How about Newsweek being forced into a very public retraction their story on Koran mistreatment?

The Newsweek story was based on an inaccurate source, and Newsweek corrected the story when the source changed their's. You can say they are guilty of not thoroughly vetting their sources, but you cannot say they knowingly published false information. In all the cases I gave for Fox News, they knowingly gave false information, nor have they corrected themselves afterwards.

Can you provide an example of another major network knowingly giving false information?

As far as the Fox stories you referenced, I am not familiar with any of them

No surprise there. Kinda puts a chink in the "left-wing media" theory doesn't it? I've got loads more if you want them.

Without seeing an entire transcript, it is very hard to say that the interrogator might not have mentioned the types of attacks planned or inferred a large number of casualties.

Okey, dokie. Here's a larger chunk of the transcript:

O'REILLY: All right, so -- but you would say that sleep deprivation -- you should have the ability to practice that procedure. You want to practice that as an interrogator?

MACKEY: I think that, in the circumstances that we've seen, they've been specifically the illegal fighters. And, the realities of fighting this type of a war, it is a necessary tool for interrogators. And we did -- we tried our best to come up with a tactic -- as you said, "monstering". Which walked the fine line of the conventions and trying to achieve our ends.

O'REILLY: Did you get information that was helpful to the United States by using this "monstering" technique?

MACKEY: Extremely helpful. The information that my extraordinary bunch of interrogators collected using that technique -- it cannot be overestimated. But we --

O'REILLY: Can you give us an example of it?

MACKEY: Yes. Some of the information that we got using that technique revealed plots that were going on in Europe that were foiled by civilian intelligence agencies. And another one was a couple of very important tactical plots that were being formed against our combat soldiers on the ground. Which is actually our principal responsibility as interrogators.

O'REILLY: Now, The New York Times would have you not be able to use those techniques.

One poll and one vote on a subject does not necessarily reflect the entirety of any one political party. BTW, what about the other 20% ? Isn't 20% a "significant segment"?

CBS/New York Times poll: 86% Democrats favored military response.

Los Angeles Times poll: 80% Democrats favored military action even if it meant civilian casualties

House approved military action 420 to 1.

20% (14% by the CBS poll) isn't a significant segment. It's a small minority.

If you don't like those examples, I've got plenty more. Those are just some from the past month. Sorry to burst your bubble, but Fox New lies.

but I think this thread is about dead anyways....

God, I hope so.

-B

Please post some examples from other major news stations.

How about Newsweek being forced into a very public retraction their story on Koran mistreatment?

Oh, yeah, here:
http://www.bluesnews.com/cgi-bin/board.pl?action=viewthread&threadid=58517&id=251952&boardid=1&view=threads
and:
http://www.bluesnews.com/cgi-bin/board.pl?action=viewthread&threadid=58437&id=251204&boardid=1&view=threads
http://www.bluesnews.com/cgi-bin/board.pl?action=viewthread&threadid=58420&id=251085&boardid=1&view=threads

are a couple posts I had on the subject.

Here's a little more on it for you:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/17/AR2005051701237.html

Presidential spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters that he welcomed Newsweek's formal retraction of a news item saying military investigators had confirmed that a U.S. interrogator at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, had flushed a copy of the Koran down the toilet. Although that was "a good first step," McClellan said, the White House wants Newsweek "to help repair the damage" by explaining "what happened and why they got it wrong, particularly to people in the region."

Whitaker said Newsweek Chairman Richard M. Smith is drafting a letter to the staff that will include the handling of anonymous sources, such as the unnamed government official who gave reporter Michael Isikoff inaccurate information about the purported Koran incident. Whitaker said the magazine will try to "be a little more transparent to our readers" in providing details about sources and their motivations.

Here's some from CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/05/16/newsweek.quran/

Newsweek magazine issued a retraction Monday of a May 9 report on the alleged desecration of the Quran at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The report -- which said American interrogators put copies of the Quran on toilets or in one case, flushed one down a toilet -- was blamed for anti-American riots in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Muslim world last week.

"Based on what we know now, we are retracting our original story that an internal military investigation had uncovered Quran abuse at Guantanamo Bay," Newsweek Editor Mark Whitaker said in a statement issued Monday afternoon.

Newsweek published the item in its May 9 issue. In the May 23 issue, it reported that its senior government source had backed away from his initial story, and Whitaker wrote that "we regret" that any part of the story was wrong.

As far as the Fox stories you referenced, I am not familiar with any of them, however:

On his June 29th show, O'Reilly claimed that an interrogator in Afghanistan had told him the harsh questioning techniques had "saved thousands of lives." What he was actually told was the the techniques "revealed plots that were going on in Europe..." No indication for a number of lives was given. O'Reilly fabricated that part.

Without seeing an entire transcript, it is very hard to say that the interrogator might not have mentioned the types of attacks planned or inferred a large number of casualties. I think you are reaching on some of these.

On June 26th, Bret Hume, when speaking of Karl Rove's comments that "liberals saw the savagery of the 9-11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers" was "representative of a significant segment of what liberals in America felt in the aftermath of 9-11" ignored the fact that a poll taken two days after the attack, 80% of Democrats favored military action against Afghanistan and the Senate authorized military action 98 to 0.

One poll and one vote on a subject does not necessarily reflect the entirety of any one political party. BTW, what about the other 20% ? Isn't 20% a "significant segment"?

