Newsweek Lies, People Die: Your MSM at Work

[quote name='GuilewasNK']Instead of people dealing with the issue (Newsweek) they felt the need to bring up Bush and avoid the Newsweek issue altogether. The Rather comment is simply the same thing only it is from a side of the political spectrum that Bush haters don't want to hear. The Rather comment is actually more appropriate because Rather's own credibility became an issue. Newsweek and Rather are media personalities/entities and are comparable in this issue. People tend to hear what they want to hear as long as it supports their own position or belief. It's tantamount to a parent believing their child can do no wrong even when there is proof otherwise.

It's that kind of skewed "logic" from the right and left that drove people away from voting in the past in the first place.[/QUOTE]


Wrong.. I didn't avoid the Newsweek issue. I originally drew parallels between Newsweek using "faulty" information and Bush using "faulty" information. And how some people hold the Media (that they supposedly hate) to a higher standard than our president. That was one related issue in my book, agree or disagree and don't lecture on a tangent. I made the arguement that is what Newsweek did is bad, what Bush did is much worse. It was judgement and I stand by it.

Furthermore, it is wholly dishonest to pretend there is some scared middle ground on every issue. That in itself is a bias. Adding up the + and - for the right and left then declaring "well each side is bad" so I'll wait it out in the middle.

Bashing bush or hating the MSM is better than the fake objectivity that says "halfway in between both extremes is where the truth lies". Or even worse, halfway between two sides of a very narrow political mainstream.(i.e. the US)


besides you call people names and still deal with opposing view-doesn't have to be an either or.
 
[quote name='usickenme']Wrong.. I didn't avoid the Newsweek issue. I originally drew parallels between Newsweek using "faulty" information and Bush using "faulty" information. And how some people hold the Media (that they supposedly hate) to a higher standard than our president. That was one related issue in my book, agree or disagree and don't lecture on a tangent. I made the arguement that is what Newsweek did is bad, what Bush did is much worse. It was judgement and I stand by it.[/QUOTE]

I remember doing the same thing as a kid. Pointing out a sibling who did something worse than I did when I got in trouble, in hopes that they would get sidetracked into making comparisons and overlook what I had done wrong. An effective tool if someone is stupid enough to let you sidestep the issue at hand, but still an obvious attempt at evasion.

[quote name='usickenme']Furthermore, it is wholly dishonest to pretend there is some scared middle ground on every issue. That in itself is a bias. Adding up the + and - for the right and left then declaring "well each side is bad" so I'll wait it out in the middle.

Bashing bush or hating the MSM is better than the fake objectivity that says "halfway in between both extremes is where the truth lies". Or even worse, halfway between two sides of a very narrow political mainstream.(i.e. the US)[/QUOTE]

Who has said anything about middle ground? If people tried indulging themselves in some individual thought instead of jumping into a particular camp and then lambasting their proclaimed opposition, we might see a little more "well each side is bad so I'll make up my own mind". Anyone who thinks that the truth lies halfway between 2 lies is an idiot. People's complete unwillingness to step outside of the political forum and its trappings to discuss important issues is a very clear indicator of their fear and inability to think for themselves.
 
[quote name='gamefreak'](2) That christian morals are compatible with United States law. This is just plain wrong, as the separation of church and state is guaranted by the constitution that you hold so dear. [/QUOTE]

I really wish I had a quarter for each time some message board idiot states, claims and believes that seperation of church and state is guaranteed by the constitution. It isn't. What it does do is guarantee the state shall never establish an official religion. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Seperation of church and state is a term that was introduced to the American lexicon by justice Hugo Black (USSC) in 1947 during the case of Emerson v. Board of Education. Black, an FDR appointee, was also a former Klansman. Just like Robert "Sheets" Byrd.

Look it up and learn from it wonder tard and give me my fucking quarter.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I really wish I had a quarter for each time some message board idiot states, claims and believes that seperation of church and state is guaranteed by the constitution. It isn't. What it does do is guarantee the state shall never establish an official religion. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Seperation of church and state is a term that was introduced to the American lexicon by justice Hugo Black (USSC) in 1947 during the case of Emerson v. Board of Education. Black, an FDR appointee, was also a former Klansman. Just like Robert "Sheets" Byrd.

