I have a question for you all. Do you believe there is a bias in the mainstream media towards the left? My view on this is not that its biased, it just doesnt reflect what most americans believe in. By this I mean, a large majority of the country is christian and conservative (atleast a majority of the people that watch news). The only bias I see with the media, is that they dont represent things from a christian perspective (which i think is the actual bias, as your religion tends to shift your perspective on social and political issues). That is why Fox news is so popular in my opinion. They arent fair, they arent balanced, they just give the people what they want. They found a point of view that makes them money.
If you look at a news organization like NPR that are publicly funded, they dont have to rely on advertising dollars, and thus they dont have to worry about ratings. I listen to them and i see (errr... hear i guess) them taking a more objective point of view on issues, getting people to actually debate issues (unlike cable news where you just get big arguments and no actual facts.) I just hope that one day maybe the news can go back to not being about making a profit, but actual objective information... but i guess those days are gone (if they ever truly existed at all), and i doubt that will change anytime soon.
Anyways, just curious on peoples opinions...

You have heard of "Yellow Journalism", haven't you? The concept of owning a media outlet has always centered upon the idea of being "the fourth estate" and exerting political influence not only on the powers that be, but also upon the people that read or view or listen to your media empire. William Randolph Hearst once told a photographer, "You give me the pictures, and I'll give you a war!" in his efforts to stoke the fires before the Spanish-American War.

NBC, often considered "liberal" by die-hard right-wing extremists, is owned by the largest Military contractor in the world, GE. The WaPo is also considered "liberal" but was long owned by the Grahams who are very ultra-conservative. The same could be argued about the NYT.

Young, underpaid, idealistic journalists are certainly liberal. But their editors and the editorial boards and the chairmen and boards of directors of all media outlets are neither liberal or conservative, they are corporatist -- they serve the interests of shareholders and the economic and political elite because they too are either in or aspire to be in the same economic class.

(In reality, "liberal or conservative" is a working class distraction. The elite don't give a shit about any of that, they just want to make money and control the political process, so they can tweak it to make even more money, while every working stiff argues over abortion, gay marriage, guns, immigration, or whatever other "issue" that really doesn't affect their economic or social well-being in any magnitude compared to having those working stiffs realize they are being distracted so they remain relatively poor and subservient.)



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias#Scholarly_treatment_of_media_bias_in_the_United_States_and_United_Kingdom

Media bias is studied at schools of journalism, university departments (including Media studies, Cultural studies and Peace studies) and by many independent watchdog groups from various parts of the political spectrum. In the United States, many of these studies focus on issues of a conservative/liberal balance in the media. Other focuses include international differences in reporting, as well as bias in reporting of particular issues such as economic class or environmental interests.

A widely-cited public opinion study[2] documents a correlation between news source and certain misconceptions about the Iraq war. Conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes in October 2003, the poll asked Americans whether they believed statements about the Iraq war that were known to be false. Respondents were also asked which was their primary news source: Fox News, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, "Print sources," or NPR . By cross referencing the responses according to primary news source, the study showed that higher numbers of Fox News watchers held certain misconceptions about the Iraq war. The director of Program on International Policy (PIPA), Stephen Kull said, “While we cannot assert that these misconceptions created the support for going to war with Iraq, it does appear likely that support for the war would be substantially lower if fewer members of the public had these misperceptions.”[3]

The Glasgow Media Group[4] carried out the Bad News Studies, a series of detailed analyses of television broadcasts (and later newspaper coverage) in the United Kingdom. (Eldridge, 2000). Published between 1976 and 1985, the Bad News Studies used content analysis, interviews and covert participant observation to conclude that news was biased against trade unions, blaming them for breaking wage negotiating guidelines and causing high inflation.

Martin Harrison's TV News: Whose Bias? (1985) criticized the methodology of the Glasgow Media Group, arguing that the GMG identified bias selectively, via their own preconceptions about what phrases qualify as biased descriptions. For example, the GMG sees the word "idle" to describe striking workers as pejorative, despite the word being used by strikers themselves.[5]

Herman and Chomsky (1988) proposed a propaganda model hypothesizing systematic biases of U.S. media from structural economic causes. They hypothesize media ownership by corporations, funding from advertising, the use of official sources, efforts to discredit independent media ("flak"), and "anti-communist" ideology as the filters that bias news in favor of U.S. corporate interests.

