dubbs
Member
+105|6906|Lexington, KY

CameronPoe wrote:

Harmor wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

What a load of cockwater. Don't post 'news' from neo-con opinion sites like worldnetdaily - it ain't trustworthy. Come back with links to said news from respectable sites.
Do you have any sources that contradicts my sources?  Or that these people are not saying what they are saying?  Or if what they said was different from what my sources said?  Perhaps there was a translation error that one of your sources can disprove.
Well I haven't seen the news item on FOX, CNN, BBC or wherever so I'm having trouble believing that the things were actually said.

PS The Democrat party is as odiously zionist, if not more zionist, than the Republican Party - so I am seriously having trouble with why terrorists would endorse them.
Let's look at history, in the 8 years that the top Dem's address was the big house on Penn. Ave, there were three attacks on America, 1993 WTC bombings, 1998 US Embassy bombing in Kenya, 2000 USS Cole attack.  Out of all three of these attacks, only the 1998 one had any type of military response, and that was just a few cruise missiles, that did not hit their target.  If I was a terrorist, and could get away with attacking the US, and get a "smack" on the wrist, I would want them in also. 



Now, lets move on to the second part of your post:

Hamor provided you a link to Fox that stated the same story, but you then call Fox bias.  He meet your request, then you bash him for providing a link to one of the source you requested.  That is very hypocritical.  Also, by saying who your sources are, does not mean that you are not reporting the news.  A responsible reporter will say where they got their source, since Fox does this up front, does not mean that they are bias.  They are providing you additional information, where you can review the source, check how creditable the source is, and then you can decide if the source's story is correct or not.  Unlike CNN, or MSNBC, they provide you with information to think for yourself.

Someone stated that MSNBC is not a bias network.  They hire left wing host, like Keith Olbermann, who in his recent rant about Kerry and Bush, and McCain forgets to tell you that the woman running as a Dem in Illinois was chosen by the Dems, to be used as a puppet.  CNN stated that the Dems choose this woman, because she was an amputee because of the Iraqi war.  This would make them look as if they support the soldiers, and vets from the Afghan, and Iraqi war.  Did Keith state that this maybe the reason why McCain was telling people not to support her?  Nope, he just stated that McCain was wrong by not supporting her, even though she is a "puppet" for the Dems, like Cindy Schien (sp) is/was.  How is this unbias?

PS:  CameronPoe, we all know how bias Wikipedia can be.  In the past they have had articles that say things like Bill Gates is the devil.  I know you all have seen this on their site:

wikipedia wrote:

Because of recent vandalism or other disruption, editing of this article by unregistered or newly registered users is currently disabled. Such users may discuss changes, request unprotection, or create an account.
Anyone can edit an entry no matter how creditable they are.  So before you start bashing someone else's sources, look for better ones your self.

Last edited by dubbs (2006-11-05 17:31:56)

CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6829

dubbs wrote:

Let's look at history, in the 8 years that the top Dem's address was the big house on Penn. Ave, there were three attacks on America, 1993 WTC bombings, 1998 US Embassy bombing in Kenya, 2000 USS Cole attack.  Out of all three of these attacks, only the 1998 one had any type of military response, and that was just a few cruise missiles, that did not hit their target.  If I was a terrorist, and could get away with attacking the US, and get a "smack" on the wrist, I would want them in also. 

Now, lets move on to the second part of your post:

Hamor provided you a link to Fox that stated the same story, but you then call Fox bias.  He meet your request, then you bash him for providing a link to one of the source you requested.  That is very hypocritical.  Also, by saying who your sources are, does not mean that you are not reporting the news.  A responsible reporter will say where they got their source, since Fox does this up front, does not mean that they are bias.  They are providing you additional information, where you can review the source, check how creditable the source is, and then you can decide if the source's story is correct or not.  Unlike CNN, or MSNBC, they provide you with information to think for yourself.

Someone stated that MSNBC is not a bias network.  They hire left wing host, like Keith Olbermann, who in his recent rant about Kerry and Bush, and McCain forgets to tell you that the woman running as a Dem in Illinois was chosen by the Dems, to be used as a puppet.  CNN stated that the Dems choose this woman, because she was an amputee because of the Iraqi war.  This would make them look as if they support the soldiers, and vets from the Afghan, and Iraqi war.  Did Keith state that this maybe the reason why McCain was telling people not to support her?  Nope, he just stated that McCain was wrong by not supporting her, even though she is a "puppet" for the Dems, like Cindy Schien (sp) is/was.  How is this unbias?
1) The Democrats have not explicitly stated that they will withdraw US troops from Iraq. The fact they responded only with cruise missiles for terror attacks while they were in power does not imply that the Democrats are OBVIOUSLY going to withdraw. I for one believe a lot of factions wish Bush and co. to stay in power so that they can continue to run amok wherever the US goes. The fact of the matter remains that the person allegedly interviewed has NOTHING to do with Iraq. He is a Palestinian freedom fighter from the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. As such he does not speak for the voices of radical islam inside Iraq.
2) I looked into the actual person who conducted the 'interview', Aaron Klein, and the website that employs him. It gave me 'reduced' confidence in his report. I posted the details in an earlier post.
3) What has MSNBC got to do with anything? Olbermann is as biased as his nemesis on FOX. Both are unbelievably biased and electioneer tirelessly with whatever shoddy material they can dredge up. If you are trying to validate the original story of which we speak then demonstrating that the US media is inherently biased does not seem like a logical step to take.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-11-05 17:22:26)

dubbs
Member
+105|6906|Lexington, KY

CameronPoe wrote:

dubbs wrote:

Let's look at history, in the 8 years that the top Dem's address was the big house on Penn. Ave, there were three attacks on America, 1993 WTC bombings, 1998 US Embassy bombing in Kenya, 2000 USS Cole attack.  Out of all three of these attacks, only the 1998 one had any type of military response, and that was just a few cruise missiles, that did not hit their target.  If I was a terrorist, and could get away with attacking the US, and get a "smack" on the wrist, I would want them in also. 

Now, lets move on to the second part of your post:

Hamor provided you a link to Fox that stated the same story, but you then call Fox bias.  He meet your request, then you bash him for providing a link to one of the source you requested.  That is very hypocritical.  Also, by saying who your sources are, does not mean that you are not reporting the news.  A responsible reporter will say where they got their source, since Fox does this up front, does not mean that they are bias.  They are providing you additional information, where you can review the source, check how creditable the source is, and then you can decide if the source's story is correct or not.  Unlike CNN, or MSNBC, they provide you with information to think for yourself.

Someone stated that MSNBC is not a bias network.  They hire left wing host, like Keith Olbermann, who in his recent rant about Kerry and Bush, and McCain forgets to tell you that the woman running as a Dem in Illinois was chosen by the Dems, to be used as a puppet.  CNN stated that the Dems choose this woman, because she was an amputee because of the Iraqi war.  This would make them look as if they support the soldiers, and vets from the Afghan, and Iraqi war.  Did Keith state that this maybe the reason why McCain was telling people not to support her?  Nope, he just stated that McCain was wrong by not supporting her, even though she is a "puppet" for the Dems, like Cindy Schien (sp) is/was.  How is this unbias?
1) The Democrats have not explicitly stated that they will withdraw US troops from Iraq. The fact they responded only with cruise missiles for terror attacks while they were in power does not imply that the Democrats are OBVIOUSLY going to withdraw. I for one believe a lot of factions wish Bush and co. to stay in power so that they can continue to run amok wherever the US goes. The fact of the matter remains that the person allegedly interviewed has NOTHING to do with Iraq. He is a Palestinian freedom fighter from the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. As such he does not speak for the voices of radical islam inside Iraq.
1) I never said that the Dems would withdraw from Iraq.  I was making a point that in the past they have not really done anything against terrorist.  With a record like that, I would also want them in office, if I think that they would not do anything. 

