Bin Laden Dead?

Y'know how he could be **sure** he was dead, instead of waiting for typhoid to kill him and that's *maybe*)? WE COULD HAVE PUT THE RESOURCES OUT TO fuckING GET HIM FIVE YEARS AGO!!!

(What a novel idea, I tells ya).
 
[quote name='schuerm26']or just got him when Clinton had the chance but passed[/QUOTE]

Are you reffering to the Sudanese incident?

It never happened, anyone who told you that is either a liar, ignorant or both.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Are you reffering to the Sudanese incident?

It never happened, anyone who told you that is either a liar, ignorant or both.[/quote]
IT WAS ON TEH TV!!!!11!111!!!
 
Bin Laden IS dead.


(jk, he's still alive. he's pissing in your swimming pool as we speak. then he's going to take a piss, hit the seat and not wipe it up. that asshole.)
 
[quote name='schuerm26']or just got him when Clinton had the chance but passed[/QUOTE]

nononononnonononononono. As always, you got it all wrong.

It's not Clinton's fault.



Jesus. Everybody knows THAT.



It's Sandy Berger's fault for hanging up the phone when they surrounded bin Laden's house. DUH.


(I only add this caveat because I'm sure you need to be told: I'm being sarcastic)
 
I got $20 sez that any fucking "News Max" article about how Clinton fucked up either was written by, or interviews heavily, a cat named Mansoor Ijaz.

That dude was more discredited than "curveball" for providing unreliable information. It turns out that he was more interested in moving along some sort of negotiations between Sudan and the United States (keep in mind the former is the home to Darfur - you may have heard of it, but I doubt you so much as give a shit what happens there) that he often provided untrue and unreliable information for the sake of negotiation leverage.

He is currently a conservative mouthpiece, publishing in all the bullshit rags: National Review, Washington Times, FrontPage, etc. He's also a foreign correspondent for Fox News.

No I type this under the impression that Ijaz is the crux of the link you provide. If I'm wrong, then not only did I waste a great deal of time, but I may actually have to go look at that NewsMax link. (Answer me this: did you know that NewsMax is a conservative-slanted news source? If yes, why would you post it? I don't link to "The Nation." If no, then are you a fucking idiot?)

Like I said, I'd bet the fucking farm that I'm right though.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I got $20 sez that any fucking "News Max" article about how Clinton fucked up either was written by, or interviews heavily, a cat named Mansoor Ijaz.

That dude was more discredited than "curveball" for providing unreliable information. It turns out that he was more interested in moving along some sort of negotiations between Sudan and the United States (keep in mind the former is the home to Darfur - you may have heard of it, but I doubt you so much as give a shit what happens there) that he often provided untrue and unreliable information for the sake of negotiation leverage.

He is currently a conservative mouthpiece, publishing in all the bullshit rags: National Review, Washington Times, FrontPage, etc. He's also a foreign correspondent for Fox News.

No I type this under the impression that Ijaz is the crux of the link you provide. If I'm wrong, then not only did I waste a great deal of time, but I may actually have to go look at that NewsMax link. (Answer me this: did you know that NewsMax is a conservative-slanted news source? If yes, why would you post it? I don't link to "The Nation." If no, then are you a fucking idiot?)

Like I said, I'd bet the fucking farm that I'm right though.[/quote]

I'll check for you myke. We've got to protect your objectivity.

*checking*

Yup. Second sentence. Mansoor Ijaz.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I got $20 sez that any fucking "News Max" article about how Clinton fucked up either was written by, or interviews heavily, a cat named Mansoor Ijaz.

That dude was more discredited than "curveball" for providing unreliable information. It turns out that he was more interested in moving along some sort of negotiations between Sudan and the United States (keep in mind the former is the home to Darfur - you may have heard of it, but I doubt you so much as give a shit what happens there) that he often provided untrue and unreliable information for the sake of negotiation leverage.

He is currently a conservative mouthpiece, publishing in all the bullshit rags: National Review, Washington Times, FrontPage, etc. He's also a foreign correspondent for Fox News.

No I type this under the impression that Ijaz is the crux of the link you provide. If I'm wrong, then not only did I waste a great deal of time, but I may actually have to go look at that NewsMax link. (Answer me this: did you know that NewsMax is a conservative-slanted news source? If yes, why would you post it? I don't link to "The Nation." If no, then are you a fucking idiot?)

