Fox News Rules & MSNBC Sucks!

POSTED BY: Skywalken
UPDATED: Thursday, May 24, 2007 18:14
VIEWED: 7874
PAGE 4 of 5

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE

ANTIMASON

Friday, May 18, 2007 6:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
So you don’t consider France, Germany, Spain and the UK to be “secular societies?”

i do.. and so is China and many other prominant countries... but despite their secular leanings, the middle east doesnt dominant their foreign and domestic policies, and they arent leading an ambiguous global war on dissent either. my point being that our culture alone is not what is causing this clash, but our policies

ANTIMASON

Friday, May 18, 2007 7:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Paul's statement was not naive. It's been reinterpreted by political opportunists (giuliani) for use in their own demagoguery. Insecure morons eat this stuff up, but it's nonsense.

I don't have much to say regarding the opinion that Finn has expressed here. It's a popular one, but I'm tired of trying to communicate with people who can't separate justification and blame from a reasonable desire to understand what happened and why. They'd have us all stick our heads in the sand and pretend that the terrorists attacked us "because of our freedom of religion, because of our freedom for women..." - to quote our boy Rudy. This is the willful ignorance that's been driving our country into the ground since 9/11.

Fletch, you're assuming Dr. Paul is making some kind of isolationist argument. It only looks isolationist when compared to the full-blown interventionist policies advocated by the Republicrats. There's plenty of room between isolationism and imperialism and that's where Rep. Paul's very realistic ideas reside. We can protect our interests without lording it over everyone else. We can protect our country without military bases in every country on the planet. We can even promote freedom and democracy without invading and regime-changing every nation that dares to reject our values.

i have to agree with that

PIRATENEWS

Monday, May 21, 2007 8:22 PM

MSNBC BANNED on Comcast ATT cable TV service

In East Tennessee, and perhaps nationwide, MSNBC is now BANNED on Comcast ATT cable TV service, even for premium customers! This started last week. MSNBC is the most anti-Bush network, thanks to Keith Olbermann's rants. And of course Ron Paul won the MSNBC debate with 85% of the vote.

Why not ban Fox News and Fox TV and FX Channel, et al, since they are literally owned by the Communist Party in China, home of Sir Rupert Murdoch Australian Knight of the British Empire, and his Communist Chinese wife. The Communist Manifesto was written by Karl Marx in London England, and bans the ownership of private property.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendi_Deng

"Son, you're not the first man to piss off a woman and end up stranded on the side of the road. That's why I always take my keys with me when I get out."
-Trucker, Drive

DRIVE VS POLICE STATE: FREE TV EPISODES ONLINE
OOPS! CANCELLED!!! FINAL EPPS ON JULY 4 8PM EST
www.myspace.com/driveonfox

FIREFLY SERENITY PILOT MUSIC VIDEO
Tangerine Dream - Thief Soundtrack: Confrontation
https://video.indymedia.org/en/2007/02/716.shtml
http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=8cd2bd0379340120e7a6ed00f2a53ee5
.1044556
www.myspace.com/piratenewsctv

Does that seem right to you?
www.scifi.com/onair/

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 12:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
i do.. and so is China and many other prominant countries... but despite their secular leanings, the middle east doesnt dominant their foreign and domestic policies, and they arent leading an ambiguous global war on dissent either. my point being that our culture alone is not what is causing this clash, but our policies

Okay, but Al Qaeda has attacked France, the UK, Germany and Spain. Attacks in the UK and Spain were particularly bloody, and Germany and French citizens have been hit as well. So it is not really US Middle East policy either. Rather a more accurate characterization would be that it is bin Laden’s twisted perception of US policy, but not just that either. Bin Laden and his goons want to dominate the Middle East. They want to re-establish the Caliphate or at least their twisted impression of it. That is their raison d'être.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

ANTIMASON

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 3:13 AM

Quote:
posted by Finn Mac Cumhal- Okay, but Al Qaeda has attacked France, the UK, Germany and Spain. Attacks in the UK and Spain were particularly bloody, and Germany and French citizens have been hit as well. So it is not really US Middle East policy either.

to be fair though, most western countries have been(what the constitution would consider anyway) meddling in ME affairs quite extensively for a few centuries at the least. i have heard the arguments that they hate us for our culture and so on, but i genuinely believe its due to our presence in their region. i would say that a better way to pre-empt a terrorist, rather than foil his plot, would be to dissuade him from committing such an act to begin with. in that regard, i would suggest our current policies do nothing to address these issues, and only increase tension and hostilities

Quote:
Rather a more accurate characterization would be that it is bin Laden’s twisted perception of US policy, but not just that either.

theres no doubt that no one is justified in committing terrorism. Ron Paul makes a fair point when he says that fighting a war on terrorism is the equivelant to fighting a war on crime. terrorism is a method or tactic used to achieve a goal or agenda. but either way you slice it, the result is still a crime, just like any other

if alqaeda exists to any organized, tangeable degree, then they are certainly worth pursuing(Ron Paul voted for this authorization). the danger is accepting a vague definition of terrorism, and going after every person(muslim in this case) who breaks a law, or threatens the states status quo(maybe as in ours). the question really becomes what is our role in the world? as far as Iraq, it shouldnt be our responsibility to police the globe and enfore UN resolutions and sanctions, and one could argue that its this flawed ideology which is responsible for the current climate in the ME

Quote:
Bin Laden and his goons want to dominate the Middle East. They want to re-establish the Caliphate or at least their twisted impression of it. That is their raison d'être.

im sure this is a factor, but i believe we ought to understand better this doctrine of a world wide muslim caliphate, and whether this is even a legitimate or accurate interpretation of their scriptures, and also whether its truly a threat to western civilization. i think a lot of proponents of this view neglect to actually research these doctrines, or attempt to seek solutions by understanding the rationality behind their actions. i believe that a state solution would not be required to address terrorism, if we had an effective spiritual campaign. the best way to pre-empt the crime is to pre-empt the criminal.

what seems more dangerous to me is the current neoconservative view, because it fuels support for aggressive, somewhat xenophobic foreign political interventionism based on fear and irrationality.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 5:34 AM

It’s naïve to think that all terrorism can be dealt with as a criminal activity. Some of it can be, like much of the European and American terrorist groups, but to attempt to treat the large multi-national apocalyptic terrorist organizations, like Al Qaeda, strictly as a criminal organization is foolish and likely to fail. Criminal organizations are almost always motivated by personal gain, because the point of crime is personal gain, generally in the form of wealth. That is not necessarily the case with terrorists, particularly the apocalyptic kind. They are not motivated by wealth, and that makes terrorism potentially far too dangerous to treat simply as a crime.

Trying to understand the motivations of terrorist organization is a constant effort within Western intelligence agencies, but understanding is never likely to be complete or enough. These kinds of people cannot be reasoned with. Can you really understand the Nazi’s Final Solution, and is there really any other response to it other then war? The only people who will ever fully grasp why apocalyptic terrorists do what they do are madmen, but in the end, it will always come down to their way or force. What we know is that bin Laden and his goons want to re-establish their particular version of an Islamic Caliphate across the Muslim world. The odds that they could achieve such a thing is probably very remote, so the threat is not their end goal. Rather it’s the irrationality in seeking that goal that is the true threat. The reason why Al Qaeda attacked us is because they view our presence in the Middle East as being a threat to the realization (as remote as it may be) of their goals. To say that we should appease these goals is not sound. And historically, it is not likely to dissuade Al Qaeda from attacking us, but may actually increase those attacks.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

ANTIMASON

Thursday, May 24, 2007 3:39 AM

Quote:
post by Finn mac Cumhal- The reason why Al Qaeda attacked us is because they view our presence in the Middle East as being a threat to the realization (as remote as it may be) of their goals. To say that we should appease these goals is not sound. And historically, it is not likely to dissuade Al Qaeda from attacking us, but may actually increase those attacks.

for the most part i agree, but are you suggesting that the war in Iraq, or a future war in Iran, is neccessary to avoid appeasing terrorists? i would pursue alqaeda, considering what theyve done... but we have been led wayyy off course and are now attacking entire muslim nations. we cant afford to police the globe, and its not our responsibilty. Jesus said 'a good seed cannot produce bad fruit', and that 'you will know them by their fruits..'. i believe that the current situatation in Iraq is bearing out the rotten fruits of the neocon idealogy, and we need a new philosophy to handle this conflict. what we are doing now only seems to be making matters worse

TRUEBLUE

Thursday, May 24, 2007 4:19 AM

I am an Australian, but since I got pay-TV I have been watching some US FoxNews broadcasts.

It is so bad, I can't find the words to adequately describe it! I thought the News Ltd papers here in Australia were bad enough, But the FoxNews broadcasts are almost completely biased utter neo-con tripe! The journalists don't offer news, they simply voice (or yell) their own veiws. Good journalism is activist, but unbiased: passionate about facts. Sadly all I have seen from that network is the antithesis of good journalism.

In Australia we also have a problem with quality journalists and journalism, though the Australian ABC 7:30 Report has always attracted quality journalists, in particular Kerry O'Brien is the best interveiwer EVER! Unbiased, never pulling any punches, plus he is smart and always knows his issues (sometimes better than the person he is interviewing).

The world needs more journalists like him.

---------
I will think of a signature later. It will be so stunningly brilliant your entire life will pale into insignificance when compared to the few words that will be written here.

SERGEANTX

Thursday, May 24, 2007 4:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
It’s naïve to think that all terrorism can be dealt with as a criminal activity.

Then it's flat out insane to think it can be dealt with as a military problem. They're not an army. They don't have borders, uniforms or flags. They can't be negotiated with so no reliable surrender can ever occur. In that sense no victory can ever occur (how are you ever going to be sure you got them all?). The only thing they do have, and are thanking us for daily, is the seething anger of people fed up with the US throwing its weight around.

Quote:
The reason why Al Qaeda attacked us is because they view our presence in the Middle East as being a threat to the realization (as remote as it may be) of their goals.

Their goals, as you point out, aren't material. What is important is their ability to recruit new zealots to their cause. As long as they can crank 'em out of terrorist academy faster than we can find them and kill them, we're only losing ground. If we don't face the anger and frustration that's causing people in and out of the middle east to join their cause, if we stick our heads in the sand and ignore what's plain in front of us, we'll continue to spin our wheels.

Quote:
To say that we should appease these goals is not sound. And historically, it is not likely to dissuade Al Qaeda from attacking us, but may actually increase those attacks.

You're just looking for a strawman here. No one is suggesting we should appease them.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Thursday, May 24, 2007 1:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
You're just looking for a strawman here. No one is suggesting we should appease them.

Cannot treat them as criminals per se and cannot fight them militarily. Cannot appease them either. What are we left with besides total isolation which is not a viable alternative IMHO.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE