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