How about this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8324598/

Earlier this week Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., apologized after being hit with a chorus of attacks from Republicans about comments in which he compared detainee treatment at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the actions of Nazis and other repressive regimes.

Rove, the architect behind President Bush’s election victories, on Wednesday night told a gathering of the New York Conservative Party that “Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.” Conservatives, he said, “saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war.”

He added that groups linked to the Democratic Party made the mistake of calling for “moderation and restraint” after the terrorist attacks.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said there was no reason for Rove to apologize because he was “simply pointing out the different philosophies when it comes to winning the war on terrorism.”

“I think they (Democrats) have a pre-9/11 world view and I think that’s one of the biggest reasons President Bush was re-elected because the American people understood they wanted a president and a philosophy that took on the terrorists abroad to keep us safer at home and guide our ways,” he said.

Also:

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:qBxpgL7jAvUJ:www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/24/rove.speech.ap/+prepare+indictments+and+offer+therapy+and+understanding+for+our+attackers&hl=en&client=firefox-a

He added that groups linked to the Democratic Party made the mistake of calling for "moderation and restraint" after the terrorist attacks.

Bartlett, appearing on morning news shows Friday, said that Rove was referring in his talk to Moveon.org, a liberal group that has been identified with movie producer Michael Moore.

"It's somewhat puzzling why all these Democrats ... who responded forcefully after 9-11, who voted to support President Bush's pursuit of the war on terror, are now rallying to the defense of Moveon.org, this liberal organization who put out a petition in the days after 9/11 and said that we ought not use military force in responding to 9/11," Bartlett said on NBC's "Today" show. "That is who Karl Rove cited in that speech ... There is no need to apologize."

Appearing on CBS's "The Early Show," Bartlett said that Rove was "just pointing out that MoveOn.org is a liberal organization that didn't defend or accept the way that we prosecuted the war in the days after" the September 11, 2001 terror attacks on New York and Washington.

Bartlett told interviewers that he didn't understand why Democrats "are throwing up such a huff."

Sounds like he was right, as MM sure seemed to represent a sizeable portion of the left (based on commentary and revenues) at the time.

Don't have time to look into more right now, but you get the idea....

Sorry to burst you bubble.

Edit - sorry about the URLs, but I think this thread is about dead anyways....

*** Warhawk ***

Let's keep it!
Hush, mama! It's for charity! Widows and orphans. We need more of them.


This comment was edited on Aug 2, 15:21.

This thread is like the mob. It keeps pulling me back in.

Enahs,

Please post some examples from other major news stations. Seriously. I've looked and I can't find them. The only thing I've been able to find are disagreements over opinions and intepretations, not flat out factual errors. Meanwhile, I've got stacks of them for Fox News.

Here's a few to start:

July 28th promo for Special Report with Brit Hume said that "John Robert's records are seized." The documents were actually released freely by the White House to fulfill a request by Senator Arlen Specter.

On his June 29th show, O'Reilly claimed that an interrogator in Afghanistan had told him the harsh questioning techniques had "saved thousands of lives." What he was actually told was the the techniques "revealed plots that were going on in Europe..." No indication for a number of lives was given. O'Reilly fabricated that part.

On June 26th, Bret Hume, when speaking of Karl Rove's comments that "liberals saw the savagery of the 9-11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers" was "representative of a significant segment of what liberals in America felt in the aftermath of 9-11" ignored the fact that a poll taken two days after the attack, 80% of Democrats favored military action against Afghanistan and the Senate authorized military action 98 to 0.

On June 16th, correspondent Jim Angle, in response to Sen. Durbin's claim regarding Guantanomo treatment of some detainees was "nothing short of turture" said that the FBI memo descrbing the treatment "made no such allegation, that his memo only described someone chained to the floor, and that anything beyond that is simply interpretation." In fact, the memo said "DOD officials will not be held accountable because these torture techniques were done by "FBI" interrogators."

Creston -

I AM a scientist. That's how I've been trained to communicate. I also sometimes write technical documentation, which requires exact wording and meaning. When discussing serious matters I fall back on these techniques, especially in a forum like this, where the only communication vehicle is the written word, and the infrequent responses make quick clarification impossible. If I'm BSing around the office, or taking about keyboards, I'm much less formal. Maybe I just take some of these matters too seriously.

-B

This comment was edited on Aug 2, 14:27.

I refuse to guess what a persons real meaning is when they write something. If you want to discuss something with me, then be literal.

Wow, you must be a ton of fun at parties. Or at work, for that matter. Do people even TALK to you? Do you ever make a joke? I kinda picture you as Data. But less intelligent. (then again, we're all less intelligent than Data.)
Okay, I was just kidding on that. It's a joke.

Here's a tip. Most people here don't go through the full rigamarole of typing out every single iota of thought processes when they post something. I sure as hell don't.
If that is not your preferred method of communication, fair enough, but I think you need to go discuss literal matters on a scientific forum somewhere. Or learn to adapt to the way most people HERE communicate.

Or, you can keep proudly being literal, jumping to conclusions, building straw men and whine when people call you meanie nasty words. Whatever.

Btw, you have NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER with interpreting what Osama bin Laden meant when he talked about the US and the Crusades. You never took THAT literally?
I guess that's different, huh?

If everyone can agree to the ground rules that we type what we mean

Everyone types what they mean, it's just that most other people here have the ability to actually READ what someone types without putting their own words in it, and do some THINKING about what a person is referring to.

