Just to clarify things. Here is what I believe in a nutshell.

First of all I'll give my background in politics. I have really only been following politics since Clinton was in office. I had a lot of respect for him because of everything he accomplished with our economy. I still feel there are some great policies he practice and some stupid ones. Like any human being he is susceptible to making mistakes and wrong decisions. I do feel that he did a great thing with our economy during his first term in office. I feel he had problems during his second term, most of which were to cover up scandals within his administration. I don’t care that he “didn’t inhale” and/or some of his personal flaws that he has/had that make everyone human. I supported Clinton until 2001 when I started paying far more attention to actions of his during his last term (including his pardoning of several inmates right before he left office, also the trashing and theft of the Whitehouse when he left. I voted for Bush because from listening to him it seemed as that he was a more “human” version of his father and I liked most of the things I heard him talk about. After 9-11 occurred my Father (who was active reserve in the Air Force) was recalled back into the Air Force and given a command post in the Middle East. I started following talk radio personalities while sitting in my office during the day, because I wanted to be kept up to date on things that were going on. CNN had news breaks every half an hour and when there were special reports. About 1 month later my father had a heart attack and was forced to come back to the states. He got out of the Air Force (for the second time). I kept listening to the radio everyday too keep up with what was going on because a few of my close buddies were ordered to Afghanistan. I tried to follow everything I heard and saw. I agreed with what Bush said and I was proud of him for taking the action that he took. When he said that we were going to hunt down terrorists and those who harbor them I was very proud of that as well. I just hoped that he would keep his word and stay the course. When he spoke of Iraq and the threat that they posed, I never once questioned why we were going after them. They had a brutal dictator that possesses WMD. I felt that if terrorists were willing to crash planes into out building they wouldn’t hesitate to use WMD if they had the chance. I had a feeling that the President was going to do whatever it took to get approval to attack Iraq. I knew that he was pushing WMD as a means for attack. He had a great point, for all we knew Iraq was a threat, if not now, then in the future for our children. I followed the Presidents points about Iraq very closely. I grew further away from the UN, ONLY because they kept changing what they were saying. They first agreed that Iraq need to disarm, they agreed that Iraq had a deadline they need to meet, and they agreed that serious consequences would take place if they did not follow resolution 1441. Then when the deadline came and Iraq had not met the agreements the UN wanted another resolution and to wait. I felt that if the President didn’t act soon after, it would have made our threats and our policies look like a joke to Iraq and the rest of the world. Soon after that several close friends of mine in the 3rd ID received orders to head to Iraq. I followed the media very closely. I also notice that most of the media sources would have guests that criticized not only the President, but the soldiers as well. Fox news seem like the only true source that was somewhat patriotic to the U.S. while still bring the news in a non bias way. Once the war began I notice that most of the media was supporting the soldiers and they all seemed like viable sources to watch and listen too. After the President declared major combat over I was very surprised that the media would put so much attention on the gorilla warfare tactics that were being implemented. I remembered a Poll that Time Magazine took before the war asking how many U.S. casualties people expected to see during the war. Most of them figured about 500-1000 U.S. soldier men dead. I didn’t understand why people couldn’t understand that it is easier to fight an army you are confronting rather than a small group or a single individual with a pistol or an RPG that could be hiding in a house surrounded by civilians. I don’t want our troops there anymore than anyone else on here does. I would like to see everyone’s friends, brothers, sisters, moms and dads come home alive and well. I do understand that they are over there and need to do what they are doing.

1. I think the President was right for wanting to go to War with Iraq. Even if it’s only because Saddam is no longer in power and in the end, the world is a little safer place.
2. I do not think it is about oil, only because it would be political suicide to say it’s not about oil as many times as been said, just to end up taking their oil.
3. I think that the President should have managed the economy during the war better.
4. I do think that the Tax cuts are a good thing, maybe at the wrong time though.
5. I do think that the economy is on its way back up.
6. I do know that unemployment has been going down and income is going up.
7. I think the Administration should be more vocal and should explain more of what their plans are.
8. I think the President has implemented some great policies and probably understands a little bit more about what’s going on than people give him credit for.
9. I think that the President will continue to do what he feels is right, knowing that it might even cost him his political future.
10. I think he wants to go down in history for being the U.S. President that rid the world of the Saddam regime.

I will not post any more personal attacks, because I really do not want negative feelings between myself and other members of this board. I just ask the same of them in return.

After I read the last post that Lex400sc put up I was about to go and grab lines from every post that he put up in every thread in this debate forum just to make a point. I changed my mind because that would be immature and would make no sense to do so (not to mention very time consuming). If he and others would like to keep posting everything they don’t like about what I say, they may. But I no longer want the animosity or distemper that has been going around too continue.

In the end, I would like to say Sorry for any actions that have angered any members.

Peace out.

Doesn’t mean I’m leaving the debate forum though

SCLexus - good job laying out what's shaped your views. That was courageous because you've teed yourself up for attack, but I appreciate your honesty.

Originally posted by SCLexus3.0
I will not post any more personal attacks, because I really do not want negative feelings between myself and other members of this board. I just ask the same of them in return.

After I read the last post that Lex400sc put up I was about to go and grab lines from every post that he put up in every thread in this debate forum just to make a point. I changed my mind because that would be immature and would make no sense to do so (not to mention very time consuming). If he and others would like to keep posting everything they don’t like about what I say, they may. But I no longer want the animosity or distemper that has been going around too continue.

In the end, I would like to say Sorry for any actions that have angered any members.

Good job!!

Doesn’t mean I’m leaving the debate forum though

That's good too.

Although I disagree with many of your viewpoints (I'm not a liberal, but somewhere in the middle), I'm really glad that you're part of this forum, you add a lot of fire here (which is a good thing in a debate forum)

What would a debate forum be when everyone is an advocate for the Left Side? :p

Originally posted by SCLexus3.0
Doesn’t mean I’m leaving the debate forum though

Originally posted by SCLexus3.0
First of all I'll give my background in politics.

My interest in politics was very casual until 9/11 occurred. I would listen to Michael Savage on Hot Talk 560 while commuting to school and work. I would watch KTVU Fox-affiliate news most evenings. But after 9/11 occurred, after the shock, horror, and anger subsided, my mind began racing with a million questions per minute. I wanted to know ten thousand "Why?s".

So I began watching 24-hour news stations. I began surfing between the three major networks (CNN, MSNBC, and Fox) for a few days and MSNBC attracted my audience at first. I watched MSNBC for hours every day. I just left the TV on in my room in the background as I went about my work. During commericial breaks I would switch to Fox News, because at the time I only got CNN Headline News and I did not like that split-screen format of tidbit news at all. But eventually I got tired of getting my news from the television. The network news just didn't do it for me. I was tired of listening to self-proclaimed experts and media pundits. I was sick of the bias from the anchors. Most of all I was sick of watching a visually-spectacular, but ultimately pointless slideshows of live-action real-time digitally-enhanced picturescapes. There was no depth to the reporting. No investigative journalism. Nothing to stimulate the mind. I was watching substanceless reality-tv.

So I began to look for the political and historical context, depth, and meaning on the internet. I started subscribing to newspapers and political magazines. I got my fix reading these materials for a while. I'd have to say I learned the most and the fastest by reading white-paper literature sources.

Now up until this point I was a dyed-in-the-wool Republican. It made sense! Both my parents, both their parents, all of my extended family with the the exception of my two closest cousins, were all die-hard conservative Republicans. They all voted party lines every election, and never missed an opportunity to take jabs at liberals over dinner or coffee. I grew up hating liberals before I even knew what the word meant. But I began a painful and awkward transition, an awakening at about this point in life. As I became more educated about politics than everyone else in my extended family, I came to the realization that I was in fact a liberal! And the more vocal I became, the more angry my family got at me. Especially since they all immigrated to Austin, Texas, grew into the Texan lifestyle, every male in my extended family has served in the military for the last four generations, my two childhood-friend cousins are both West Point and AFA graduates in Iraq, and everything that I stood for offended them all. My own mother has been caught calling me an "*******", "idiot", and "stupid" when I catch her in right-wing fallacies and embarass her lack of knowledge. Anyway, the significance here is that I solidified my ideology through independent study.

Somewhere along the line I cancelled three newspaper subscriptions and one magazine subscription due to a lack of time to read it all. I continued reading these newspapers through their online websites and via their email reports. Through it all I started to find books on the topic. I started buying and reading these books and they gave me the depth I needed. The books became too time consuming and waaay too in-depth so I stopped reading these for a while. These books gave me more insight and knowledge than I was capable of humanly absorbing. If I could recollect the brilliance of these pages I read, only to lay them out in the debate forums, we would all share many of the same beliefs.

Last semester I began enrolling in some government and political science classes at school to get some school credit for studying something of interest and importance. Somewhere along the line I found the regular CNN channel and I used it as a daily news ticker. I keep the TV on CNN every night while I got ready to sleep, then set the sleep timer. I woke up to CNN every morning to familiarize myself with the state of the world that morning. This is about where I'm at today.

Sadly enough, I would have to say the best place to get news and knowledge is from the most boring mundane sources: political magazines, newspapers, and books. They are the least biased, most informative, most in depth, and most accurate. Unfortunately, the "infotainment" of mass media network news---with their fancy graphics, flamboyant backdrops, dramatic musical intros, and beautiful anchor personalities---is ten time more appealling to the average American.

Originally posted by SCLexus3.0
I have really only been following politics since Clinton was in office. I had a lot of respect for him because of everything he accomplished with our economy. I still feel there are some great policies he practice and some stupid ones. Like any human being he is susceptible to making mistakes and wrong decisions. I do feel that he did a great thing with our economy during his first term in office. I feel he had problems during his second term, most of which were to cover up scandals within his administration. I don’t care that he “didn’t inhale” and/or some of his personal flaws that he has/had that make everyone human. I supported Clinton until 2001 when I started paying far more attention to actions of his during his last term (including his pardoning of several inmates right before he left office, also the trashing and theft of the Whitehouse when he left.

I voted for Bush because from listening to him it seemed as that he was a more “human” version of his father and I liked most of the things I heard him talk about.

I really had no opinion on Clinton because to tell you the truth, I was still a kid having fun and enjoying life. Clinton's only purpose to me was to serve as a popular target to poke fun of. It wasn't until the 2000 election campaign trail that I began to pick up on the issues. 2000 was the year I turned 18 and I believe the last day to register to vote was October 11th that year. Unfortunate for me because I really wanted to vote and my birthday was October 12th. I know now that you can register up to 30 days in advance if you are a male voter, so I could have voted! In retrospect, I'm glad I couldn't vote because I would have voted for George Bush, being the good Republican I was raised to be. I would have a burden on my conscience if I had voted for him. He seemed much more appealing than Gore at the time. Especially with the way Gore composed himself in the debates--a total jackass.

Originally posted by SCLexus3.0
I started following talk radio personalities while sitting in my office during the day, because I wanted to be kept up to date on things that were going on.

I kept listening to the radio everyday too keep up with what was going on because a few of my close buddies were ordered to Afghanistan.

I really think this is a mistake. Trust me. I used to listen to Hot Talk AM radio day and night. I would listen to Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, the whole midday-to-evening line up on Hot Talk 560. I've come to the realization that these people's only job and purpose in life is to incite anger and resentment in America. They work to pit Americans against eachother instead of unite them. They like to get their listeners riled up and pissed off by pinning total and complete blame of the problems on one specific segment of society (ie: liberals, Clinton). Though they sometimes they have valid claims, rarely is it ever the case in real life, and they unfairly portray the situation by delivering only the devicive part of the story. Radio hosts have the biggest agendas. They really are mouthpieces for the political extreme. Don't listen to them. It isn't health to start feeding into their one-directional thinking.

Originally posted by SCLexus3.0
I tried to follow everything I heard and saw. I agreed with what Bush said and I was proud of him for taking the action that he took. When he said that we were going to hunt down terrorists and those who harbor them I was very proud of that as well. I just hoped that he would keep his word and stay the course.

I was very happy to hear this at the time too. However, I don't invest too much energy in faith. This is why I am not religious either. If someone develops a recurring habit of broken promises, I begin to get skeptical of their resolve fairly quickly. Bush has blown many many many chances and I see little reason to believe another word from his stinking, lying mouth. He'll be hard-pressed to gain my trust ever again!

Originally posted by SCLexus3.0
When he spoke of Iraq and the threat that they posed, I never once questioned why we were going after them. They had a brutal dictator that possesses WMD. I felt that if terrorists were willing to crash planes into out building they wouldn’t hesitate to use WMD if they had the chance. I had a feeling that the President was going to do whatever it took to get approval to attack Iraq. I knew that he was pushing WMD as a means for attack.

See by this point in time, I had already known that WMD was a nonissue in Iraq. Prior to the war, the UN had confirmed the Iraqi weapons program 93% dismantled. I knew of Iraq's military and weapons capabilities. Their military technology was largely Soviet-Era, and the most advance weapons they had were imported from the US via Donald Rumsfeld under the Reagan Admin. Saddam's military was in shambles after Gulf War 1, morale was at an ultimate low in Iraq, and the WMD program was about as developed as Ghana's. Iraq was the third most demilitarized nation in the entire world. And that was before Clinton started bombing arbitrary factories in Iraq. I knew that there were at least two dozen threats greater than Iraq, and the special exception was that Iraq was the most oil-rich nation of the two dozen. Bush made hint of warring with Iraq out of the blue. He addressed the world with the Axis of Evil speech, citing North Korea (makes sense), Syria (makes sense), and Iraq (uh oh...). What is he up to I asked myself... Well we know today the WMD threat he presented to Congress was phony. The terrorist links he presented to Congress were phony. One has to ask himself, why risk your credibility, reputation, legacy, and career on a nobody country like Iraq? There must be something worth the risk there...

Originally posted by SCLexus3.0
He had a great point, for all we knew Iraq was a threat, if not now, then in the future for our children.

Same can be said for two dozen other nations. Why single out Iraq? That's like saying a bear, tiger, lion, shark, alligator, wolf, and a snapping turtle are all threats to your safety, but with your one bullet, you shoot the turtle justifying that it was an imminent threat. Well fine, but if you want to talk about imminence, how about those bears?

Originally posted by SCLexus3.0
I followed the Presidents points about Iraq very closely. I grew further away from the UN, ONLY because they kept changing what they were saying. They first agreed that Iraq need to disarm, they agreed that Iraq had a deadline they need to meet, and they agreed that serious consequences would take place if they did not follow resolution 1441. Then when the deadline came and Iraq had not met the agreements the UN wanted another resolution and to wait.

Actually the UN agreed that inspections needed to resume and that Saddam needed to hand over proof of WMD destruction. The weapons inspectors returned into the country, and Saddam printed a 13,000 page documentary of Iraq's weapons program. The UN determined that the al-Samoud could exceed the 93 mile ballistic-missile restriction and ordered them to be destroyed. Saddam agreed to this and also invited the press to various sites where chemical weapons were incinerated and destroyed. While Saddam was destroying the al-Samoud, Bush saw that Saddam was going against his usual predictable stubborness and was actually cooperating with the UN. Bush knew that he was running out of time and opportunities and had to take more extreme measures if he ever wanted a chance to occupy and control Iraq. Bush delivered a 24--er 48 (?) hour ultimatum for Saddam to show all his WMD or he would go to war with Iraq. Saddam insisted there were no WMD until the final hour upon which the tanks started rolling onto Iraqi soil.

Originally posted by SCLexus3.0
I felt that if the President didn’t act soon after, it would have made our threats and our policies look like a joke to Iraq and the rest of the world.

If Bush treaded more lightly and more diplomatically, he would get much more cooperation, worldwide. Bush sounded like a southern preacher the way he demanded things, denounced things, and bullied everyone around. Think of the ego and pride one must have to be the ruler of an entire nation such as Iraq. Do you think this kind of person, in any country, is used to being talked down to by others? What kind of weakling would they look like to their enemies, opponents, critics, and followers if they just bowed down to such disrespectful, condescending people that really have no business telling them what to do. This is especially critical when you are talking about the interaction between Christian and Muslim states.

Originally posted by SCLexus3.0
Fox news seem like the only true source that was somewhat patriotic to the U.S. while still bring the news in a non bias way.

Fox News is the only news station in the United States that openly admitted that its objective is to present news with a right-wing bias. Though I can't blame your lack of awareness. It's usually harder to spot bias when you agree with it.

Originally posted by SCLexus3.0
After the President declared major combat over I was very surprised that the media would put so much attention on the gorilla warfare tactics that were being implemented. I remembered a Poll that Time Magazine took before the war asking how many U.S. casualties people expected to see during the war. Most of them figured about 500-1000 U.S. soldier men dead. I didn’t understand why people couldn’t understand that it is easier to fight an army you are confronting rather than a small group or a single individual with a pistol or an RPG that could be hiding in a house surrounded by civilians. I don’t want our troops there anymore than anyone else on here does.

The significance is that Bush did not have an post-war planning, nothing comprehensive, nothing authoritative. It was very much an 'on-the-fly plan', if there is such a thing. He was so rushed to go to war that he didn't gather the JCS and DoD to actually go into post-war planning mode. If the military acted more swiftly and authoritatively, there would be no civilian revolts in Iraq. If infrastructure was restored in the correct priority, no one would much mind us there. The revolters aren't necessarily pro-Saddam, just anti-US for some reason or another. Some have good reason to be.

Originally posted by SCLexus3.0
2. I do not think it is about oil, only because it would be political suicide to say it’s not about oil as many times as been said, just to end up taking their oil.

There are many cunning methods of extracting a nation's resources than just overtly snatching it up. The United States has become an expert at doing it.

Originally posted by SCLexus3.0
3. I think that the President should have managed the economy during the war better.

I think he should have paid attention to the economy for the first two years instead of ignoring it outside of two huge tax cuts. The economy only became a concern to Bush in 2003 when more people started getting pissed and it looked as if ignoring the problem wouldn't make it go away.

Originally posted by SCLexus3.0
4. I do think that the Tax cuts are a good thing, maybe at the wrong time though.

If you're going to make a Republican tax cut, at least reward the 60% bulk to small-business owners, not top-dog executives and board-members with a dozen international estates, hundredf-oot yachts, and a pension to last five lifetimes.

Originally posted by SCLexus3.0
5. I do think that the economy is on its way back up.

Now what to do about those deficits...

Originally posted by SCLexus3.0
7. I think the Administration should be more vocal and should explain more of what their plans are.

That would be political suicide in their case.

Originally posted by SCLexus3.0
8. I think the President has implemented some great policies and probably understands a little bit more about what’s going on than people give him credit for.

Bush has undone much of the environmental preservation, protection, and regulation that took place in the last thirty years. Bush is actively working to make gay unions illegal and unrecognized by the government. Bush is actively taking measures to systematically ban abortion. Bush is trying to deregulate media ownership regulations. Bush removed dividend tax, a major source of income exclusive to the wealthiest 5% of the population. Jesus, what else? My brain is turning to mush, but there is much more crap that he's done.

Originally posted by SCLexus3.0
9. I think that the President will continue to do what he feels is right, knowing that it might even cost him his political future.

If it costs him his political future, that means it's only right to himself and not the majority of Americans, which seems to be the case. Bush is unhappy with Rumsfeld and Powell and is likely going to find some new appointees for campaign 2004. Just you watch, Rumsfeld and Powell will resign before 2004, just like Ari Fleisher did. The Republican National Committee also gave Bush's performance a "poor" rating. His approval rating in the nation is an all-time low. He barely has a majorty support with starting the Iraq War anymore.

Originally posted by SCLexus3.0
10. I think he wants to go down in history for being the U.S. President that rid the world of the Saddam regime.

I think it will be a spot on his record if anything. The Iraq War is one of his many undoings.

If you're going to make a Republican tax cut, at least reward the 60% bulk to small-business owners, not top-dog executives and board-members with a dozen international estates, hundredf-oot yachts, and a pension to last five lifetimes.

I'll go with you on that one. Being self employed, that 33% I pay out of pocket is a little over the top. There are a lot of people there are a lot of people who fall in to the middle income bracket and are barely squeaking by who could use that extra cash to expand their business which would bring more tax income to the Federal Govt. Expanding businesses need to hire new people which would also lower unemployment.

My wife and I are in that position right now with our tax office. I run the office and help her out on some of the work like book keeping and answering questions. She does all the tax returns(almost 3,000 returns prepared this year). I'm going to go to school next year so I can start to take on some of her clients but the thought of having to hire someone else to run the office kills me. That extra tax cut would help out a lot the first couple years while we're still expanding and I'm getting new clients.

Originally posted by lex400sc
Fox News is the only news station in the United States that openly admitted that its objective is to present news with a right-wing bias.

Could you provide a source for this 'admission'? I've never heard of such a thing.

The significance is that Bush did not have an post-war planning, nothing comprehensive, nothing authoritative. It was very much an 'on-the-fly plan', if there is such a thing. He was so rushed to go to war that he didn't gather the JCS and DoD to actually go into post-war planning mode. If the military acted more swiftly and authoritatively, there would be no civilian revolts in Iraq. If infrastructure was restored in the correct priority, no one would much mind us there.

How do you know no post-war planning was done? Perhaps it was concluded that 'planning' was somewhat futile because there were so many variables depending upon what damage Saddam did on the way out.

If you're going to make a Republican tax cut, at least reward the 60% bulk to small-business owners, not top-dog executives and board-members with a dozen international estates, hundredf-oot yachts, and a pension to last five lifetimes.

Good idea!

Bush has undone much of the environmental preservation, protection, and regulation that took place in the last thirty years.

Just a slight exaggeration? Any specifics?

Bush is actively working to make gay unions illegal and unrecognized by the government.

I'm sure this is so much worse (not) than Bill Clinton's "don't ask don't tell" fiasco.

Bush is actively taking measures to systematically ban abortion.

I know he's pro-life, but I have seen no specifics to suggest he's trying to ban abortion. I think there was legislation recently banning or limiting "partial birth" abortion - a hideous procedure. Is that what you were referring to? FYI, I'm pro-choice because I'd rather not see children come into the world that are going to be unloved and abused, but I'd go MUCH further, to sterilize women after they irresponsibly have multiple children they have no means to support which becomes an enormous societal burden.

Bush is trying to deregulate media ownership regulations.

The media EVERYWHERE is a joke - TV, radio, newspapers, magazines, left bias and right bias, it's all a joke. Deregulating will make no difference. As you can tell, I'm very disillusioned with media right now.

Bush is unhappy with Rumsfeld and Powell and is likely going to find some new appointees for campaign 2004.

Rumsfeld should be let go because he's tactless. Powell is terrific, but his wife HATES him being in politics, and I think he's tired of it too.

The Republican National Committee also gave Bush's performance a "poor" rating.

Source for this info?

Originally posted by lex400sc

See by this point in time, I had already known that WMD was a nonissue in Iraq. Prior to the war, the UN had confirmed the Iraqi weapons program 93% dismantled. I knew of Iraq's military and weapons capabilities. Their military technology was largely Soviet-Era, and the most advance weapons they had were imported from the US via Donald Rumsfeld under the Reagan Admin. Saddam's military was in shambles after Gulf War 1, morale was at an ultimate low in Iraq, and the WMD program was about as developed as Ghana's. Iraq was the third most demilitarized nation in the entire world. And that was before Clinton started bombing arbitrary factories in Iraq. I knew that there were at least two dozen threats greater than Iraq, and the special exception was that Iraq was the most oil-rich nation of the two dozen. Bush made hint of warring with Iraq out of the blue. He addressed the world with the Axis of Evil speech, citing North Korea (makes sense), Syria (makes sense), and Iraq (uh oh...). What is he up to I asked myself... Well we know today the WMD threat he presented to Congress was phony. The terrorist links he presented to Congress were phony. One has to ask himself, why risk your credibility, reputation, legacy, and career on a nobody country like Iraq? There must be something worth the risk there





This next quote was made before the attack

Originally posted by lex400sc
The mobilzation of our forces has already cost the taxpayers over one billion dollars. The international, but mostly regional, flak we are taking for bullying Iraq has cost us immeasureable other political damage. If Saddam still has chemical and biological weapons, which I don't doubt for a second, then he is hiding them very well. If he is hiding them very well, then he has no capacity to use them. US-UK planes have been surveying Iraq's no-fly zones continuously since the end of Desert Storm and will probably do so indefinitely. The day they catch a scud launcher or even an overt weapons factory on their recon photos is the day we will have something to whine about to the UN. Until then, better luck next time Bushy!

I don't know if you were insinuating in the first quote that he didn't posses WMD.

Originally posted by lex400sc
The terrorist links he presented to Congress were phony.

It is known that there have been terrorist training camps in Iraq, thats not phony.
Marines Discover Terror Training Camp Near Baghdad (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84291,00.html)

lex400sc - answers to my requests for your sources???

On the claim you made about FoxNews having an objective to present news with a right wing bias - I heard on O'Reilly's show (your favorite source no doubt :D ) that Walter ("lefty") Kronkite claimed what you did and FoxNews asked him for his source and he couldn't come up with one.

FWIW, particularly with their morning show, I *agree* that overall FoxNews is right-wing biased, with E.D.Hill being the chief cheer leader for Bush, Texas, and the war in Iraq. And they tend to only have pro-Bush "expert" guests. O'Reilly is old-fashioned in some ways, and obviously religious (Catholic) and that biases him a lot, but I don't consider him right wing. Hannity is plain annoying and completely blind. Combes is a just a liberal "prop". Greta Van Susteran has some interesting shows and she doesn't seem to spin either way which is good. Brit Hume's early evening show is entertaining as far as politics goes, with Brit and Fred Barnes being on the right and Mort Kondracke and Mara Liasson being on the left - good stuff.

Bit I tried searching the internet and couldn't find the source of the quote, but I've heard it quoted from two of my political science professors. :confused:

This much I know of Murdoch and Fox News though...

- Murdoch has donated millions to the RNC and has received numerous tax breaks from characters like Newt Gingrich and Margaret Thatcher.

- He also owns 155 right-wing English-language publications, such as the NY Post, London Times, and the Weekly Standard.

- He also owns the LA Dodgers, the most outwardly conservative team in American sports.

- Murodch appointed Roger Ailes, "the Dark Prince of right-wing attack politics", to run Fox News. Roger Ailes is a hardcore Republican brainstormer. He was the preeminent RNC political consultant that helped elect Nixon, Reagan, and Bush Sr. He orchestrated the Willie Horton attacks against Dukakis, along with Lee Atwater. Ailes produced Rush Limbaugh's TV show. And it is Roger Ailes that is in charge of running Fox News.

- Ailes hired as Managing Editor of Fox News none other than Brit Hume, a contributor to the conservative publication The Weekly Standard and the ultra-conservative American Spectator.

- For Washington DC Bureau Chief, Alies hired Brit Hume's wife who is determined to change the tone of television, complaining that mainstream news is "all mushy like AIDS, or all silly like Head Start"

- Brit Hume is also the moderator of the three panel discussion Special Report with Brit Hume, and the most frequent panelist on his show is of course The Weekly Standard's Editor Fred Barnes. Most frequently appearing with Fred Barnes is Mort Kondracke, a centrist editor on the non-partisan newspaper Roll Call, and Mara Liasson, a reporter for National Public Radio, who has been both a registered Democrat and a registered Republican. In case you're keeping tallies, that two ultra-conservatives and two centrists on the show. In a political see-saw, imagine the fairness and "balance" of two people sitting on one end and two people sitting in the middle.

- Fox's Sunday morning show "Fox News Sunday with Tony Snow" features Tony Snow, a former presidential speechwriter for Bush Sr., an Editorial Column Editor for the Washington Times, and the substitute host for the Rush Limbaugh Show.

- Then of course there is loveable Bill O'Reilly. Oh Billy, let's see he made his first lie on Fox News by claiming he was an avowed independent. I say avowed because he was actually a registered Republican at the time. That's right, he lied. But he lies a lot, and I mean a LOT. He lied about winning two Peabody Awards with Inside Edition---not once, not twice, but four times he lied about it. And the award he was referring to was the Polk Award, awarded to Inside Edition a year after he left the show. O'Reilly also accuses anyone that criticises him, a liar. A caller once called in to point out the anti-Islamic rhetoric on his show by instancing a time when O'Reilly compared the Koran to Mein Kampf. O'Reilly called him a liar and cut the phone call. The truth is he did make that comparison on the July 7, 2002 Factor regarding a contravesy at the Univ. of NC. I have the entire quote if you doubt it. O'Reilly also lies about his hard-knock life in Levittown, which was proudly disproved by his own mother who admitted in the Washington Post that little Billy took vacations to Florida every year, attended private schools, private college, and lives in the affluent suburb of Westbury. When confronted about his Levittown lie, he said he lived in the Westbury section of Levittown (which does not exist). Two villages seperated by miles. It's like saying I lived in the Brooklyn section of Manhattan. I could actually write an entire essay on the lies, distortions, spin, and thinnly disguised bias of Bill O'Reilly.

- Then there's the CNN Crossfire knock-off show: Hannity and Colmes. Let's just take the point-counterpoint from the episode following Bush's State of the Union Address: point: "This is a big vision. This is a bold agenda!" versus the counterpoint: "President Bush did a magnificent job!". In that same show, Hannity spoke a total of 2,086 words and Colmes had 1,261 to his name. Needless of say Hannity is the alpha male and Colmes the zeta male. I think everyone agrees that Colmes is a pathetic weakling for a liberal pundit, and is more of a liberal puppet. Colmes', a self described *moderate* ("I'm quite moderate" Colmes on USA Today), admits it himself in his autobiography "Back at you Sean". In his Odd Jobs chapter, he outlines all the menial subservient tasks he was subjected to as the only liberal in the Fox studios. Hannity himself is a dishonest, reptilian, liar,a bully to less a degree than O'Reilly, a full-on homophobe (read his books?), and a distortionist. His logic is full of holes because he backs it with half-truths and fallacies. I have many examples of this too if you want to hear them. Anyway, I'm getting kind of bored of typing so I'll continue this later.

Murdoch uses his diverse holdings ... to promote his own financial interests at the expense of real news gathering, legal and regulatory rules, and journalistic ethics. He wields his media as instruments of influence with politicians who can aid him, and savages his competitors in his news columns. If ever someone demonstrated the dangers of mass power being concentrated in few hands, it would be Murdoch.

- Columbia Journalism Review

Well quoted from Al Franken's book. :rolleyes:

You can't deny that Oreilly is a pretty smart fella though.

Bill Oreilly
-Masters Degree in Public Administration : Harvard University
-BA degree in History: Marist College in Poughkeepsie
-Masters Degree in Broadcast Journalism : Boston University's

Here are the facts abouts the Medias Bias:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr031008.asp
PRINCETON, NJ -- Forty-five percent of Americans believe the news media in this country are too liberal, while only 14% say the news media are too conservative. These perceptions of liberal inclination have not changed over the last three years. A majority of Americans who describe their political views as conservative perceive liberal leanings in the media, while only about a third of self-described liberals perceive conservative leanings.

More generally, the Sept. 8-10 Gallup Poll finds that a little more than half of Americans have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the news media when it comes to reporting the news fully, accurately, and fairly. Trust in the news media has not changed significantly over the last six years. Conservatives have a slightly lower level of trust in the media than either moderates or liberals do.

http://www.gallup.com/images/Poll/Releases/pr031008i.gif

Americans have been considerably more likely to perceive the news media as too liberal than as too conservative the last four times this question has been posed. One's interpretation of these findings is, to a degree, dependent on one's perspective. It's true that substantially more Americans say that the news media are too liberal than say they are too conservative. At the same time, a majority says that the news media are either too conservative, or just about right.

It's perhaps surprising that there has been such little variation in this sentiment over the last three years -- given the continuing focus on alleged media bias over this time period, including best-selling books such as Bias by Bernard Goldberg and Slander by Ann Coulter, which have alleged systematic liberal bias in the news media. The ratings success of the Fox News channel has been based in part on its attempt to appeal to conservative viewers who feel that the more traditional news media are liberal and biased.

It is clear that the underlying dynamic behind the finding that the news media are too liberal is the widespread belief among conservatives that the news media are too liberal, contrasted with the far less prevalent view among liberals that the news media are too conservative. Additionally, liberals are twice as likely to say that the media are too liberal (18%) as conservatives are to say they are too conservative (9%). Moderates are more "moderate" in their views, but still roughly as many say the news media are too liberal as say they are about right, and relatively few moderates say the news media are too conservative.

Plus, about 4 in 10 Americans today identify themselves as conservatives and about the same number identify as moderates, while less than 20% identify as liberals. Given all of this, the overall conclusion is that Americans, on average, are more likely to see the news media as too liberal than too conservative:

http://www.gallup.com/images/Poll/Releases/pr031008ii.gif

http://www.gallup.com/poll/stateNation/

Presidents Ratings are back up to 55%!!!!
State of the Country Ratings are a bit Low
The Economic Ratings just suck, but they are going up (slowly)
http://www.gallup.com/images/Poll/Releases/pr031014i.gif

GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

PRINCETON, NJ -- Despite continuing perceptions of troubles in Iraq and low ratings of his handling of the economy, President's Bush's overall job approval rating is up from his administration's low point recorded less than a month ago.

Bush's job approval rating in the just-completed Oct. 10-12 poll is 56%. It was 55% in Gallup's Oct. 6-8 poll. Both of these are higher than the 50% approval rating Bush received in a Sept. 19-21 poll.

The uptick in job approval ratings also represents a reversal of the general decline in Bush's ratings that has been taking place since the mini-rally of public support for Bush occurred in March and April, during the war in Iraq. At that time, his approval reached 71% -- lower than his record approval of 90% reached after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, but higher than it had been in the seven months before the start of the war.

http://www.gallup.com/images/Poll/Releases/pr031014ii.gif
http://www.gallup.com/images/Poll/Releases/pr031014iii.gif
http://www.gallup.com/images/Poll/Releases/pr031014v.gif

So why might Bush's overall approval rating be up, rather than continuing to decline as it had been doing? It could be that out of the confusion of Iraq and economic attitudes being measured -- with some attitudes growing more positive and others more negative -- the net effect is simply more positive for the president. In other words, Americans' increased optimism about the future of the economy and their heightened sense that the situation in Iraq was worth going to war over may be overriding their more negative assessments of current economic conditions and the success of the Iraq mission.

It is difficult to measure the impact on this rating, if any, of the Bush administration's all-out public relations blitz designed to convince Americans that things in Iraq are not as bad as the news reports about bombings and U.S. soldier deaths might indicate. The campaign did not get underway in earnest until last week, after the majority of the interviews in Gallup's Oct. 6-8 poll were conducted (the poll showed an increase in Bush's job approval to 55%).

Originally posted by bitkahuna
Well quoted from Al Franken's book. :rolleyes:

Absolutely. It is one of the greatest political satire books ever because it exposes EVERY right-wing lie, distortion, and fallacy, and embarasses all the right-wing talking heads using their own words, hypocracies, and twisted logic. Bill O'Reilly accused Franken of defaming him, but is to this day unable to find a single shred of defamation in the entire book. He was challenged on national TV to show how it defamed him, but he has been silent every since. Why? Because it's all true fact. He was challenged in person to SUE Al Franken using the nation's well-defined defamation laws. There is yet to be a lawsuit filed. And at the same time, Bill O'Reilly defamed the son of a murdered 9/11 victim on national television. There's your characteristic right-wing double-standard.

Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity are equally incapable of taking a bite back at Franken. The book is marvelous. If you read it through once over, there is little chance you can remain a Republican, well a proud Republican anyway ;).

I recommend that anyone participating in this forum read this book. It covers a broad range of topics and will equipped you to take on all the distortions perpetuated in this forum. For instance, Bill Clinton is actually creditted with more anti-terrorism legislation and action that Reagan, Bush Sr, and Bush Jr (pre-9/11) COMBINED. Clinton achieved all his anti-terrorism accomplishments inspite of a Republican Congress who opposed him nearly every time. Read the chapter titled "Operation Ignore". Bush Jr's anti-terrorism policy mirrors that of Clinton's and Clinton's advisors (including the formation of Homeland Security).

This book systematically disproves the myth of liberal media bias. This book makes a joke out of the blame-the-last-president crowd. This book annihilates Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Bernie Goldberg, etc, etc, etc... The best part is that this book is 100% factual, researched by Harvard graduates and verified by phone and Nexus for every source it uses. It also proves that Coulter's and Hannity's books are pieces of garbage because they are both filled with lies. This is easy reading too, like sixth grade level reading. And it is engaging and comical as well.


PS: I just went to an Al Franken book signing in Menlo Park yesterday. Waited four hours in the sun and got third-row seating amongst a crowd of 1800. His speech was absolutely brilliant.

I think Al Franken is great. I will read his book at some point. I bought and read Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot. I'm finishing up a less serious book on Washington by Dave Barry called Below The Beltway. It's really funny.

I've read some of O'Reilly's latest book called Who's looking out for you? (Bought it for my Father-in-law and had a peak before sending it off) and it's got some good stuff in it too. Not a funny book of course, but some good advice.

Originally posted by lex400sc
Bill O'Reilly accused Franken of defaming him, but is to this day unable to find a single shred of defamation in the entire book. He was challenged on national TV to show how it defamed him, but he has been silent every since. Why? Because it's all true fact. He was challenged in person to SUE Al Franken using the nation's well-defined defamation laws. There is yet to be a lawsuit filed.
O'Reilly had to show he was damaged by the lies. Apparently he was not damaged, so that goes to show most people don't take Franken's book as fact, only satire.

Originally posted by lex400sc
And at the same time, Bill O'Reilly defamed the son of a murdered 9/11 victim on national television. There's your characteristic right-wing double-standard.
How was the son defamed?

Originally posted by 93LexoGS300
O'Reilly had to show he was damaged by the lies. Apparently he was not damaged, so that goes to show most people don't take Franken's book as fact, only satire.

First of all, they aren't lies. Either you are lying by saying they are or you were told a lie and believed it. Everything said about O'Reilly in Franken's book is a fact. If it is not fact, it is defamation. Damage doesn't have to be proven if it is a negative lie passed off as fact. Satire is the style of his writing, not the style of his facts. Franken does kid quite a bit in his book, but there is no mistaking the facts when he presents them. I guarantee you O'Reilly was damaged by it also. If you don't think so, you've never opened the book yourself.


Originally posted by 93LexoGS300
How was the son defamed?

O'Reilly had him on his television show because he was part of an anti-war movement and his father was killed in the twin towers. The kid was very articulate, but O'Reilly cut off his mic halfway through the show and during commercial break told him "get the ***** out of here or I'll tear you to *****ing pieces". He later commented on another show and made up a complete lie, defaming him by saying that he accused Bush of knowing about the 9/11 attacks before-hand and doing nothing about it. The kid actually said nothing of the sort, but the news-media picked up on it nevertheless. This is defamation because this kid is a candidate for a PhD. and is an aspiring writer/author and this kind of conspiracy theory crap does not help him find a publisher or graduate with his doctrate. I forget the kid's name but I'm sure you'll be able to find it on Google.

Originally posted by bitkahuna
I think Al Franken is great. I will read his book at some point. I bought and read Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot. I'm finishing up a less serious book on Washington by Dave Barry called Below The Beltway. It's really funny.

Glad to hear it! Let me know what you think about it. In fact, you can post a thread or two in here about it ;). I haven't read the Rush Limbaugh Idiot book yet, I don't know if I care about Limbaugh enough to read a whole book about him, but it might be good for some laughs :). I'm going to read the Molly Ivins book next, and maybe Jack Handy too.

Originally posted by lex400sc
First of all, they aren't lies. Either you are lying by saying they are or you were told a lie and believed it. Everything said about O'Reilly in Franken's book is a fact. If it is not fact, it is defamation. Damage doesn't have to be proven if it is a negative lie passed off as fact. Satire is the style of his writing, not the style of his facts. Franken does kid quite a bit in his book, but there is no mistaking the facts when he presents them. I guarantee you O'Reilly was damaged by it also. If you don't think so, you've never opened the book yourself.
Oh that's right, it's not a lie, it's political satire :rolleyes: And you don't know the law, so don't say you know it by stating he doesn't have to prove damages. I guess you not only have a BS in political science, history, economics, you also have a degree in law.

Originally posted by lex400sc
O'Reilly had him on his television show because he was part of an anti-war movement and his father was killed in the twin towers. The kid was very articulate, but O'Reilly cut off his mic halfway through the show and during commercial break told him "get the ***** out of here or I'll tear you to *****ing pieces".
He later commented on another show and made up a complete lie, defaming him by saying that he accused Bush of knowing about the 9/11 attacks before-hand and doing nothing about it. The kid actually said nothing of the sort, but the news-media picked up on it nevertheless. This is defamation because this kid is a candidate for a PhD. and is an aspiring writer/author and this kind of conspiracy theory crap does not help him find a publisher or graduate with his doctrate. I forget the kid's name but I'm sure you'll be able to find it on Google.
Oh please, you always forget facts when it suits you. That kid was spewing far-left garbage that we trained the 9/11 hijackers and that it was wrong to go to war in Afghanistan. He also claimed the 9/11 attack was an alleged murder. This is pure garbage. The reason Glick didn't sue O'Reilly is because what O'Reilly said was true. If you read the actual transcript instead of what the far-left is stating, you'll see it is all true.

Originally posted by 93LexoGS300
Oh that's right, it's not a lie, it's political satire :rolleyes: And you don't know the law, so don't say you know it by stating he doesn't have to prove damages.

How about this... Instead of pissing around like a couple of schoolgirls, you just find me one lie about O'Reilly in Al Franken's book that is delibrately passed off as a fact and then you can start pretending like you know what you're talking about with this book. I doubt you've ever picked up Lies and the Lying Liars and yet you seem to know so much about it.

And just so we don't go in circles on this matter again, "s-a-t-i-r-e" is a style of writing. It has absolutely no relation with lies and truth; However, satire is only ever successful when it is based off truth. The comparison you make is like saying "Oh that's right, it's not a lie, it's romantic comedy". It just doesn't make any sense..

:egads:

Originally posted by 93LexoGS300
I guess you not only have a BS in political science, history, economics, you also have a degree in law.

I guess you like to paint me in every unfriendly shade you can find that suits your purposes, in this case by making it sound like I ever claimed to have any of those degrees. You make it sound like I'm the know-it-all, then what does that make you when you're convinced that I'm always wrong and you're always right. Think about it... :rolleyes:


Originally posted by 93LexoGS300
Oh please, you always forget facts when it suits you.

Man are you paranoid! Does it ever occur to you that I'm not a walking almanac and I can't remember the names of every single 15-minute fame person that was ever put on a television show? Maybe that little anecdote I gave you wasn't really important enough for me to spend minutes researching the actual name. What difference does it make anyway? Does it change the fact of the incident when a proper name is used as opposed to an improper noun? If it means all that much to you, I'll find the damn name so you can rest at night....

Originally posted by 93LexoGS300
That kid was spewing far-left garbage that we trained the 9/11 hijackers

Is that untrue? Hmm, where then did they learn how to fly planes? And I wonder which government first started funding and training terrorist groups in the Middle East to fight the Soviet Union. It doesn't take a history degree to know that much, just a willingness to accept the ugly truth.

Originally posted by 93LexoGS300
He also claimed the 9/11 attack was an alleged murder. This is pure garbage.

Pure garbage huh? I'll bet you never considered this: If we labelled 9/11 as an *international crime*, we would first establish that a wrongful act was committed, with unanymous support from the UN (at the time) the entire world would deem the attack a wrongful act, and we would have every means to pursue and legally assasinate Osama Bin Laden. But since Bush declared it *an act of war*, America unwittingly legitimized the 9/11 terrorist attack as a mere war tactic, meaning that it is fair game to continue crashing planes and mass-murdering bystanders in this so-called "war". That's why 9/11 should be considered first-degree murder and not "an act of war".

Originally posted by 93LexoGS300
The reason Glick didn't sue O'Reilly is because what O'Reilly said was true. If you read the actual transcript instead of what the far-left is stating, you'll see it is all true.

Do you have an uneditted copy of it? I'd really like to see it.

Originally posted by lex400sc
I guess you like to paint me in every unfriendly shade you can find that suits your purposes, in this case by making it sound like I ever claimed to have any of those degrees. You make it sound like I'm the know-it-all, then what does that make you when you're convinced that I'm always wrong and you're always right. Think about it... :rolleyes:
You portray yourself as a know-it-all. You try to tell me something about the law that you know little about. You state things like I wrote this paper and that to try to give yourself some credibility, but your personal attacks on members of this forum is unavailing.

Originally posted by lex400sc
Man are you paranoid! Does it ever occur to you that I'm not a walking almanac and I can't remember the names of every single 15-minute fame person that was ever put on a television show? Maybe that little anecdote I gave you wasn't really important enough for me to spend minutes researching the actual name. What difference does it make anyway? Does it change the fact of the incident when a proper name is used as opposed to an improper noun? If it means all that much to you, I'll find the damn name so you can rest at night....
When did I say that it made a difference whether you knew the guy's name or not? This is why people can't argue with you, you make up statements and then try to argue against these statements. If you didn't understand what I meant by "Oh please, you always forget facts when it suits you", let me explain so you don't distort it again (cf straw man). You forgot the fact that this kid stated that his father was not murdered in the 9/11 attack and that the U.S. was the cause of this attack because we funded terrorists in Afghanistan to fight the Russians. This is garbage. I guess we were training/funding these terrorist groups to attack our own country :rolleyes:

Originally posted by lex400sc
Is that untrue? Hmm, where then did they learn how to fly planes? And I wonder which government first started funding and training terrorist groups in the Middle East to fight the Soviet Union. It doesn't take a history degree to know that much, just a willingness to accept the ugly truth.
Okay, they learned to fly planes by taking private lessons in the U.S. Was this the government's sly way of training them to attack the World Trade Center? We funded the Afghans to fight the Russians, was this some type of covert training scheme by the U.S. to prepare them to attack the World Trade Center? These were the contentions Glick was making. The underlying facts were not untrue, but his absurd leap occured when he stated these are the reasons the World Trade Center was attacked and perpetrated by our government.

Originally posted by lex400sc
Pure garbage huh? I'll bet you never considered this: If we labelled 9/11 as an *international crime*, we would first establish that a wrongful act was committed, with unanymous support from the UN (at the time) the entire world would deem the attack a wrongful act, and we would have every means to pursue and legally assasinate Osama Bin Laden. But since Bush declared it *an act of war*, America unwittingly legitimized the 9/11 terrorist attack as a mere war tactic, meaning that it is fair game to continue crashing planes and mass-murdering bystanders in this so-called "war". That's why 9/11 should be considered first-degree murder and not "an act of war".
Apparently you are in disagreement with Glick. He said it was not a murder, but you said it should be considered a first-degree murder. At least you didn't fall into his extremist views.

Originally posted by lex400sc
Do you have an uneditted copy of it? I'd really like to see it.
You could watch the interview here: Here (http://www.thoughtcrimenews.com/oreilly.wmv)
You should also listen to his various interviews where he supported his argument that the U.S. was at fault for 9/11.

Originally posted by 93LexoGS300
You portray yourself as a know-it-all. You try to tell me something about the law that you know little about.

On the converse you tried to act like a know-it-all saying that Franken's book DID defame O'Reilly when in fact it did not: everything in it is factually based. It was researched by Harvard students and the sources were verified by the very people that wrote them. That is why O'Reilly didn't sue him. It's not because he wasn't damaged by it. I've never heard of a defamation case where you *had* to proven damage. The way I know defamation, you only have to show the statement is damaging in nature. If I published an article on CL that said you were part of the KKK and absolutely no one here believed it, you would still be able to sue me for it and win, even though it did not damage your reputation one bit.

Originally posted by 93LexoGS300
You state things like I wrote this paper and that to try to give yourself some credibility, but your personal attacks on members of this forum is unavailing.

First of all the subordinate clause in this sentence has nothing to do with the independent clause, so I don't know what the heck kind of point you're trying to make here. At the risk of being mocked again for an alledged 'lack of understanding', I'll try to address it anyway. I mentioned a paper I wrote in response to bitkahuna, not you, to show him that I was already aware of pork-barrel spending in Congress. His previous post made the assumption that I was not aware of it. I'm assuming that's the instance you're referring to. Your own personal interpretation took that remark to be a credential, when in fact I never used it as one. This dellusion of yours combined with the "college degrees dellusion" sets you on pace for another interesting invention you'd like to associate with me. I eagerly await it..... Another thing, when you set yourself up with a ridiculous comment, and I make mention of it in a relevant manner, that's not considered a personal attack just because your ego is bruised by it. Try to make the distinction for yourself.

Originally posted by 93LexoGS300
When did I say that it made a difference whether you knew the guy's name or not? This is why people can't argue with you, you make up statements and then try to argue against these statements.

Maybe that's the impression I got because I said "I forgot the kid's name but..." and you quoted that replying "you always forget the facts when it suits you".

Originally posted by 93LexoGS300
You forgot the fact that this kid stated that his father was not murdered in the 9/11 attack

Wrong, he never said, and I quote you here, "the kid stated that his father was not murdered in the 9/11 attack". Trust me, I know he never said that because I watched the show from that link you gave me.

Originally posted by 93LexoGS300
that the U.S. was the cause of this attack

Wrong, he never said the United States was the cause, he said we trained, supported, and funded the terrorist groups that ultimately came back to attack us, which is true fact. I happen to think we did indirectly cause 9/11 to occur through our decades of failed policy. If you deny that fact, just ask al Qaeda why they do what they do and what it will take for them to stop it.

Originally posted by 93LexoGS300
This is garbage. I guess we were training/funding these terrorist groups to attack our own country :rolleyes:

No actually that last statement you made is garbage. Regardless of our intentions, the fact of the matter is that we created conflict in the Middle East and for a while we supported terrorists and dictatorship, and continue to to a lesser degree today, and all of this activity has led to a climax which we experienced on 9/11.

Originally posted by 93LexoGS300
Okay, they learned to fly planes by taking private lessons in the U.S. Was this the government's sly way of training them to attack the World Trade Center?

Noooo, no one ever said that foolishness but you. Do not trivialize the facts by attaching ludicrous motives to them. They learned to fly planes, but that had no involvement of the government. In fact the government was so dettached from the 9/11 terrorists and their activities that they were all actually here as illegal aliens living and working in the country.

Originally posted by 93LexoGS300
We funded the Afghans to fight the Russians, was this some type of covert training scheme by the U.S. to prepare them to attack the World Trade Center?

Again with the obsurdity. Look, don't think you can marginalize the facts by making some asinine comment to associate with it. We built up a rebel group called the Muhajdeen Fighters in Afghanistan and Pakistan, we trained them in terror tactics, we gave them logistical support, strategic support, taught them how to build bombs and booby traps, we gave them lots of weapons, we brought them to political power from a group of ragtag rebels. Is it any wonder that they take this specialized skillset we endowed them with and use it in other ways that further their cause? When we began overturning democracies in the Middle East and installing dictatorships, is it any surprise that these Muhajdeen Fighters banded together to oppose them? And does it make logistical sense to target the unending source of these dictatorships' power: the United States?

Let's see if this theory pans out: We were avid supporters and allies with Saudi Arabia, an oppressive regime worse than Saddam's, and incidentally 17 out of 19 9/11 terrorists were Saudi nationals? Looks like it all fits together to me...

Originally posted by 93LexoGS300
These were the contentions Glick was making.

No, those were the contentions that O'Reilly was projecting onto him.

Originally posted by 93LexoGS300
The underlying facts were not untrue, but his absurd leap occured when he stated these are the reasons the World Trade Center was attacked and perpetrated by our government.

Why do you suppose they did attack us then? You think al Qaeda has no reasons for targetting us? Then it was an unprovoked random act of violence? Please don't tell me they despise freedom and liberty and all that other garbage nonsense the right feeds us. I'd like to hear your opinion on why you think the WTC was attacked.

The only "absurd leap" was when O'Reilly went on another show and told a national audience that Glick said Bush knew about 9/11 beforehand and did nothing about it. Did you see Glick say that? I sure didn't. But O'Reilly sure did feel comfortable making an "absurd leap" in that direction.


Originally posted by 93LexoGS300
Apparently you are in disagreement with Glick. He said it was not a murder, but you said it should be considered a first-degree murder. At least you didn't fall into his extremist views.

He isn't an extremist, I actually agree with him for the most part. And for the last time he didn't not say "it was not a murder". That's another distortion created by your fixation with the word "alledged".


Originally posted by 93LexoGS300
You could watch the interview here: Here (http://www.thoughtcrimenews.com/oreilly.wmv)
You should also listen to his various interviews where he supported his argument that the U.S. was at fault for 9/11.

Thanks, do you have a link? The ugly truth is that we are at fault for 9/11. If you want to go into this further, we can start another thread on it. But if you think 9/11 was completely unprovoked, you should tell that to the 19 terrorists that sacrificed their lives to murder thousands of innocent people that they don't even know. Do take note that there is a difference between provocation and justification. Were they provoked? Yes. Where they justified? Hell no.

This sounds like the old insurance comercial that says "Sir, you are half at fault. If you hadn't been driving, you wouldn't have been hit" Guess you could go on and say rape victims are at fault, as well as most other victims of crimes carried out by people who are not in their right mind. I mean hey, they were there when it happened, guess it's half their fault. Just like it is the fault of the people who showed up to work that day in the WTC.

Originally posted by SDuquette
This sounds like the old insurance comercial that says "Sir, you are half at fault. If you hadn't been driving, you wouldn't have been hit" Guess you could go on and say rape victims are at fault, as well as most other victims of crimes carried out by people who are not in their right mind. I mean hey, they were there when it happened, guess it's half their fault. Just like it is the fault of the people who showed up to work that day in the WTC.


That's absurd.

Lex400sc:

Very interesting stuff you wrote. I've been following your posts for a long time and I must say that I am pretty impressed with the way you handle yourself in your debates with SC3.0 and others.

I wish I had participated in these friendly arguments but given the fact that I am neither a conservative nor liberal (I was raised as a conservative Baptist who went to college with the hippies), it's difficult for me to be part of this forum.

With that said. Great work and good stuff you and SC3.0 are writing here. I do have to say, however, that your knowledge regarding the defamation law is not completely accurate. You may have to research a bit before you can use it to your advantage in your arguments.

Also, keep in mind that there are two different standards in defamation law when it comes to the subject who's being defamed. For instance, it would be a lot easier for a private individual to prevail in a defamation suit against his defamer than any public figure.

Of course, it does not mean that any one can just walk into a court room and file a suit against someone for defamation. To quote yourself, had you published an article on CL that said a certain individual is part of the KKK, you'll probably be sued depending on the magnititude and the effects of this article. Whether that person suing you will prevail is another story. If I remember correctly (it's been a while since I took tort. SC3.0: give me a hand if you still remember the elements for defamation), some type of economic losses is required for a defamation claim.

In general, don't forget that the very thing that guarantees each and every one of us from being censored by the government (the good ole 1st Amendment) also shields you from being punished for your freedom to express your thoughts.

Jon

Originally posted by lex400sc
On the converse you tried to act like a know-it-all saying that Franken's book DID defame O'Reilly when in fact it did not: everything in it is factually based. It was researched by Harvard students and the sources were verified by the very people that wrote them. That is why O'Reilly didn't sue him. It's not because he wasn't damaged by it. I've never heard of a defamation case where you *had* to proven damage. The way I know defamation, you only have to show the statement is damaging in nature. If I published an article on CL that said you were part of the KKK and absolutely no one here believed it, you would still be able to sue me for it and win, even though it did not damage your reputation one bit.

.

Originally posted by lex400sc
On the converse you tried to act like a know-it-all saying that Franken's book DID defame O'Reilly when in fact it did not: everything in it is factually based. It was researched by Harvard students and the sources were verified by the very people that wrote them. That is why O'Reilly didn't sue him. It's not because he wasn't damaged by it. I've never heard of a defamation case where you *had* to proven damage. The way I know defamation, you only have to show the statement is damaging in nature. If I published an article on CL that said you were part of the KKK and absolutely no one here believed it, you would still be able to sue me for it and win, even though it did not damage your reputation one bit.
I know you're trying to save face, but you're completely wrong, I'm not going to explain the legal elements of defamation to you, ask a lawyer. If you tell me a lie about me and no one else hears it, it is not defamation. Thank you in advance for conceding this point ;)

Originally posted by lex400sc
First of all the subordinate clause in this sentence has nothing to do with the independent clause, so I don't know what the heck kind of point you're trying to make here. At the risk of being mocked again for an alledged 'lack of understanding', I'll try to address it anyway. I mentioned a paper I wrote in response to bitkahuna, not you, to show him that I was already aware of pork-barrel spending in Congress. His previous post made the assumption that I was not aware of it. I'm assuming that's the instance you're referring to. Your own personal interpretation took that remark to be a credential, when in fact I never used it as one. This dellusion of yours combined with the "college degrees dellusion" sets you on pace for another interesting invention you'd like to associate with me. I eagerly await it..... Another thing, when you set yourself up with a ridiculous comment, and I make mention of it in a relevant manner, that's not considered a personal attack just because your ego is bruised by it. Try to make the distinction for yourself.
You've made quite a few statements that you studied this and that (economics, politics, etc), so therefore you are right and others are wrong. In regards to interesting inventions, you've blindly grouped me as a person who is a Bush fanatic and that I follow him no matter what. It's hypocritical to argue to me that I make broad assumptions about you when you make broad assumptions about those who have a contrary opinion to yours. Speaking about bruised egos, you perceive your ego to be bruised when someone states a contrary opinion to yours or state facts that are contrary to your arguments, that's why you reply by attacking the person or twisting what they say so that you could attack it.

Originally posted by lex400sc
Maybe that's the impression I got because I said "I forgot the kid's name but..." and you quoted that replying "you always forget the facts when it suits you".
I didn't quote only your statement that you forgot the kid's name. I quoted your whole paragraph whose premise is that O'Reilly defamed this kid because the kid is part of an anti-war movement, he is a candidate for a PhD., and is an aspiring writer who writes about conspiracy theories. I responded by stating you forgot that this kid was making ludicrous statements that the government conspired to cause 9/11. I do not know how you came up with the idea that I was arguing with you about forgetting this kid's name :rolleyes:

Originally posted by lex400sc
Wrong, he never said, and I quote you here, "the kid stated that his father was not murdered in the 9/11 attack". Trust me, I know he never said that because I watched the show from that link you gave me.

In response to: "You forgot the fact that this kid stated that his father was not murdered in the 9/11 attack."

Watch the video again, he states that the his father's death was an alleged assisination and murder. 52 seconds into the video.

Originally posted by lex400sc
Wrong, he never said the United States was the cause, he said we trained, supported, and funded the terrorist groups that ultimately came back to attack us, which is true fact. I happen to think we did indirectly cause 9/11 to occur through our decades of failed policy. If you deny that fact, just ask al Qaeda why they do what they do and what it will take for them to stop it.
He stated that we trained, supported, and funded terrorist groups that committed the alleged assisination and murder of his father and countless thousands. Alleged assasination and murder? If it is not an assasination and murder, then what was it? A conspirarcy by our government to train these terrorists and then allowed them to attack us on 9/11?

Originally posted by lex400sc
No actually that last statement you made is garbage.
Apparently you can't tell when a person is being sarcastic even though I used the "rolleyes" icon. And then you treat what I said as fact and then call it garbage. Nice try :thumbdn:

Originally posted by lex400sc
Noooo, no one ever said that foolishness but you. Do not trivialize the facts by attaching ludicrous motives to them. They learned to fly planes, but that had no involvement of the government. In fact the government was so dettached from the 9/11 terrorists and their activities that they were all actually here as illegal aliens living and working in the country.

In response to: "Okay, they learned to fly planes by taking private lessons in the U.S. Was this the government's sly way of training them to attack the World Trade Center? We funded the Afghans to fight the Russians, was this some type of covert training scheme by the U.S. to prepare them to attack the World Trade Center? These were the contentions Glick was making. The underlying facts were not untrue, but his absurd leap occured when he stated these are the reasons the World Trade Center was attacked and perpetrated by our government."

Which was in response to: " Hmm, where then did they learn how to fly planes? And I wonder which government first started funding and training terrorist groups in the Middle East to fight the Soviet Union. It doesn't take a history degree to know that much, just a willingness to accept the ugly truth."

So where did they learn to fly the planes? You posed the question "where then did they learn to fly planes?" and then stated these terrorists were funded and trained by our government. So if these terrorists where trained and funded by our government to fly planes, does this not mean that our government trained the terrorists to attack us on 9/11? If that is not what you meant, you should state your opinions clearly.

Originally posted by lex400sc
Again with the obsurdity. Look, don't think you can marginalize the facts by making some asinine comment to associate with it. We built up a rebel group called the Muhajdeen Fighters in Afghanistan and Pakistan, we trained them in terror tactics, we gave them logistical support, strategic support, taught them how to build bombs and booby traps, we gave them lots of weapons, we brought them to political power from a group of ragtag rebels. Is it any wonder that they take this specialized skillset we endowed them with and use it in other ways that further their cause? When we began overturning democracies in the Middle East and installing dictatorships, is it any surprise that these Muhajdeen Fighters banded together to oppose them? And does it make logistical sense to target the unending source of these dictatorships' power: the United States?
See above comment about being clear in making your statements.

Originally posted by lex400sc
Why do you suppose they did attack us then? You think al Qaeda has no reasons for targetting us? Then it was an unprovoked random act of violence? Please don't tell me they despise freedom and liberty and all that other garbage nonsense the right feeds us. I'd like to hear your opinion on why you think the WTC was attacked.

Statements from Bin Laden, October 2001:

"America has made many accusations against us and many other Muslims around the world. Its charge that we are carrying out acts of terrorism is an unwarranted description." Referring to attacks Israel committed by homicide-bombers.

"I swear that America won't enjoy security before we live it for real in Palestine."

"The U.S. government will lead the American people and the West in general will enter an unbearable hell and a choking life because the Western leadership acts under the Zionist lobby's influence for the purpose of serving Israel, which kills our sons unlawfully in order for them to remain in their leadership positions."

"Attacking America helps the cause of Palestine and vice versa."

His premise for attacking us was because of our support of Israel. What do I think about the situation in Israel? We've got to give the Palestinians their own state because it was taken away from them. These groups were living together and sharing Palestine until it was divided by the British mandate.

Originally posted by lex400sc
He isn't an extremist, I actually agree with him for the most part. And for the last time he didn't not say "it was not a murder". That's another distortion created by your fixation with the word "alledged".
"Alleged", aka "supposed, not proven". If the murders and assasinations on 9/11 were "supposed and not proven", does this not mean that he doesn't believe they were murdered or assasinated on 9/11 because they are not proven?

Originally posted by lex400sc
Thanks, do you have a link? The ugly truth is that we are at fault for 9/11. If you want to go into this further, we can start another thread on it. But if you think 9/11 was completely unprovoked, you should tell that to the 19 terrorists that sacrificed their lives to murder thousands of innocent people that they don't even know. Do take note that there is a difference between provocation and justification. Were they provoked? Yes. Where they justified? Hell no.
"19 terrorists that sacrificed their lives"? Who are you kidding here? Why don't you tell the families of the 9/11 victims this, I'm sure this would result in a blackened eye, among other things. :thumbdn:

Originally posted by Baby ///M3
I do have to say, however, that your knowledge regarding the defamation law is not completely accurate. You may have to research a bit before you can use it to your advantage in your arguments.
Exactly :thumbup: I didn't expect him to know the law, but he kept insisting he was right.

Originally posted by 93LexoGS300
Exactly :thumbup: I didn't expect him to know the law, but he kept insisting he was right.

Originally posted by lex400sc
The way I know defamation...

Does that sound like "insisting" to you? :rolleyes:

Of course, it does not mean that any one can just walk into a court room and file a suit against someone for defamation. To quote yourself, had you published an article on CL that said a certain individual is part of the KKK, you'll probably be sued depending on the magnititude and the effects of this article. Whether that person suing you will prevail is another story. If I remember correctly (it's been a while since I took tort. SC3.0: give me a hand if you still remember the elements for defamation), some type of economic losses is required for a defamation claim.


Well there are two types of Defamation: Libel and Slander.. In this case it would be considered Libel. Libel Law suits are files general if someone says something that may be construed to lessen your reputation in text. The damaging information must be proven to be false, and you generally must have witnesses

Originally posted by 93LexoGS300
You've made quite a few statements that you studied this and that (economics, politics, etc), so therefore you are right and others are wrong.

Please quote me "quite a few" times where I used my personal and scholastic studies as the premise of my being right and others being wrong. Until then.....hush.

Originally posted by 93LexoGS300
In regards to interesting inventions, you've blindly grouped me as a person who is a Bush fanatic and that I follow him no matter what.

Did I say you were, or did you attach yourself to that label ;). Please quote where I targeted you as a Bush fanatic (if I did I didn't mean it), but until then....hush.

Originally posted by 93LexoGS300
It's hypocritical to argue to me that I make broad assumptions about you when you make broad assumptions about those who have a contrary opinion to yours.

Where did I do this? Any time I make a characterization of you or others, it is based off your previous posts.

Originally posted by 93LexoGS300
Speaking about bruised egos, you perceive your ego to be bruised when someone states a contrary opinion to yours or state facts that are contrary to your arguments, that's why you reply by attacking the person or twisting what they say so that you could attack it.

I don't twist anyone's words and it is not my fault if misread what you meant by "forgot" because the only thing I ever claimed to have forgotten is the guy's name. I didn't "forget" all the conspiracy talk you say the kid said because I have yet to see it. My ego is not bruised either, but I will defend it when you or others put words in my mouth. I'll respectfully give you the same power if I ever put words in your mouth, which I'm pretty sure I haven't yet.

Originally posted by 93LexoGS300
I didn't quote only your statement that you forgot the kid's name. I quoted your whole paragraph whose premise is that O'Reilly defamed this kid because the kid is part of an anti-war movement, he is a candidate for a PhD., and is an aspiring writer who writes about conspiracy theories. I responded by stating you forgot that this kid was making ludicrous statements that the government conspired to cause 9/11. I do not know how you came up with the idea that I was arguing with you about forgetting this kid's name :rolleyes:

First of all, he isn't an aspiring writer who writes about conspiracy theories. That is specifically the characterization he is afraid of having. Second, I still haven't seen any of his conspiracy theories you keep talking about, unless you consider "America at fault" a conspiracy.

Originally posted by 93LexoGS300
Watch the video again, he states that the his father's death was an alleged assisination and murder. 52 seconds into the video.


He stated that we trained, supported, and funded terrorist groups that committed the alleged assisination and murder of his father and countless thousands. Alleged assasination and murder? If it is not an assasination and murder, then what was it? A conspirarcy by our government to train these terrorists and then allowed them to attack us on 9/11?

I won't speak for this guy, I won't make assumptions about what he meant, and I won't defend him because I have no idea why he used the word "alledged" or if it was a mistake. He seems like a bright kid, so I doubt that he's questioning whether a crime was committed or not.

Originally posted by 93LexoGS300
Apparently you can't tell when a person is being sarcastic even though I used the "rolleyes" icon. And then you treat what I said as fact and then call it garbage. Nice try :thumbdn:

People have trouble detecting sarcasm in speech, what makes you think it's any easier in plain text on a computer monitor? And who defined the meaning of the rolleyes icon? I've used it in at least a half a dozen contexts myself.

Originally posted by 93LexoGS300
So where did they learn to fly the planes? You posed the question "where then did they learn to fly planes?" and then stated these terrorists were funded and trained by our government. So if these terrorists where trained and funded by our government to fly planes, does this not mean that our government trained the terrorists to attack us on 9/11? If that is not what you meant, you should state your opinions clearly.

At least this time you admitted you don't understand what I mean instead of drawing up extensions off the cuff. Here's what I meant: Tthe terrorists were trained on how to fly commercial airliners at a privately-held flight school, not the US government. The terrorists were also trained in modern combat, weapons operations, guerilla tactics, bomb making, interrogation, etc, this time by the US government or an American intermediary. Two seperate trainings by two seperate sources used in two seperate occassions.


Originally posted by 93LexoGS300
Statements from Bin Laden, October 2001:

"America has made many accusations against us and many other Muslims around the world. Its charge that we are carrying out acts of terrorism is an unwarranted description." Referring to attacks Israel committed by homicide-bombers.

"I swear that America won't enjoy security before we live it for real in Palestine."

"The U.S. government will lead the American people and the West in general will enter an unbearable hell and a choking life because the Western leadership acts under the Zionist lobby's influence for the purpose of serving Israel, which kills our sons unlawfully in order for them to remain in their leadership positions."

"Attacking America helps the cause of Palestine and vice versa."

His premise for attacking us was because of our support of Israel. What do I think about the situation in Israel? We've got to give the Palestinians their own state because it was taken away from them. These groups were living together and sharing Palestine until it was divided by the British mandate.

While Osama might have said these things, this is not the mission statement of al Qaeda. This was likely just public relations stuff for Osama to recruit more angry Arab-Muslims who have strong opinions about Israel. Al Qaeda will continue to plan attacks against the United States and other involved western powers until we withdraw all our military bases from the region, and withdraw political, logistical, and financial support for Israel, and just leave Arab-Muslims to their own self-governing.

They see the conflict in the Middle East stemming from our post-WW2 political divisions of the Middle East, the controllable dictators we installed in power, and our two-faced policies. The Middle East is plagued with internal conflict because we drew up their borders, often times splitting apart common religious factions along political boundaries, and in other cases bunching up rival factions within a political boundary. Then whoever was put into power, wielded their unabated strength to drive out whatever majority that differed from them. IE: Saddam's Sunnis are only 1/3 of the population, and they controlled the power over the 2/3 Shi'a majority and the Shi'a was often times supressed by the Sunni. Happens in other Middle Eastern countries also. We also overturned quite a few democracies in the region and replaced them with more controllable authoritarian puppet regimes. The practice continues today still. I can see where their anger and frustration comes from and pursuing change through conventional methods doesn't seem viable at all.

Originally posted by 93LexoGS300
"19 terrorists that sacrificed their lives"? Who are you kidding here?

Kidding? Nah... They did willingly give up their lives for their cause, which is considered a sacrifice no matter if it's right or wrong. If you joined the US Army and gave up your life in Iraq (a cause you believe in), wouldn't you consider that a sacrifice? Just because we're talking about the enemy, with diametrically opposed causes, doesn't change the giving up of life for the cause.

Originally posted by 93LexoGS300
I'm sure this would result in a blackened eye, among other things. :thumbdn:

I'm sure too. If someone swung at me, they'd surely receive a blackened eye. ;)

Originally posted by SCLexus3.0
[b]The damaging information must be proven to be false

There's the key! ;)

Originally posted by lex400sc


Kidding? Nah... They did willingly give up their lives for their cause, which is considered a sacrifice no matter if it's right or wrong. If you joined the US Army and gave up your life in Iraq (a cause you believe in), wouldn't you consider that a sacrifice? Just because we're talking about the enemy, with diametrically opposed causes, doesn't change the giving up of life for the cause.




Sacrifice? Nah... More like Suicide: The act of taking one's own life voluntary and intentionally; self-murder; specifically (Law), the felonious killing of one's self.

Following your definition of the word would be like saying the Japanese Suicide Bombers were infact Sacrificial Bombers. lol..

The Terrorists were more like Kamikaze bombers that anything

Kamikaze:
1:An airplane loaded with explosives to be piloted in a suicide attack
2:An extremely reckless person who seems to court death
3:A pilot trained in World War II to make a suicidal crash attack, especially upon a ship

Adj Form:
Of or relating to a suicidal air attack: a kamikaze mission

Doesn't say a thing about Sacrificial Air Attack... lol

Wrong. Giving up life for one's own cause is NOT sacrifice. Sacrifice embraces the notions of honor, holiness, and courage. What the terrorists on 9-11 did was an act of horror.

Sacrifice stands for the very proposition that you give up your valued possession (sometimes, that includes your own life) for others in furtherance of their well being, justice, and good cause.

It does NOT make sense to apply the word sacrifice to an act that is either evil or wrongful. The terrorists who ran the planes into the buildings had intentionally, willfully, and maliciously used disasterous murder weapons against civilians, all for the causes of hate, violence, and provocation for retialiation.

These innocent people had done nothing wrong and were minding their own business when they died. They were the ones who "sacrificed" themselves under a terrible act. We sacrificed these innocent civilians because we did not do a good enough job to prevent the terrorists from attacking us. But we do have to be thankful. We have to be thankful for their sacrifice because but for their sacrifice, any one of us, including you, might have been the next target of the terrorists.

You claimed numerous times and repeatedly that you read historical materials and that you educate yourself with books. You do this, continue with your education and see if the word "sacrifice" would be used in any historical text book (excluding the ones from the Middle East of course; Even today, I know some Japanese students are still being taught that what Japan did in WWII to China was fully justified and for a good cause. This is simply an act of self-denial.) 50 years down the road for the horrible act that these terrorists have done on 9-11.

Jon

Originally posted by Lex400sc
Kidding? Nah... They did willingly give up their lives for their cause, which is considered a sacrifice no matter if it's right or wrong. If you joined the US Army and gave up your life in Iraq (a cause you believe in), wouldn't you consider that a sacrifice? Just because we're talking about the enemy, with diametrically opposed causes, doesn't change the giving up of life for the cause.

Originally posted by Baby ///M3
Wrong. Giving up life for one's own cause is NOT sacrifice. Sacrifice embraces the notions of honor, holiness, and courage. What the terrorists on 9-11 did was an act of horror.

Sacrifice stands for the very proposition that you give up your valued possession (sometimes, that includes your own life) for others in furtherance of their well being, justice, and good cause.

It does NOT make sense to apply the word sacrifice to an act that is either evil or wrongful. The terrorists who ran the planes into the buildings had intentionally, willfully, and maliciously used disasterous murder weapons against civilians, all for the causes of hate, violence, and provocation for retialiation.

These innocent people had done nothing wrong and were minding their own business when they died. They were the ones who "sacrificed" themselves under a terrible act. We sacrificed these innocent civilians because we did not do a good enough job to prevent the terrorists from attacking us. But we do have to be thankful. We have to be thankful for their sacrifice because but for their sacrifice, any one of us, including you, might have been the next target of the terrorists.

You claimed numerous times and repeatedly that you read historical materials and that you educate yourself with books. You do this, continue with your education and see if the word "sacrifice" would be used in any historical text book (excluding the ones from the Middle East of course; Even today, I know some Japanese students are still being taught that what Japan did in WWII to China was fully justified and for a good cause. This is simply an act of self-denial.) 50 years down the road for the horrible act that these terrorists have done on 9-11.

Jon

Your right M3....

Lex400sc, just to show that you don't agree with what they did, you could use a better word to more accurately describe the terrorism of what they did. You could say they sacrificed their lives, but by saying that you almost sound as if you support their effort. You could have used a more accurate word. I could easily say they: contributed, donated, committed, renounced, and surrendered their lives to a terrorist act.

I would choose the most negative word to use whn describing monsters like this.

Honor, justice, and goodness have nothing to do with the term sacrifice. I take it you're a religious person because these are all religious notions attached to the word sacrifice. Since you pointed it out, yes I could have used "suicide" instead, but I'm sorry I don't measure the weight of every verb I put down in a stream of concious writing. I view the entire terrorism thing in terms of strategy (because it's pointless to contemplate it any other way). In chess strategy, you may "sacrifice" or kill off a piece to force your opponent into a position of vunerability three moves down the line. In baseball, a batter can make a sacrifice bunt to kill his involvement in the inning, but further another baserunner's. Sacrifice is giving up something of value to further something else of greater importance. That's how I see it. I don't try to parallel anything I think is a sacrifice with Jesus hanging on a cross, because that was only one particular instance of sacrifice. Lexus = car doesn't mean car = Lexus.

I'll let the dictionary say the rest for me....

Encarta Dictionary

sac·ri·fice [ sákrə fss ]

noun (plural sac·ri·fic·es)

2. transitive verb abandon somebody or something for advantage: to allow somebody or something to be hurt, killed, or destroyed for your own advantage


On a final note, I really wish we wouldn't get caught up on mundane literary details such as how insensitive my choice of verbs can be construed to be by certain individuals who would like to see my image damaged by it. You guys really drag the thread down when the whole focus shifts from "personal experiences that influenced your outlook on geopolitics" to "the meaning of the word 'sacrifice'".

Originally posted by lex400sc
On a final note, I really wish we wouldn't get caught up on mundane literary details such as how insensitive my choice of verbs can be construed to be by certain individuals who would like to see my image damaged by it. You guys really drag the thread down when the whole focus shifts from "personal experiences that influenced your outlook on geopolitics" to "the meaning of the word 'sacrifice'".
I believe it's a little more than getting caught up in mundane literary details. If you were talking to me and used the wrong word, I could immediately ask you to clarify or you can tell by my facial expression that something you said bothered me. I believe that when your thoughts are limited to what is seen on the written page, like here, then there is more of a necessity to be clear and concise so thoughts and ideas could be accurately portrayed. The only things we have to understand the writer's point is what is written. Although writing in CL, in general, does not require a moderate to high degree of precision, I believe that what is written in the debate forum should more precise because thoughts and ideas are being debated. Using the wrong words to express an idea/thought in this sub-forum could lead to an inaccurate basis of a retort.

This is in contrast to mundane literary details, such as spelling and some punctuation such as capitalization, placement of a "period" at the end of a sentence, etc.

I'm not stating that members who post here have to be precise, I'm just showing that choice of words are more than just mundane details.

lex400sc,

As 93LexoGS300 mentioned, I did not intend to pick on your based on your word choices. I merely responded to your comments because I felt strongly about your expressions.

Also, I don't think "sacrifice" is immaterial to the context of our friendly debates. Notice I was not picking on you based on irrelevant matters such as punctuation, spelling, or grammer. I understand every single word you wrote and as long as it makes sense to me, there's no point for me being a jerk about it. However, I do feel that word usage, unlike anything else, is very important in debates because it conveys to people what your belief and ideology are.

Personally, I truly believe the word "sacrifice" has a religious notion to it. I don't think this word should be used loosely because it's a verb that incites emotion and thoughts. While it's true that you may have to sacrifice the pope to save the king in a chess game, or that you may have to have a sacrifice bunt as a strategy in a baseball game, these are just games. In games, it doesn't matter how you define or apply the meaning of sacrifice.

For us human beings, the application of the word "sacrifice" in describing people's action is completely different. Perhaps I am religous. But I don't think many here will disagree with me about the notion that whatever those terrorists did on 9/11, it was not a sacrificing act.

As applied to people, I don't think sacrificing is giving up something of value to further something else of greater importance. At least I don't think this definition works very well in terms of defining people's acts. To say so would be to suggest that those terroists' lives were less important than their cause (whether it be to destory our country, or to advance their interest). To me, life is the most precious gift of all things in this world and nothing is more valuable than life.

Therefore, I think "sacrifice" should have another definition when we're referring to people. State it other way, when your parents sacrifice their time and resource for you, it certainly does not mean that their time and resource are any less important than yours.

Jon




Originally posted by lex400sc
Honor, justice, and goodness have nothing to do with the term sacrifice. I take it you're a religious person because these are all religious notions attached to the word sacrifice. Since you pointed it out, yes I could have used "suicide" instead, but I'm sorry I don't measure the weight of every verb I put down in a stream of concious writing. I view the entire terrorism thing in terms of strategy (because it's pointless to contemplate it any other way). In chess strategy, you may "sacrifice" or kill off a piece to force your opponent into a position of vunerability three moves down the line. In baseball, a batter can make a sacrifice bunt to kill his involvement in the inning, but further another baserunner's. Sacrifice is giving up something of value to further something else of greater importance. That's how I see it. I don't try to parallel anything I think is a sacrifice with Jesus hanging on a cross, because that was only one particular instance of sacrifice. Lexus = car doesn't mean car = Lexus.

I'll let the dictionary say the rest for me....




On a final note, I really wish we wouldn't get caught up on mundane literary details such as how insensitive my choice of verbs can be construed to be by certain individuals who would like to see my image damaged by it. You guys really drag the thread down when the whole focus shifts from "personal experiences that influenced your outlook on geopolitics" to "the meaning of the word 'sacrifice'".

Originally posted by Baby ///M3
lex400sc,

As 93LexoGS300 mentioned, I did not intend to pick on your based on your word choices. I merely responded to your comments because I felt strongly about your expressions.

Also, I don't think "sacrifice" is immaterial to the context of our friendly debates. Notice I was not picking on you based on irrelevant matters such as punctuation, spelling, or grammer. I understand every single word you wrote and as long as it makes sense to me, there's no point for me being a jerk about it. However, I do feel that word usage, unlike anything else, is very important in debates because it conveys to people what your belief and ideology are.

Personally, I truly believe the word "sacrifice" has a religious notion to it. I don't think this word should be used loosely because it's a verb that incites emotion and thoughts. While it's true that you may have to sacrifice the pope to save the king in a chess game, or that you may have to have a sacrifice bunt as a strategy in a baseball game, these are just games. In games, it doesn't matter how you define or apply the meaning of sacrifice.

For us human beings, the application of the word "sacrifice" in describing people's action is completely different. Perhaps I am religous. But I don't think many here will disagree with me about the notion that whatever those terrorists did on 9/11, it was not a sacrificing act.

As applied to people, I don't think sacrificing is giving up something of value to further something else of greater importance. At least I don't think this definition works very well in terms of defining people's acts. To say so would be to suggest that those terroists' lives were less important than their cause (whether it be to destory our country, or to advance their interest). To me, life is the most precious gift of all things in this world and nothing is more valuable than life.

Therefore, I think "sacrifice" should have another definition when we're referring to people. State it other way, when your parents sacrifice their time and resource for you, it certainly does not mean that their time and resource are any less important than yours.

Jon


Well Said.:thumbup:

Originally posted by lex400sc
Hannity himself is a dishonest, reptilian, liar,a bully to less a degree than O'Reilly, a full-on homophobe (read his books?), and a distortionist. His logic is full of holes because he backs it with half-truths and fallacies. I have many examples of this too if you want to hear them. Anyway, I'm getting kind of bored of typing so I'll continue this later.

LMAO!!! http://smilies.crowd9.com/otn/laughing/yelrotflmao.gif
"a dishonest, reptilian, liar,a bully"
How right you are sir. I sit there and I'm literally amazed at the shiz spewing from his piehole. http://216.40.249.192/s/cwm/3dlil/eek13.gif
I guess the "sensationalism" that he brings to the show/network is right up there arse, I mean alley. :D

As far as my political background/beliefs in a "nutshell": When I was growing up, I spent half the time with my Grandparents (parents were divorced) and I looked up to my Grandfather so much for being the hard-working Insurance Man, provider, teacher, hero, Christian, and parent that he was (now deceased). We would all sit and watch the state of the union's by various Presidents over the years. Who I remember: Carter, Ford, Reagan, and Bush Sr.
Of course all I knew at the time was that here was my Grandparents (my Grandmother also worked part-time as a cook at the local Elementary) who worked hard, were beloved by our relatives, church, friends, and neighbors alike. And whom instilled in me, education, hard study, fairness, and of course church growing up. NEVER was I told to become a Democrat or did they bash Republicans. But...they pointed out differnces which they felt directly affected their livelihood: taxes, enviornment, and general economics. So naturally as I grew and could put things into perspective, I looked back on the people who meant so much to me and instilled the values that make the fair, honest, reliable, hard-working, husband, and man that I am today. Why would such Great Americans and Parents such as these vote Democrat? It has become apparent now that I am an adult. ;) Although I can honestly say that no party/president has done a perfect job (non ever will) however, it has/is apparent to me that the Democratic party as a whole, conveys a much better understanding to those individuals/Americans who are NOT wealthy and/or powerful in that respect. How? It too is very apparent: the various laws, taxes, bills, civil rights, federal spending, and benefits are truly different. I'm not a political scholar, nor profess to be one. My mind, interests, and general abilities, are just as good as anyone here. So rather than typing up paragraphs on paragraphs of the above said differences, I encourage anyone (who's interested) to research our past and present: laws, taxes, bills, civil rights, federal spending, and benefits. It just so happens that for me, a Liberal President has benefitted this Country (or should I say a vast majority of) more so than a Moderate. No matter how you slice it.......It is a complete travesty and falice for individuals/human beings who earn $50k (or less!) to be expected to pay the same amount of tax as someone making $5Million. Whatever the reason, there is excuse nor will there EVER be. And YES! That goes for me too, if and when I myself am making that kind of money. Which by the way is a drop in the perverbial bucket compared to some Americans...they DEFINITELY should be paying more taxes. Why........? If you have to ask that question.........You probably don't understand the meaning of the words: Help, Fair, Understanding, or Appreciative (for even being blessed to have/make all that $). And throwing what at times seems to be limitless amounts of Americans money right into other countries when so many American men, women, and children suffer right here.....

".......It is a complete travesty and falice for individuals/human beings who earn $50k (or less!) to be expected to pay the same amount of tax as someone making $5Million"



Before I ever started getting into politics, all parties aside, I made my own decision that tax money is used for the services and governments that we as American citizens use. Everyone should pay THEIR share to use these services. Think of a Condo association that cuts the lawn, plows the snow, fixes up the roofs, do you see them charging the lower income people less to provide these services?

I don’t see why the hardcore democrats feel the wealthy should pay for services that the lower income people use. It takes X amount of dollars to run the PD, FD, the IRS, CIA you name it, I pay out 20x more tax then the average person and I get the SAME services as they do.

Everyone should pay their share, plain and simple, it kills me even more to listen to people say those who really need it, 50k and under, should get more tax breaks. WHY they already pay very little tax as it is, they should have to pay for the services they use!

Originally posted by TXSTYLE
LMAO!!! No matter how you slice it.......It is a complete travesty and falice for individuals/human beings who earn $50k (or less!) to be expected to pay the same amount of tax as someone making $5Million.

What are you talking about? The Same Amount? Maybe the same Percentage, but not the same amount by a long shot!

I pay around a $150,000+ in taxes each year compared to a $50,000 income earners $7 or so thousand!... Man, you really have your numbers mixed up or you fail to understand out tax system completely.

And your average family making less than $50,000 gets the largest percent back!

Most people and Families that make under $30,000 don't even end up paying taxes!

"Most people and Families that make under $30,000 don't even end up paying taxes!"

It's like, living here for free.

Originally posted by jpa2400
I don’t see why the hardcore democrats feel the wealthy should pay for services that the lower income people use. It takes X amount of dollars to run the PD, FD, the IRS, CIA you name it, I pay out 20x more tax then the average person and I get the SAME services as they do.

Who gets the faster police and fire response?
Who gets the widest police and fire coverage?
Who has the safest neighborhoods?
Who has the most well funded municipal services?
Who's roads are always fresh-paved?
Who's neighborhoods are always the last to be blacked-out in a power shortage?
Who's public schools are lavishly staffed and maintained?

The rich neighborhoods always get top notch public services. Trust me, I grew up in a rich area in California, I saw it first hand. Compare Danville, California to San Leandro California just twenty miles away. Polar opposites.

Another thing you guys overlook is who is benefitting the most from America? Who is enjoying the most success from living in America? The $10,000,000/year man only makes $10 million every year because he's living and operating in America. Do you think he'd find the same market and same prosperity if he were based out of Mexico? A proportional amount of tax is the least he can do to show his appreciation for being allowed to immigrate here from say Cuba and thrive. On the other hand a man making $10/hour is barely able to sustain li