Liberal bias in the media

[Stoner]

I couldn't agree more.Â*Â*This guy hit the proverbial nail on the fucking head.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFvU0o30KRU&mode=related&search=

[AlonzoMourning23]

Oooh, the president of the media research center, an organization dedicated to "documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias", thinks the media is liberally biased. How shocking!

[Anti-Racism]

Oooh, the president of the media research center, an organization dedicated to "documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias", thinks the media is liberally biased. How shocking!


So we can ignore the opinions of all liberals as biased, by the same token?

Speak sense, man!

[Stoner]

Here's some more. The Jackie Mason one is great.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-5eQCa55U0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bc0c5ql2gcs

[potter]

So why is conservative bias in the media Ok but not liberal bias.Â*Â*I see quite a bit of both.Â*Â*( I will admit the conservative bias seems to be more pervasive, divisive and hateful RE: Coulter, O'Reilly and Limbaugh)

Is someone afraid of hearing both sides of the story...does someone lack the confidence of their own convictions such that they only want to hear what confirms their pre-conceived notions?

[bobbylien]

I don't really think the media is liberally bias, just anti-administration. They were extremely critical of Clinton, LBJ and Carter too.

[Elrathin]

I don't really think the media is liberally bias, just anti-administration. They were extremely critical of Clinton, LBJ and Carter too.


Bingo, but good luck getting most of the conservatives on this board to believe that.

I remember Clinton when he was president getting slammed quite often in the media, especially over the affair thing.

The media is not there to cover news, they are there to make money. And to do that they need to report things that people WANT to see. Things that make money for news networks are war, sex, and scandal.

The media is not anti-Bush, they are really anti-government. Now talk shows on the other hand that are on networks ARE biased. But that is not the entire media nor is it the majority of the media.

[BoogyMan]

Talk shows are opinion shows and you would expect bias there.

[Elrathin]

Talk shows are opinion shows and you would expect bias there.


True, like I said though they don't represent the media and to call the media itself "liberal biased" is intellectually dishonest. The media is wanting to make money and it does so by showing sex, scandals and wars.

Many conservatives on this board act like the media NEVER reported ANYTHING bad on Clinton, now THAT would bias. Also, Clinton never started an unpopular and costly war, so of course the media is going to cover the bad things on that.

I have no doubt in my mind that if Clinton did the same thing Bush did, and we were in the same situation as now, the media would tear apart Clinton because by doing so it would MAKE MONEY which is THE ENTIRE purpose the media is there. NOTHING MORE.

[BoogyMan]

I have to disagree El. I truly find the media to be liberally minded for the most part. I do full well remember the media and their reporting of president Clinton's problems while in office, but I don't remember them printing top secret information like we see the NYT so fond of doing now.

Just because they have a leaker and can, doesn't mean they should. I believe they do everything they can to damage the administration.

[Stoner]

Many conservatives on this board act like the media NEVER reported ANYTHING bad on Clinton

Do you have a link somewhere where it shows "many" conservatives on this board saying that?

[Elrathin]

Many conservatives on this board act like the media NEVER reported ANYTHING bad on Clinton

Do you have a link somewhere where it shows "many" conservatives on this board saying that?


I said ACT like it, not said it, when you put down your bong and actually read something come back ok?

[Stoner]

Can you show me a link where it shows many conservatives acting that way?

[potter]

I have to disagree El.Â*Â*I truly find the media to be liberally minded for the most part.Â*Â*I do full well remember the media and their reporting of president Clinton's problems while in office, but I don't remember them printing top secret information like we see the NYT so fond of doing now.

Just because they have a leaker and can, doesn't mean they should.Â*Â*I believe they do everything they can to damage the administration.


I have no doubt you do find the media to be liberal biased. If you are a hard core right wing conservative, which you seem to be.Â*Â*Anything left of that, from moderate right all the way left would seem liberal.Â*Â*

Your strict conservative views however are probably only held by maybe 15 - 20% of the population tops.Â*Â*I would guess most Americans fall in the middle somewhere, away from the extremist edges. Since you are so far right you would perceive a bias where most people, including the media, would not. Just as those on the "loony left" fringe would find the media to be biased right.

[Stoner]

I have no doubt you do find the media to be liberal biased

Everyone that's smarter than a bag of hair finds the media to have a strong liberal bias.

[Elrathin]

I have no doubt you do find the media to be liberal biased

Everyone that's smarter than a bag of hair finds the media to have a strong liberal bias.


And anyone who is dumber than a bag of nails finds the media does have a strong liberal bias.

[gpruitt54]

Republican lackeys want the press in this country to roll over like both houses of congress did under republican rule. So, get over it. You republicans have FoxNoise channel, Brush Lintball, Pawn Hannity, and talk radio from coast to coast. But it isn’t enough for you? You want all of us to good little cool-aid drinkers.

Well, get over it. You guys screwed up and the American people kicked you guys out of Congress, and soon the White House.

Butch-up and quit crying!

[Stoner]

And anyone who is dumber than a bag of nails finds the media does have a strong liberal bias.


Yeah, that's great and all but do you have that link?

[lily]

Republican lackeys want the press in this country to roll over like both houses of congress did under republican rule. So, get over it. You republicans have FoxNoise channel, Brush Lintball, Pawn Hannity, and talk radio from coast to coast. But it isn’t enough for you? You want all of us to good little cool-aid drinkers.