CameronPoe wrote:

2) I looked into the actual person who conducted the 'interview', Aaron Klein, and the website that employs him. It gave me 'reduced' confidence in his report. I posted the details in an earlier post.
2)  You soon forget this post:

CameronPoe wrote:

Harmor wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Well I haven't seen the news item on FOX, CNN, BBC or wherever so I'm having trouble believing that the things were actually said.
I first heard this report last night watching Fox News Special Report.  Here's the article on their site:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227497,00.html

The above Fox News Article references the World Net Daily article in my original post.
Thanks for that!! FOX News, as cunning as ever in trying to remain respectable looking, does NOT actually report the news item itself - it allows the far less respectable source 'worldnetdaily' to do that and then they report that: 'worldnetdaily said'.... yada, yada, yada. It is classic FOX: you can say anything you like on the news, true or false if you precede it with - 'some say...'

Example: A certain group are saying that George Bush has had sex with an 8 year old girl.

The channel is not held accountable for said blatant lie because they are only suggesting it and palming the responsibility for the comment off to unnamed sources, etc. It's opinionews - not news. If the original source were a little more trustworthy then FOX would have made much more of it on their main page and news items.

The item is pure electioneering as well. It's pretty lame that Republicans have stooped to using terrorists to try and garner votes in the upcoming election. Why should American voters care what some cavedwelling RPG-toter says!!!?

PS WHY OH WHY would terrorists be talking to worldnetdaily? Have you even looked at the adverts they carry down the sides of their webpage: Israel is great, etc. etc.[/
Seems like you are attacking Fox, and not the reporter.  Matter of fact, you do not even mention the reporter's name in that post.  With this post, you are attacking Fox, and saying that they do not really report the news, that they just say that So-and-So says, and she said, etc.  You did attack their source, but not the reporter himself.


CameronPoe wrote:

3) What has MSNBC got to do with anything? Olbermann is as biased as his nemesis on FOX. Both are unbelievably biased and electioneer tirelessly with whatever shoddy material they can dredge up. If you are trying to validate the original story of which we speak then demonstrating that the US media is inherently biased does not seem like a logical step to take.
3) I was stating a fact about MSNBC.  Referring to this quote.

Harmor wrote:

....
So unless CNN or MSNBC reports this news, you won't find any of the information provided here credible?
I was also stating how they are bias, and how providing a source from them is not that helpful either.  I further supported my claim that they are bias, by providing an example on how they did not report why McCain was "bashing" the Dems for their action in Illinois.
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6822|San Diego, CA, USA

CameronPoe wrote:

1) The Democrats have not explicitly stated that they will withdraw US troops from Iraq.
O realy?

jonsimon
Member
+224|6769

Harmor wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

1) The Democrats have not explicitly stated that they will withdraw US troops from Iraq.
O realy?

Yeah, half a year back the republicans and the democrats were arguing about how fast to withdraw, not when. Taken out of context, anything can sound bad.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6925|USA

jonsimon wrote:

Harmor wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

1) The Democrats have not explicitly stated that they will withdraw US troops from Iraq.
O realy?

Yeah, half a year back the republicans and the democrats were arguing about how fast to withdraw, not when. Taken out of context, anything can sound bad.
what context could  they mean then when they are talking withdraw?? THEY WERE TALKING WITHDRAW

Problem is, even when SHOWN you are wrong you still try and worm your way out of it by dissecting a statement until it is unrecognizable, or claim context or semantics.

A statement was made, it was proven false...........you lose...
<[onex]>Headstone
Member
+102|6976|New York
They are saying By the first of the year is there plan. If not, Its by april. So yah the words Cut and run do apply to there plan.
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6829
Excuse me but have the Republicans not initiated a plan (~12-18 months) to 'cut and run' as you derisorily put it?
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6822|San Diego, CA, USA
"The U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home," said Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania"

Source: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f … FPT755.DTL
^ Epstein, Edward. "Murtha calls for immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq", SFGate.com, San Francisco Chronicle, 2005-11-17


The San Francisco Chronicle is a leftist paper, so it must be a valid source.




And "The Plan" is to say in Iraq until the Iraqi military and police can handle themselves.  This requires that Maliki solve the secarian violence policitcally, and the U.S. train enough Iraqi to police and protect themselves.

Yes, I acknowledge that our presense there does help recuit terrorists, but I believe those terrorists would be fighting us no matter where we are in the world.  Do I like Iraqis dead, no.  I wish war didn't have to involve the innocent civilians, but its these terrorists and secarian militias are the ones killing innocent civilians with car/suicide bombs...not the United States soldiers.

Are their bad apples in the bunch?  Yes, some soldiers do break the law, and those soldiers should be procecuted to the extent of the law and that's it. 


I support not only the war but  the troops.  It angers me that terrorist leaders are supporting people here in the United States who vote Democrat, because they know that the Democrats want to leave Iraq as soon as possible.

And as Mutha said:

"Still, in early 2005 Murtha argued against the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. “A premature withdrawal of our troops based on a political timetable could rapidly devolve into a civil war which would leave America’s foreign policy in disarray as countries question not only America’s judgment but also its perseverance”, he stated."

Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/ … 8423.shtml
^ "Murtha Details His Exit Strategy", 60 Minutes, CBS News, 2006-01-06.



A vote for a Democrat is a vote that will embolden the terrorists.  Just wait and see.

Last edited by Harmor (2006-11-06 04:53:44)

CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6829

dubbs wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

2) I looked into the actual person who conducted the 'interview', Aaron Klein, and the website that employs him. It gave me 'reduced' confidence in his report. I posted the details in an earlier post.
2)  You soon forget this post:

CameronPoe wrote:

Harmor wrote:

I first heard this report last night watching Fox News Special Report.  Here's the article on their site:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227497,00.html

The above Fox News Article references the World Net Daily article in my original post.
Thanks for that!! FOX News, as cunning as ever in trying to remain respectable looking, does NOT actually report the news item itself - it allows the far less respectable source 'worldnetdaily' to do that and then they report that: 'worldnetdaily said'.... yada, yada, yada. It is classic FOX: you can say anything you like on the news, true or false if you precede it with - 'some say...'

Example: A certain group are saying that George Bush has had sex with an 8 year old girl.

The channel is not held accountable for said blatant lie because they are only suggesting it and palming the responsibility for the comment off to unnamed sources, etc. It's opinionews - not news. If the original source were a little more trustworthy then FOX would have made much more of it on their main page and news items.

The item is pure electioneering as well. It's pretty lame that Republicans have stooped to using terrorists to try and garner votes in the upcoming election. Why should American voters care what some cavedwelling RPG-toter says!!!?

PS WHY OH WHY would terrorists be talking to worldnetdaily? Have you even looked at the adverts they carry down the sides of their webpage: Israel is great, etc. etc.[/
Seems like you are attacking Fox, and not the reporter.  Matter of fact, you do not even mention the reporter's name in that post.  With this post, you are attacking Fox, and saying that they do not really report the news, that they just say that So-and-So says, and she said, etc.  You did attack their source, but not the reporter himself.
I was attacking Fox yes AND their source yes. Fox is not fair or balanced, so much so that it actually has websites that 'watch Fox News so you don't have to' to report on inaccuracies, subliminal messages and bias in their reporting. I posted information on Aaron Klein in a subsequent post which explains why I doubt the validity of their source. If a Fox story seems reasonable and has decent sources then I accept it as news.

PS You don't have to tell me how biased the liberal media is in America. CNN shocked me when I saw it in it's US form (not international) - a shambles of smear and political opinion, presented alongside a tiny percentage of actual news.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-11-06 04:41:09)

Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6822|San Diego, CA, USA

CameronPoe wrote:

Excuse me but have the Republicans not initiated a plan (~12-18 months) to 'cut and run' as you derisorily put it?
Well now that Democrats are in power, most likely taking the Senate as well, what is the Democratic plan?

My understanding is that the moderate Democratic view is a 'plan redeployment'.  Troops will be sent from Iraq to Afganistan and the rest will be sent home.  Pundicts predict that the 'planned redeployment' will start in March of next year.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Now if we pull out before Iraqis can take control of their security situation, how will this NOT be a 'win' for the terrorists.  Wouldn't this prove that terrorists can win againt the all powerful United States by continued terrorism.  What does this say about American resolve?  What does it say about American credibility worldwide?  Does it matter?