Their propaganda model first and foremost disuses self censorship through the corporate system (see corporate censorship); that reporters and especially editors share and/or acquire values with corporate elites in order to further their careers. Those that don’t are usually weeded out or marginalized. Such examples have been dramatized in fact based movie dramas as “Good Night, and Good Luck” and “The Insider” or demonstrated in the documentary “The Corporation”[6]. George Orwell originally wrote a preface for his book “Animal Farm”, which focuses on British self censorship. "The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary. ... [Things are] kept right out of the British press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general tacit agreement that ‘it wouldn’t do’ to mention that particular fact." As if to prove the point, the preface itself was censored and is not published with most copies of the book.

The propaganda model posits that advertising dollars are essential for funding most media sources and clearly have an effect on the content of the media. For example, according to Fair, ‘When Al Gore proposed launching a progressive TV network, a Fox News executive told Advertising Age (10/13/03): "The problem with being associated as liberal is that they wouldn't be going in a direction that advertisers are really interested in.... If you go out and say that you are a liberal network, you are cutting your potential audience, and certainly your potential advertising pool, right off the bat.”[7] Furthermore “an internal memo from ABC Radio Networks to its affiliates reveals scores of powerful sponsors have a standing order that their commercials never be placed on syndicated Air America programming that airs on ABC affiliates…. The list, totaling 90 advertisers, includes some of largest and most well-known corporations advertising in the U.S.: Wal-Mart, GE, Exxon Mobil, Microsoft, Bank of America, Fed-Ex, Visa, Allstate, McDonald's, Sony and Johnson & Johnson. The U.S. Postal Service and the U.S. Navy are also listed as advertisers who don't want their commercials to air on Air America.”[8]

Yes.

And, a big LOL at your in-depth news analysis. Enjoyed it.

Especially, the part about NPR being fair because it's funded by the government.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/08/2009 01:54AM by Alias.
Attachments:

Again, i was just looking for opinions, what i stated was just my own opinion, if it differs from yours I would like to hear why.

Kenny_Powers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Again, i was just looking for opinions, what i
> stated was just my own opinion, if it differs from
> yours I would like to hear why.


Don't worry. You won't hear why from Alias.

He is entertaining, but rarely is able to express his opinions in any manner of eloquence. Usually, it's just "you're a liberal" or whatever.

Like when he says "Especially, the part about NPR being fair because it's funded by the government." -- Before 2006, that argument wouldn't be available to him. Because "the government" was controlled by his preferred neoconservative branch of the republican party. Now that Obama is in office, people like him can argue that a government funded media outlet is biased towards liberals.


Still, he's not a troll, so he still counts as a valid opinion, I guess.

Thank you, Thurston, for your kind words.

My guess is that Kenny couldn't get through your long winded dissertation, so, I’ll sum it up for him.

Kenny...Thurston agrees with you.

i was asking for your opinion, not his, since you clearly disagreed, i was just wondering why...

Kenny_Powers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> i was asking for your opinion, not his, since you
> clearly disagreed, i was just wondering why...


Did I call it like I see it?

"Don't worry. You won't hear why from Alias."

well played sir.

l



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/29/2012 03:05PM by Alias.

why so much hate? instead of just clearly stating your position, or why you think what you think, you revert to simply being a douche of epic proportions.

Kenny_Powers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> why so much hate? instead of just clearly stating
> your position, or why you think what you think,
> you revert to simply being a douche of epic
> proportions.


This is why alias is viewed by many on this site to be nothing more than a troll.

I recognize that he has an opinion. The trouble is he seems to be reluctant or unable to clearly express it.

Maybe it's because all he knows is what he learns from an AM radio and channel 72. It's hard to express an opinion when that opinion is only based on sound bites and diatribes of a talk-show host.

k



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/29/2012 03:03PM by Alias.

right... and why are you up? thanks again for clearly stating your position on this, it was very enlightening.

When someone is complaining about the liberal "main stream" media, they are usually lying to you. The other day I heard El-Rushbo complaining about something you will not hear from the "drive by's" and said Obama gave Acorn "5 to 7 billion dollars of stimulus money. The reason the drive by's have not reported this - because Accorn did not get a dime of stimulus money. That is a biased media. They should report this 5 to 7 billion as fact and credit El-Rushbo as being the expert witness.

'



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/29/2012 03:01PM by Alias.

There was a survey of journalists done after the 2004 election. IIRC, 7/10 or 8/10 voted for Kerry. Compare that to the electorate where the vote was basically 5/10.

I believe that all news is inherently biased, since it is created by people who are all clearly biased. Everyone's got an opinion. Organizations tend to hire/attract people who are like minded. So you end up with organizations like the New York Times/CNN/Washington Post/NPR all attracting liberal reporters. Fox/Wall Street Journal/Washington Times attracts conservative reporters.

I think Fox has grown in popularity since the presidential election not (primarily) because the nation is becoming more conservative. Instead, I think that Fox has grown more popular because middle of the road people are getting uneasy with the way Obama and the Democrats are treated with kid gloves by with the other media outlets. Fox is the only television outlet that people feel *might* actually provide the fourth pillar of government.

Any casual observer would agree that the vast majority of television media is so gaga over Obama they're worthless at providing any objective criticism. (Just look at ABCs hour long commercial for Obama's health care & Washington Post's "pay to hang out with Obama officials" as evidence). And constructive, and even harsh criticism of government is very important in order to keep it from going awry.

I suspect that eventually, some of the media will feel like Obama is not petting them as much as the other guy and will start to attack. Just look at the recent spat over 'hand picked' questions. Bush would have never heard the end of that....

I think the news is biased from the standpoint that you have a bunch of affluent people in the Manhattan/Du Pont Circle cocoon who have no real idea what Americans making $40K a year go through. Yes, they may have family who are working or middle class. But they spend 80% of their time at cocktail parties on the Upper East Side or in Georgetown and have all adopted a kind of "group think" that doesn't change until they realize the whole of the American population thinks differently.

I'll give you some examples of this. The press was gung-ho about the invasion of Iraq going in because most of the American people were gung-ho for it. It really wasn't until the American population started having questions about what was going on there that the press finally figured out it should do its job and ask questions. That's why it took a fringe reporter like Sy Hersh to break Abu Ghraib. That didn't come out of CNN or the NY Times. That's also why CNN and Fox didn't wake up to the incompetency of Bush until Katrina.

Oh come on now Kenny. You can't really be serious here.

WashingTone Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think the news is biased from the standpoint
> that you have a bunch of affluent people in the
> Manhattan/Du Pont Circle cocoon who have no real
> idea what Americans making $40K a year go through.
> Yes, they may have family who are working or
> middle class. But they spend 80% of their time at
> cocktail parties on the Upper East Side or in
> Georgetown and have all adopted a kind of "group
> think" that doesn't change until they realize the
> whole of the American population thinks
> differently.
>
> I'll give you some examples of this. The press was
> gung-ho about the invasion of Iraq going in
> because most of the American people were gung-ho
> for it. It really wasn't until the American
> population started having questions about what was
> going on there that the press finally figured out
> it should do its job and ask questions. That's why
> it took a fringe reporter like Sy Hersh to break
> Abu Ghraib. That didn't come out of CNN or the NY
> Times. That's also why CNN and Fox didn't wake up
> to the incompetency of Bush until Katrina.

The majority of reporters ARE making $40,000 a year. Some even less. Then there's the stringers/freelancers/independents who make a couple hundred bucks to a grand per story, and may only get (or be able to research and write) a few assignments a month.

The people you are talking about that go to cocktail parties in Manhattan and Georgetown are not the rank and file reporters, writers and journalists -- maybe the anchors and other well-known on-air personalities and the top named syndicated journalists, but for the most part the people you are referring to are the editorial boards and the management from the various news agencies. BUT, they are the ones that decide what gets printed or aired, and they set the editorial tone, based on the needs of their own agendas -- the agendas that are sympathetic to the agendas of everyone else who goes to those parties.

Even at the Washington Times, there are liberal-leaning writers. But the overall editorial slant is to the right. And try as they might, the people that claim the NYT, WaPo and other media are liberal are just splitting hairs over certain stories and are not looking at the overall bigger picture, in which all corporate owned media still, in the macro sense, supports one single agenda, whether it is tinged liberal or tinged conservative.

