? Teapot RUN! RUN! They are so far left that they ain't right! So is the L.A. Times! Anything with Times...RUN!

Okay I do ask that you not read the Times. Anything but. Please. All I ask.



Please?


You really do your homework, I am so proud! ^_^

[MrMaelstrom]

Originally Posted by AlKilyu

Way to bait. A sad way, and a sad way to take a potshot. Whatever works I suppose.

Not really. I believe my definition of insurgent is quite correct.
I also believe you should admit there's NO WAY that coalition forces are ever able to control Iraq's desert borders.

Originally Posted by AlKilyu

The gentleman I spoke to had he and 60 others pinned down against some 200+ insurgents and foriegners. They were backed up against the Tigris river. They held their own and called in for an airstrike, but the miitary would not as there were innocents around. So the Marines called in three Commanchie helicopters, that proceeded to take out the enemy.

Originally Posted by MrMaelstrom

I really don't see that description alone tipping the scale for either side on my book. The underdog isn't always right either.

Originally Posted by AlKilyu

Point is there are far far more success stories than not. Half of those they took down that day were from other countries. Where is your outrage against them?

Just because I'm opposed to U.S. armed forces presence in Iraq, doesn't mean I favour both guerrillas and terrorist organizations.

Success stories? What the fuck is that? There only can be ONE success story: a peacefull Iraq (nowhere in sight and getting worse with each passing month).

Why are armed forces under a "coalition" instead of a true UN sanctioned (not coerced) action?

Someone who blows up the UN headquarters and kills their ambassador, Sérgio Vieira de Mello (who I believe was the last real peacemaker in the UN, on account of the incredible work he did in East Timor, as an example), deserves nothing more than whatevers dished out at them.
Idiots who kidnap 2 italian FEMALE aid workers as well as plenty of muslims trying hard to put that country together deserve everything they get. By kidnapping WOMEN who do not serve under any country's armed forces, these idiots make their own arguements redundant.

I don't care how much in trouble my country might be. You come in to liberate me = thanks a lot. You stick around after the fact, caring nothing for the ensuing lootings and "reckonings", and protecting only palaces and oil refineries, and I'll get a sniper rifle myself and start doing the "pop-goes-the-weasel" on any outside forces.

My idea concerning foreign military presence in Iraq? Now that it can't be helped, if I were the U.S. military leader in Iraq, or the now "ruling" politicians, I'd do something very simple: you do not have a coalition or iraqui armed forces uniform and carry a gun, you get a cap up yor arse.
A bit late for that, huh?

Foreigners anywhere in Iraq without UN backing carrying guns = pop a cap in their arse.

Originally Posted by AlKilyu

I am not saying that I am the one to tell you, nor is Fox News (though they are the best for non-partisan), but it's out there.

Originally Posted by MrMaelstrom

It's disturbing for me to see a promissing mind believe FOX to be objective. Do you really believe the "we report, you decide" line? Then how do you explain FOX's "opinion makers"?

Originally Posted by AlKilyu

You have proof otherwise? And I'm not talking about a documentry that came out just as Fox was on top rating-wise. Serious, have you watched it?

I have watched FOX News. That is quite enough fore me.

Originally Posted by AlKilyu

You are disturbed because I don't believe what you do.

No. I'm disturbed that a lot of people got all the right ideas for all the wrong reasons (like iraqui "insurgents"(I do love the names governments and media come up with in order not to call things by their rightfull names, like terrorism, resistance and GUERRILLA)).

When the U.S. government had everything going for them after the 3 weeks of "war", there was no terrorism, only "sporadic" attacks. they're not so sporadic now, are they?

An "insurgent" is nothing but another name for RESISTANCE, which the US media will never give them, as it makes them rebels fighting for what they think their country should be (hang on, isn't that what they are?).
Do I agree with their idea of what their country might be?
NO, but if you really want my backing when doing something as arrogant as INVADING another country, let's hit Saudi Arabia first. Let's have a real objective military presence in Palestine's occupied territories and be a REAL watchdog when it comes to israeli army operations.

I might not agree with Tstone all the time, but I always respect how he came about his views, even if I can't agree with his conclusions.

Originally Posted by AlKilyu

Just make sure you know as much as you can. I don't care if you agree with me on anything, just make sure neither side overwhelms you.

Originally Posted by MrMaelstrom

Damn right.

Originally Posted by AlKilyu

Know that there are those out there, whom are smart, that will tell you that you are ignorant or that your choices are disturbing because they aren't theirs'.

Yes, there are. But I don't believe those people to be very smart. Otherwise, they'd not pass judgement upon others solely based on their own ideas.

I believe intelligent people like you, to be wrong because you're not in possession of all the facts.