Creston

Edit : My grammar is teh suck.

This comment was edited on Aug 2, 13:50.

I go by what is written, and only what is written. I expect others to do the same with what I write. I refuse to guess what a persons real meaning is when they write something. If you want to discuss something with me, then be literal.

Yes, I agree. Which is why I try to stay away from this serious threads of this nature. I base my communication off just as much non verbal cues and inflection of certain words as what I actually say, and that does not come across in my writing, and I suck at writing too. But analytical writing, to fix your computer do this, this this….it is no trouble. Just connect the dots.

However, it is still quite clear when someone uses “idiot” in these situations they are not meaning the intelligence level of a 3 year old or less. Nor was any of the other things I quoted you on what he said some obscure thing. They where quite bluntly and obviously personal inflections. You wanted so bad to say he is a racist you chose to ignore the obvious personal side of communication and try to rationalize it with the analytical side.
This is not how real world communication works, nor how we work here. Other wise we would all have to type in monotone, long winded boring psychology paper style communications.

The only reason I got involved is because you are tossing around the word “racist” like “it” or “the. A word I take very serious and calling someone racist is not something you should take so lightly. In the real world it can have serious emotional, economical and relationship effects on someone.

Because someone chose to insert a personal opinion about someone in the “heat” of a conversation does not make them racist….just human.

As for Fox., can you provide dozens of examples for each station? I can for Fox News. Please post a few.

Yes. Please though, I am not going to waste my time proving to you that both sides of the media are biased and have agendas and are willing to use propaganda to achieve there goals.
If you chose to believe that only Fox news does something like that sometimes, but no other news source does….then I truly am sorry for you.


“I find the most erotic part of the female anatomy is the boobies.” -Zap

One last quick response before I move on from this thread.

Enahs -

I go by what is written, and only what is written. I expect others to do the same with what I write. I refuse to guess what a persons real meaning is when they write something. If you want to discuss something with me, then be literal.

As for Fox., can you provide dozens of examples for each station? I can for Fox News. Please post a few.

Warhawk -

I said Fox News lies. You said I said it "was all lies." There is a VERY big difference between the two. Like I told Enahs, I write literally. I try to carefully choose my words to reflect exactly and only what I mean (though I don't always succeed.) I expect the same from anyone else who wants to participate in an intelligent discussion.

If everyone can agree to the ground rules that we type what we mean, I'll be happy to continue the discussion. Otherwise, posting on this board will be a waste of time for all, which is too bad, because there use to be some intelligent discussion going on here.

Allright! ANYONE here who says I post @ work too much needs to take a gander at Creston's post (99)!



--------------------------------------------------------------
GW: Nilaar Madalla, lvl 20 R/Mo / Xylos Gath, lvl 10 W/Mo

I have to apologize for the way I feel... http://www.nin.com

I'm sitting here waiting for a copy to finish, so I've got some time to respond. I've tried to keep this polite, but looks like you've decided to get nasty. So be it.

Oh yes, the old "he started it!" argument. Worked well for you in school, did it? Where I come from, calling someone a racist is not generally deemed to be polite. Different in Berkeley much?
"Hey racist, how are you?"
"Yeah man I'm doing great!"
must be an often heard conversation in your hallways huh?

I find it funny that you're so politically correct as to nearly burst at the seams with it, but you have no objection to literally STREWING the word racist around ever chance you get.

Now, here's the thing. Pay close attention.
I really don't give a flying fuck if you think I'm a racist or not.
Really, I don't. I have many many many more important things in life to be worried about than whether or not some uber liberal mongrel like yourself (oh wait, is that being racist, no I guess it isn't) considers me a racist or not.
Now, stop crying about things becoming harsh when YOU are the one who started calling people racist. You use the term "if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen" a few times, I suggest you follow your own advice. Or get roasted. It's your choice.

But stop your idiot whining about people being all mean to you.

I'll proceed to school you on actual literary comprehension from now on. It may get a little more nasty.

Almost pathetic that you can't see that lumping all Muslims together into "countrymen" is racist

Attention dipshit. Here is the EXACT sentence that I first posted
Same for the middle easterners. Accept that some of your fellow countrymen are idiots, and put up with the 2 minute search

Where am I using the word Muslim? Well? YOU interspersed the word Muslim into the argument. Hey, guess what, there's that little Straw Man argument you've been bringing up. Do you even know what the fucking words mean?
Now, I'm sorry that for your apparently not so educated self I didn't correctly spell out all the countries. My sentence really should have read "Same for all the people from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, etc etc etc etc"
I'll spare you the whole lengthy sentence. Countries whose citizens have attacked us at one point or another through terrorism.
So I lumped it together as "middle easterners" in an effort to save myself some time.
RACIST!
I never said Muslims in that sentence. YOU said that. Feel like a retard now?

How about the dozen other Middle Eastern countries who have never had a "countryman" attack the U.S.?

Here's a nice point of view for you. Currently, there are...27, 28? countries whose citizens are allowed into the US without a VISA. They can get in on a visa waiver program. Takes you about 2 minutes to get through passport control. Every other country needs a Visa, and it will take those citizens longer to get through passport control. And then there is a list of countries who are considered "suspect" / "Dangerous", whatever word you want to use. Those people get fingerprinted, photographed and whatever have you when they try to enter the US.
This is already going on, and you're fine with that? But when we want to implement similar security features on subways, all of a sudden it becomes an issue?

Now, the big problem is, on a subway you don't have your passport with you, so the issue of identifying people from those specific countries becomes more difficult. And then, yes, visual profiling becomes a method. Because, like it or not, people from middle eastern descent (which is where many of the "dangerous" countries are from, and so it becomes a catch-all), DO have a distinctive set of features that a trained operative can pick out easily. For that matter, so do Americans. That pretty-boy from Iowa look is very distinct to American features, and for example, it's very rare in Holland.
I can probably pick a dutchman / woman out of a crowd without too many problems. Because people simply HAVE these differing features.

Do I agree with that innocent people get searched at the subway? No, not really, but if we had a fullproof way to ONLY search the guilty / bad guys, well, I guess terrorism wouldn't be an issue, now would it?
So yes, sadly, and I do mean sadly, people who have been living in the US and are from middle eastern stock, will get searched under such a program. It is a simple fact in this world that the good suffer under the bad, or however the saying goes.

But hey, where is your sympathy for that 75 year old grandmother who needs to open her bag? Nah, that's not really a worthy cause to champion in your fight for freedom, now is it?

But, like I said, that sort of visual profiling becomes noticeable, and someone from middle eastern stock can get a razor, some gel, and some make-up, and hide his DISTINCTIVE FEATURES pretty well so that only really well trained operatives can pick them out of a busy moving crowd.
RACIST!
Whatever.

Should we also be able to search all white males at will

Ehm yeah, that's why I said "We need random searches AND racial profiling". I never said anywhere that white males should be excluded. So why are you bringing this up? Who knows. Because not all terrorists look middle eastern. Not all terrorists ARE middle eastern. And even if they WERE, they would soon figure out we were screening them that way, and they would recruit / coerce from different groups to get through the screening. Which is why I said we need random checks AND racial profiling.
And the only reason we need racial profiling is because right now, 50 terrorists could get on a train together, and be GUARANTEED that not everyone of them would get searched. Why? Because if they are, they'll shout racial profiling, and demand a lawyer, and off they'd go.
Which is exactly what I said in my original post.
YOU are the one who's been turning this shit around all in an effort to show what a fine upstanding citizen you are. Well, and because you just really LOVE calling people racist even though "You don't use the term lightly".
Well, guess what Einstein. Calling someone racist on crap you partially made up yourself in an effort to make your own argument look better (Whoohoo, straw man again) without ever attempting to look at the meaning behind it, or even engage in dialogue BEFORE blasting the racist bit, sure makes it seem as if you are TERRIBLY FUCKING FOND of using the word. But keep sitting in that little ivory tower of yours, spouting your bullshit rhetoric on how you're fighting to save the world.

But then again, I really don't give a fuck about you or what you think. I'm just passing the time at work.

You should try to stop looking at everything said all literally, and perhaps try to use a small part of your miniscule brain power to sense the idea behind what someone is saying.
But then again, it's much easier to just shout RACIST at every opportunity, isn't it?

And not only are all Middle Easterners "countrymen" according to you, apparently they're all from Saudi Arabia.

It was an EXAMPLE, dipshit. To paraphrase EA here, "Reasonable people" would have understood that. See? Enahs understood it. I'm pretty sure most people understood it. Except you.

It's pitiful how you don't recognize how racist it is to say "if they don't like it here then they can go back to where they came from." Does that include the millions of Muslim Americans, too?

Kick that straw man, Bodolza! Kick it! Kick it hard!

I didn't start using the word Muslims until the comparison between Christians and Muslims started to come up. I suppose that at the end of post 73, I did get the two mixed up, my bad.

That's not considered being a racist - that's just being an asshole. It's only racial if you say go back to Africa/Saudi Arabia/China.

Oh right. That's the new definition then, right?
Ofcourse, had I said, all middle easterners who don't like it, go back to the middle east, then it would still have been racist, right?
Here's another one. Any European in the US who doesn't like living here, should go back to Europe. Racism too?
Come on, you know you want to say it. Bang that drum again! RACISM RACISM RACISM.
*yawn*

choose to stay here to fight for my country. To keep people from trying to throw away the liberties and freedoms our ancestors fought and died for, even if it's only in my small way.

Oh yeah, you're fighting the good fight here Bodolza. You're making America safe from racists on a gaming website! Make sure to proudly display your badge of patriotism. What the fuck ever. Go stage a protest in NYC, and we'll talk about how you're fighting for liberty, armchair quarterback.

How is your military experience going? Or are you just another hypocrite?

I didn't serve in the US army, no, but that's because I'm not allowed to (only citizens can, and I believe only people who were actually BORN in the US can, not sure about that).
I did, however, got drafted and "served" in the Dutch military, yeah. Didn't amount to much, but there you go. Then again, I'm not the one banging my drum to show how I'm FIGHTING for my freedom! You are. So how about you hero? Oh wait, your feelings about the military become quite clear in your next sentence.
For now, the army isn't about defending America anyways -- it's about supporting the agenda of the military-industrial complex.

Yeah, tell that to the coast guard, the national guard, the airforce who flies CAP, the navy that patrols our borders and such. Moron. Btw, be sure to quickly ignore this point, and keep yapping about what a freedom fighter you are.

You have no idea where I work, what I do, and how much I make. That's not being politically correct - that's just being a jerk-off.

Boohoo, Creston made fun of me. Whaahaaa. Btw, I assume you mentioned Berkeley because you figure that all of us would immediately go "Holy shit! Berkeley! Bodolza is TEH WINNER!!!!", huh?
Or maybe I assumed that wrong? And you just made an offhand remark? Easy to see how someone can ASSUME something wrong, right? But then again, YOU ofcourse never assume something wrong.

So you believe he literally thinks that the US started the Crusades over 700 years ago - 500 years before the US existed? So Osama believes in time travel? Wow, he really is way out there

What, you think he is a sane logical human being or something? HE FUCKING SAID THIS HIMSELF. End of story.

I stand corrected - many people bash religious extremists - including you.

Hey, you just committed religism! Because, without knowing the facts of WHEN these terms were used, you immediately assumed that they must be religious extremists? Awesome stuff, thanks for coming over on the other side of the fence!
In fact, some of our fellow forumites here use these terms to indicate ANY Christian whatsoever. In fact, according to them, everyone in Tulsa who's a Christian is automatically a Jesus Freak. Funny, when I go to church, I see no extremists. Just friendly, kind people.
See how easy it is to shout RACIST / RELIGIST? You just became one. Make sure to atone for your sins.

When I see a post saying that someone should not be allowed to practice their religion freely without disrupting the same rights of others, I will stand up and say something. I've never seen that post. Have you?

Factual error, you're full of shit. Because I've yet to see you post in any such threads. And there are PLENTY of them to go around here on Bluesnews. In fact, about one out of every ten OOTBs will turn into one of those. And in fact, Warhawk linked a few for you.

Some snippets from your reply to Enahs :

He was clearly using the word “idiot” not to refer by there IQ, or adept ability to plan mass destruction, but calling them “idiot” based off choices they choose to make, based on his beliefs
It wasn't clear to me. "Even an idiot terrorist will recognize the value of a razor and make-up" sure sounds like he thinks that they're idiots IQ wise.

Well, then you're not really as smart as you think you are Mr Berkeley, if that wasn't clear. Again, it's that whole literal thinking you're used to doing. You probably don't do well in any theoretical field, do you?

When I call a terrorist an idiot, I do so not because I think he's mentally challenged, or has a low IQ (although I'm sure that some of them aren't the brightest bunch in the world.)
I call them an idiot because they claim to fanatically adhere to a belief, and in the name of that belief, they blow up busses full of children.
I'm a Christian, and I believe that I'm saved through Jesus Christ. Whether or not anyone else believes that is irrelevant. That's what I believe. I believe that, because I believe that the Bible is the Word of God, and that He tells us that the way to salvation and to heaven, is through his son.

A terrorist believes the Koran, and he believes that if he kills himself, and while doing so, kills many of the perceived enemies of his belief, he will go to heaven, and get a thousand virgins (that last bit may just be propaganda, so don't quote me on it.)
Funny enough, THAT'S NOT IN THE KORAN.

That's why a terrorist is an idiot. Not to mention that ANYONE who thinks that killing people because God told them to is good, is an IDIOT. Ted Bundy (was he the one who heard the voice of God?) Well, whatever, the serial killer(s) who did so because God told them to, are ALL idiots. And I'm sure they were pretty intelligent men, since they evaded the cops for a long time. They're still idiots.

Most of the regulars here will probably vouch for what I've stated about my beliefs, and about what I said here, in fact Enahs already did (thanks bud.)

So YOU misinterpreted it, and without verifying it, you called someone a racist. Then you get all upset when someone "gets nasty".
Cry me a fucking river, mongrel.

Creston

Edit : Holy shit, that got WAY too long. Sorry Blue


This comment was edited on Aug 2, 12:39.

OK, enough, I have more work to do.


*** Warhawk ***

Let's keep it!
Hush, mama! It's for charity! Widows and orphans. We need more of them.

This is a pointless argument, since as I said in my last post, I'm not actually advocating racially profiling whites. Consider it dropped.

You are dropping it? You are the one who raised it.

I consider the searches, random or not, to be unreasonable. Clearly there is room for interpretation there, which is why we have the Supreme Court.

Maybe you should read the sentence you quoted again. The word unreasonable is there for a reason. Obviously (at least to anyone with critical thinking skills) that means the founders felt that some searches are not unreasonable and therefore allowed. Whether you consider them to be unreasonable or not doesn't matter.

Not even going to touch the abortion one today.

Of course, because it isn't defensible.

I never said it was all lies. Please don't put words in my mouth. I said O'Reilly lies. I said Fox Reporters lie. I'm not even going to mention the pundits, cause everyone know they lie on a regular basis. These are facts. 100% undisputable facts.

Uh, OK. To quote:

O'Reilly lies. LIES. lies. lies. lies. Fox news reporters lie. Fox News network employs liers. This is an undisputable fact. I don't dislike Fox because they're biased. I dislike them because they lie.

And you never said "it was all lies"?!?!? Are you mad? What the hell did this mean then?


*** Warhawk ***

Let's keep it!
Hush, mama! It's for charity! Widows and orphans. We need more of them.

No, he refered to all Middle Easterners as countrymen. Go ahead. Look it up. I'll wait...

You need to learn the difference from reading words and reading communication.

It wasn't clear to me. "Even an idiot terrorist will recognize the value of a razor and make-up" sure sounds like he thinks that they're idiots IQ wise.

