Do any of you agree that the News Media is WAY too far Left and mostly liberal? (well not Fox news)

I agree. Most news coverage is slanted one way or the other and somewhere in the middle is actual fact. I can't give any real instances cause I stopped watching the news a while ago because of this fact. Finding unbiased new coverage is like finding Osama and Saddam shacked up together.

I think the news media keeps it's viewers by shocking them, and giving them a show. If they just reported the news, it would be very bland, and not appeal to the ordinary citizen. I equate most of the media outlets to the Jerry Springer show. You pretend that the 1% of America is the mainstream, and throw in a little drama for entertainment.

The news media isn't liberal or conservative. If you think that way, your thinking is way too myopic. The news media is out to make profit. Money is the only bias they have. They go after whatever stories make them money. In fact, if you want to look at bias in media as ideological, the media in fact favors the right wing more than the left (take for example the 2000 election coverage). I won't transcribe the Harvard studies that prove this unless you really want to challenge me and get embarassed.

And just to show you I'm right, I'll take the poster-child of media bias: Fox News Channel, a company who's owner blatantly stated that his goal was to "present news with a conservative bias". I am of course speaking of the Austrailian billionaire media tycoon Rupert Murdoch, who is a dyed-in-the-wool conservative, and one of the top ten most powerful billionaires in the world. Murdoch is not suprisingly a hardcore anti-communist, and in 1993 he began beaming television programming into China via his Hong Kong-based Star TV satellite network.

Murdoch attacked the Chinese government at the time saying that "advances in the technology of telecommunications have proven an unambiguous threat to totalitarian regimes everywhere". Apparently he pissed off the Chinese government with that remark against totalitarianism, so they banned the ownership of satellite dishes across China.

Murdoch, the businessman he is, knew which basket to place his eggs in. He followed up with a more pro-totalitarian stance, saying "the truth is---and we Americans don't like to admit it---that authoritarian societies can work". And as a gesture of good faith, Murdoch removed the BBC from his Star Network. It seems the BBC was the news station that covered the Tiananmen Square massacre, and they were, according to Murdoch "driving them [totalitarian Chinese regime] nuts". Murdoch also launched a mutli-million dollar joint venture with People's Daily, the official government-issued newspaper in China, and together they produced ChinaByte, an online news service that brought Chinese propaganda into the digital age.

Understand that the point here isn't that Murdoch is a pro-communist. He is just a pro-money, pro-profit, pro-bottom-liner type of guy. This is generally what media in America is: pro-money, pro-profit. I guess that's expected when 99% of American media is owned by a mere ten corporations. And President Bush recently tried to pass a bill that deregulated media ownership even further! I'm not sure if that bill passed or not, but that kind of stuff worries me, a lot!!!

Why then is Fox News the most watched news channel in the country (and I believe the world).. I might be wrong about that last part.

But more viewers have switched to FOX News than any other news station?

This is a serious question? I would really like your opinion on this...

Originally posted by SCLexus3.0
Why then is Fox News the most watched news channel in the country (and I believe the world).. I might be wrong about that last part.

But more viewers have switched to FOX News than any other news station?

This is a serious question? I would really like your opinion on this...

because people are sheep, we don't like to think and we like stuff to fit nicely into a box

do you think all the constant whining about a liberal press had something to do with the switch to Fox?
who was whining about it? (Rush, Hannity, Savage etc.)
and who benefited from it? (Fox News)

lets go back to the 2000 election and examine the press:
this is from the Pew Charitable Trusts Project for Excellence in Journalism

positive coverage for Gore 13%
positive coverage for Bush 24%

neutral coverage for Gore 31%
neutral coverage for Bush 27%

negative coverage for Gore 56%
negative coverage for Bush 49%

seems like that liberal media sure was hammering away at GORE

not too mention MSNBC and CNN split the moderate and liberal viewers

for every NY Times there's a NY Post
for every CNN there's a FOX News
for every...well what liberal is on the radio? Lets see Rush, Hannity, Savage, Drudge seem to have a monopoly

for every 5 liberal reporters there's 1 more powerful conservative editor

it's a myth! used to influence people's behavior
like our fear of the "black man", kids being kidnapped, sharks killing swimmers, ect.
ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
must buy alarms, bigger locks, more guns, move to suburbs

why is it that murder rates are falling but TV coverage of murders are way up?

Fox news is just feeding us what we like not what we need

And just to show you I'm right, I'll take .........

sounds just like RUSH.

Originally posted by O. L. T.
sounds just like RUSH.

Care to prove me wrong?

Originally posted by SCLexus3.0
Why then is Fox News the most watched news channel in the country (and I believe the world).

You're wrong, that title goes to CNN.

Not any more. Fox news has been the #1 most watched for a few months now.

Originally posted by SCLexus3.0
Not any more. Fox news has been the #1 most watched for a few months now.

Really? Do you have a link to that statistic? Thanks.

Originally posted by lex400sc
Really? Do you have a link to that statistic? Thanks.

Yes I do Actually. Your Welcome

Here are three links in order by date.
The first is coverage of the war
and the second is current ratings

2002
Fox News Channel overtakes CNN in ratings for the first time (http://www.newstribune.com/stories/013002/ent_0130020954.asp)

Funny things is, that this link is from CNN
Fox News leads CNN in war viewers (http://money.cnn.com/2003/03/26/news/companies/war_cnn_fox/)

Washington Times
Cables compete for 'Timex crowd' (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030712-120513-8472r.htm)

Wow, that's depressing news.... :(

Maybe it's because not everyone wants to hear about just the bad events in the world

Originally posted by lex400sc
Wow, that's depressing news.... :(

If your a liberal and love here people blame their problems on the President all the time.

Liberals would blame the weather on the President if they could. (I'm sure some do)

Originally posted by SCLexus3.0
If your a liberal and love here people blame their problems on the President all the time.

Liberals would blame the weather on the President if they could. (I'm sure some do)

you have a very short memory...Remember Clinton?

I believe this will lead to a recession next year, This is the Democrat machine's recession, and each one of them will be held personally accountable
-Newt Gingrich AUGUST 5,1993

The Clinton plan is a one-way ticket to recession. This plan does not reduce the deficit...but it raises taxes and it puts people out of work.
-Phil Gramm, JULY 28, 1993

the 90's seemed a lot better then they predicted...

How about complaining about a military operation?
(remember the White House said negative talk just gets our solders killed)

This is President Clinton's war, and when he fails flat on his face, that's his problem
-Senator Richard Luger May 3,1999

I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning. I don't think we has done enough in the DIPLOMATIC area.
-Senator Trent Lott May 4,1999

They haven't prepared for anything in this. And they're running out of weapons to do it. And frankly, I don't think Clinton has the moral authority or ability to fight this war correctly
Sean Hannity May 19,1999

The President said if we did nothing, there would be an instability in the region. There would be a flood of refugees. Kosovars would die, and the credibility of NATO would be undermined. Well, Clinton's bombing campaign has caused all these problems to explode
-Tom Delay May 2,1999

the same Tom Delay who had the balls to say: "all the colored kids signed up for Vietnam before us patriots could"

ONE LAST QUOTE:

There's a new sheriff in town, and he's dedicated to fiscal discipline. -Ari Fleiser OCTOBER 18,2002

lets see the Republican lie machine in action again

this time lying about the Military

Did Clinton gut the military because there was no evidence that countries like Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and an increasing aggressive Communist China would represent serious future threats to America and our friends and allies? No. Rather, it was because he loather the military. (I can't believe he's now interested in friends and allies)
- Sean Hannity, Let Freedom Ring

If called on by the commander in chief today, two entire divisions of the Army would have to report, "not ready for duty, sir."
-GW August 3,2000

ok sounds fair, but...

A commander in chief leads the military built by those who came before him. There is little that he or his defense secretary can do it to improve the force they have to deploy. It is all the work of previous administrations. Decisions made today shape the force of tomorrow...And when that war (the first Gulf War) ended, the first thing I did was to place a call to California, and say thank you to President Ronald Reagan.
-**** Cheney, the Southern Center for International Studies August 2000

the US attacked Afghanistan no less then nine months after GW taking office, so what gives?

Originally posted by stckyfngz
lets see the Republican lie machine in action again


If called on by the commander in chief today, two entire divisions of the Army would have to report, "not ready for duty, sir."
-GW August 3,2000

the US attacked Afghanistan no less then nine months after GW taking office, so what gives?

Because the Afghanistan conflict was mainly Special Operations, CIA, and Air Strikes. no Division (about 36,000 troops each) were called in. Plus there was a HUGE surge in Military enrollment after 9-11.

Clinton cut the military down by more than 40%... Over 400,000 troops less because of Clinton.

Originally posted by SCLexus3.0
Because the Afghanistan conflict was mainly Special Operations, CIA, and Air Strikes. no Division (about 36,000 troops each) were called in. Plus there was a HUGE surge in Military enrollment after 9-11.

Clinton cut the military down by more than 40%... Over 400,000 troops less because of Clinton.

thanks for proving my point even more

Clinton moved the military from a large standing Army to a more mobile elite force

How well did the Military do in Iraq?
I thought they did an OUTSTANDING job!

again please read:

A commander in chief leads the military built by those who came before him. There is little that he or his defense secretary can do it to improve the force they have to deploy. It is all the work of previous administrations. Decisions made today shape the force of tomorrow...And when that war (the first Gulf War) ended, the first thing I did was to place a call to California, and say thank you to President Ronald Reagan.
-**** Cheney, the Southern Center for International Studies August 2000

I'm using Cheneian logic here (he's on your side by the way)
if Reagan did Cheney and older Bush a favor by leaving an outstanding Military
then Clinton must have left Rumsfeld and Younger Bush a favor by leaving an outstanding Military
simple logic

not too mention Everyone (including China) is now cutting Military numbers.
They're outdated and unnecessary in today's world.
A smaller more elite training force with Air Superiority is the awnser

Originally posted by stckyfngz
thanks for proving my point even more

Clinton moved the military from a large standing Army to a more mobile elite force

How well did the Military do in Iraq?
I thought they did an OUTSTANDING job!

again please read:

A commander in chief leads the military built by those who came before him. There is little that he or his defense secretary can do it to improve the force they have to deploy. It is all the work of previous administrations. Decisions made today shape the force of tomorrow...And when that war (the first Gulf War) ended, the first thing I did was to place a call to California, and say thank you to President Ronald Reagan.
-**** Cheney, the Southern Center for International Studies August 2000

I'm using Cheneian logic here (he's on your side by the way)
if Reagan did Cheney and older Bush a favor by leaving an outstanding Military
then Clinton must have left Rumsfeld and Younger Bush a favor by leaving an outstanding Military
simple logic

not too mention Everyone (including China) is now cutting Military numbers.
They're outdated and unnecessary in today's world.
A smaller more elite training force with Air Superiority is the awnser

WOW, you really don't know what you’re talking about now.
Clinton eliminated a large part of the military because he despised them. He left Bush with an immensely weakened Military. They were not a smaller and more elite military; they were underfunded and starving for money.
He cut back ALL the special Weapons development funding. He wanted to cut the military down even more before he was out of office.
Next time you post in regards to this, please make sure you are informed.


Austinreview: While Clinton may finish last in moral leadership and support for our troops, in some areas he is the undisputed champ. In over 90 percent of the cases that Clinton has exercised his line item veto, he has used it to cut defense spending. Since the end of the Gulf War, our military has shrunk by more than 40 percent. The Navy can't adequately man its aircraft carriers, and the Army has been forced to reduce its ranks by more than 630,000 soldiers and civilians. Army divisions have dropped from 18 to 10, and over 700 installations at home and overseas have been closed. Nonetheless, under Commander Clinton, the U.S. Army has been called into action 26 times, racking up an incredible eleven-fold increase over just 10 such "operational events" that were conducted by the Army between 1960 and 1991.

Since 1990, the Air Force has declined from 36 active and reserve fighter wings to 20, downsizing 44 percent while experiencing a simultaneous four-fold increase in operational commitments. As this article is being written, U.S. pilots are flying missions over Yugoslavia in planes as old as their parents. In many cases they are paying for spare parts out of their own pockets. Meanwhile, our government spent several hundred thousand dollars so Hillary and Chelsea could fly to the Middle East.


Read this, then respond
Clinton's War with the Military (http://www.austinreview.com/articles/31.html)

actually it was Senior Bush who started to cut Military Spending

People can write whatever they want, spin it into whatever makes you happy

here's the chart, whatever Clinton felt in 97' he still raised military spending

look how much we spend vs the rest of the world

Originally posted by stckyfngz
look how much we spend vs the rest of the world

Your not posting anything we don't already know.. When there isn't some new special weapon coming out there will be a lower budget for that year. Look at the difference in the 80's and the 90's.. I can't believe I have to explain this to you.

Of course we have the worlds largest funded military. Remember, its also the Worlds BEST and most Advanced military.

Originally posted by SCLexus3.0
WOW, you really don't know what you’re talking about now.
Clinton eliminated a large part of the military because he despised them. He left Bush with an immensely weakened Military. They were not a smaller and more elite military; they were underfunded and starving for money.
He cut back ALL the special Weapons development funding. He wanted to cut the military down even more before he was out of office.
Next time you post in regards to this, please make sure you are informed.




Read this, then respond
Clinton's War with the Military (http://www.austinreview.com/articles/31.html)

keep drinking the Kool-Aid baby

Originally posted by SCLexus3.0
Your not posting anything we don't already know.. When there isn't some new special weapon coming out there will be a lower budget for that year. Look at the difference in the 80's and the 90's.. I can't believe I have to explain this to you.

Of course we have the worlds largest funded military. Remember, its also the Worlds BEST and most Advanced military.

then explain the chart above it for me?

the budget was so large in the 80's because we had a large standing Army
what's the point of a large standing Army these days?
more government pork?
plus who's going to invade us?

a smaller more elite force has way more advantages these days
and would serve our purposes much better

The Only Spending Democrats Hate (http://www.washingtondispatch.com/article_6605.shtml)



The Democratic Party loathes even the concept of increased military spending, as evidenced during the Clinton Administration. According to a Heritage Foundation study, Clinton nearly cut the U.S. Army divisions in half and cut total U.S. Naval ships by roughly 40%. While the Clinton Administration believed the world was becoming safer with less need for a strong military, the opposite was occurring, a fact we know all too well today.

The Democratic Party and its spokespersons’ feelings regarding the military are clear. Democrats cringe at the fact that our military is the most dominant and powerful in the world. The democrats fear our military superiority and the fact that we are the only Superpower in the world, as witnessed by a comment from former Clinton Administration Secretary of State Madeline Albright. In fact, it were up to the staunchly socialist wing of the Party, which incidentally seems to be growing and includes Senator Ted Kennedy and Representative Dennis Kucinich among many others, we wouldn’t have a military, or at least our military would be governed by the cowardly lions of the United Nations. Our service men and women would essentially be relegated to becoming unarmed security guards.

Originally posted by SCLexus3.0
The Only Spending Democrats Hate (http://www.washingtondispatch.com/article_6605.shtml)

comparison of defense budgets

New Tanks- Clinton 2001 (0)- Bush 2002 (0)
New Tactical Aircraft- Clinton 2001 (52) - Bush 2002 (58)
New Navel Ships- Clinton 2001 (6) - Bush 2002 (5)

how is that 40%
if you are referring to the 86' budget vs the 92' budget.
It's not a fiar comparison
your talking about two different decades and two different eras

and by the way your source is just an opinion

of course Clinton cut the Military, we were no longer at war

when are you going to realize Deterrence (2nd Strike) WORKS
no one is going to invade US
a better defense would be to get all nations to go Democratic
because no two Democracies have waged war

again large standing Armies are obsolete (and expensive), that's why Military spending is down

Originally posted by stckyfngz
then explain the chart above it for me?

the budget was so large in the 80's because we had a large standing Army
what's the point of a large standing Army these days?
more government pork?
plus who's going to invade us?

a smaller more elite force has way more advantages these days
and would serve our purposes much better

His plan was to increase funding for missle development to meet a 98 deadline that as set by the DOD.
He still planned more downgrading of personelle and divisions.

Explains why the budget goes up after 97 (http://wildcat.arizona.edu//papers/89/111/08_1_m.html)

Originally posted by stckyfngz
comparison of defense budgets

New Tanks- Clinton 2001 (0)- Bush 2002 (0)
New Tactical Aircraft- Clinton 2001 (52) - Bush 2002 (58)
New Navel Ships- Clinton 2001 (6) - Bush 2002 (5)

how is that 40%
if you are referring to the 86' budget vs the 92' budget.
It's not a fiar comparison
your talking about two different decades and two different eras

and by the way your source is just an opinion

of course Clinton cut the Military, we were no longer at war

when are you going to realize Deterrence (2nd Strike) WORKS
no one is going to invade US
a better defense would be to get all nations to go Democratic
because no two Democracies have waged war

again large standing Armies are obsolete (and expensive), that's why Military spending is down

Untill a group of extreme terrorists highjack planes and crash them into our buildings (invading our land)..

Oh wait, that already happened. Our military was very ment to fight on OUR land anyways. They are used to keep other armys from reaching our shores.

Originally posted by SCLexus3.0
His plan was to increase funding for missle development to meet a 98 deadline that as set by the DOD.
He still planned more downgrading of personelle and divisions.

Explains why the budget goes up after 97 (http://wildcat.arizona.edu//papers/89/111/08_1_m.html)

That policy emphasizes improving the quality of life for service members, providing cost-of-living pay raises, maintaining military combat readiness and keeping the overseas force steady at 100,000 in Europe and 100,000 in the Pacific.

Spending on weapons would not return to this year's level until 1998, when Clinton plans to seek $45.5 billion. From there, weapons spending will increase steadily, rising to $60 billion by 2001.

Originally posted by SCLexus3.0
Untill a group of extreme terrorists highjack planes and crash them into our buildings (invading our land)..

Oh wait, that already happened. Our military was very ment to fight on OUR land anyways. They are used to keep other armys from reaching our shores.

that happened under Bush by the way

and that's not the militaries job

plus how is the military supposed to stop terrorism?

that is/was the job of both the CIA and FBI

when all else fails just mention Clinton

Originally posted by stckyfngz
that happened under Bush by the way


Really? I don't believe it did.:rolleyes: Don't get me going on the "Clinton" part of this.

Originally posted by stckyfngz

when all else fails just mention Clinton

Funny, I thought thats exactly what people were doing to Bush... I guess its different when you say it though.:rolleyes:


Originally posted by stckyfngz

plus how is the military supposed to stop terrorism?

By doing exactly what they are doing now.



By the way, who did you Vote for in Cally?

Originally posted by SCLexus3.0
Really? I don't believe it did. Don't get me going on the "Clinton" part of this.



Funny, I thought thats exactly what people were doing to Bush... I guess its different when you say it though.


By the way, who did you Vote for in Cally?

I've said nothing about Bush, I've just tried to correct some facts

By doing exactly what they are doing now.

then why did it take Bush until 9/11 to start?

how can you blame Clinton for doing the same thing as Bush (not much if anything)
you're blind
they are both guilty

I voted no on the recall, on principle. I left the second half blank
No on 54
none of those candidates were/are worthy of the position
And you Reps started something here, just wait until Arnold screws up once and gets recalled.
you'll have no ground to stand on as the tides are turning

Originally posted by stckyfngz
I've said nothing about Bush, I've just tried to correct some facts



then why did it take Bush until 9/11 to start?

how can you blame Clinton for doing the same thing as Bush (not much if anything)
you're blind
they are both guilty

I voted no on the recall, on principle. I left the second half blank
No on 54
none of those candidates were/are worthy of the position
And you Reps started something here, just wait until Arnold screws up once and gets recalled.
you'll have no ground to stand on as the tides are turning

Where are they turning? Seems like they are turning Right to me.
The left is getting Smaller and Smaller by the day.

Originally posted by SCLexus3.0
Where are they turning? Seems like they are turning Right to me.
The left is getting Smaller and Smaller by the day.


Yeah, I do gotta agree, more and more middle of the road Dems are starting to see how extreme the others in their party are, and it does seem they don't necessarily want to be associated with that group.


Hey, maybe they should wait till arnold screws up for 4 years straight, they they can recall

Originally posted by SDuquette
Yeah, I do gotta agree, more and more middle of the road Dems are starting to see how extreme the others in their party are, and it does seem they don't necessarily want to be associated with that group.


Hey, maybe they should wait till arnold screws up for 4 years straight, they they can recall

I think everyone sees the hypocrisy that the Liberal Left and Religious Right present

it's not a left right thing, it's an extreme thing

neither is capable of compromise

Originally posted by SCLexus3.0
Where are they turning? Seems like they are turning Right to me.
The left is getting Smaller and Smaller by the day.

even if you had empirical evidence to prove this as fact (which I doubt you can)
it's still doesn't mean anything

Bush's approval ratings are below 50%
and it was only last November that every elected official in the State of California went to a Democrat
removing an idiot like Grey Davis is hardly a revolution
it was more like shooting fish in a barrel
times change by the day and how people are feeling that day

2004 is still a long way away
I wouldn't get too happy

not too mention Liberals have a monopoly of teaching our youth
(Reps don't like to teach because there isn't enough money in it)
so there will always be generations of young radical liberals coming out of college

Originally posted by SCLexus3.0
Untill a group of extreme terrorists highjack planes and crash them into our buildings (invading our land)

I would hardly call 18 terrorists hijacking our own planes as an invasion

that's stretching the truth at best

Originally posted by stckyfngz
I would hardly call 18 terrorists hijacking our own planes as an invasion

that's stretching the truth at best

Well what would you call hundreds of Airplanes coming from Japan Carriers killing about 2000 soldiers on an island then?

I believe 9-11 killed around 3000 Civilians in a city though.

Originally posted by SCLexus3.0
Well what would you call hundreds of Airplanes coming from Japan Carriers killing about 2000 soldiers on an island then?

I believe 9-11 killed around 3000 Civilians in a city though.

that was pre-deterrence

we now have nukes

also I would call it an attack not an invasion

D-Day now that's an invasion

stckyfngz, very well-poised, well-stated arguments. I could not have dismantled his every last point any better myself. I admire your energy in dealing with the endless barrage of internet propaganda, but rest assured there is a bottomless pit from which he dredges up this garbage. For every article you turn against him, he will find two others to replace it. It's like the kid that keeps touching the hot oven and gets his hand burned every time. Never learns. And when he's suffered enough blows to the ego, he will call for the entire debate forum to be shut down at least until he can muster up enough courage for the next intellectual beating.

SCLexus3.0, what don't you understand about reducing the world's largest military on the heels of the Soviet collapse and the rise of a historical unipolar geopolitical structure? Don't you understand globalization? The world is far too small and far too invested in modern economic traditionalism for anyone to revert back to 20th century imperialism and land-grabs. No one is going to land drop ships on the shores of Huntington Beach and invade the United States. What is the purpose of 2,000,000 US troops sitting in barracks at home siphoning away needy federal revenue? Why would Clinton grow the Reagan-inflated military in a era of peace and prosperity? Moreover, how would 2,000,000 troops and the most high tech battleships help prevent 9-11? I can't even count on both hands how many times I've had to state that point. If our military had Star Wars tie fighters, it would not have prevented 9-11, especially when the intelligence was ignored by Bush. Quit trying to relate the decline of the military-industrial complex to 9-11 in order to blame Clinton for 9-11. It's thin, it's weak, it's a long-stretch.

Originally posted by lex400sc
stckyfngz, very well-poised, well-stated arguments. I could not have dismantled his every last point any better myself. I admire your energy in dealing with the endless barrage of internet propaganda, but rest assured there is a bottomless pit from which he dredges up this garbage. For every article you turn against him, he will find two others to replace it.

Thank You

I can't stand the rhetoric or distorted truths from the far right
(or the radical left, although I tolerate them a little more, because none of them are in power)

just to show I'm fair if anyone comes on here professing Anarchy or Marxist-Socialism I'll be all over them

Originally posted by stckyfngz
that was pre-deterrence

we now have nukes

also I would call it an attack not an invasion

D-Day now that's an invasion

Well it really doesn't matter what you would call it, it matter what the definition is:
invasion:
1.The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer and/or destroy.
2.A large-scale onset of something injurious or harmful.
3.An intrusion or encroachment.

D-Day was an invasion was well, good job for pointing that out. You know, its not like you can only have 1 invasion per century.

You can change the meaning what any word to make it have "rhetoric or distorted truths". lol
:rolleyes:

Originally posted by SCLexus3.0
Well it really doesn't matter what you would call it, it matter what the definition is:
invasion:
1.The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer and/or destroy.
2.A large-scale onset of something injurious or harmful.
3.An intrusion or encroachment.

D-Day was an invasion was well, good job for pointing that out. You know, its not like you can only have 1 invasion per century.

You can change the meaning what any word to make it have "rhetoric or distorted truths". lol

if you want more examples of distorted truths by certain powerful right-wing individuals I can give them to you...

of course you can more then one invasion a century
where did I say otherwise?

what this has to do with calling 18 individuals, who had no weapons other then box cutters invaders
is beyond me?
not too mention that they had visas and were in the country LEGALY...

by that qualification were being invaded everyday by Mexicans and Canadians

this is a stupid argument

call it whatever makes you happy

Originally posted by lex400sc
There's no use in whining about what got us here anymore, it's more productive to focus on a solution.

Good damn advice, but why can't people stick to it?