No, I do not watch any U.S. based media to make myself informed.
I only watch it to see the bias, and still, the bias on the right-wing side comes from legitimate media networks and shows (like Fox News), while the only left-wing show I watch is The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

I read the newspapers (portuguese, australian and british - you should try the REAL Times of London (and The Guardian while you're at it)) and watch CNN, BBC world, Fox, Bloomberg, SKY news for the major headlines only and THEN do my research online to get the whole story and the details that often get lost, like the details of what led to such event.

[AlKilyu]

Originally Posted by MrMaelstrom

I also believe you should admit there's NO WAY that coalition forces are ever able to control Iraq's desert borders.

We can't protect our own borders, so I agree there.

U.S. media is incredibly liberal. Too much so. Remember I was one for the last decade, and the actions of the current party soured me.

I do read outside media sources, SKY being one of them. No CNN, no way. Not anymore.

Mael didn't you do some newspaper work in China? What was that like? Just curious, that sort of thing facinates me.

And hey, John Kerry has joined these boards as of late, so we can get his opinions from the horse's mouth! Even if he's talking out of both sides of it. ^_^

[MrMaelstrom]

Originally Posted by AlKilyu

We can't protect our own borders, so I agree there.

U.S. media is incredibly liberal. Too much so. Remember I was one for the last decade, and the actions of the current party soured me.

I do read outside media sources, SKY being one of them. No CNN, no way. Not anymore.

Stay away from Rupert Murdoch (SKY), it's the same guy who pimps tabloids like your News of the World.
Not meaning to offend you, I believe that you're wrong: U.S. media is mostly owned by large conglomerates who happen to be majorly republican nowadays. The liberal side of it is Hollywood, which is never going to give palestinians a fair go because of all the jewish money producing your blockbusters.

Originally Posted by AlKilyu

Mael didn't you do some newspaper work in China? What was that like? Just curious, that sort of thing facinates me.

Both enlightening and disgusting at the same time. Macau is (as well as Hong Kong) part of the One Country, Two Systems policy of the People's Cmmunist Party, so that the territory has portuguese legal system running for another 50 years.
The portuguese legal system advocates free speech, which was good when it concerned talking about the REALPOLITIKS in Europe, the US and the Midlle East.
But editors always chose to suck dick when it came to China's own shit with human rights, freedom of speech and political freedom.
And I worked for two newspapers. They both sucked China's dick, not wanting to make waves on the hand that feeds the teritory.
When you're dealing with reporters you know yourself to be biased, you really learn to read between the lines and part the facts from rumour and hearsay.

Originally Posted by AlKilyu

And hey, John Kerry has joined these boards as of late, so we can get his opinions from the horse's mouth! Even if he's talking out of both sides of it. ^_^

In the quiet words of the Virgin Mary: -Come again?

[JohnKerry]

Originally Posted by AlKilyu

And hey, John Kerry has joined these boards as of late, so we can get his opinions from the horse's mouth! Even if he's talking out of both sides of it. ^_^

You're right. But you're also Republican, so you're wrong. Why are you wrong? Because if given the opportunity, I could have done a better job. In fact, I have many foriegn leaders who have called me on the telephone to tell me they think I can do a better job at writing sentences.

Also, young man, I don't appreciate that last remark. Let's try to be mature and not sling mud, ok? You scum sucking Republican prevaricator.

Ahem.
Interesting that you bring this up. It was just the other day that I was having a martini with Dan Rather talking about this very subject (we're neighbors, you see). He told me that he was sick and tired of all the networks that swung Republican in their views and that they were simply spreading lies to the American people through the media. That's when it suddenly occured to us; the Bush Administration must have been behind the "Bush Memos" that aired on CBS' '60 Minutes' segment so they could just lie to the American people again. They were trying to soil CBS, a network dedicated to telling the truth to all Democrats, in an effort to make CBS look like a bunch of liars, like all of the Republicans.

Well they aren't. CBS has never been wrong. Except on a few occasions. But that's because the Republicans were probably behind feeding CBS reporters Republican lies. But nevertheless, Dan Rather and I both stand shoulder to shoulder in our quest to tell the American public the truth. Especially around election time. So watch CBS, and vote for Kerry.

[AlKilyu]

Holy shit! :shock:

Did they encourage you to say what you felt was true, or did they squelch that?

[AlKilyu]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Senator Kerry, I never called you a horse, that was a figure of speech.

Concerning last night's debate: Do you feel that your VP candidate John Edward's ass was handed to him smouldering, or simply charred on the sides?

I agree on the mudslinging sir. I felt it was out of line for Howard Dean's campaign to send you a pair of flip-flops for Christmas. From your own party no less! Bad form I say. And can your wife create a diet ketchup for Edward's wife?

[TeapotScar]

Originally Posted by AlKilyu

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Senator Kerry, I never called you a horse, that was a figure of speech.

Concerning last night's debate: Do you feel that your VP candidate John Edward's ass was handed to him smouldering, or simply charred on the sides?

I agree on the mudslinging sir. I felt it was out of line for Howard Dean's campaign to send you a pair of flip-flops for Christmas. From your own party no less! Bad form I say. And can your wife create a diet ketchup for Edward's wife?

Considering the huge debate about who actually *won* the VP debate.. I'd hardly say his ass was *handed* to him..

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ain/index.html

[edible_eye]

even if his ass wasn't handed to him, when cheney commented about how edwards was able to side-step paying 600,000 dollars in medicare tax through legal loop-holes, sentaor edwards face got awful red.

classic.

- mark

[AlKilyu]

Originally Posted by TeapotScar

Considering the huge debate about who actually *won* the VP debate.. I'd hardly say his ass was *handed* to him..

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ain/index.html

Tea sweetie, you missed my post a couple back that said I won't read CNN.

I was calling EPS everytime I felt that Cheney zinged him good, and she upon reviewing said debate agrees with me. :twisted:

CHENEY: Well, Gwen, the 90 percent figure is just dead wrong. When you include the Iraqi security forces that have suffered casualties, as well as the allies, they've taken almost 50 percent of the casualties in operations in Iraq, which leaves the U.S. with 50 percent, not 90 percent.

With respect to the cost, it wasn't $200 billion. You probably weren't there to vote for that. But $120 billion is, in fact, what has been allocated to Iraq. The rest of it's for Afghanistan and the global war on terror.

Then

CHENEY: Your rhetoric, Senator, would be a lot more credible if there was a record to back it up. There isn't.

And you cannot use "talk tough" during the course of a 90-minute debate in a presidential campaign to obscure a 30-year record in the United States Senate and, prior to that by John Kerry, who has consistently come down on the wrong side of all the major defense issues that he's faced as a public official.

* Words in bold denote ass-handing.

[edible_eye]

they WERE beautiful moments. brings a tear to my eye reliving them.

- mark

[TeapotScar]

Originally Posted by edible_eye

even if his ass wasn't handed to him, when cheney commented about how edwards was able to side-step paying 600,000 dollars in medicare tax through legal loop-holes, sentaor edwards face got awful red.

classic.

- mark

It brings a tear to *my* eye when I think of all of the unlawful business deals Cheney has been involved in! Can we say "Haliburton"?

[AlKilyu]

No, but we can say http://www.factcheck.org

!!!

:x

George Sorros, I am sending EE over to beat your ass.

Go get em Stone Cold!

[edible_eye]

you can say it, of course.

exactly what are you saying, though?

[edible_eye]

al - that link takes you to george soros's website.

[TeapotScar]

Ugh, you guys make me *work*... I love it :twisted:

Point: Dick Cheney profits from Halliburton. Proof: Cheney, who was vice-president of Halliburton (before moving up to become Vice-President of the United States of America) still receives $150,000 per year from the company, and he, also, retains stock options worth over $18,000,000.

That may not all sound too bad, but...

Point: Vice-President Cheney uses his national position for the benefit of the Halliburton company (from which, I've already proved, Cheney still receives pay-checks.).
Proof: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040216fa_fact

Highlights:

Last year, for example, a secret task force in the Bush Administration picked Halliburton to receive a noncompetitive contract for up to seven billion dollars to rebuild Iraq’s oil operations.

Halliburton has been accused of exploiting its privileged status. Last year, a division of the company overcharged the government by as much as sixty-one million dollars in the course of buying and transporting fuel from Kuwait into Iraq.

He [Cheney] has been both an architect and a beneficiary of the increasingly close relationship between the Department of Defense and an élite group of private military contractors—a relationship that has allowed companies such as Halliburton to profit enormously.

Halliburton has no such constraints. The company made political contributions of more than seven hundred thousand dollars between 1999 and 2002, almost always to Republican candidates or causes. In 2000, it donated $17,677 to the Bush-Cheney campaign. Indeed, the seventy or so companies that have Iraq contracts have contributed more money to President Bush than they did to any other candidate during the past twelve years.

Suspicious... I wonder if this could have *possibly* affected the decision to push war on Iraq... Iraq was on the agenda before the words "weapons of mass destruction" were uttered. It was never about Osama- Osama is completely unconnected to Iraq, and that is common knowledge, now.

And more: http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artma...cle_4799.shtml

Vice President Dick Cheney faces criminal indictments for illegal activities while CEO of energy giant Halliburton and also illegally intervened to secure a $7 billion no-bid contract for his former employer after his election to office, an analysis by the White House counsel’s office concludes.

Cheney=no good.