NYT supported the war until they didn't support the war because it served the purpose of getting us into the war, and by then eventually not supporting it, it protects the claims that they are "liberal" so they can dupe the public again later into some war or conservative agenda, when needed. They all work for the same group of core board members (everyone on boards of directors are from a small group of super-wealthy, they either sit on multiple boards, or their friends, neighbors, fellow country club members, etc are all on other boards. It's like the 7 degrees of Kevin Bacon, only with Corporate Board of Directors seats, and there's only one or two degrees, maybe three.)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/08/2009 10:57PM by Thurston Moore.

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Radiophile,
>
> What is it with you liberals?
>
> Why do you think Acorn is going to have a major
> role in the 2010 Census?
>
> Why do you liberals want Nancy Pelosi and a bunch
> of old men telling you how to put your pants on?
> What do you have to gain?


there is a difference between being liberal and being a democrat, which clearly you cant comprehend because you as with a majority of the idiots cant get past democrat/republican politics. I am socially liberal, but thats it, there is a difference.

I watch Fox News. I'm not a Christian. I don't see a Christian reporting perspective on Fox News.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Being vague is almost as fun as that other thing.

Mainstream media went even more left after the advent of FOX News. Before FOX existed they were still pushing a liberal bias - just now that they have something to be compared to, they seem to have gone way too far in some form of attempt to prove how correct they are.

I speak to folks that say FOX News was the propaganda arm for President Bush, or the Republicans. Sorry, they regularly bring folks on that work at NPR, and other "liberal" outlets who are quite free in voicing their opinions on the programs there. Sure, they have Hannity, and some overt conservatives in their regular programming - but um - these guys make them money, they have huge viewership and support - so yeah, they push their shows. Duh. I don't regularly watch O'Reilly - I get tired of him yelling at folks all the time, but he is the highest rated cable news/opinion program over all of them - and he is regularly spoofed and attacked by Colbert, and the folks over at Comedy Central - so he must be doing something right.

From time to time I compare how FOX reports on a news story, and how the mainstream media will present the same story, and it is amazing to see the subtle ways mainstream media will shade the story when they present it. I know they are talking about the same thing, but when you look at it from the standpoint of someone barely paying attention, and only getting the soundbite, you get a totally different impression of what happened. Try it sometime, even using one of your favorites, be it CNBC, MSNBC (shudder), or CNN. I think Anderson Cooper is decent - but he definitely toes the party line at times in what he chooses to present.

Funny though, most of the stories I see talked about and reported on everywhere, seem to get their life at Drudge Report - he still seems to have a large hand in what gets talked about on all the outlets. In the chicken and the egg question, which one is he?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/09/2009 01:45AM by Registered Voter.

m



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/01/2012 11:05AM by Alias.

Melissa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I watch Fox News. I'm not a Christian. I don't
> see a Christian reporting perspective on Fox News.

Im not saying necissarily that its a christian bias, although i have seen it on fox. If you notice, most if not all free speach issues that are reported on fox tend to be slanted against the individual, unless it involves someone not being able to say a prayer at their school etc. What I am saying is it's a bias of $$$$ moneyz. The only people that werent represented by the media were christian conservatives (most republicans in general are christian, as far as i know anyways).
What I see on fox is a move away from objective reporting and a move towards opinion based journalism. I see less and less objectivity and true debate, If you look at the line up of opinion based shows, they are ALL conservative (and they all happen to be christian, which greatly influences their opinions on social issues) based: Hannity, O'reilly, and now Glen Beck. The thing that kills me about these people is, I rarely see them ever be right on an issue, they just outdebate. A person like O'reilly is a wonderful debater, he can make any position seem rediculous to the viewer, he doesnt win the argument, he just talks over the guest and cuts them off at every turn. Back when I was a republican in highschool, me and my friends used to watch fox news and joke, "yea its biased, but it appeals to my point of view".
There may be a slight bias towards "liberal" view points on networks such as CNN (and definately MSNBC, they're just as bad as Fox in my view), they just dont face rape you with it. Anyways, just my two cents, I hope we can continue to discuss without reverting to being assholes to each other.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I speak to folks that say FOX News was the
> propaganda arm for President Bush, or the
> Republicans.

I dont think its propganda for the Bush administration, it was always conservative, well before bush got in office. However, if you look at things from a business standpoint, being nice to the current administration gets you better access and more stories. Slanting things towards their favor will grant you more interviews (as softball as they come).

> From time to time I compare how FOX reports on a
> news story, and how the mainstream media will
> present the same story, and it is amazing to see
> the subtle ways mainstream media will shade the
> story when they present it. I know they are
> talking about the same thing, but when you look at
> it from the standpoint of someone barely paying
> attention, and only getting the soundbite, you get
> a totally different impression of what happened.
> Try it sometime, even using one of your favorites,
> be it CNBC, MSNBC (shudder), or CNN. I think
> Anderson Cooper is decent - but he definitely toes
> the party line at times in what he chooses to
> present.

thats funny , i watch fox news just to see how rediculous their reporting is. I swear to god , i have never seen one positive story about Obama, not just on his policies, but on ANYTHING. Im not saying the other channels are sunshine and roses, but watching coverage on the election on CNN atleast they were somewhat fair to McCaine.

I dont know how accurate it was, but watch the documentary Outfoxed that came out a few years ago. Was very interesting at the least.

Do you think there is some vast left wing conspiracy to push a liberal agenda? Id have to say, if you think everyone except fox is biased, maybe its not everyone else thats biased, maybe its just Fox.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/09/2009 02:51AM by Kenny_Powers.

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kenny,
>
> I always knew you were smarter than the rest of
> us. That's why I try to sit next to you.


can i quote you on that? i guess i did huh?

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mainstream media went even more left after the
> advent of FOX News. Before FOX existed they were
> still pushing a liberal bias - just now that they
> have something to be compared to, they seem to
> have gone way too far in some form of attempt to
> prove how correct they are.

Or maybe it's all relative. Before Fox News, they didn't seem so left (don't forget, they reported us through WWII, the Cold War, Operation Desert Storm, etc and seemed to be able to sufficiently report "the news" in a way that kept the majority of Americans who actually paid attention to the news in line with the times). With Fox News, the formerly "mainstream news" was now being compared against a hard-line, partially neoconservative (PNAC), partially corporatist, partially globalist ideology.


>
> I speak to folks that say FOX News was the
> propaganda arm for President Bush, or the
> Republicans. Sorry, they regularly bring folks on
> that work at NPR, and other "liberal" outlets who
> are quite free in voicing their opinions on the
> programs there. Sure, they have Hannity, and some
> overt conservatives in their regular programming -
> but um - these guys make them money, they have
> huge viewership and support - so yeah, they push
> their shows. Duh. I don't regularly watch O'Reilly
> - I get tired of him yelling at folks all the
> time, but he is the highest rated cable
> news/opinion program over all of them - and he is
> regularly spoofed and attacked by Colbert, and the
> folks over at Comedy Central - so he must be doing
> something right.
>
> From time to time I compare how FOX reports on a
> news story, and how the mainstream media will
> present the same story, and it is amazing to see
> the subtle ways mainstream media will shade the
> story when they present it.

What you really need to do is compare reporting from media all over the world.

There is a certain deficit of reporting in this country. It's very selective and "we the people" only are allowed to know a certain amount of current world events. If you ever travel to Europe, you might experience this cognitive dissonance evoking reality -- the things being reported on in Europe are much different than what is reported on here in America.

If you watch CNN, and then watch NBC nightly News, they basically report the same repertoire of news stories each day. CBS, MSNBC, et al, they all basically only report certain stories. There are stories that are not reported, and therein lies the bias, which is not liberal or conservative, not democrat or republican.

If you compare the reporting outside this country to the reporting inside this country, you begin to realize that all of the media outlets in this country seem to answer to the same masters. There is not one single media outlet in this country that reports something that the others don't. They follow a script.

When I was stationed in Germany in the mid-90's, I lived on the economy, instead of on-base. I watched AFN in the ready room, and I had the basic sat channels in my apartment in town. I saw a report on Sky about American "peacekeepers" in Southern Iraq who were killed, but there was no report about it on Armed Forces Network, and none of my relatives and friends back home heard anything about it. Only 90 days after the peace treaty with Iraq, they were ambushed in their humvee, by Iraqi forces, because they got too close to the insurgents fighting against Saddam. Yet, American press chose not to report that. It didn't support the agenda, after all.