Again, you are trying to use his exact words as concrete proof of something. It is quite clear he is not saying they are legally idiots:
“A person of profound mental retardation having a mental age below three years and generally being unable to learn connected speech or guard against common dangers.”
It is quite clear he is using his personal opinion and feeling about something. If that is so unclear to you, you really need to go engage in some conversations with people that speak differently than you.

I think you really need to read his original post again. These are EXACTLY the people he is talking about. These are the people who are being affected by racial profiling.

Again, learn to read communication, and not try and use words as literal and concrete meaning. Sorry to tell you this, this is how people communicate.

How would they feel if during a conversation you told them to "go back to Africa" when they didn't agree with you? Do your black friends think that it's okay if talk about how Africans hop around like "jungle bunnies"?

They would be completely ok with it. Because I would do it in a joking manner, and the ones I was referring too would see the humor in it. (Ok, so it is 12 year old humor but sometimes its fun).
But I would not say such derogatory things in a serious manner intended to hurt, only then is it racist.

I think part of head just exploded trying to parse that sentence.

Reread it, and think about it. Do not worry about this conversation. It is something very important I think you should understand, it truly will help you understand people differently than you.

So, if I follow your argument correctly, racism is OK and we should all accept it? After all, it's just someone's opinion.

Again, read the communication and not the words.


But, if someone is racist, you have no right to try and force them to not be racist, or do anything to them in anyway (jail, ect) unless they are trying to hurt somebody else. If you what tolerance so much, you must be tolerant and accept other people can have different feelings belief than you. If someone chooses to be racist, then they are idiots (please take that as I mean it, not as there education level of technical things….it is quite clear what I mean).

can provide links to literaly dozens of lies from Fox News, backed up by quotes and research.

And I can find you some for CNN, Headline News, CBS news, ABC news, NBC news. NYTime, ect. That is the whole “hearing both sides and figuring out the logical truth” thing that smart people do.


“I find the most erotic part of the female anatomy is the boobies.” -Zap

WE (meaning the US) are the reason there are terrorist in Iraq, but that's besides the point. If you'll refer to the part you quoted, the question was if they'd "leave us alone."

It'd be very much the point if it were true. But it's simply not. Just do some research into the fact that there's a 4,000 year old civil war that's been rumbling for ages there. As a generalisation (but a fairly accurate one) the formerly nomadic tribes that make up Iraq's population bear grudges. And that's why they're blowing each other up.

Of course, it's naive to suggest our presence is unrelated, and of course there are people going there just to kill Americans - simply put: it's easier than getting into America and doing it there. But it's incorrect to suggest the reason bombers are blowing themselves up in markets full of Iraqis is because of our occupation. They're doing that because of ancient tribal disputes. THAT was Bush and Co's grave mistake in invading, they had absolutely no idea how much these guys hated each other.

Even Halsy should back me up on that one

As for the rest of your nonsense, it looks remarkably similar to troll bait to me. Bearcubs eh?

You guys need to realise you're not really part of the problem, but all relatively educated people who care. The real problem is the sheeple that doesn't care to educate themselves. I just read through most of this thread and think it's a little sad that some of you are so quick in attacking others. Give your 'opponents' the benefit of a doubt and show that you're grown-ups.

Just my 2 cents.

edit: agree with the Saitek Eclipse not being very legible, but looks so cool that I don't care And the keys have a nice touch to them and are relatively quiet. I really like the volume control keys too.

Reality is a nice place, but I wouldn't want to live there!
This comment was edited on Aug 2, 03:41.

I've always found this sort of thing (really) interesting, how some languages are similar, yet each has it's own distinct sayings or phrases.

There's a very good book about just that by Bill Bryson, one of his departures from travel writing that is very well worth a read on holiday. About the development of the American language. Interestingly, most of your phrases that aren't used in England today are far older than the phrases we use. On Amazon it's at http://tinyurl.com/9rxux.

If you don't mind my asking, what were each of you driving?

She was driving a knackered old Peugeot 405 (L registration, so that's going back to 1993 or thereabouts) and I was driving a not-very-knackered-until-then VW Passat. Thank God for German engineering eh

Edit: and thank, well, myself for years of rugby and going to the gym and having a strong neck and back. Nothing more than a rather stiff neck this morning. I have already had four (count 'em) firms ring me up offering to get me up to £5k compensation. What I'd like to know is where that money comes from - I have no desire to bankrupt the woman on account of a mistake she'll be paying for the next twenty years in the form of insurance premia.
This comment was edited on Aug 2, 03:46.

The things you end up doing when your HD crashes...

I'll make this quick, because I'm tired.

when his comments (taken in context) do not seem to rise to that level.

Hey! I got you to add "taken in context." I'll consider that progress enough for the week.

So that is a grand total of what, a few hundred dead among DISCONNECTED events spanning over a decade

This is a pointless argument, since as I said in my last post, I'm not actually advocating racially profiling whites. Consider it dropped.

There are a lot of "rights" interpreted into the Constitution that aren't really there

Appropriately so. The 9th amendment says "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The Supreme Court has determined the privacy is a basic human right, and thus protected by the 9th amendment.

The 4th amendment says "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"

I consider the searches, random or not, to be unreasonable. Clearly there is room for interpretation there, which is why we have the Supreme Court. Look at me. Another crazy liberal fighting for Constitutional rights.