Well, get over it. You guys screwed up and the American people kicked you guys out of Congress, and soon the White House.

Butch-up and quit crying!


If they're whining now, gp......can you imagine the kleenex that's going to sell once they start printing the investigations? I mean the tons of missing money is just the begining.

[Elrathin]

Yeah, that's great and all but do you have that link?


A Link proving that the media is not liberally biased? Check out the many articles in regards to Clinton's affair.

That proves that the conservatives, if they think the media is biased, then NOTHING bad would have been said about Clinton. Alas that isn't true and proven that the media itself is not liberal biased.

[Stoner]

Got a link?


A link to support my personal opinion? Nice try. Time to hang it up, son.

Now you on the other hand claimed there were people on this website who actually act like the media NEVER reported ANYTHING bad on Clinton. Got a link or are you going to continue to fence.

See, libs like El are great at making accusations but can never back it up.

I'm sure the next garbage out of his mouth will be anything but a link. Why? Because there is no link supporting his statement. Like his politics, it's all gas.

[Elrathin]

A link to support my personal opinion?Â*Â*Nice try.Â*Â*Time to hang it up, son.

Yes, it is time for you to hang it up.Â*Â*What I said WAS a person opinion and anyone except an idiotic dirtbag doper would have figured that out.


Now you on the other hand claimed there were people on this website who actually act like the media NEVER reported ANYTHING bad on Clinton.Â*Â*Got a link or are you going to continue to fence.

Person opinion, don't like it, suck it.


See, libs like El are great at making accusations but can never back it up.

I'm sure the next garbage out of his mouth will be anything but a link.Â*Â*Why?Â*Â*Because there is no link supporting his statement.Â*Â*Like his politics, it's all gas.


This coming from your doped up remarks.Â*Â*What a Laugh.Â*Â*You are a liberal hater that does nothing but spew shit out of his mouth like a cum filled whore after a money shot.Â*Â*BANG, have another.

Ok, let's calm down before this gets out of hand

[Stoner]

I'm sure the next garbage out of his mouth will be anything but a link.Â*

There you have it.

[Elrathin]

I'm sure the next garbage out of his mouth will be anything but a link.

There you have it.


Why have a link to a personal opinion?

[gpruitt54]

Breaking bias news,

Feb, 20, 2007. Liberal news bias is reporting that Tony Blair is pulling troops out of Iraq. Looks like our primary follower is seeing that staying in Iraq is a bad decision, made by a bad decider.

[BoogyMan]

Breaking bias news,

Feb, 20, 2007. Liberal news bias is reporting that Tony Blair is pulling troops out of Iraq. Looks like our primary follower is seeing that staying in Iraq is a bad decision, made by a bad decider.


I don't guess you will even take an honest look at the fact that the Southern part of Iraq, where most of the British contingent is stationed, is not in the turmoil that other portions of the country find themselves in.

What say ye, gpruitt54?

[gpruitt54]

I don't guess you will even take an honest look at the fact that the Southern part of Iraq, where most of the British contingent is stationed, is not in the turmoil that other portions of the country find themselves in.

What say ye, gpruitt54?


Let me be sure that I understand you.

We are in a war (as it is called). Great Britain is an ally with us in this war. But the regain where the Brits are is quit; you think it is OK to send those much-needed troops home rather than redeploying them to where they are needed? Like Bagdad, where the decider wants to send more American troops. But you believe it is OK to send British troops home to Great Britain. Is this your assertion?

Only in America can an ally pull troops out of a war zone, NOT redeploy them to where they are badly need, and some of us continue to delude ourselves that this is good news.

No, I don’t think that you can call this anything but another failure for the decider.

[BoogyMan]

I don't guess you will even take an honest look at the fact that the Southern part of Iraq, where most of the British contingent is stationed, is not in the turmoil that other portions of the country find themselves in.

What say ye, gpruitt54?


Let me be sure that I understand you.

We are in a war (as it is called). Great Britain is an ally with us in this war. But the regain where the Brits are is quit; you think it is OK to send those much-needed troops home rather than redeploying them to where they are needed? Like Bagdad, where the decider wants to send more American troops. But you believe it is OK to send British troops home to Great Britain. Is this your assertion?

Only in America can an ally pull troops out of a war zone, NOT redeploy them to where they are badly need, and some of us continue to delude ourselves that this is good news.

No, I don’t think that you can call this anything but another failure for the decider.


I guess that answers my question.

[Elrathin]

I don't guess you will even take an honest look at the fact that the Southern part of Iraq, where most of the British contingent is stationed, is not in the turmoil that other portions of the country find themselves in.





Just a thought Boogy, but if your allies with another nation AND you say you support the war, why would you not deploy your troops to the area that IS bad instead of pulling out?

[BoogyMan]

They are not pulling all of their troops Elrathin, it is kind of convenient for you to just leave that out isn't it?

They also are going to remove them based on "conditions on the ground" as I heard on the radio today, so we might even be jumping the gun a bit.

[potter]

Breaking bias news,

Feb, 20, 2007. Liberal news bias is reporting that Tony Blair is pulling troops out of Iraq. Looks like our primary follower is seeing that staying in Iraq is a bad decision, made by a bad decider.


I don't guess you will even take an honest look at the fact that the Southern part of Iraq, where most of the British contingent is stationed, is not in the turmoil that other portions of the country find themselves in.

What say ye, gpruitt54?


My opinion on this is that the Brits aparently have figured out how to handle this mess and have been successful in taming the region. Why are they successful while we have failed so miserably?

Maybe because they don't subscribe to slash, burn and murder.

I say congratulation Brits, glad someone has it figured out.

[lily]

Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1883784,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1)

Take UK troops out of Iraq, senior military told ministers


Army chiefs wanted to move forces to Afghanistan but were prevented for
political reasons

Richard Norton-Taylor
Friday September 29, 2006
The Guardian

Senior military officers have been pressing the government to withdraw
British troops from Iraq and concentrate on what they now regard as a more
worthwhile and winnable battleground in Afghanistan.
They believe there is a limit to what British soldiers can achieve in
southern Iraq and that it is time the Iraqis took responsibility for their
own security, defence sources say. Pressure from military chiefs for an
early and significant cut in the 7,500 British troops in Iraq is also
motivated by extreme pressure being placed on soldiers and those responsible
for training them.

"What is more important, Afghanistan or Iraq?" a senior defence source asked
yesterday. "There is a group within the Ministry of Defence pushing hard to
get troops out of Iraq to get more into Afghanistan."

Military chiefs have been losing patience with the slow progress made in
building a new Iraqi national army and security services. Significantly,
they now say the level of violence in the country will not be a factor
determining when British troops should leave.

The debate has been raging between different groups in the MoD and has
involved the chiefs of staff as well as the permanent joint headquarters,
based in Northwood, north-west London, defence sources say. Army chiefs have
expressed concern about opinion polls showing the increasing unpopularity of
the war and the impact on morale and recruitment.

Political arguments, including strong US pressure against British troop
withdrawals, have won, at least for the moment. US generals in Iraq
privately made it clear they were deeply unhappy about British talk of troop
reductions and complained that the British seemed interested only in the
south of the country.

The debate within the MoD is unusual: arguments about the size and shape of
the defence budget are common, but arguments about the merits of military
deployments overseas are much rarer.

The fierce debate at the highest military and political levels in the MoD is
reflected in a passage of a leaked memo written by a staff officer at the
Defence Academy, an MoD thinktank. It reads: "British armed forces are
effectively held hostage in Iraq - following the failure of the deal being
attempted by COS [chief of staff] to extricate UK armed forces from Iraq on
the basis of 'doing Afghanistan' - and we are now fighting (and arguably
losing or potentially losing) on two fronts."

The MoD, which is downplaying the significance of the memo, said yesterday
it was written by a naval commander, the equivalent of a lieutenant colonel
in the army, and that it was reporting views from a variety of military
sources.

Hopes for early and large cuts in the number of British troops deployed in
southern Iraq have been dashed repeatedly. A year ago, the MoD predicted
that the number of British troops there would have fallen by now to 3,000,
fewer than half the current total.

Military commanders now accept that the number of British troops in southern
Iraq will probably stay at their present level, at least until early next
year. Major General Richard Shirreff, the new commander of British troops
there, was determined to launch what may be the last major operation in Iraq
by British troops. He launched Operation Sinbad, with Iraqi forces, in a
move designed to rid Basra of serious criminals and corrupt officials. The
operation, involving about 3,000 British troops, is expected to continue
until February.

A significant cut in Britain's military presence in Iraq could coincide with
the run-up to the election of a new British prime minister. "We can and will
run both [Iraq and Afghanistan] - for a period of time," a defence official
said last night.

The defence secretary, Des Browne, has recently stressed the importance the
government attaches to Afghanistan and to beating the Taliban and a growing
number of jihadists there. Speaking before a meeting of Nato defence
ministers in Slovenia, he said yesterday Nato had to "step up to the plate
to meet our collective commitment to support the government and people of
Afghanistan". Britain has nearly 5,000 troops in the country.

The Nato ministers agreed on a plan to donate surplus military equipment to
Afghanistan's armed forces but their offers of extra troops did not meet
Nato commanders' target of 2,500, officials said.

[Drocket]

The Nato ministers agreed on a plan to donate surplus military equipment to
Afghanistan's armed forces but their offers of extra troops did not meet
Nato commanders' target of 2,500, officials said.

Is it just me, or is this not phrased quite right? :P

[BoogyMan]

Breaking bias news,

Feb, 20, 2007. Liberal news bias is reporting that Tony Blair is pulling troops out of Iraq. Looks like our primary follower is seeing that staying in Iraq is a bad decision, made by a bad decider.


I don't guess you will even take an honest look at the fact that the Southern part of Iraq, where most of the British contingent is stationed, is not in the turmoil that other portions of the country find themselves in.

What say ye, gpruitt54?


My opinion on this is that the Brits aparently have figured out how to handle this mess and have been successful in taming the region. Why are they successful while we have failed so miserably?

Maybe because they don't subscribe to slash, burn and murder.

I say congratulation Brits, glad someone has it figured out.


So based on NOTHING you have decided that the tactics used by the British are different that the tactics used by our military, and that our military nothing more than a band of murderers?

I hope that is not what you are saying.

[gpruitt54]

So based on NOTHING you have decided that the tactics used by the British are different that the tactics used by our military, and that our military nothing more than a band of murderers?

I hope that is not what you are saying.


You said that. You are assuming, and putting words in my mouth. Try again. But next time, don't assume!

[BoogyMan]

So based on NOTHING you have decided that the tactics used by the British are different that the tactics used by our military, and that our military nothing more than a band of murderers?

I hope that is not what you are saying.


You said that. You are assuming, and putting words in my mouth. Try again. But next time, don't assume!


That is why I made that post, hoping you would expound. You didn't expound on your commentary.

[ECW]

Potter is wrong. Here is proof. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/02/27/nirq127.xml) One more for good measure. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4698251.stm)

[gpruitt54]

My opinion on this is that the Brits aparently have figured out how to handle this mess and have been successful in taming the region. Why are they successful while we have failed so miserably?

Maybe because they don't subscribe to slash, burn and murder.

I say congratulation Brits, glad someone has it figured out.


The Brits have a very long and spotted history in matters of imperialism. We in this country have little experience in such matters. This is fact.

Our most recent history in these matters was our dealings with the Native Americans and our dealings with Mexico and the South West territories. As such, it might seem to some that the cowboy approach is appropriate in all cases. The simple answer to that notion is NO, cowboy tactics are not always best. But what other history do we have to draw upon?

However, we have a great deal of experience with the dynamics of insurgency. Why, because our founding fathers and the colonial army were insurgents against the Brits. This was another insurgency lesson in Great Britons long history. The Brits may in fact have lessons that we would do well to learn.

With longevity, comes wisdom. We need to be wise enough to lead as well as learn history’s lessons.

[ECW]

The Brits were is a part of the country that was pre-dominantly Shia and there was little opposition. The Sunnis that lived there kept their heads down. Sectarian violence was minimal. Good luck versus good tactics are to blame.

[gpruitt54]

That is why I made that post, hoping you would expound. You didn't expound on your commentary.


You were responding to at least two or three persons. State your question(s) to me, without the assumptions.

[BoogyMan]

That is why I made that post, hoping you would expound. You didn't expound on your commentary.


You were responding to at least two or three persons. State your question(s) to me, without the assumptions.



You opined thusly:
My opinion on this is that the Brits aparently have figured out how to handle this mess and have been successful in taming the region. Why are they successful while we have failed so miserably?

Maybe because they don't subscribe to slash, burn and murder.

I say congratulation Brits, glad someone has it figured out.

To which I responded:
So based on NOTHING you have decided that the tactics used by the British are different that the tactics used by our military, and that our military nothing more than a band of murderers?

I hope that is not what you are saying.

and you said:
You said that. You are assuming, and putting words in my mouth. Try again. But next time, don't assume!

Can you see where I got the idea you consider our forces to be murderers?

[potter]

The Brits were is a part of the country that was pre-dominantly Shia and there was little opposition. The Sunnis that lived there kept their heads down. Sectarian violence was minimal. Good luck versus good tactics are to blame.


I stand corrected....

[potter]

Breaking bias news,

Feb, 20, 2007. Liberal news bias is reporting that Tony Blair is pulling troops out of Iraq. Looks like our primary follower is seeing that staying in Iraq is a bad decision, made by a bad decider.


I don't guess you will even take an honest look at the fact that the Southern part of Iraq, where most of the British contingent is stationed, is not in the turmoil that other portions of the country find themselves in.

What say ye, gpruitt54?


My opinion on this is that the Brits aparently have figured out how to handle this mess and have been successful in taming the region.Â*Â*Why are they successful while we have failed so miserably?

Maybe because they don't subscribe to slash, burn and murder.

I say congratulation Brits, glad someone has it figured out.


So based on NOTHING you have decided that the tactics used by the British are different that the tactics used by our military, and that our military nothing more than a band of murderers?

I hope that is not what you are saying.


Boogy, that was my quote dude!


Of course you conveniently leave out "My opinion on this is"

My opinion is based on speaking with brit and Aussie soldiers. It's pretty well known Americans tend to shoot first and ask questions later....or in this case decimate a country and then look for the truth of the matter.

Thank you ECW for clarifying the issue.

[BoogyMan]

Breaking bias news,

Feb, 20, 2007. Liberal news bias is reporting that Tony Blair is pulling troops out of Iraq. Looks like our primary follower is seeing that staying in Iraq is a bad decision, made by a bad decider.


I don't guess you will even take an honest look at the fact that the Southern part of Iraq, where most of the British contingent is stationed, is not in the turmoil that other portions of the country find themselves in.

What say ye, gpruitt54?


My opinion on this is that the Brits aparently have figured out how to handle this mess and have been successful in taming the region. Why are they successful while we have failed so miserably?

Maybe because they don't subscribe to slash, burn and murder.

I say congratulation Brits, glad someone has it figured out.


So based on NOTHING you have decided that the tactics used by the British are different that the tactics used by our military, and that our military nothing more than a band of murderers?

I hope that is not what you are saying.


Boogy, that was my quote dude!


Of course you conveniently leave out "My opinion on this is"

My opinion is based on speaking with brit and Aussie soldiers. It's pretty well known Americans tend to shoot first and ask questions later....or in this case decimate a country and then look for the truth of the matter.

Thank you ECW for clarifying the issue.


In light of your commentary please let me first say I goofed on attribution of the quote to the wrong person! My bad gpruitt.

Now, you POTTER (notice the question now being aimed at the right guy) consider our military murderers?

[potter]

Breaking bias news,

Feb, 20, 2007. Liberal news bias is reporting that Tony Blair is pulling troops out of Iraq. Looks like our primary follower is seeing that staying in Iraq is a bad decision, made by a bad decider.


I don't guess you will even take an honest look at the fact that the Southern part of Iraq, where most of the British contingent is stationed, is not in the turmoil that other portions of the country find themselves in.

What say ye, gpruitt54?


My opinion on this is that the Brits aparently have figured out how to handle this mess and have been successful in taming the region.Â*Â*Why are they successful while we have failed so miserably?

Maybe because they don't subscribe to slash, burn and murder.

I say congratulation Brits, glad someone has it figured out.


So based on NOTHING you have decided that the tactics used by the British are different that the tactics used by our military, and that our military nothing more than a band of murderers?

I hope that is not what you are saying.


Boogy, that was my quote dude!


Of course you conveniently leave out "My opinion on this is"

My opinion is based on speaking with brit and Aussie soldiers. It's pretty well known Americans tend to shoot first and ask questions later....or in this case decimate a country and then look for the truth of the matter.

Thank you ECW for clarifying the issue.


In light of your commentary please let me first say I goofed on attribution of the quote to the wrong person!Â*Â*My bad gpruitt.

Now, you POTTER (notice the question now being aimed at the right guy) consider our military murderers?


I consider some members of our military murderers (and rapist as well) and the justice system seems to be taking care of them well.Â*Â*I consider our CIC to be a war criminal. The military is just "following orders"

I consider our tactic of bombing the hell out of Iraq who was no threat to us, and damn the civilians, tourture, rendition, and imprisonment without trial or charges to be morally bankrupt and traitorous to the America way.

Cheney knew todays Iraq would happen if we invaded back in the 90's, so he knew exactly what he was doing and he knew exactly that Iraq would be in the mess it is today. The longer this mess drags on the more money he and his croneys make. I would like to think that you would frown unpon falsley declaring war for profit.

[potter]

Cheney knew back in '91 invading Iraq would result in a quagmire.

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/helenthomas/10956246/detail.html

After the first Persian Gulf War ended in March 1991, Cheney -- then serving as defense secretary in the first Bush administration -- was asked on ABC-TV why Operation Desert Storm had not gone all the way to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

He replied prophetically: "I think for us to get American military personnel involved in a civil war inside Iraq would literally be a quagmire. Once we got to Baghdad, what would we do? Who would we put in power? What kind of government? Would it be a Sunni government, a Shia government, a Kurdish government?

"Would it be secular, along the lines of the Baath party? Would it be fundamentalist Islamic?" he asked. "I do not think the United States wants to have U.S. military forces accept casualties and accept responsibility of trying to govern Iraq. It makes no sense at all."

[BoogyMan]

I consider some members of our military murderers (and rapist as well) and the justice system seems to be taking care of them well. I consider our CIC to be a war criminal. The military is just "following orders"

I consider our tactic of bombing the hell out of Iraq who was no threat to us, and damn the civilians, tourture, rendition, and imprisonment without trial or charges to be morally bankrupt and traitorous to the America way.

Cheney knew todays Iraq would happen if we invaded back in the 90's, so he knew exactly what he was doing and he knew exactly that Iraq would be in the mess it is today. The longer this mess drags on the more money he and his croneys make. I would like to think that you would frown unpon falsley declaring war for profit.

I have heard a lot of liberals making commentary about our policy being to torture those we imprison but have seen little if any proof Potter.

We thought that Iraq was a threat at the time, as did many other countries.

Armchair quarterbacking from a position of 20/20 hindsight does no-one any good.

[Elrathin]

I have heard a lot of liberals making commentary about our policy being to torture those we imprison but have seen little if any proof Potter.


Proof has been shown, the difference is YOU don't consider it torture.
As always I invite you to have these methods used on you day after day and then say that.

[BoogyMan]

There has been no proof shown of torture. The only rub is that YOU consider tactics that have been used for years by many governments to be torture and wish to drag the country through the mud to redefine what torture really is.

[Elrathin]

There has been no proof shown of torture. The only rub is that YOU consider tactics that have been used for years by many governments to be torture and wish to drag the country through the mud to redefine what torture really is.

Well then Boogy, I invite you to have these methods done on you day after day after day for 6 months, then let's hear what you have to say about it ok?

[BoogyMan]

I would invite you to open your eyes to the fact that those tactics were not used on mild mannered innocents. They are used on suspected terrorists or murder bombers. If you cannot tell the difference there is no hope for you.

[Elrathin]

I would invite you to open your eyes to the fact that those tactics were not used on mild mannered innocents. They are used on suspected terrorists or murder bombers. If you cannot tell the difference there is no hope for you.


And regardless of who they are used on if you can't see that some of the methods used are torture, there is no hope for you.

Again, just volunteer to have them done on you for 6 months Boogy and let us see if you still call it not torture ok?

[BoogyMan]

I guess there is no liberally minded, wishy-washy, ideology before country, self loathing hope for me. I must be in good shape! :D

[Elrathin]

I guess there is no liberally minded, wishy-washy, ideology before country, self loathing hope for me. I must be in good shape! :D


Hey like I said Boogy, have it done to you for 6 months straight, then come back and let us know it's not torture ok? Until then, it must be nice not to live in reality for you.

[BoogyMan]

Won't happen El, I am not a terrorist. It is sad that you cannot make that differentiation.

[Stoner]

it must be nice not to live in reality


You're the one who thinks there is no liberal bias in the media and that we never found WMDs in Iraq.

Sounds like to me that Boogy isn't the one having problems with reality.

[ECW]

I would invite you to open your eyes to the fact that those tactics were not used on mild mannered innocents.Â*Â*They are used on suspected terrorists or murder bombers.Â*Â*If you cannot tell the difference there is no hope for you.


Meyer Arar would disagree with your assertion that torture was not used on mild mannered innocents. Proof. (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/25/world/americas/25arar.html?ex=1316836800&en=ba72056041c00249&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss) Further proof. (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050214fa_fact6?050214fa_fact6)

[Drocket]

That's the problem with torturing 'suspected' terrorists - 'suspected' is a weasel word, one that may have very little to do with actual guilt.

[ECW]

That's the problem with torturing 'suspected' terrorists - 'suspected' is a weasel word, one that may have very little to do with actual guilt.


Given that this administration (you know, the one that wants to bring democracy to the middle east) can't even put any of these suspects on trial and has denied them habeas corpus for almost five years now, they have no problem in kidnapping and torturing innocent 'suspects' in the name of the War On Terror. Ironic, isn't it?

[BoogyMan]

I would invite you to open your eyes to the fact that those tactics were not used on mild mannered innocents. They are used on suspected terrorists or murder bombers. If you cannot tell the difference there is no hope for you.


Meyer Arar would disagree with your assertion that torture was not used on mild mannered innocents. Proof. (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/25/world/americas/25arar.html?ex=1316836800&en=ba72056041c00249&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss) Further proof. (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050214fa_fact6?050214fa_fact6)


Those tactics weren't used by the US ECW, we deported the guy, we didn't torture him. Take of the self loathing specs for a second and see the truth.

[Elrathin]

You're the one who thinks there is no liberal bias in the media and that we never found WMDs in Iraq.

Sounds like to me that Boogy isn't the one having problems with reality.


Still waiting for your article to prove those STOCKPILES of WMDs were found there Stoner, get cracking on that instead of smoking your bong.

As for liberal bias, that was already proved to you to be an incorrect statement of yours. But please do keep smoking that herb and being delusional.

[Elrathin]

Won't happen El, I am not a terrorist.

But of course we would never expect you to put up your rhetoric.


It is sad that you cannot make that differentiation.


]No what is sad is you saying It's not torture, but then you won't go through it yourself to prove it isn't.

[BoogyMan]

Elrathin, you support homosexuality don't you.? I don't support it. By your failed logic in this discussion you need to begin to practice homosexuality in order for me to take your support of it seriously.

[Elrathin]

By your failed logic in this discussion you need to begin to practice homosexuality in order for me to take your support of it seriously.


Sorry Boogy, I accept that I don't know whether getting fucked in the butt hurts or not. So I don't comment on that. I also don't claim what it is like to have sex with someone of the same sex.

I do however, know what it is like to be in a room with extreme temperatures going up and down, have a fear of dogs, and having music played soo loud that you cannot sleep. I also know what it is like to be in a place where you cannot contact your family for over a month.

Try again please, you're reaching. The only failed logic, is the one you have presented saying you are an expert on what torture is there and you yourself won't go through it.

[BoogyMan]

I am using your same "logic" on you Elrathin. I know you don't like your own tactics, but life is just tough sometimes.

YOU claimed I am an expert on torture El, not me.

[Elrathin]

I am using your same "logic" on you Elrathin. I know you don't like your own tactics, but life is just tough sometimes.

Sorry Boogy, I already showed you didn't use my logic, try again. The logic I used is I have experienced some of the stuff used. What you said goes NOWHERE near that.


YOU claimed I am an expert on torture El, not me.


Out of experience for some of the tactics used, yes. I have had them done before, have you? Like I said Boogy, if their not torture, why don't we use them on civilians here in the U.S. then to exact a confession? The answer: Because people would consider that torture.

It's not a hard concept to understand there Boogy.

[Harry01]

I have always made it clear that there is nothing called Press Freedom. The media as a profession like law,medicine etc should be treated as such and should not be given the freedom they foolishly think they deserve!!! Press Freedom to do what? To lie?To spread malicious propaganda?To promote presidential hopefulls like Bush only for the electorate to see that it was cheated after such mongrels are elected?
Lets get real, the media is self-centred.They want to hide behind the fact that they are there to mantain free speech when they do but the opposite and dance to the tune of their political owners......my foot!!!!

[AlonzoMourning23]

I have always made it clear that there is nothing called Press Freedom

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[potter]

I would invite you to open your eyes to the fact that those tactics were not used on mild mannered innocents.Â*Â*They are used on suspected terrorists or murder bombers.Â*Â*If you cannot tell the difference there is no hope for you.



And what proof do you have of this? None have ever been brought to trial. Why can't they put these people on trial? Have they no sufficient evidence? If not, where is their evidence that they should have been tortured in the first place? I would think they have evidence enough to rendition and torture someone they would have enough evidence to put them on trial.

[BoogyMan]

Potter, we haven't tortured anyone. Hostile battlefield combatants should not be openly tried.

[piratemonkey]

Potter, we haven't tortured anyone.Â*Â*Hostile battlefield combatants should not be openly tried.


So Jose Padilla shouldn't get a trial? The US Courts seem to disagree with you.

Or was he not a "Hostile battlefield combatant?"

If he wasn't, why was he tortured, according to every international convention?

[piratemonkey]

Potter, we haven't tortured anyone.Â*Â*Hostile battlefield combatants should not be openly tried.


Maybe you haven't heard of the Canadian, Maher Arar.

Was the airplane he was taken off of to be tortured a "Hostile battlefield?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar

[potter]

Boogy, I gather that you see nothing wrong with rendition, supposed "torture" and imprisoning people without trial on heresay....etc...

I may then assume you would have no problem incorporating these methods within our own criminal justuce system correct? To help it along the government could also pay any citizen 5 grand to rat out anyone they "think" is a bad guy too. Then hold them in prison forever without trial just in case......

Of course we should also torture them all until they confess...

You would have no problem with this would you? After all, they are potential threats to us.

[BoogyMan]

Potter, we haven't tortured anyone. Hostile battlefield combatants should not be openly tried.


Maybe you haven't heard of the Canadian, Maher Arar.

Was the airplane he was taken off of to be tortured a "Hostile battlefield?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar


Excuse me pirate, the guy was deported. What someone else does in that case is our business?

[piratemonkey]

Maybe you haven't heard of the Canadian, Maher Arar.

Was the airplane he was taken off of to be tortured a "Hostile battlefield?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar


Excuse me pirate, the guy was deported.Â*Â*What someone else does in that case is our business?

The man was sent to Syria.Â*Â*He's a Canadian citizen.Â*Â*Why did we "deport" him to Syria and not Canada?

1) He wasn't just deported.Â*Â*He was a victim of Bush's extraordinary rendition program.

2) He was rendered without due process or established cause.

3) He was rendered to a specific country, specifically so he could be tortured.Â*Â*(Otherwise, why couldn't we have kept him in the US or sent him to Canada?)

From an ethical standpoint, you're in a completely contradictory position.Â*Â*You're saying it's not OK to torture, but it's OK to arrest someone and render him to a country known for torture so that he can be interrogated.

Was it OK to turn someone into the authorities under Stalin, just because you weren't actually going to run the gulag that person was going to be sent to?

[lily]

So Jose Padilla shouldn't get a trial?Â*Â*The US Courts seem to disagree with you.

Or was he not a "Hostile battlefield combatant?"

If he wasn't, why was he tortured, according to every international convention?


Pirate, you bring up a good question. I doubt that Padilla will ever see a trial. All this "no torture" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6388339.stm) may have left him mentally unable to go to court. But we shall see, according to another article the judge is going to bring in witnesses. Since everything is "secret".



Dr Hegarty said after a 22-hour examination of the suspect that Mr Padilla
had suffered from intense stress and anxiety following three-and-a-half
years in custody as an "enemy combatant".

Mr Padilla claims he was tortured while being held on a brig at Charleston,
South Carolina, a charge that officials deny.

The psychiatrist said Mr Padilla suffered from a facial tic, problems with
social contact, lack of concentration and a form of Stockholm Syndrome, by
which people in captivity sympathise with their captors.

[BoogyMan]

Well by all means Lily, lets take the word of an accused terror cell member. I guess they tortured him before and after the dental services he was being given?

[J.Foster]

I apologize if what I have to say has already been discussed in previous pages because I only read through the first four pages and the conversation did not seem to be getting anywhere.

First of all I just need to say one thing quickly. I believe it is a mistake to attempt to back-up an opinion with an article found on a website. Essentially, an article is just another persons opinion with selective facts. Instead of posting a link to an entire article to read, highlight and explain cited facts from that article. We can go forever posting links to articles that support a shared opinion.

Secondly, I want to express my belief on the topic at hand here. I agree with the person that stated the news corporations need to make money and, therefor, focus on the negative stories to draw attention. Arguing over whether it is liberal media biased or conservative media biased is not the issue. The bottom line is if we spend 95% of our time finding and focusing in on the negatives, it will re-ensure encouragement to the terrorists and create the illusion they are beating the worlds most powerful nation. In effect, it gives them confidence and pushes them to do more. The terrorists are not stupid. They are perfectly aware of our media situation in that all they have to do is go blow-up a car bomb and kill two soldiers and WHAM!!...the next day it is all over the front page of the newspaper. On the contrast, it takes the President ten times the amount of work to get the equivalent level of praised attention.

Don't misunderstand me, I am not saying I believe we should all pretend everything is fine and dandy and ignore problems. I am just saying that it is my belief that our media is playing a huge part in the terrorists psychology and we should try a more balanced approach when it comes to the exposure of what we focus on or else we are just shooting ourselves in the foot.

[Harry01]

The media must never be trusted by any person with not five but even just two senses.It can make you today and break you tommorrow!!!!!!
PRESS FREEDOM;WHOSE FREEDOM?

[lily]

First of all I just need to say one thing quickly. I believe it is a mistake to attempt to back-up an opinion with an article found on a website. Essentially, an article is just another persons opinion with selective facts. Instead of posting a link to an entire article to read, highlight and explain cited facts from that article. We can go forever posting links to articles that support a shared opinion.


I understand what you are saying J, but the article was put up there to show facts. If you think they are selected facts, then that's fine, but I've also noticed no one has bothered to dispute the facts, with other facts.

Oh and welcome!:D

[ECW]

I would invite you to open your eyes to the fact that those tactics were not used on mild mannered innocents.Â*Â*They are used on suspected terrorists or murder bombers.Â*Â*If you cannot tell the difference there is no hope for you.