Now, I'm not saying oust-ing Saddam was a bad idea, by all means, it was a fantastic idea. But we needed International support to enter the war in a justifiable manner, just as we, now, need their support to be successful in the rebuilding of Iraq.[/quote][/url]

[AlKilyu]

I need you to do some more homework, this time for me, cause I'm busy for once and also lazy.

How many other countries are there that do what Haliburton does? Honestly I do not know.

I know that how Cheney was elected was Bush came to him and said he wanted to run for President, and asked Cheney to do some reasearch and find him some good choices.

Cheney really did his homework, really scoured around for some top choices.

It was then Bush said "Why don't you run with me?"

Not saying Cheney doesn't profit from Haliburton, but he IS a helluva politician. I watched his debate with Lieberman, who I'd vote for btw, and it was a really thought out and civilized debate.

[TeapotScar]

It's at least in the U.S. and the U.K., that much I know, off the top of my head. http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...niesiniraq.htm

I read along time ago, right when the war on Iraq "ended" about Russian oil companies trying to keep their deals with Iraqi oil companies against the will of the President. Remember? When we "won," the President forbid all of the country's who didn't participate in the war from makin any deals with the Iraqi oil companies. Russia was like "Well, we've had these deals for a while..." and Bush responded "I don't care, they're mine to ration as I please." So that's Russia, U.N. and U.K. Are you talking super-power countries, or do you want me to check out how many middle eastern countries are involved in... doubtful finances?

[.BatteryPoison.]

Here's another couple of funny Cheney moments:

"You demean the sacrifice of our allies when you say it's the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, and oh, by the way, send troops."

Then of course Edwards just couldn't keep his fucking mouth shut when it was Cheney's turn to talk. I thought it was hilarious that Cheney unnerved the little pip-squeak this much:

CHENEY: Classic example. He won't count the sacrifice and the contribution of Iraqi allies. It's their country. They're in the fight. They're increasingly the ones out there putting their necks on the line to take back their country from the terrorists and the old regime elements that are still left. They're doing a superb job. And for you to demean their sacrifices strikes me as...

EDWARDS: Oh, I'm not...

CHENEY: ... as beyond...

EDWARDS: I'm not demeaning...

CHENEY: It is indeed. You suggested...

EDWARDS: No, sir, I did not...

CHENEY: ... somehow they shouldn't count, because you want to be able to say that the Americans are taking 90 percent of the sacrifice. You cannot succeed in this effort if you're not willing to recognize the enormous contribution the Iraqis are increasingly making to their own future.

Then there's the moment when Edwards was acting like a fucking three year old and finger pointing:

IFILL: It goes to the Senator. I see you. I just asked him about Israel, even though we didn't actually talk about it much.

CHENEY: I concede the point.

(LAUGHTER)

Edwards: No, I did talk about it, Israel! He's the one who didn't talk about it!

All in all it was fun to watch. He wasn't as animated as he ususally is, but he still gave Edwards a few good kicks in the ass.

Well. Just finished watching the debate, had it TIVOed. God, I love TIVO.

Anyway.

Cheney was clearly more prepared, stayed on topic, and answered the questions in a direct manner. It doesn’t matter if he misled, misspoke, or misunderstood any of the topics at hand because quite frankly…Edwards is a little bitch.

Is it just me, but has Edwards perfected the art of talking out the side of his mouth? I kept expecting him to whip out a Howdy Doody doll, that or try to slip his hand up Cheney's ass and perform so adlib ventriloquisms.

And all that They and We shit.

And he was a Tort lawyer? And way to derail the topic of health care reform by offering the girl drowned in a pool from a faulty vacuum line, which could have been prevented by a two cent screw.

JESUSFUCKINGCHRIST! We don’t care about your goddamn case history, stay on fucking topic, quit whining when your ass is handed to you, quit sucking Kerry’s dick on every question by emphasizing how much you agree with him (you’re his running mate we can infer you agree) and just answer the questions.

All in all, V. Cheney had an excellent presence.

[AlKilyu]

Senator Kerry:
Do you prefere natual sun, sunbeds, or spray-on tans?
Senator Kerry you have 90 seconds to respond...

[edible_eye]

al - that link fuckin' rocked my nuts. all this cross-talk about who said what and what he voted against before voting for before throwing out the window before digging in the dumpster... wait, what was i saying?

it's awesome hearing all this come right from the horse's mouth - oh, and senator kerry, if you're still listening - from someone in massachusetts, why the hell are you still collecting money from the people of massachusetts when you're in absentia? and yes, unlike al, who is distinguished in his civility, i just called you a horse - a horse out to pasture, certainly not a working equine. you did nothing for the state while here and do even less now that you're out gallivanting across the country. you have hundreds of millions in assets from your wife and yet, for some odd reason, you still collect your check from a state you've essentially abandoned.
why?
why?
why?

- mark