Last edited by Harmor (2006-11-08 08:19:43)

CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6829

Harmor wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Excuse me but have the Republicans not initiated a plan (~12-18 months) to 'cut and run' as you derisorily put it?
Well now that Democrats are in power, most likely taking the Senate as well, what is the Democratic plan?

My understanding is that the moderate Democratic view is a 'plan redeployment'.  Troops will be sent from Iraq to Afganistan and the rest will be sent home.  Pundicts predict that the 'planned redeployment' will start in March of next year.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Now if we pull out before Iraqis can take control of their security situation, how will this NOT be a 'win' for the terrorists.  Wouldn't this prove that terrorists can win againt the all powerful United States by continued terrorism.  What does this say about American resolve?  What does it say about American credibility worldwide?  Does it matter?
The Vietnamese proved that the 'terrorists' as you so call them could beat the 'all powerful' United States. It's nothing new. America no longer has any credibility worldwide. Trust me - I'm from 'the rest of the world'. If you visit 'the rest of the world' often enough you'll soon get the picture with respect to views on American 'credibility'. Let's hope they start regaining some credibility now with constructive actions. Not just sitting cosily tucked away in heavily fortified barracks in a sandy dustbowl where anarchy reigns outside and where the majority of people want them to 'fuck off back home'. NOBODY LIKES IT WHEN SOMEONE PLAYS WORLD POLICEMAN, especially when the support for the action was drummed up on the back of subtle linkages between Saddam and an act that had nothing to do with him: 9/11. You should have concentrated on the real base of operations - Afghanistan. When you bit off more than you could chew in Iraq instead of sending a 'credible' force to Afghanistan you lost all 'credibility'.

PS How's the hunt for Osama going?

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-11-08 08:30:15)

rawls2
Mr. Bigglesworth
+89|6834

SoC./Omega wrote:

Harmor wrote:

Several terrorist leaders are supporting Americans to vote for Democrats in the up coming U.S. Elections?  Why?
Because they are smart enough to know that the democrats will pull out of Iraq and it will be a victory for the terroists.
OR its because they know how stupid Americans are and how easily they are influenced to turn on each other. Like right now. America, a great and powerful nation will win whether we have a dem or a rep in office. Thats how good we are. Stop bickering, all you do is make terrorist and their cronies laugh at us.
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6823|Southeastern USA

CameronPoe wrote:

Harmor wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

What a load of cockwater. Don't post 'news' from neo-con opinion sites like worldnetdaily - it ain't trustworthy. Come back with links to said news from respectable sites.
Do you have any sources that contradicts my sources?  Or that these people are not saying what they are saying?  Or if what they said was different from what my sources said?  Perhaps there was a translation error that one of your sources can disprove.
Well I haven't seen the news item on FOX, CNN, BBC or wherever so I'm having trouble believing that the things were actually said.

PS The Democrat party is as odiously zionist, if not more zionist, than the Republican Party - so I am seriously having trouble with why terrorists would endorse them.
holy crap!!! CP just referred to FOX as if they were a legit news source, mark the date on you calendars!!!
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6875|132 and Bush

CameronPoe wrote:

Excuse me but have the Republicans not initiated a plan (~12-18 months) to 'cut and run' as you derisorily put it?
Isn't the plan to stay until Iraq has the capability to defend itself? Provide support and training? If that is not the plan please correct me.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
URE_DED
BF2s US Server Admin
+76|6893|inside the recesses of your...

CameronPoe wrote:

What a load of cockwater. Don't post 'news' from neo-con opinion sites like worldnetdaily - it ain't trustworthy. Come back with links to said news from respectable sites.
Right, cause there are news orgs out there that don't spin anything they put out.
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6823|Southeastern USA

Kmarion wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Excuse me but have the Republicans not initiated a plan (~12-18 months) to 'cut and run' as you derisorily put it?
Isn't the plan to stay until Iraq has the capability to defend itself? Provide support and training? If that is not the plan please correct me.
can't you see how inherently flawed that idea is?
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6875|132 and Bush

kr@cker wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Excuse me but have the Republicans not initiated a plan (~12-18 months) to 'cut and run' as you derisorily put it?
Isn't the plan to stay until Iraq has the capability to defend itself? Provide support and training? If that is not the plan please correct me.
can't you see how inherently flawed that idea is?
Whether I can or not is not the point. Arguing the existence of the plan and arguing the feasibility of the plan are two different things.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6822|San Diego, CA, USA

CameronPoe wrote:

PS How's the hunt for Osama going?
Some reports show that he's dead.  However, I believe he's on the border of Pakistan.
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6918|Seattle, WA

Fen321 wrote:

Classic, you should work for fox news
Too bad this is actually the truth, think its funny, its not, just ask the terrorists, this is not a joke, and sad to say they are right with their way of thinking.
smtt686
this is the best we can do?
+95|6905|USA
Has anyone actually heard an ad end with "this ad was paid for by the Taliban against republicans campaign"???
[CANADA]_Zenmaster
Pope Picard II
+473|7019

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

What a load of cockwater. Don't post 'news' from neo-con opinion sites like worldnetdaily - it ain't trustworthy. Come back with links to said news from respectable sites.
You mean like all your unbiased sources??

I love your attitude, that ANY opinon different from yours is biased and flawed. It serves you well

lowing wrote:

BN wrote:

Do you think these terrorists are registered Democrats?
No the supporters of terrorists are, however.
You have trouble applying your own logic to yourself...and to boot you did it two posts in a row.

You accuse one guy of biased sources (which may or may not be the case) yet you state a completely biased view that supporters of terrorists are registered Democrats. Further to the point, its not like Democrats and Republicans haven't supported, and effected terrorism themselves in the past and present with their foreign policy.
Masques
Black Panzer Party
+184|6996|Eastern PA
I find it humerous that all of the right-leaning posters in this thread are taking the statements of terrorists as gospel truth as if terrorists are always upright and honest individuals.

Also these two contradictory statements have been posited both by the media and the Bush administration for several years now:
1) Terrorism in the news automagically benefits the republicans
and
2) Terrorists are making statements/taking actions that try to influence US elections (ie. increased violence in Iraq/Afghanistan, Binny L's intermittent videoramas)

These two cannot be both true. Either terrorism as an issue has not been to the benefit of the republicans (the implication being that terrorists can have a measurable negative (or even neutral) impact on republican prospects) or the republican party can capitalize electorially on terrorism when and wherever emerges.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6925|USA

[CANADA]_Zenmaster wrote:

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

What a load of cockwater. Don't post 'news' from neo-con opinion sites like worldnetdaily - it ain't trustworthy. Come back with links to said news from respectable sites.
You mean like all your unbiased sources??

I love your attitude, that ANY opinon different from yours is biased and flawed. It serves you well

lowing wrote:

BN wrote:

Do you think these terrorists are registered Democrats?
No the supporters of terrorists are, however.
You have trouble applying your own logic to yourself...and to boot you did it two posts in a row.

You accuse one guy of biased sources (which may or may not be the case) yet you state a completely biased view that supporters of terrorists are registered Democrats. Further to the point, its not like Democrats and Republicans haven't supported, and effected terrorism themselves in the past and present with their foreign policy.
Noooooo, actually, I was the one accused of posting bias sourcing, the mere fact that you try and lecture me as the one and only guilty party in that conversation suggested you yourself are applying a certain amount of bias yourself. Stones and glass houses.

I do maintain that terrorists will be more at ease and feel more latitude for their operations with dems in office. TIme will tell.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6925|USA

Masques wrote:

I find it humerous that all of the right-leaning posters in this thread are taking the statements of terrorists as gospel truth as if terrorists are always upright and honest individuals.

Also these two contradictory statements have been posited both by the media and the Bush administration for several years now:
1) Terrorism in the news automagically benefits the republicans
and
2) Terrorists are making statements/taking actions that try to influence US elections (ie. increased violence in Iraq/Afghanistan, Binny L's intermittent videoramas)

These two cannot be both true. Either terrorism as an issue has not been to the benefit of the republicans (the implication being that terrorists can have a measurable negative (or even neutral) impact on republican prospects) or the republican party can capitalize electorially on terrorism when and wherever emerges.
yeahhhhh, terrorists could never influence an election........DOES SPAIN RING A BELL??

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard