Saddam caught?!!!
- Thread starter Brian King
- Start date
P
pknox
Guest
Thanks Rich - great info.
That definitely answers one of the questions I have been asked and previously didn't have an answer to - i.e. does anybody get the $25 mil? Evidently not.
That definitely answers one of the questions I have been asked and previously didn't have an answer to - i.e. does anybody get the $25 mil? Evidently not.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
I just went digging for some information on Occidental Oil and Gas ... and who did I find an interesting article about ... Al Gore. Seems that the former vice presidents' father served on the OXY board of directors for 28 years (+/-). Never mind that fact that Jr. managed to sell OXY a huge stake in the Naval Petroleum reservers in a closed-bid process.
So let's see if I follow this thread correctly .... Al Gore (Sr. & Jr.), George Bush (Sr. & Jr.) and Lyndon Johnson's family are all involved in this same petroleum company. All appear to have done dastardly deeds to benefit the company.
Hmmm ... Let's cut the tax rate on corporate dividends ... Hmmm
This seems to support the hypothesis that our government is run by a single political party ... Republocrats ... or is that Democans?
I thought we got rid of the hereditary system of governance two centuries ago ... give or take.....
Mike
So let's see if I follow this thread correctly .... Al Gore (Sr. & Jr.), George Bush (Sr. & Jr.) and Lyndon Johnson's family are all involved in this same petroleum company. All appear to have done dastardly deeds to benefit the company.
Hmmm ... Let's cut the tax rate on corporate dividends ... Hmmm
This seems to support the hypothesis that our government is run by a single political party ... Republocrats ... or is that Democans?
I thought we got rid of the hereditary system of governance two centuries ago ... give or take.....
Mike
Check this out... a new consipiracy theory... for those who love 'em... geez
http://rense.com/general45/held.htm
http://rense.com/general45/held.htm
Ender
Black Belt
"I'm concerned about the perception – and the reality – that the Times is a liberal, 'politically correct' newspaper," he began. "Generally speaking, we deny this, but lately we have proved our critics right."
what part of "AND THE REALITY" don't you understand?...He admits that the reality of the liberal bias is true...and as far as the second part...EVEN the MAJORITY of the Democrats agree there is a liberal bias, which is truly enlightening. The newspapers and congress even admit there is a liberal bias. Doesn't matter if you believe jack or not...*L
Vote Green
Read the disclaimer. That theory is crap.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
I did last time ... and look where it got us .... Ouch!
<chuckle>
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
Ender, well, I see your point about the LA Times article. However, I also see that you skipped the stuff about Congress--and I might add, manners are a good thing.
It's convenient for the Right to portray itself as a victim, a minority--always an interesting tactic, since these are the guys who constantly claim that we live in a culture in which everybody claims minority and victim status.
I also can't help but find it hilarious to read the claim that "the media," suffers from overwhelming liberal bias. Musta been all those articles against death by lapidation, or suggesting that the Child Labor laws were a good thing.
Which media would this be, exactly? Fox, owned by Rupert Murdoch? AM talk radio? The major networks, all owned by really, really big corporations? The "Arizona Republic?" All the TV preacher stations? "Reader's Digest?" "National Review?" the McLaughlin Report? "Crossfire," on CNN?
Who are these liberal boogeymen that we're supposed to live in fear of?
Liberal? Poppycock.
And a question: could you please offer a definition of the word?
It's convenient for the Right to portray itself as a victim, a minority--always an interesting tactic, since these are the guys who constantly claim that we live in a culture in which everybody claims minority and victim status.
I also can't help but find it hilarious to read the claim that "the media," suffers from overwhelming liberal bias. Musta been all those articles against death by lapidation, or suggesting that the Child Labor laws were a good thing.
Which media would this be, exactly? Fox, owned by Rupert Murdoch? AM talk radio? The major networks, all owned by really, really big corporations? The "Arizona Republic?" All the TV preacher stations? "Reader's Digest?" "National Review?" the McLaughlin Report? "Crossfire," on CNN?
Who are these liberal boogeymen that we're supposed to live in fear of?
Liberal? Poppycock.
And a question: could you please offer a definition of the word?
Cruentus
Grandmaster
lol
I actually think that the whole Green Party "upset" actually helped out quite a lot. I think that the Democrates are bringing issues to the table because of the Green Party "stealing" a few % points from Gore in 00'. That is a good start, at least. Both Gore and Bush were not addressing issues that needed to be addressed. I gauruntee that in 04' many of these issues will be on the table. Change doesn't happend overnight, but I think that Nader knew exactly what he was doing. Love him or hate him, he's still a friggin genius!
I know their real names.
The Demon Pubs :rofl:
George Washington turned down the title and position of King. So, yes on paper we got rid of heredity leadership.
:asian:
Ender
Black Belt
RMCRobertson,
There wasn't anything to say about the congressional poll. Most Republicans believe there is a bias...and so do the Democrats 53%. Those are the facts...not much else to add...shrug.
The discussion I was refering to is whether or not the media has a leftist bias. It most obviously does, most journalists vote for Democrats and it shows up in their reporting. I can cite example after example. They have collectively lost their objectivity and can no longer be "Keepers of the Truth". Any time a news shows gives a conclusion, it is being bias. Just report the facts, and let the public decide.
You can try to divert or obfuscate by trying to find a victim, but the facts remain. Network and newsprint media provide the majority of news to the public and they slant to the left. I realize Fox slants a bit more to the right of center, but they are one network against several like MSNBC, CBS, NPR, CNN etc. If it was to be even, we would have more networks like Fox. Fox News grew out of necessity. Had the Networks been evenhanded, Fox would never have been the success that it is.
There wasn't anything to say about the congressional poll. Most Republicans believe there is a bias...and so do the Democrats 53%. Those are the facts...not much else to add...shrug.
The discussion I was refering to is whether or not the media has a leftist bias. It most obviously does, most journalists vote for Democrats and it shows up in their reporting. I can cite example after example. They have collectively lost their objectivity and can no longer be "Keepers of the Truth". Any time a news shows gives a conclusion, it is being bias. Just report the facts, and let the public decide.
You can try to divert or obfuscate by trying to find a victim, but the facts remain. Network and newsprint media provide the majority of news to the public and they slant to the left. I realize Fox slants a bit more to the right of center, but they are one network against several like MSNBC, CBS, NPR, CNN etc. If it was to be even, we would have more networks like Fox. Fox News grew out of necessity. Had the Networks been evenhanded, Fox would never have been the success that it is.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
It's called 'The Big Lie'. If you just keep repeating it often enough, soon everyone will believe it.
There is no liberal bias in the media. If you look at the run up to the aggression in Iraq, a LIBERAL BIAS in the media would have allowed for opposing points of view on the air. Please think back, research back, do the math; compare the number of stories in favor of the aggression compared to the number of storiesopposing an invasion.
Opinion polls do not measure bias, they measure opinions. If you want to measure bias, measure the stories reported by the media.
Mike
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
I'd still like to see a definition of, "Liberal." As far as I can tell, you take the word to mean, "anybody who disagrees with me."
I'm sorry, but it's absurd to call CNN and MSNBC (!) liberal, let alone left wing. based on what? Rush's claims?
M. Edward's quite right: it's an OPINION poll, not a look at reality.
As for the idea that NPR is hopelessly liberal, that's hilarious. Have you actually watched the channels? I mean, for crying out loud...what's the problem? "Barney?" William Bennett's, "Readings From the Book of Morals?" "Religion Week in Review" "The Nightly Business Report?"
Watch the shows that probably would bug you--"POV" and "Frontline," before you make these claims.
Look, you can yell about this all you like. But tell me: when was the media, "fair and balanced," in your opinion? back when Walter Cronkheit was running around on D-Day? When Dan Rather was a kid? When WAS this happy time?
I'm sorry, but it's absurd to call CNN and MSNBC (!) liberal, let alone left wing. based on what? Rush's claims?
M. Edward's quite right: it's an OPINION poll, not a look at reality.
As for the idea that NPR is hopelessly liberal, that's hilarious. Have you actually watched the channels? I mean, for crying out loud...what's the problem? "Barney?" William Bennett's, "Readings From the Book of Morals?" "Religion Week in Review" "The Nightly Business Report?"
Watch the shows that probably would bug you--"POV" and "Frontline," before you make these claims.
Look, you can yell about this all you like. But tell me: when was the media, "fair and balanced," in your opinion? back when Walter Cronkheit was running around on D-Day? When Dan Rather was a kid? When WAS this happy time?
M
MisterMike
Guest
No, but there is Democrat bias in the media. As soon as the Democrat politicians start opening their mouths against anything, every major media channel is there to report it, and support it.
It's always easier to roll the tape of some Democrat bashing the war. But the supporters of the war they bring ON the news are there so they can throw pointed questions at them. War never looks good, and never ends soon enough. So by walking on the set, the war supporters already have that stacked against them.
Never mind the fact we never hear of how many of THEM we are killing, or how many targets we aquire. Just the roadside bombs.
But the news sluts only pander to the ignorant. It really doesn't matter at this point.
Perhaps, from your comments, its morally correct to be against this war. How many children are dying from whose weapons of mass destruction?
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
Sorry, Mike, but where are you GETTING this nonsense from?
A couple of points.
General Electric, that hotbed of liberals, owns NBC. Huh.
Here's a piece from the Op-Ed section of today's "New York Times," that hotbed of liberal wackiness and Democratic bastion.
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Dreams and Glory
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: December 16, 2003
Howard Dean is the only guy who goes to the Beverly Hills area for a gravitas implant. He went to the St. Regis Hotel, a mile from Rodeo Drive, to deliver a major foreign policy speech, and suddenly Dr. Angry turned into the Rev. Dull and Worthy.
The guy who has been inveighing against the Iraq war as the second coming of Vietnam spent his time talking about intelligence agency coordination as if he had been suckled at the Council on Foreign Relations. The guy who just a few days ago stood next to Al Gore as the former vice president called Iraq the worst mistake in American history has suddenly turned sober.
Sure, he did get off a classic Deanism. He conceded that the capture of Saddam had made American soldiers safer, but, unwilling to venture near graciousness, he continued, "But the capture of Saddam has not made America safer."
Still, the speech was respectable and serious. Coming on the same day as President Bush's hastily called news conference, it affords us the opportunity to compare the two men's approaches to the war on terror.
And indeed, there is one big difference. George Bush fundamentally sees the war on terror as a moral and ideological confrontation between the forces of democracy and the forces of tyranny. Howard Dean fundamentally sees the war on terror as a law and order issue. At the end of his press conference, Bush uttered a most un-Deanlike sentiment:
"I believe, firmly believe — and you've heard me say this a lot, and I say it a lot because I truly believe it — that freedom is the almighty God's gift to every person — every man and woman who lives in this world. That's what I believe. And the arrest of Saddam Hussein changed the equation in Iraq. Justice was being delivered to a man who defied that gift from the Almighty to the people of Iraq."
Bush believes that God has endowed all human beings with certain inalienable rights, the most important of which is liberty. Every time he is called upon to utter an unrehearsed thought, he speaks of the war on terror as a conflict between those who seek to advance liberty to realize justice, and those who oppose the advance of liberty: radical Islamists who fear religious liberty, dictators who fear political liberty and reactionaries who fear liberty for women.
Furthermore, Bush believes the U.S. has a unique role to play in this struggle to complete democracy's triumph over tyranny and so drain the swamp of terror.
Judging by his speech yesterday, Dean does not believe the U.S. has an exceptional role to play in world history. Dean did not argue that the U.S. should aggressively promote democracy in the Middle East and around the world.
Instead, he emphasized that the U.S. should strive to strengthen global institutions. He argued that the war on terror would be won when international alliances worked together to choke off funds for terrorists and enforce a global arms control regime to keep nuclear, chemical and biological materials away from terror groups.
Dean is not a modern-day Woodrow Wilson. He is not a mushy idealist who dreams of a world government. Instead, he spoke of international institutions as if they were big versions of the National Governors Association, as places where pragmatic leaders can go to leverage their own resources and solve problems.
The world Dean described is largely devoid of grand conflicts or moral, cultural and ideological divides. It is a world without passionate nationalism, a world in which Europe and the United States are not riven by any serious cultural differences, in which sensible people from around the globe would find common solutions, if only Bush weren't so unilateral.
At first, the Bush worldview seems far more airy-fairy and idealistic. The man talks about God, and good versus evil. But in reality, Dean is the more idealistic and naïve one. Bush at least recognizes the existence of intellectual and cultural conflict. He acknowledges that different value systems are incompatible.
In the world Dean describes, people, other than a few bizarre terrorists, would be working together if not for Bush. In the Dean worldview, all problems are matters of technique and negotiation.
Dean tried yesterday to show how sober and serious he could be. In fact, he has never appeared so much the dreamer, so clueless about the intellectual and cultural divides that really do confront us and with which real presidents have to grapple.
What in the heck are you talking about?
Could I also ask how you define "liberal?" I have to say, again, that it seems to me that "liberal simply means, "anybody who doesn't agree with my politics and precepts one hundred per cent."
A couple of points.
General Electric, that hotbed of liberals, owns NBC. Huh.
Here's a piece from the Op-Ed section of today's "New York Times," that hotbed of liberal wackiness and Democratic bastion.
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Dreams and Glory
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: December 16, 2003
Howard Dean is the only guy who goes to the Beverly Hills area for a gravitas implant. He went to the St. Regis Hotel, a mile from Rodeo Drive, to deliver a major foreign policy speech, and suddenly Dr. Angry turned into the Rev. Dull and Worthy.
The guy who has been inveighing against the Iraq war as the second coming of Vietnam spent his time talking about intelligence agency coordination as if he had been suckled at the Council on Foreign Relations. The guy who just a few days ago stood next to Al Gore as the former vice president called Iraq the worst mistake in American history has suddenly turned sober.
Sure, he did get off a classic Deanism. He conceded that the capture of Saddam had made American soldiers safer, but, unwilling to venture near graciousness, he continued, "But the capture of Saddam has not made America safer."
Still, the speech was respectable and serious. Coming on the same day as President Bush's hastily called news conference, it affords us the opportunity to compare the two men's approaches to the war on terror.
And indeed, there is one big difference. George Bush fundamentally sees the war on terror as a moral and ideological confrontation between the forces of democracy and the forces of tyranny. Howard Dean fundamentally sees the war on terror as a law and order issue. At the end of his press conference, Bush uttered a most un-Deanlike sentiment:
"I believe, firmly believe — and you've heard me say this a lot, and I say it a lot because I truly believe it — that freedom is the almighty God's gift to every person — every man and woman who lives in this world. That's what I believe. And the arrest of Saddam Hussein changed the equation in Iraq. Justice was being delivered to a man who defied that gift from the Almighty to the people of Iraq."
Bush believes that God has endowed all human beings with certain inalienable rights, the most important of which is liberty. Every time he is called upon to utter an unrehearsed thought, he speaks of the war on terror as a conflict between those who seek to advance liberty to realize justice, and those who oppose the advance of liberty: radical Islamists who fear religious liberty, dictators who fear political liberty and reactionaries who fear liberty for women.
Furthermore, Bush believes the U.S. has a unique role to play in this struggle to complete democracy's triumph over tyranny and so drain the swamp of terror.
Judging by his speech yesterday, Dean does not believe the U.S. has an exceptional role to play in world history. Dean did not argue that the U.S. should aggressively promote democracy in the Middle East and around the world.
Instead, he emphasized that the U.S. should strive to strengthen global institutions. He argued that the war on terror would be won when international alliances worked together to choke off funds for terrorists and enforce a global arms control regime to keep nuclear, chemical and biological materials away from terror groups.
Dean is not a modern-day Woodrow Wilson. He is not a mushy idealist who dreams of a world government. Instead, he spoke of international institutions as if they were big versions of the National Governors Association, as places where pragmatic leaders can go to leverage their own resources and solve problems.
The world Dean described is largely devoid of grand conflicts or moral, cultural and ideological divides. It is a world without passionate nationalism, a world in which Europe and the United States are not riven by any serious cultural differences, in which sensible people from around the globe would find common solutions, if only Bush weren't so unilateral.
At first, the Bush worldview seems far more airy-fairy and idealistic. The man talks about God, and good versus evil. But in reality, Dean is the more idealistic and naïve one. Bush at least recognizes the existence of intellectual and cultural conflict. He acknowledges that different value systems are incompatible.
In the world Dean describes, people, other than a few bizarre terrorists, would be working together if not for Bush. In the Dean worldview, all problems are matters of technique and negotiation.
Dean tried yesterday to show how sober and serious he could be. In fact, he has never appeared so much the dreamer, so clueless about the intellectual and cultural divides that really do confront us and with which real presidents have to grapple.
What in the heck are you talking about?
Could I also ask how you define "liberal?" I have to say, again, that it seems to me that "liberal simply means, "anybody who doesn't agree with my politics and precepts one hundred per cent."
Cruentus
Grandmaster
Check out a couple of these links:
http://www.fair.org/reports/journalist-survey.html
http://www.whatliberalmedia.com/
Check out the conclusion from the study done in the first link:
So, you can put your "liberal Media" myth to rest. And...stop listening to Ann Coulter who keeps trying tyo spread these myths. That B**ch will rot your brain!
http://www.fair.org/reports/journalist-survey.html
http://www.whatliberalmedia.com/
Check out the conclusion from the study done in the first link:
So, you can put your "liberal Media" myth to rest. And...stop listening to Ann Coulter who keeps trying tyo spread these myths. That B**ch will rot your brain!
M
MisterMike
Guest
Robert and UpNorth,
I'm only speaking to the point there is more Democrat bias on TV.
Not weather there's WMD's in Iraq (which we and the UN both knew there were).
But yes, you can be against war because it seems immmoral to you. Just as I can be for it because:
a) Were they know to have WMD's? Yes
b) Do they hate us? Yes
c) Do they associate with Al Queada? Yes
d) Did they break UN resolutions? Yes
e) Did they pose a threat to us and seem capable of carrying through with it? Yes
That's enough for me.
So my definition of a liberal is not applicable here.
I'm only speaking to the point there is more Democrat bias on TV.
Not weather there's WMD's in Iraq (which we and the UN both knew there were).
But yes, you can be against war because it seems immmoral to you. Just as I can be for it because:
a) Were they know to have WMD's? Yes
b) Do they hate us? Yes
c) Do they associate with Al Queada? Yes
d) Did they break UN resolutions? Yes
e) Did they pose a threat to us and seem capable of carrying through with it? Yes
That's enough for me.
So my definition of a liberal is not applicable here.
Cruentus
Grandmaster
Hmm, let me address you points:
"a) Were they know to have WMD's? Yes"
Dude...you've got to be kidding me. First off, how did we know that they had WMD's at one time? huh.....how? Because silly, WE SUPPLIED THEM. Since we knowingly supplied Saddam the weapons, this is hardly reason for us to now go to war over them.
Yet, even so...where are all of these weapons now? We haven't found squat. The WMD as reason for war is a crock.
"b) Do they hate us? Yes"
Sure...and so does a good portion of countries in the 1st world. No, we can't please every lunatic dictator on the planet. But we are talking about a good percent of the world here who hates us, not just the dictating few. We are also talking about almost an entire religious sect; Muslim, who hates our policies. I am talking about both fundamentalist and non fundamentalist.
So when do you think would be a good time for us to stop and ask ourselves why so many people hate us? Or...should we go on arrogently thinking we are better then the rest of the world.
c) Do they associate with Al Queada? Yes
Please...they denounced each other.
d) Did they break UN resolutions? Yes
Ah...now this one is true. I don't think it justifies us going into a unilateral war, though. This does mean that the U.N. needed to take action against Iraq in the form of Trade embargos, and possibly military action when it came down to oppression of his own people. I have big problem with the U.N., mainly in the lack of balls department. Yet, I still think that it is not our unilateral responsablility to solve a U.N. problem.
e) Did they pose a threat to us and seem capable of carrying through with it? Yes
This is blatently not true. If they posed a true threat, then we would taken the risk to have gone in there in the first place. Bush needed an easy war to "win" to keep up the approval ratings. If you don't believe this, then explain why we didn't go into Korea when they blatently told us that they restarted their weapons program back up. Korea has Nuclear weapons, and we know it. We didn't and aren't because we won't start a war with someone who has the means to really hurt us (which is probably a good thing).
On a side note, am I glad Saddam was stripped from power...yes. I am not glad that we took unilateral action to do this however. Not anymore then I am glad that we placed him in power in the 1980's, which I am obviosly not happy with that either.
"a) Were they know to have WMD's? Yes"
Dude...you've got to be kidding me. First off, how did we know that they had WMD's at one time? huh.....how? Because silly, WE SUPPLIED THEM. Since we knowingly supplied Saddam the weapons, this is hardly reason for us to now go to war over them.
Yet, even so...where are all of these weapons now? We haven't found squat. The WMD as reason for war is a crock.
"b) Do they hate us? Yes"
Sure...and so does a good portion of countries in the 1st world. No, we can't please every lunatic dictator on the planet. But we are talking about a good percent of the world here who hates us, not just the dictating few. We are also talking about almost an entire religious sect; Muslim, who hates our policies. I am talking about both fundamentalist and non fundamentalist.
So when do you think would be a good time for us to stop and ask ourselves why so many people hate us? Or...should we go on arrogently thinking we are better then the rest of the world.
c) Do they associate with Al Queada? Yes
Please...they denounced each other.
d) Did they break UN resolutions? Yes
Ah...now this one is true. I don't think it justifies us going into a unilateral war, though. This does mean that the U.N. needed to take action against Iraq in the form of Trade embargos, and possibly military action when it came down to oppression of his own people. I have big problem with the U.N., mainly in the lack of balls department. Yet, I still think that it is not our unilateral responsablility to solve a U.N. problem.
e) Did they pose a threat to us and seem capable of carrying through with it? Yes
This is blatently not true. If they posed a true threat, then we would taken the risk to have gone in there in the first place. Bush needed an easy war to "win" to keep up the approval ratings. If you don't believe this, then explain why we didn't go into Korea when they blatently told us that they restarted their weapons program back up. Korea has Nuclear weapons, and we know it. We didn't and aren't because we won't start a war with someone who has the means to really hurt us (which is probably a good thing).
On a side note, am I glad Saddam was stripped from power...yes. I am not glad that we took unilateral action to do this however. Not anymore then I am glad that we placed him in power in the 1980's, which I am obviosly not happy with that either.
