Latest Diablo 3 News
DiabloWiki Updates
Support the site! Become a Diablo: IncGamers PAL - Remove ads and more!

How can this BS still be tolerated??

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by DrunkPotHead, Jun 29, 2005.

  1. DrunkPotHead

    DrunkPotHead IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,801
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    466
    How can this BS still be tolerated??

    How come no one criticizes this guy as much as they criticize those evil democrats who in the very least, aren't flat-out lying?
     
  2. krzyhobo

    krzyhobo IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2003
    Messages:
    369
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    122
    We've got to bash the lib'ruls (thanks Durf, for that word) because they "saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." Oh wait, I keep forgetting that I'm not Karl Rove.

    I agree with you; I wish stories like this were more widely-publicized. I also wouldn't hesitate for a moment to blame the popular news media organizations - they choose which stories to blow out of proportion and which to ignore. What's even more depressing is that the foul-up probably won't even effect this guy's public opinion even though he is knowingly lying to the public. What a world (country, rather) we live in.
     
  3. KillJoyBob

    KillJoyBob IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Messages:
    345
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    77
    People will be fed BS in direct porportion to their ability to swallow it. Unfortunately, the capacity to believe nonesense from our elected officials seems to be limitless in a good portion of the populace.

    Cheney and Rumsfeld are both on record, saying there is absolutely no link between Saddam and the 9/11 attacks. However, this is obviously being twisted around given the slipping popularity of the deployment in Iraq.
     
  4. ~C|-|erish~

    ~C|-|erish~ IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2004
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    5
    Unfortunately, the majority of voters are not well informed and will believe anything they're told.

    I believe in voting, but only if you're well informed about the issues at stake when you do vote. I'm in advertising and I know that most people vote on name recognition. I once worked on a campaign for a little known city official running against an incumbent and this official had the name of a famous politician. He got the majority votes because of his name.

    I believe that voters should be given a test on current legislations/bills/proposals before they are allowed to vote. That should cut down on the uninformed quotient placing votes based solely on race and/or name recognition.
     
  5. krzyhobo

    krzyhobo IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2003
    Messages:
    369
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    122
    But if he can't encourage uninformed young adults to vote then what would P-Diddy do during election season?
     
  6. jmervyn

    jmervyn IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    15,251
    Likes Received:
    357
    Trophy Points:
    498
    Seriously, want to know? You'll have to break that shell of BLCD first, as evidenced in "aren't flat-out lying"...

    There are all kinds of evidence regarding Saddam's ties to Al Quaeda, and even some regarding his links with 9/11. However, none of those pieces of evidence can, 1) stand on their own, or 2) be cross-confirmed. The fact that the data is there and is often true is immaterial; it was completely wrong to publicize uncorroborated intelligence as fact.

    The 9/11 commission was correct in its findings, and the Administration had to 'fess up, because you simply can't ignore these rules. Someone pointed out a guy who was pumping his book on the Daily Show, claiming that the CIA was ignoring the facts that Iran (not Iraq) was the country sponsoring 9/11. Again, this is both true and not; there's almost certain to be plenty of intelligence backing it, but nothing that in any way resembles legal evidence or verifiable fact.

    You could say that it is nothing but hearsay, since you can't put many of the people in the witness box.
     
  7. myleftfoot

    myleftfoot IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2004
    Messages:
    1,931
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Wasn't that an Eddie Murhpy movie?
     
  8. DrunkPotHead

    DrunkPotHead IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,801
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    466
    I was reffering the the Durbin quote, which was out of place and inaccurate, but not a flat out lie. Just an ugly opinion.

    I thought the Daily Show put that to rest with "no evidence proving or disproving" and proving a negative is impossible.

    So tell me again, why this guy is lying and going against the administration, and yet, is facing less criticism than democrats for unpopular opinions?
     
  9. jmervyn

    jmervyn IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    15,251
    Likes Received:
    357
    Trophy Points:
    498
    Well, keep in mind that the Daily Show is satire, with no need to adhere to facts, even if their writers do double duty for liberal pundits (hey, maybe THAT's the problem!) Since I'm being asked to "do" reasonable journalism rather than hype, here's a piece by Hayes that is pretty clear. Even the 9/11 commission chair was quite clear that the linkages were well-proven; it was the link of Saddam to the attack itself which was not substantiated.

    Sorry, you lost me. Which guy - do you mean the guy touting the Iran-Al Quaeda link, Ken Timmerman? He's being hyped by the left, but that hardly means his material is not factual, valid, or unpopular with the Administration. It is just another example of intelligence gathering, and I believe Stephen Hayes has grist from the same mill.

    EDIT & mild hijack - in fact, as this Daily Show comment from Daily Kos realizes, Timmerman might be even less reputable than Hayes. When watching Jon Stewart last night, I was puzzled by a strange couple of references to some newer rock bands which he lavishly endorsed. Sorry to tell you folks, but I wonder if Jon hasn't sold out. Drunk may be able to give us all a lesson on those newer marketing techniques (I think this one was called "buzz" marketing?).
     
  10. AeroJonesy

    AeroJonesy IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    12,940
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    467
    How has the Daily Show become accepted as a suitable news source?
     
  11. KillJoyBob

    KillJoyBob IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Messages:
    345
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    77
    I'm not a big fan of the politics at the "Standard", but they sometimes have some very good writing and reporting.

    I think the distinction that is being blurred by the administration is the link between the 9/11 attacks specifically and Saddam's regime. I'm sure there was contact between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government. The Hayes article points out some of these contacts, their implications however are up for interpretation. Do they imply sponsorship? Do they imply collusion? Do they even imply knowledge of specific operational plans? You have to remember that Saddam and Al Qaeda had very, very different ideologies on almost every front. Admittedly, they both shared the same adversarial relationship with the US.

    There was contact for decades between the IRA and US government officials (congressmen and senators). Does that mean that the US government was partially responsible or even had knowledge about the specifics of IRA terrorist attack? I don't think so.
     
  12. llad12

    llad12 IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    6,189
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    466
    Of course, such articles as I have seen you link always seem to leave out the important fact that Osama Bin Laden detested Saddam Hussein, the secular Baath party, and the form of Islam practiced by the Shiites in Iraq. All this, In addition to the fact that an attempt by Bin Laden to form some sort of alliance with Iraq in the late 1990's went absolutely nowhere.

    But, of course, I'm sure that is little concern to you or your Neocon heroes (who have hijacked the Republican party).

    In any regard, if public support for the Iraqi war continues to go south, I have no doubt that you will blame the "liberals" and the "commie-infested media" for undermining it. As always, you love to point fingers at the left rather than our current political leaders who perpetrated this mayhem. Your modus operandi is nothing more than a rehash of old warmongering right-wing Vietnam politics ... a deja vu so to speak.

    The more it changes, the more it stays the same.
     
  13. AeroJonesy

    AeroJonesy IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    12,940
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    467
    I dunno, Llad. Merv strikes me as enough of a free thinker that he's not going to blame the liberals if the whole Iraq thing goes (further) south.
     
  14. jmervyn

    jmervyn IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    15,251
    Likes Received:
    357
    Trophy Points:
    498
    Because their writers work for Air America on occasion. Supping with the same spoon & all that...

    EDIT - Yes, I don't intend on blaming the Dems for a deterioration in Iraq. I would definitely blame them if they succeed in their aim to run from the conflict with our tail 'twixt our legs. But then again, I agreed with Reagan and look at the mess he got us into - all those Cold War analysts out of work...
     
  15. DrunkCajun

    DrunkCajun Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2004
    Messages:
    5,249
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  16. DrunkPotHead

    DrunkPotHead IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,801
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    466
    I'm basing it off news video clips that the Daily Show aired. While his commentary isn't news and shouldn't be taken as news, video of officials talking to reporters on "real" news channels speaks for itself.
     
  17. jmervyn

    jmervyn IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    15,251
    Likes Received:
    357
    Trophy Points:
    498
    And, in fact, Shrub is paying the political price for trying to blur these two. IMNSHO, he should have come out strong with the known links and said something amounting to, "Saddam is a terrorist hugger and a sworn enemy of the U.S. He's dead meat." rather than putting all his eggs in the "WMD" basket.

    But then, it would have been a tougher initial sale, so they took the path of least resistance. A bad move, given that the "WMD" stocks had been tossed in the river or smuggled away by that point. A lot of the stockpiles Saddam had came with a shelf-life, so it is more important to be able to mix up a batch at short notice than to have large volumes sitting in bunkers.

    Well, there are people who might make that argument, and they might even have evidence to back themselves up. After all, the Pearl Harbor conspiracy types have several intel nuggets that they turn into an EEEEVILLL plot scenario. It is readily accepted by the Japanese today.
     
  18. jmervyn

    jmervyn IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    15,251
    Likes Received:
    357
    Trophy Points:
    498
    Good to see that you alone posess the godlike perception to cut through the fog of international espionage, divine motives of deliberately obscure villains, and an omnipotent view of secret doings. We are blessed & honored to have you dispense your mighty wisdom to the OTF. Pity that Shrub doesn't grovel in the aura of your superior intellect.

    Well, I'm no neocon, but if you get your rocks off by claiming so, knock yourself out. The UBL quote about Mogadishu is high on the list of my causes for supporting this war.

    If public support is steered south, yes, I'll do exactly that. At this point, I don't really expect that to happen, though I still could be wrong. I'll be man enough to admit it if that's the case.

    And we've pretty fully disclosed our contradictory views about Vietnam elsewhere.
     
  19. Ranger14

    Ranger14 IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Messages:
    1,397
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    105
    Sure Hussein and OBL don't care for each other, but their common hate for Bush would probably make that a moot point.

    There obviously isn't irrefutable proof that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, but I find it naive to believe that the possibility doesn't exist. How can you have Al Qaeda training camps in your backyard and not know about it? I will always believe that there are strong ties between the Al Qaeda and Iraq. There is too much common hate for the U.S. by Hussein and OBL to say they couldn't co-exist in an effort to take action against America. The Al Qaeda certainly has their hand in the inurgency that exists in Iraq. I am suppose to believe that didn't exist before?

    http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/2941.asp

    No ties between Iraq and the Al Qaeda huh?
     
  20. llad12

    llad12 IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    6,189
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    466
    Bin Laden stated Hussein and his Baath party were infidels in his taped message in 2003 (Reuters).

    As far as my other statement was concerned, read what the Commission said:

    MSNBC

    But I am sure you don't care what bin Laden or the Commission said ... you have your own incredibly warped views of reality and will condescendingly attack anybody that argues against your testosterone-induced, ego-driven position.

    Spare me your pathetic rants


    You solidly support their position on this war. Hell, for that matter, you have supported every recent US war. You agree with pre-emptive attacks on other nations.

    If it looks like a duck ...

    -------

    Tell me, "Christian", what do you think Jesus of Nazareth would say about your warmongering position?

    Typical hypocrite ...


    ---------

    Finally, just to lighten this conversation up:

    :D
     

Share This Page