Like I said, I'd bet the fucking farm that I'm right though.[/quote]

So of course it must be discredited. But then we must discredit EVERYTHING CBS, ABC, NBC reports about George Bush since they are obviously left leaning.
 
[quote name='schuerm26']So of course it must be discredited. But then we must discredit EVERYTHING CBS, ABC, NBC reports about George Bush since they are obviously left leaning.[/quote]
You didn't address the primary point. It has someone who has been discredited is the primary source.

If an article in the NYT described President Clinton's love for Heroin and Teenage Thai Male Hookers, and quoted Clinton directly, interviewed and written by Jayson Blair, would you believe it?
 
[quote name='schuerm26']So of course it must be discredited. But then we must discredit EVERYTHING CBS, ABC, NBC reports about George Bush since they are obviously left leaning.[/QUOTE]

Yes. Of course they are. That's why ABC aired that made-up "docudrama" you put so much faith in. Because they hate George Bush.

Did I ever tell you about how I got an entire group of people to believe that their manager was physically deformed, just because I kept pointing out certain things about her that weren't true (e.g., "Hey, did you see the size of so-and-so's forehead? Man, you and I could have a fucking PICNIC on that thing!"). Within two weeks, everyone thought she had the biggest, most menacing forehead anyone had ever seen.

When I tried telling them that I started saying that just as a means of explaining to them how the liberal media myth is perpetuated, they weren't angry at all. When I said "you see, when people repeat again and again and again and again that the media is leftist, that's all you look for; you're left defenseless against the right bias in the media as well, instead criticizing them for making claims that disagree with your point of you. Instead of coming to grips with the fact that your view on life is not a flawless undeniable truth, you rationalize away anything that confronts your ideologies as having a liberal bias," they weren't mad.

They simply didn't believe me. They had so internalized the notion that this woman was a phyiscal abomination that they thought I was totally full of shit, and just trying to prevent her from being picked on (and that was most certainly NOT the truth, as I singled that person out precisely because I didn't like them). Lucky for her (I suppose), her husband (also employed with the company) was fired for stealing money, so she didn't stick around for very long after "my experiment."

Anyway, where was I? Oh, yes. NewsMax or not, Ijaz has been thoroughly discredited by numerous members of the government as well as those involved in intelligence gathering internationally. Sorry to tell you this, because it stands contrary to your worldview that Clinton had bin Laden all but locked up, and decided not to step on bin Laden's welcome mat and press the doorbell to capture him, but it's quite true that Ijaz is full of shit. Nevertheless, the "blame Clinton first" crowd is more than happy to listen to what he has to say, since it's such a seductive song to you.

Then again, let's entertain the idea that Clinton did neglect to capture bin Laden. Let's assume that the opposite of reality is true. That's fine. Riddle me this, then, all things being equal: whose political sin is worse: the man who let bin Laden go before 9/11, or the one who let him escape into Tora Bora after 9/11?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Yes. Of course they are. That's why ABC aired that made-up "docudrama" you put so much faith in. Because they hate George Bush.

[/quote]

That had nothing to do with ABC News. There is a difference between the "News" and the other divisions of ABC.
 
Well, what recent examples of liberal media bias have you seen? Certainly not the airing of dead soldier's coffins coming home, since there is a media gag on that.

Could it be CNN's Bill Bennett or Bay Buchanan? Is it the difficult time Pat Buchanan's had promoting his Amazon best seller via interviews? Is it any of the FOX correspondents who are so "fair and balanced" that they (Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and previously Tony Snow) ALL have conservative radio talk shows? What media anchor holds rank as an editor of a liberal newsmagazine, as Brit Hume does with the Weekly Standard?

You're telling me they're so liberal, they're so bad, they're so biased. Give me some proof. And let me remind you: Dan Rather is one person, on one station, and who's no longer employed there. Since you accuse the media as an entire structural entity, I challenge you to prove cross-cutting and systemic evidence of media bias, instead of grousing over one incident of fabricated manuscripts (a prop more than anything else) that became more the story than the clearcut evidence of Bush using his connections and privilege to escape the military service he signed up for.