Meyer Arar would disagree with your assertion that torture was not used on mild mannered innocents. Proof. (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/25/world/americas/25arar.html?ex=1316836800&en=ba72056041c00249&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss) Further proof. (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050214fa_fact6?050214fa_fact6)


Those tactics weren't used by the US ECW, we deported the guy, we didn't torture him.Â*Â*Take of the self loathing specs for a second and see the truth.


Read the articles. We orchestrated his kidnapping and transported him to a country we knew beforehand would torture him (and did) to elicit information he did not have. We were complicit all the way down the line. If we were going to deport him, he should have gone to Canada. He was a Canadian citizen, after all. Why didn't we send him there? Read the article and see the "evidence" that was used to justify his "extraordinary rendition" to Syria. Your failure to read cited proof and continuing to argue from a point of ignorance puts you on Stoner's level. I expected better from you than crap like "self loathing specs." What's next? Some shite like, "You really hate America, don't you?"

[BoogyMan]

Since we didn't torture the guy and you have made up your mind what good will continuing the debate do?

The US has not released its evidence that supported his deportation, so I am wondering where your surety that he is NOT what was claimed comes from?

[ECW]

From the numerous articles about him, the fact that the Canadian government apologized and paid him for letting the Americans abduct him, the Syrians who said he had no information and was not affiliated with terrorism in any way and from Mr Arar himself. Even when pressed by the Canadians, our government refused to budge one inch from their assertion that he is a terrorist despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Our "evidence" that he was a terrorist was not divulged claiming national security concerns (just like Richard Nixon used to do when he had to cover his naked ass). It goes to the "Never Admit You Are Wrong" theory of doing things because it emboldens the terrorists line of horseshit that the Bushies like to feed ya. Sorry. I'm not hungry.

[BoogyMan]

From the numerous articles about him, the fact that the Canadian government apologized and paid him for letting the Americans abduct him, the Syrians who said he had no information and was not affiliated with terrorism in any way and from Mr Arar himself. Even when pressed by the Canadians, our government refused to budge one inch from their assertion that he is a terrorist despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, evidence that they would not divulge claiming national security concerns (just like Richard Nixon used to do when he had to cover his naked ass). It goes to the "Never Admit You Are Wrong" theory of doing things because it emboldens the terrorists line of horseshit that the Bushies like to feed ya. Sorry. I'm not hungry.


You speak as if you know what our government has against the guy. If so, spill it.

[AlonzoMourning23]

You speak as if you know what our government has against the guy. If so, spill it.


You speak as if the government knows what it has against the guy.

[Elrathin]

You speak as if you know what our government has against the guy. If so, spill it.


Boogy you have to admit that when the Canadian government apologizes for this, it means a mistake happened.

Whether you want to admit it or not is another story. In this case 1 + 1 = 2 and you want it to equal 5 for some reason. We made a mistake.

[BoogyMan]

You speak as if you know what our government has against the guy. If so, spill it.


Boogy you have to admit that when the Canadian government apologizes for this, it means a mistake happened.

Whether you want to admit it or not is another story. In this case 1 + 1 = 2 and you want it to equal 5 for some reason. We made a mistake.


The point I am trying to make is that the Canadian government is no more credible than the US government. Our government will not release the information for some reason, I am willing to give my country the benefit of the doubt.

[Elrathin]

Our government will not release the information for some reason, I am willing to give my country the benefit of the doubt.


You ever think for once that the reason the U.S. government won't give out the reason is cause they made a mistake?

I'm sorry Boogy, but in THIS CASE, it is apparent to me that the U.S. made the mistake.

In the military I used to work with classified information and I know for a fact when the government wants to declassify something for a good reason they can do it quite quickly. MANY times I had to help declassify information when I was in South Korea for the South Koreans.

In this case I firmly believe that it is because we made the error that they do not want it declassified. Take that for what it's worth I don't really care at this point what you believe.

[BoogyMan]

You didn't care what I thought to start with El, for that matter your belief means nothing to me in this regard either.

I disagree with you.

[Elrathin]

You didn't care what I thought to start with El

Actually I did until you started calling people's thoughts asinine because you don't like them and they disagree with yours.


for that matter your belief means nothing to me in this regard either.

That's fine by me I'm not hear to gain popularity.


I disagree with you.


Another choice by you that is ok. Just don't be surprised when it is found out our government made the error after investigations are pushed through.

[ECW]

From the numerous articles about him, the fact that the Canadian government apologized and paid him for letting the Americans abduct him, the Syrians who said he had no information and was not affiliated with terrorism in any way and from Mr Arar himself. Even when pressed by the Canadians, our government refused to budge one inch from their assertion that he is a terrorist despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, evidence that they would not divulge claiming national security concerns (just like Richard Nixon used to do when he had to cover his naked ass). It goes to the "Never Admit You Are Wrong" theory of doing things because it emboldens the terrorists line of horseshit that the Bushies like to feed ya. Sorry. I'm not hungry.


You speak as if you know what our government has against the guy.Â*Â*If so, spill it.


They have a bogus link that has been proven wrong and the Neocon idiots who had him arrested in the first place don't have the balls to fess up their fuck-up. Read the articles, Boogy. You'll understand.

[BoogyMan]

I read the articles ECW, I just don't accept your premise that any government is more credible than ours.

[ECW]

Thanks, Boogy. I would have believed that six years ago as well but not anymore. Too many lies have been told, too big a bill of goods has been sold, too many soldiers bodies are cold for me to not accept overwhelming evidence that we did this man wrong.