Look it up and learn from it wonder tard and give me my fucking quarter.[/QUOTE]

Well, you ought to attribute that to the person who said it (me) and not gamefreak, who just doens't grasp the quoting system.

After two pages, this is the best you can muster? That's just pathetic. You *started* the thread by attempting to place blame on the MSM for 15 deaths in Jalalabad, yet your ideology precludes you from recognnizing that same responsibility of our government for the thousands dead (and rather, in fact, that they be lauded for their effort against 'terror'). As much as your politics make it seem impossible, you're probably a smart person; do you really believe that Newsweek is responsible for this, and not the state of foreign affairs resulting from an administration that has killed tens of thousands, and physically humiliated, abused, and sexually assaulted those who weren't killed?

In other words, given that pictures exist of naked pyramids of muslim men, muslim men being threatened with dogs, US soldiers pointing and smiling (and making "gun gestures") in photographs next to dead muslim men, among dozens of other atrocities with *photographic* evidence, don't you think that throwing a book in the potty is pretty likely to occur? Compared to what the US has already done, it's a pretty tame activity, and thus certainly not beneath us.

Did you not read Myers' report? If you can't respond to the arguments presented in this thread (the ones relating directly to the original fucking post), then just don't bother. Stay home, read your NewsMax, and enjoy your delusional life.

myke.
 
PAD is just a wimp. At least before he would stand up for what he believes in, now he just runs and hides.
 
Well, I'll tell PAD this much: if you truly think that Newsweek is responsible for this rioting, and that 16 deaths is too much for you to tolerate, then I want you to admit this, verbatim:

"George W. Bush, his administration, and his party members lied to the American people about the reasons for going to war in Iraq. Over 1600 American soldiers have lost their lives, in addition to tens of thousands of Iraqis, terrorists, insurgents, and innocents alike. Because George W. Bush lied, he is responsible for all the slaughter in Iraq at the moment; for lying about the reasons for going to war, he should be impeached, or at the very least, retract the rationale that he presented (the presence of WMDs) and admit to having made a mistake."

myke.
...I fuckin' dare you.
 
[quote name='atreyue']I remember doing the same thing as a kid. Pointing out a sibling who did something worse than I did when I got in trouble, in hopes that they would get sidetracked into making comparisons and overlook what I had done wrong. An effective tool if someone is stupid enough to let you sidestep the issue at hand, but still an obvious attempt at evasion.


.[/QUOTE]

That's a cute story but not really relevant. First of all, we actually have a long tradition in this country (hell everywhere) of judging the severity of crimes. And despite what you claim, this was not an evasion of the Newsweeks story. The complaints of what Newsweek supposedly caused were so similar to what Bush caused, it had to be pointed out. In other words, it is not simply that Bush did "worse" but he did "worse" on similar reasoning -a bad source- and with similar results -death and anti American sentiment. Not to mention is it wholly dishonest to put on the issue blinders and prentend nothing is related.

Now if YOU want to avoid that reality, fine. But don't lecture me.

Also I know damned well that the people who dislike the MSM won't be sidetracked into thinking about other things.

I always like the "well I'm in the middle so I am smarter than everyone". How freaking arrogant are you? You presumes that you can't give full complete thought on an issue, examining both sides and still come down on the left or right. Sorry but that is bullcrap.
 
Oh, the old "separation of church and state isn't even IN the constitution" bit. Do you realize how much stuff ISN'T in the constitution? If we limited ourselves to only what the constitution specifically says, we'd have a hard time figuring out a lot of things. The constitution is a framework, not the whole of American governance. If the framers wanted that, they would have made it a hell of a lot longer.
 
[quote name='usickenme']That's a cute story but not really relevant. First of all, we actually have a long tradition in this country (hell everywhere) of judging the severity of crimes. And despite what you claim, this was not an evasion of the Newsweeks story. The complaints of what Newsweek supposedly caused were so similar to what Bush caused, it had to be pointed out. In other words, it is not simply that Bush did "worse" but he did "worse" on similar reasoning -a bad source- and with similar results -death and anti American sentiment. Not to mention is it wholly dishonest to put on the issue blinders and prentend nothing is related.

Now if YOU want to avoid that reality, fine. But don't lecture me.

Also I know damned well that the people who dislike the MSM won't be sidetracked into thinking about other things.[/QUOTE]

If 'putting on issue blinders' means not trying to get caught up in politics, then I am guilty. I don't doubt that the OP started this thread with the intent of sticking it to the democrats. You can't really be blamed for returning fire. But the real issue here is that newsmedia (mainstream or otherwise) is supposed to operate with journalistic integrity and just flat out doesn't. Maybe if people weren't so eager to use what the media produces to throw stones at their opposition, they would care more about the veracity of what it spews and hold it to the higher standard it purports.

[quote name='usickenme']I always like the "well I'm in the middle so I am smarter than everyone". How freaking arrogant are you? You presumes that you can't give full complete thought on an issue, examining both sides and still come down on the left or right. Sorry but that is bullcrap.[/QUOTE]

What is this 'in the middle' bullshit you keep on going on about? The american public really can't accept that there are more than 2 camps? No wonder democracy isn't working so well. Sorry that my "I'm smarter than you because I think for myself" attitude upsets you. I know it completely flies in the face of contemporary politics to openly admit that whatever side is in power tries to identify and solve problems (or at least appear to) while the other 'side' does everything it can to belittle the side in power in order to strengthen its own power base. Sorry that I don't think that being contrary is to anyone's benefit, and that I refuse to pretend that the idea that two parties that now exist in a solely reactionary relationship somehow justify and validate each other's existence. In my arrogance, I think that "full complete thought on an issue" means that there are possibilities outside of your 'left or right'.
 
[quote name='atreyue']But the real issue here is that newsmedia (mainstream or otherwise) is supposed to operate with journalistic integrity and just flat out doesn't. Maybe if people weren't so eager to use what the media produces to throw stones at their opposition, they would care more about the veracity of what it spews and hold it to the higher standard it purports.
[/QUOTE]

I'll avoid the rest of that, since I don't care. However...

What you are saying here is that we ought to hold our media to a higher standard than our government. Some might agree with that (and I might at times, as well). When it comes to saying that "the media is irresponsible and people died!", I draw the line well before that. If Newsweek is guilty, our government, even the Democrats who voted to authorize war, are guilty - though not as guilty as the man proven to be involved in a *fabrication* of events created to justify war!

Are you saying this? Nah; but, if we "ought to" expect more from Newsweek, then we "ought to" do the same for our government, who lies to us on a daily basis, and, if you believe the hype, involved in tens of thousands more deaths than Newsweek, and far more directly, too.

myke.
 
[quote name='atreyue']
What is this 'in the middle' bullshit you keep on going on about? The american public really can't accept that there are more than 2 camps? No wonder democracy isn't working so well. Sorry that my "I'm smarter than you because I think for myself" attitude upsets you. I know it completely flies in the face of contemporary politics to openly admit that whatever side is in power tries to identify and solve problems (or at least appear to) while the other 'side' does everything it can to belittle the side in power in order to strengthen its own power base. Sorry that I don't think that being contrary is to anyone's benefit, and that I refuse to pretend that the idea that two parties that now exist in a solely reactionary relationship somehow justify and validate each other's existence. In my arrogance, I think that "full complete thought on an issue" means that there are possibilities outside of your 'left or right'.[/QUOTE]

Wait, people only think for themselves when they aren't aligned with one side? So if you opinions just happen to normally fall on one side, that means you're not thinking for yourself?
 
[quote name='atreyue']But the real issue here is that newsmedia (mainstream or otherwise) is supposed to operate with journalistic integrity and just flat out doesn't. Maybe if people weren't so eager to use what the media produces to throw stones at their opposition, they would care more about the veracity of what it spews and hold it to the higher standard it purports.

.[/QUOTE]

Well that is ONE issue. There are many. The question of journalistic integrity is one that was broached long before the Newsweek story and it my opinion, the least interesting aspect of the story.

Maybe "in the middle" is a bad choice of words- How about outside the 2 parties. I think most americans view themsleves as outside the 2 parties but they have to side up with one in elections.

Now let me ask you this. Do you think it is entirely possible for someone to investigate all sides of an issue, truley examine all angles and STILL comes down on one side? You are not arrogant because you proport to "think for yourself" ;you are arrogant because you assume anyone in the left or right doesn't.


Of course, I see the possibilities outside my core values and you know what, most of the time I understand them as well. But that doesn't mean I have to adhere to it or reject what I believe. Heck, I even get what your saying. It is easy to fall into a partisan trap but even partisans have good points sometimes.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I'll avoid the rest of that, since I don't care. However...

What you are saying here is that we ought to hold our media to a higher standard than our government. Some might agree with that (and I might at times, as well). When it comes to saying that "the media is irresponsible and people died!", I draw the line well before that. If Newsweek is guilty, our government, even the Democrats who voted to authorize war, are guilty - though not as guilty as the man proven to be involved in a *fabrication* of events created to justify war!

Are you saying this? Nah; but, if we "ought to" expect more from Newsweek, then we "ought to" do the same for our government, who lies to us on a daily basis, and, if you believe the hype, involved in tens of thousands more deaths than Newsweek, and far more directly, too.

myke.[/QUOTE]

The government should be held to high standards as well as the media. I never said otherwise. Doesn't change the fact that the original topic of this thread was about the standards of the media. That's all that I was pointing out.
 
[quote name='atreyue']The government should be held to high standards as well as the media. I never said otherwise. Doesn't change the fact that the original topic of this thread was about the standards of the media. That's all that I was pointing out.[/QUOTE]

One of these groups has the power to do things like declare martial law and take your property through "eminent domain". It should be held to a higher standard then the other, which is simply a corporation.
 
[quote name='David85']PAD is just a wimp. At least before he would stand up for what he believes in, now he just runs and hides.[/QUOTE]

Correction: Now I'm just to lazy to care about arguing with you people.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Well, I'll tell PAD this much: if you truly think that Newsweek is responsible for this rioting, and that 16 deaths is too much for you to tolerate, then I want you to admit this, verbatim:

"George W. Bush, his administration, and his party members lied to the American people about the reasons for going to war in Iraq. Over 1600 American soldiers have lost their lives, in addition to tens of thousands of Iraqis, terrorists, insurgents, and innocents alike. Because George W. Bush lied, he is responsible for all the slaughter in Iraq at the moment; for lying about the reasons for going to war, he should be impeached, or at the very least, retract the rationale that he presented (the presence of WMDs) and admit to having made a mistake."

myke.
...I fuckin' dare you.[/QUOTE]

Oh good God, another one that after 3 years and an election can't see the difference between bad intelligence and a lie. Guess what, we had an election on this issue, your side lost.

Your side lost the White House, more Senate seats and more House seats. Your argument fell on deaf ears and the American public doesn't side with you. Your position is that of a radical minority that screams, kicks and hollers like spoiled little children, but.... I don't mind.

As long as there are people like you myke no Democrat will ever win a national election and I'll sleep peaceably in my bed at night. I love your kind, I truly do. You're the right's best friend and no, I'm not being sarcastic or condescending at all.

Keep posting, keep writing letters to your newspaper, keep calling talk shows and telling your friends that Bush lied. We need more people like you and you are not letting me down!
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Correction: Now I'm just to lazy to care about arguing with you people.[/QUOTE]

When are you going to start being too lazy to spew bigoted crap on this board all the time? Please tell me soon.
 
[quote name='usickenme']Well that is ONE issue. There are many. The question of journalistic integrity is one that was broached long before the Newsweek story and it my opinion, the least interesting aspect of the story.

Maybe "in the middle" is a bad choice of words- How about outside the 2 parties. I think most americans view themsleves as outside the 2 parties but they have to side up with one in elections.

Now let me ask you this. Do you think it is entirely possible for someone to investigate all sides of an issue, truley examine all angles and STILL comes down on one side? You are not arrogant because you proport to "think for yourself" ;you are arrogant because you assume anyone in the left or right doesn't.


Of course, I see the possibilities outside my core values and you know what, most of the time I understand them as well. But that doesn't mean I have to adhere to it or reject what I believe. Heck, I even get what your saying. It is easy to fall into a partisan trap but even partisans have good points sometimes.[/QUOTE]

Hey, as long as you're not just giving the party line, we're cool. I completely understand and respect that one can agree with a particular party on particular issues, and that your ideology may line up so closely with a particular party's that you would tend to agree with them on most things. What I disapprove of is the need each party has to incessantly attack the other. When I look at the democratic party(this is a criticism of whatever party is currently not holding the presidency and not democrats in particular), I see nonstop criticism and little to no problem solving. I believe that our government is set up in such a way that a president from one party can't completely disenfrancise the other. We sit here in forums bickering, and that's fine since we as individuals can't really influence policy anyway. Unfortunately, the people who can do so are wasting their time in the same ways that we are when they are supposed to be working together. When I said that we should look beyond the political parties for answers, it was in an effort to avoid the trappings of party politics that have immobilized the country. If the democrats had been able to do this last year, I doubt that Bush would have been re-elected.
 
[quote name='ElwoodCuse']When are you going to start being too lazy to spew bigoted crap on this board all the time? Please tell me soon.[/QUOTE]

Never! Because I want to continue rewarding loyal readers.
 
[quote name='camoor']One of these groups has the power to do things like declare martial law and take your property through "eminent domain". It should be held to a higher standard then the other, which is simply a corporation.[/QUOTE]

how's this?

Every group should be held to the highest standards, and we should never make excuses for anyone.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Correction: Now I'm just to lazy to care about arguing with you people.[/QUOTE]

If you're too lazy to argue with "us people" don't bother posting.
 
[quote name='atreyue']Hey, as long as you're not just giving the party line, we're cool. I completely understand and respect that one can agree with a particular party on particular issues, and that your ideology ........[/QUOTE]


Gotcha and I agree. I look at it like this. It is fine if you spend some time levying criticisms at those in power, but if that is all you do, then you aren't really doing anything.

I would disagree that the Dems have no problem solving. But being the party not in power tends to silence those solutions - internally and externally. I also think it is unfair to lump all Dems together. Clearly as I have witnessed first hand Dems on a local/ state level are provide real solutions and real governance. But again, them not being in the national spotlight tends to let this slip under the radar.(which of course will also be true when the GOP is down)
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Oh good God, another one that after 3 years and an election can't see the difference between bad intelligence and a lie. Guess what, we had an election on this issue, your side lost.

Your side lost the White House, more Senate seats and more House seats. Your argument fell on deaf ears and the American public doesn't side with you. Your position is that of a radical minority that screams, kicks and hollers like spoiled little children, but.... I don't mind.

As long as there are people like you myke no Democrat will ever win a national election and I'll sleep peaceably in my bed at night. I love your kind, I truly do. You're the right's best friend and no, I'm not being sarcastic or condescending at all.

Keep posting, keep writing letters to your newspaper, keep calling talk shows and telling your friends that Bush lied. We need more people like you and you are not letting me down![/QUOTE]

It's pleasing to know that you completely avoided that which I presented to you, in favor of some template "the people voted for Bush so everything he did is right" argument. C'mon, you cut and pasted your statement here from a dozen other straw men you've been arguing. Where's the effort?

Bush LIED. Newsweek LIED. If you want to make the argument that Bush had bad intelligence, which is simply untrue (you'd do well to read the downing street memo, which I'm sure you have not read), then I want to make the argument that Newsweek had bad intelligence too. What is the difference between the two (other than the sheer volume of casualties)?

I hope that you're too old for the military, lest I ask you why you aren't getting blown up in Iraq.

myke.
...truth be told, your argument is one part irrelevant diversion ('your side lost') and one part semantics (Bush had "bad intelligence," and Newsweek "lied"). If you want to have strong polticial beliefs, please learn to debate like an intellectual, and not a politician.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Correction: Now I'm just to lazy to care about arguing with you people.[/QUOTE]

Republicans: the new "welfare queens."
 
[quote name='usickenme']Wrong.. I didn't avoid the Newsweek issue. I originally drew parallels between Newsweek using "faulty" information and Bush using "faulty" information. And how some people hold the Media (that they supposedly hate) to a higher standard than our president. That was one related issue in my book, agree or disagree and don't lecture on a tangent. I made the arguement that is what Newsweek did is bad, what Bush did is much worse. It was judgement and I stand by it.

Furthermore, it is wholly dishonest to pretend there is some scared middle ground on every issue. That in itself is a bias. Adding up the + and - for the right and left then declaring "well each side is bad" so I'll wait it out in the middle.

Bashing bush or hating the MSM is better than the fake objectivity that says "halfway in between both extremes is where the truth lies". Or even worse, halfway between two sides of a very narrow political mainstream.(i.e. the US)


besides you call people names and still deal with opposing view-doesn't have to be an either or.[/QUOTE]

I have never called anyone a name in the CAG vs. board. Frankly I don't come here often enough in the first place.

I never said their was sacred middle ground on every issue. The media is supposed to report the news, not create it or embellish it. If we did have people flushing the Koran down the toilet it would bother me. Just as much as flag burning in the Middle East bothers me. That is a related issue in my book. Just as relative as yours it would seem...

A better correlation would be the recent story in which Mitch Albom wrote a story before it happened...

http://www.newsday.com/sports/ny-spalbom0517,0,2833859.story?coll=ny-sports-headlines

"The investigation was prompted by an April 3 column in which Albom wrote that former Michigan State players Mateen Cleaves and Jason Richardson attended the Michigan State-North Carolina NCAA semifinal on April 2. He reported that the players "sat in the stands, in their MSU clothing, and rooted on their alma mater." Neither player was at the game."

Or how about Jayson Blair??

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1894457

"In the uproar over the Jayson Blair fiasco, newsroom sins ranging from fabricated quotes to falsified expense reports have sparked a flurry of self-examination. What caught the eye of some, however, was the shocking revelation that The New York Times' editors had allowed Blair to use anonymous sources on several occasions -- including in major Page One pieces -- and not even ask who they were. "


That is relevant to me because it deals with the media integrity issue which was the whole point of the original post. If you want Bush to apologize that is fine. If you really think that will atone for whatever you believe he has done wrong then go for it. I am sure someone somewhere thinks Clinton apologizing for caving to North Korea will make a difference too. Journalism without integrity will affect liberals and conservatives alike. That is the point above all else.

As for the middle ground issue, there are times I agree with conservatives (tax cuts) and times I agree with liberals (stem-cell research) and that is the main reason I don't officially side with one party.
 
[quote name='atreyue']how's this?

Every group should be held to the highest standards, and we should never make excuses for anyone.[/QUOTE]

Yes - and there should be no wars and no homeless and we should all be allowed to eat as much candy as we want and not get fat.

I'm still going to be more concerned about the government telling me an out-and-out lie (IE the entire party line on the Iraq war) then media mistakes, partisan twisting of truth, and the occasional Jayson Blair.

Of course when supposed news stations become propoganda pulpits (Eg Fox News) then they should be evaluated for committing acts of slander/libel. However it is a much more serious condition when the government of a democracy begins lying to the people it supposedly serves.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']I have never called anyone a name in the CAG vs. board. Frankly I don't come here often enough in the first place.

[/QUOTE]

Sorry I had a huge typing error that resulted in an incorrect accusation. What I meant to say is

"besides you (in the general sense) can call people names and still deal with opposing view-doesn't have to be an either or"

in words, one can insult someone and rebutt their points-although I admit that is probably not the most effective strategy.

Once again, I apologize for the error.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I hope that you're too old for the military, lest I ask you why you aren't getting blown up in Iraq.[/QUOTE]

Been there, done that, have the t-shirt. 4 years reserve, 4 years active duty 1988-1996. M1A1 platoon commander. I have had the good fortune of mowing down hundreds of these Islamofascists and tearing apart their T-72's, T-62's, BRDM's like tissue paper. My unit probably gave 500+ souls their passage to Allah's paradise.

I'm completely out and can't be called back, in fact I crossed the threshold of being allowed to re-enlist into active duty 5 months ago. I cold only go to the reserves now and I'm not going unless I get back into armor.

So, how about your military service spineless?
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Been there, done that, have the t-shirt. 4 years reserve, 4 years active duty 1988-1996. M1A1 platoon commander. I have had the good fortune of mowing down hundreds of these Islamofascists and tearing apart their T-72's, T-62's, BRDM's like tissue paper. My unit probably gave 500+ souls their passage to Allah's paradise.

I'm completely out and can't be called back, in fact I crossed the threshold of being allowed to re-enlist into active duty 5 months ago. I cold only go to the reserves now and I'm not going unless I get back into armor.

So, how about your military service spineless?[/QUOTE]

Again, you skirted the major issue of my post, however...

In most cases, I like to thank those who serve in our military, but, given the disregard for human life and condescension and racism implicit in your language, I will not thank you. I have no respect for those who gleefully delight in the taking of lives. You're a disgrace.

My military service? Well, here's the answer you'd expect: I have none. The short explanation is this: Having graduated high school 8 years ago, I decided to immediately enter into college, given (1) no real sense of enlistment urgency in any section of our military, (2) the fact that I didn't want to serve in our military, and (3) the fact that I knew I was far too intelligent to abandon postsecondary education.

So people enter into the military for oblgiatory reasons (family history, civic service), for racist, Freudian reasons (PAD), and for self-development (the G.I. Bill folks, developing job skills and resources that aren't developed in the typical job available in the ghetto). Of course, there are other reasons, and people's real life reasons often contain a little bit of each category (I forgot to mention the "nothing left to lose" category, where most of my friends who entered the military could have claimed as home).

Let's put it this way: I have a future, and thus, serving in the military would have been as beneficial to me as taking 3 years off after high school to work at Burger King. It's purely a social stratification issue; I'm sure you'd understand.

myke.
...you were expecting another answer?
 
[quote name='usickenme']Sorry I had a huge typing error that resulted in an incorrect accusation. What I meant to say is

"besides you (in the general sense) can call people names and still deal with opposing view-doesn't have to be an either or"

in words, one can insult someone and rebutt their points-although I admit that is probably not the most effective strategy.

Once again, I apologize for the error.[/QUOTE]

No problem man! :cool:
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Never! Because I want to continue rewarding loyal readers.[/QUOTE]

So you really are just here to troll?
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Been there, done that, have the t-shirt. 4 years reserve, 4 years active duty 1988-1996. M1A1 platoon commander. I have had the good fortune of mowing down hundreds of these Islamofascists and tearing apart their T-72's, T-62's, BRDM's like tissue paper. My unit probably gave 500+ souls their passage to Allah's paradise.

I'm completely out and can't be called back, in fact I crossed the threshold of being allowed to re-enlist into active duty 5 months ago. I cold only go to the reserves now and I'm not going unless I get back into armor.

So, how about your military service spineless?[/QUOTE]

If what you say is actually true, your experiences and your joy in killing (which, would have been against a secular governments army), which I find unlikely, but if it's true then too bad you survived.
 
[quote name='usickenme']Lemme get this straight - Newsweek got the story wrong and people may have died, anti-American sentiment increase, troops are put in harms ways because of it and that pisses you off.

Meanwhile, Bush does the EXACT same thing by the War in Iraq multiplied by a million and you think he is the greatest guy since Jesus.

Nice reality you got there..you're such a tool.[/QUOTE]

Because Pitt went out of his way to support Bush in this post, eh? I haven't read Pitt's other posts, and can't be bothered to, but the point is, it certainly seems like the Left goes way the hell out of its way to insert a "Bush sucks because.." whenever they can.

Bush hardly has my full support, but what we've needed in the last few years is a nasty old sunnuva bitch who isn't afraid to attack people, especially in a situation like the Middle East. Bush has, for the most part, filled that role.
Also I'm so pissed off that John Bolton is being held fromt he UN; he has a pair and doesn't hesitate to break his foot off in someone's ass, which is what the UN needs. Anyway. I'm hardly a "H0MG BUSH IS THA BESTEST PREZ" type of person, especially since he hasn't really support anything I find important. Such as the borders, or the economy. I mean, piss off with the incessant 'bush sux'. It's not intellectual, it's just irritating.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top