I don't doubt you can't do it. ;)
 
They do, for the most part, cite a good number of research sources there. Unlike the MRC itself, I have immense respect for the Gallup organization, the Pew Research Center, and other organizations.

Now, the crux of the argument on that page is this: there is a disconnect between the political attitudes of the public and the political attitudes of the people who make up the media. (Of course, they negelected to include in their discussion of the 1996 ANSE results that show the media are more socially liberal than the average American that they are fiscally more conservative than the average American. It would undercut the MRC's argument to include all the data findings :lol: ).

So, the argument you're showing me isn't that the news, as it is presented, is more liberally slanted than not. It isn't that conservative voices aren't heard amidst the morass of liberal voices. The argument is nothing about the message, and everything about the messenger. It's the same crap that pro-Iraq war people pulled for the past three years. Everything in Iraq is going stunningly well. We planned on being there for 3 years; the media isn't showing enough working water fountains and focusing on the number of casualties and daily bombings. In short, the war in Iraq couldn't be going any better than it is right now, and you just don't know it because the media won't tell you about it.

Nothing about the message, only the messenger. You know that I'm exceedingly liberal, and that's fine. I also have ethics, and I don't bring my politics into the classroom. I trust that other people do the same, including those in the media. There are those who do not, and that's fine; we all need James Carvilles and Keith Olbermanns and Robert Novaks (Well, maybe not him) and Sean Hannitys to entertain us; to blur the line between opiner and actual journalism (for Bill O'Reilly to claim the "no spin zone," or to refer to himself as an "indpendent" politically, or a "journalist" is fucking absurd.

I wish the media were liberal. It's be Gore Vidal and Noam Chomsky 24/7, laying down the intellectual smack so thick (and boring - gawd, have you heard these dudes lecture?!?!?!) that even Ann Coulter would cry. As it stands, someone as shallow and foolish as Coulter gets ample airtime, whereas Chomsky was only in the media this week because Chavez touted his book and mistakenly suggested he was deceased (not far from the truth, really).
 
[quote name='Msut77']Being biased is one thing, Newsmax is just downright dishonest and a pile of trash.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsmax[/QUOTE]


Yes, an in-depth accounting of their obvious plot to destroy the liberal-thinking media. A list of 3 faux pas. CNN can do that all in one day. And it still does nothing to debunk the claim that the media, as an aggregate (one of mykle's favorite words), consist of representatives overwhelmingly and unquestionably left of center.

Even myke disagrees with you slutmuffin. in his long winded reply he admits the premise that media members are "social" liberals (whatever THAT means) yet fiscal "conservatives", as if the two philosophies could co-exist except in the mind of people who live their lives making up stories.

Although, if you apply the term conservative to mean the retention of the status quo, then I guess you could group them all, dems, repubs, the commies, and the leftists as all desirous of conserving the practice of fiscal responsibility to the needy without regard to financial responsibility to the treasury and the debt. You see, myke doesn't really want to end or cut spending, he just thinks "responsibility" means to start spending it on his more favorable government programs.

Mykes also unclever anecdote of how the "liberal media myth" is perpetuated is a perfect example of how the media's leftist bias is perpetuated, day in, day out-by repetition.

This story, pulled from todays CNN page, makes no attempt to even hide it's bias:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/23/Dems.radio.ap/index.html

It's repeated in almost every newspaper in america with no "fair and balanced" opposite point of view to allow those evil republicans to exonerate themselves from their satanic ways.

I have an assignment for myke and his sociological data gathering and analyzing prowess: Count the number of stories broadcast about the president's approval ratings on days when they are up and compare that to the number of stories about his approval numbers being down. On the whole, including that right wing bastard child fox news and all others, I'm hypothesizing that the numbers are not equal. There you would have an example of bias by repetition, or bias by omission. Don't forget myke, bias is not only in things that are said, it can also be in things that are not said or ignored.
 
[quote name='SpazX']...you're kidding right?[/quote]

Of course not. Did you even read the statistics in that Media Research Center link?



​

 
[quote name='bmulligan']Yes, an in-depth accounting of their obvious plot to destroy the liberal-thinking media. A list of 3 faux pas. CNN can do that all in one day. And it still does nothing to debunk the claim that the media, as an aggregate (one of mykle's favorite words), consist of representatives overwhelmingly and unquestionably left of center.

Even myke disagrees with you slutmuffin. in his long winded reply he admits the premise that media members are "social" liberals (whatever THAT means) yet fiscal "conservatives", as if the two philosophies could co-exist except in the mind of people who live their lives making up stories.[/quote]

Were you drunk when posting this? You can't consider someone who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal? Someone who supports free-market policies but isn't necessarily pro-life or believes in outlawing gay marriage? I hope to god you were drunk when posting this, otherwise you're clearly just a troll anymore.

Although, if you apply the term conservative to mean the retention of the status quo, then I guess you could group them all, dems, repubs, the commies, and the leftists as all desirous of conserving the practice of fiscal responsibility to the needy without regard to financial responsibility to the treasury and the debt. You see, myke doesn't really want to end or cut spending, he just thinks "responsibility" means to start spending it on his more favorable government programs.
Click to expand...

You couldn't be more wrong about my views there; one of the first things I'd do to clean up government spending is have organizations (HUD, Medicare and the military, just for starters) engage in ferocious negotiations with the private industries who profit off of war, or the poor's need for shelter and medicine. The government would start to say "you want HOW MUCH!?!?! Well, fuck you!" and haggle. The amount of government spending that could be reined in by engaging in telling private industries "no" is immense.

But, hey, you being off the mark about me? That's par for the course, darlin'. ;)

Mykes also unclever anecdote of how the "liberal media myth" is perpetuated is a perfect example of how the media's leftist bias is perpetuated, day in, day out-by repetition.

This story, pulled from todays CNN page, makes no attempt to even hide it's bias:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/23/Dems.radio.ap/index.html

It's repeated in almost every newspaper in america with no "fair and balanced" opposite point of view to allow those evil republicans to exonerate themselves from their satanic ways.
Click to expand...

One fucking article. Y'know, the media has the same bias that SpikeTV, or the Food Network, or QVC has: the viewer bias. They put out people and topics who entertain you; if there was a true liberal bias in the media, one so clear that your genius is witness to it every day (even though you're so brilliant you can't grasp social liberalism coupled with fiscal conservatism), we'd see Ann Coulter debate Noam Chomsky 24/7. That's the intellectual equivalent of pitting Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen in a boxing match against Mike Tyson; it's just not even fair, and it's going to be very very brutal.

Instead, the dimwitted pro wrestler wannabe gets air time, and Chomsky is considered dead (close, but not yet). Why? Well, guess who is more entertaining? That's right, the newsmedia's version of Marilyn Manson: Ann Coulter.

It's the same reason Howard Stern is popular.

I have an assignment for myke and his sociological data gathering and analyzing prowess: Count the number of stories broadcast about the president's approval ratings on days when they are up and compare that to the number of stories about his approval numbers being down. On the whole, including that right wing bastard child fox news and all others, I'm hypothesizing that the numbers are not equal. There you would have an example of bias by repetition, or bias by omission. Don't forget myke, bias is not only in things that are said, it can also be in things that are not said or ignored.
Click to expand...

No shit sherlock. Don't pull that out like it's some kind of profound revelation. Why don't you take that task on for me? IMO, content analysis is for assholes, and one of the worst forms of research.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Mykes also unclever anecdote of how the "liberal media myth" is perpetuated is a perfect example of how the media's leftist bias is perpetuated, day in, day out-by repetition.

This story, pulled from todays CNN page, makes no attempt to even hide it's bias:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/23/Dems.radio.ap/index.html

It's repeated in almost every newspaper in america with no "fair and balanced" opposite point of view to allow those evil republicans to exonerate themselves from their satanic ways.[/QUOTE]

You know, I was going to post and say it's preposterous to claim an article about the Democratic Party weekly radio address was biased because surely they have a similar article about Bush's radio address. However, Google turns up no similar article...

The media clearly are more leftist than the general public. Every piece of data available shows that. I would love for somebody to provide something supporting an opposing viewpoint.

Therefore, the argument becomes: Does this proclivity towards the Democrats and liberal philosophical viewpoints affect news coverage? I think sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. The sometimes that it does is one major reason why Fox News has become so popular: its commentators tend to espouse more conservative positions, and conservatives (like everyone else) tend to want to hear people who agree with them.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You couldn't be more wrong about my views there; one of the first things I'd do to clean up government spending is have organizations (HUD, Medicare and the military, just for starters) engage in ferocious negotiations with the private industries who profit off of war, or the poor's need for shelter and medicine. The government would start to say "you want HOW MUCH!?!?! Well, fuck you!" and haggle. The amount of government spending that could be reined in by engaging in telling private industries "no" is immense.[/QUOTE]

Surely you know most government contracts are competitively bidded out, allowing market forces to set the lowest price for the needed service/product. Due to the nature of government this is often far from perfect, but again, that's government in action - inefficient. That is why such outcry is heard when we have instances of no-bid contracts, and rightly so in most cases.
 
There is absolutely nothing out there to suggest "the media" (as if it is some monolithic entity) is systematically slanted to the Left.

Nothing.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Surely you know most government contracts are competitively bidded out, allowing market forces to set the lowest price for the needed service/product. Due to the nature of government this is often far from perfect, but again, that's government in action - inefficient. That is why such outcry is heard when we have instances of no-bid contracts, and rightly so in most cases.[/QUOTE]

No, he has no clue. He'll even admit in the very same sentence that the NEED of the underprivlidged superceeds the right of people to withold any funding of his "social" liberalness. You see, myke, fiscally responsibile people don't allow the government to enter into the realm of unequal public assistance based on an unquantifiable "need". That government you wholeheartedly distrust for taking us to war is supposed to be responsible for eliminating poverty, homelessness, and strife? You can't be that easily fooled, can you?

Myke throws out freedom of choice of those who "have" for the greater good of those that "need". Eventually, the need will always become greater than the ability to pay. But then, fiscally responsible people understand this and social "liberals" take it for granted that the money will come from somewhere, and if not, they will simply take it by force.

Soclal liberalism, in mykes world, is giving money to the needy to the point of communism, not true social"liberalism" in the sense of jeffersonian freedom of choice. It's also denying people the freedom to free associate, pursue happiness, and force them to make choices based on government mandated quotas of equal racial, regional, and economic representation in all aspects.

So, I think we need to take back the term "Liberal" and give it back to the people who truly stand for freedom and individual liberty and call these former labled liberal people what they really are: Communists. They desire forced economic equality, forced employment equality and mandated social equity, regardless of people's desire to better their own condition, which would make them break the standard of slavery to the common good.

I apoligize, myke, for calling you and your social engineering types liberals for so long, you are nothing of the sort. In fact you are so far from liberal you have come full circle to the reactionary right in your thirst for world domination over the human spirit. I congratulate you on your efforts to subvery liberty in the name of equality. Bravo.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Surely you know most government contracts are competitively bidded out, allowing market forces to set the lowest price for the needed service/product. Due to the nature of government this is often far from perfect, but again, that's government in action - inefficient. That is why such outcry is heard when we have instances of no-bid contracts, and rightly so in most cases.[/QUOTE]

Well, two of the three cases I mentioned - Medicare (after reform) and HUD - aren't. There is a specific provision in the medicare reform act that states they cannot negotiate over the price they'll pay for pharmaceuticals. Pfizer (or whomever) can tell them what they're going to pay, and they're going to pay it. HUD's similar, but I'm les informed about that.

Lastly, especially in the military, there are so few genuine contractors competing for that dollar that "no bid" contracts have become the standard, and oftentimes there really is only one company (KBR, for instance) that can provide a certain service. They could be competitively outbid, but nobody does what they do.
 
[quote name='Msut77']There is absolutely nothing out there to suggest "the media" (as if it is some monolithic entity) is systematically slanted to the Left.

Nothing.[/quote]

Yes there is. Do some research before posting.
 
[quote name='Msut77']There is absolutely nothing out there to suggest "the media" (as if it is some monolithic entity) is systematically slanted to the Left.

Nothing.[/QUOTE]

How long are you going to keep insisting this while failing to review the links provided to the relevant studies? Go ahead and keep your head in the sand if you like, I guess.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']How long are you going to keep insisting this while failing to review the links provided to the relevant studies?[/QUOTE]

I read the link I wasnt very impressed.

BTW how did this go from right wingers spreading dishonest outdated trash to more drooling and wailing of the TEH LIBRUL MEDIA!!!111!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top