Not even going to touch the abortion one today. Maybe we can talk about it at a later date.

"The fact you think it is all lies is sad."

I never said it was all lies. Please don't put words in my mouth. I said O'Reilly lies. I said Fox Reporters lie. I'm not even going to mention the pundits, cause everyone know they lie on a regular basis. These are facts. 100% undisputable facts. I can provide links to literaly dozens of lies from Fox News, backed up by quotes and research. Go ahead, ask me (but you'll get em tommorrow. I'm tired.)

For the rest - Post 31 starts with a joke - You must have some sense of humour in there. As for the rest, he is commenting on religious fundamentalists who believe something despite having the contravening facts in front of them. His tone is harsh, but as I said, people do bash religious fundamentalists. If I had weighed in on the matter, I would not have agreed with him, but I don't think he's actually serious about steralizing all religious fundamentalists. Do you?

Post 33 is almost exactly the same sentiment -- discussing fundamentalists pushing their beliefs on others when the facts clearly don't support them. There's no bashing in this post, though.

To repeat, I said "When I see a post saying that someone should not be allowed to practice their religion freely without disrupting the same rights of others, I will stand up and say something." I also said that there is bashing of religious fundamentalists. Neither of the posts you provided conflict with either of those statements.

Damn, that wasn't short. Oh, well.

-B

Like I said in my first post, it's not a term I use lightly.

Seems to be, as often as you accuse Creston of it, when his comments (taken in context) do not seem to rise to that level.

Let's count about some major recent events on American soil by white males:

Oklahoma City
Unibomber
Ruby Ridge
Birmingham Clinic Bombing

Is that not enough to consider them a threat? How many Americans have to die before a race or religion is considered dangerous? Of course, this is a silly question, since I don't think we should be profiling white males - I'm just trying to go with your logic.

So that is a grand total of what, a few hundred dead among DISCONNECTED events spanning over a decade. We have a declared enemy who killed 3,000 people in one morning and commited other attacks as well (embassy bombings, Cole attack, barracks attack, etc.) and you want to compare the two?

Ah yes, that old nugget, "If you're not doing anything wrong, why should you be concerned?"

I see privacy as a basic right, one implicitely protected by the Constitution.

Just because I don't want police going door-to-door searching everyone doesn't mean I don't think they have the right to search those going on public transit or in public buildings. Two different circumstances.

There are a lot of "rights" interpreted into the Constitution that aren't really there. The "right" to abortion is not, IMHO, included in the privacy statement, as I have never heard a reasonable explanation of how murder = privacy.

O'Reilly lies. LIES. lies. lies. lies. Fox news reporters lie. Fox News network employs liers. This is an undisputable fact. I don't dislike Fox because they're biased. I dislike them because they lie. Is that sad?

The fact you think it is all lies is sad. Open your eyes and see the world, not just your narrow Berkeley point of view.

Please have the courtesy to do the same.

If you insist on being difficult about it:

http://www.bluesnews.com/cgi-bin/board.pl?action=viewthread&threadid=58479

Post 31 is a good example. Others are ranting against the Pope in that thread (I am Protestant and disagree with Catholics on a lot of things, but I don't agree in disrespecting him, even if I think the whole premise of a Pope is hogwash).

http://www.bluesnews.com/cgi-bin/board.pl?action=viewthread&threadid=58393&boardid=1&id=&view=flatold&start=20

Post 33 is another.

Just a couple examples, there are a lot more, but it is getting late.

Oh, and the reason I kept repeating it was to illustrate your absurdity by being absurd. Sorry you didn't recognize it.




*** Warhawk ***

Let's keep it!
Hush, mama! It's for charity! Widows and orphans. We need more of them.

Warhawk,

I've never called you or anyone else on this board racist except Creston. Do you think the comments of his I've discussed are racist? Like I said in my first post, it's not a term I use lightly.

A few isolated instances, yes, but nothing like 9/11, or the previous attacks by AQ.

Let's count about some major recent events on American soil by white males:

Oklahoma City
Unibomber
Ruby Ridge
Birmingham Clinic Bombing

Is that not enough to consider them a threat? How many Americans have to die before a race or religion is considered dangerous? Of course, this is a silly question, since I don't think we should be profiling white males - I'm just trying to go with your logic.

I have nothing to hide and do not care who looks at my underwear in a travel bag. If they want to see it, fine, look at it.

Ah yes, that old nugget, "If you're not doing anything wrong, why should you be concerned?"

I see privacy as a basic right, one implicitely protected by the Constitution.

Already addressed, but this is not racist.

Yes, already addressed by me twice. Not sure why you bring it up again.

(please do not call me a racist for saying so

I wouldn't, unless you said "chink liberals," or "nigger liberals," or "wetback liberels." Then I might be inclined to think you were a racist. Are you starting to see the difference here?

I don't care if you like Fox or not, but to put down a broadcaster because they want another side of the news shown that you are afraid to listen to (because your little predisposed notion of how the world should work might come crashing down around your ears) is pretty sad.

O'Reilly lies. LIES. lies. lies. lies. Fox news reporters lie. Fox News network employs liers. This is an undisputable fact. I don't dislike Fox because they're biased. I dislike them because they lie. Is that sad?

Look back in the OotB to see it. Go ahead, we'll wait.

I pointed you to a specific post. Please have the courtesy to do the same.

Zathrus -

I may be totally missing your point, but how did any of what you said apply to what you quoted? I made a pretty simple statement that applies to every single country/group/person in the world.

there are zero references to such a case on Google

Huh? It's the first hit on google. Admitedly, it might help if I spelled Gonzales correctly.

Can anyone walk into a courtroom?

Conceded, but my point about military bases and other tax-funded premises still holds.

"What, nobody walks or bicycles in NYC?"

No one walks across town, and many people can't afford a cross-town taxi. Due to the ridiculous rents, living close to work is not an option for most low-wage workers. The subway is the ONLY way hundreds of thousands of workers can get to their jobs.

You accuse others of making factual misstatements, strawman arguments, and other errors while committing them yourself

You've pointed out a single factual misstatement, but no strawman arguments.

ObOT: Get a Belkin Nostromo N52. Much better than a keyboard for gaming.

-B

This comment was edited on Aug 2, 00:37.

How 'bout them Saitek keyboards, eh?

Creston said that, not me. I just agreed with the sentiment that reducing indiscriminate killings would reduce the number of your enemies. I missed the Indonesia question, but the answer is the same.

[...]

Please find the part where I excused the bombings (which bombings, btw?). I can't seem to find it.

Blink. Blink.

Are you really that disassociated from the rest of the world?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aDwmlk5XaW5c&refer=top_world_news
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Bali_terrorist_bombing

The Bali bombing isn't the most recent terrorist attack in Indonesia, but it was by far the most deadly.

These are two countries that have Islamic governments, with Indonesia being the most populous Islamic country in the world. Egypt, while progressive for the region, is hardly a liberal government by any stretch of the imagination. Kindly enlighten me as to what "indiscriminate killings" either government has been responsible for in order to explain the bombings in either one. Particularly the recent Egyptian one.

Or were you just making statements about things you really, really don't understand?

Gilmore v. Gonzalez is still working its way through the courts

Let me know when it gets anywhere. As of right now there are zero references to such a case on Google, nor are there any relevant hits for "Gilmore" that I could find on findlaw.com.

Can anyone walk into a courtroom?

Barring special proceedings, yes. Yes they can. And you still ignored the point that under the Bill of Rights I have the right as either a defendant (jury trial) or accuser (right of defendant to face accuser in court) to go into a court house, but in order to do so I must submit to a search.

As for your alternatives, in a place like NY those are not reasonable alternatives.

What, nobody walks or bicycles in NYC? Wow, that's news to me. And to my friends who live there too. I guess those taxi drivers are just starving from the lack of traffic too. Live too far from your work? Well, then change jobs or change homes if you find a search of your bags too burdonsome to go on public transit. It's your choice.

I suppose I could respond to other posts, but I really don't see the point. You accuse others of making factual misstatements, strawman arguments, and other errors while committing them yourself, in some cases even more greviously than those you rail against.

OK, I know I started this topic but felt compelled to refrain from participating as I actually was trying to get work done today. That being said, Bodolza, you are a freaking idiot, and please do not accuse me of being a racist for merely pointing out the blatantly obvious.

What about white males? They've bombed just as many targets in the US as Middle Easterners.

Where is the last incident in recent history of white males coordinating an attack on US civilians and causing 3,000 deaths in a few hours. A few isolated instances, yes, but nothing like 9/11, or the previous attacks by AQ. And, last time I checked, they have not waged a religious war on our country and vowed to kill every infidel, they are just unhappy with ATF or some such matter. VERY different. But not racist.

Should we also be able to search all white males at will?

If there is some evidence it would help prevent a 9/11 or even smaller attacks, fine by me (and I am one, but don't call me racist, OK?). See, I have nothing to hide and do not care who looks at my underwear in a travel bag. If they want to see it, fine, look at it.

It's pitiful how you don't recognize how racist it is to say "if they don't like it here then they can go back to where they came from."

Already addressed, but this is not racist. I am still waiting for all the whiney liberals who said they would leave if Gore lost to pack their bags and get the hell out (please do not call me a racist for saying so). I'll drive them to the border.

To keep people from trying to throw away the liberties and freedoms our ancestors fought and died for, even if it's only in my small way.

I think many of you are really lost on the whole liberties and freedoms thing. I have no problems with broader approval of police searches, etc, etc. Why? Because I am not doing anything wrong and I wish that those that are would quit getting released on technicalities to commit more crimes. You have illegal drugs, commit a murder or rape a little girl or grandmother? I do not care how they find out, I want your ass in jail.

If if you'd get your head out of O'Reilly's ass long enough to actually find out the facts, maybe you'd realize that.

Funny part is, we've discussed this before. Fox is the only place you will find some AP and Reuters stories because CNN, etc, won't show some that disagree with their "worldview". I don't care if you like Fox or not, but to put down a broadcaster because they want another side of the news shown that you are afraid to listen to (because your little predisposed notion of how the world should work might come crashing down around your ears) is pretty sad. Open your mind and be exposed to a few new ideas. You may actually learn something. BTW, I am not racist.

I stand corrected - many people bash religious extremists - including you.

No, there are some here that scoff at any acknowledgement of religion and put down those who believe (even mainstream folks like me - but don't call me a racist). Look back in the OotB to see it. Go ahead, we'll wait.


*** Warhawk ***

Let's keep it!
Hush, mama! It's for charity! Widows and orphans. We need more of them.