Those "peacekeepers" were soldiers from a unit down the road from us in K-Town. I didn't know them, but everyone in Kaiserslautern heard about it. Nobody in America, besides their families, ever heard anything about it.


>I know they are
> talking about the same thing, but when you look at
> it from the standpoint of someone barely paying
> attention, and only getting the soundbite, you get
> a totally different impression of what happened.
> Try it sometime, even using one of your favorites,
> be it CNBC, MSNBC (shudder), or CNN. I think
> Anderson Cooper is decent - but he definitely toes
> the party line at times in what he chooses to
> present.
>
> Funny though, most of the stories I see talked
> about and reported on everywhere, seem to get
> their life at Drudge Report - he still seems to
> have a large hand in what gets talked about on all
> the outlets. In the chicken and the egg question,
> which one is he?


It's not a chicken or egg question. It's a "who the fuck owns the chicken" question. Cui Bono? Who benefits??

NBC, supposedly liberal, and all that bullshit, is owned by the largest Defense Contractor on the fucking planet.

Liberal as they may be, they reported for years to the American Public, with all their liberal bias, in such a way that kept people buying into the Cold War, and invading Grenada, and suppressed information about the US support for fascist and militaristic regimes in South America, and so many other things.

It isn't Liberal/Conservative. We are distracted by that. The game is about who makes money from all of our taxes, and how to keep us paying more and more taxes. They love making the "liberals" and "conservatives" fight amongst themselves while they keep growing government, taxing and spending more, and keeping us distracted.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/09/2009 03:33AM by Thurston Moore.

you sound like a sane version of alex jones, er maybe jessie ventura?

Kenny_Powers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> you sound like a sane version of alex jones, er
> maybe jessie ventura?

Those guys have an agenda.

I can't say their agenda is wrong, but it ain't my understanding of the world.

If you have served overseas and still want to buy into the bullshit, maybe you really should listen to those guys. Besides "South Park", Alex Jones is probably the most widely circulated CD or DVD among overseas service members. I still think he's a misinformation agent, but alot of guys in the military really buy into his bullshit tirades. So be it. He is what he is, and he isn't afraid to report things that the American news people hide or obfuscate.

If you have served and just have your own opinion about things, and realize that most people are being misled by Fox OR those "liberal" media types, then welcome to the club.

'[



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/29/2012 02:58PM by Alias.

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey, boys, here's a news flash for you.
>
> ******* For immediate release*********
>
> It's been many years since the major media hasn't
> been reflecting the opinions of the left.
>
> Hello, are you getting the signal out there?


Are you actually agreeing that corporate media doesn't lean either left or right?

Or are you being sarcastic?

Did you actually figure out that the media is part of the corporatist, even military industrial complex interests?

I could look up Eisenhower's farewell address to reinforce your epiphany, if you like:


Yeah, here he goes:

]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/29/2012 02:57PM by Alias.

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Turston or Kenny,
>
> You asked the question, does the media lean to
> the left?
>
> I answered yes. If there was only one correct
> answer, why did you ask the question?
>
> You must really suck up the Obama juice.
Attachments:

\



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/29/2012 02:55PM by Alias.

Thurston Moore Wrote:
>
> Or maybe it's all relative. Before Fox News, they
> didn't seem so left (don't forget, they reported
> us through WWII, the Cold War, Operation Desert
> Storm, etc and seemed to be able to sufficiently
> report "the news" in a way that kept the majority
> of Americans who actually paid attention to the
> news in line with the times). With Fox News, the
> formerly "mainstream news" was now being compared
> against a hard-line, partially neoconservative
> (PNAC), partially corporatist, partially globalist
> ideology.
>

Just as a note, I consider myself pretty up to date on events and I don't just form my opinion based on what FOX News tells me. Also I served in the military many years ago - just to be clear where I am coming from.

I don't believe FOX pushes a "globalist" agenda in any way. That is probably the farthest thing from their reporting. Many years ago (after I was in the military) I was exposed to some folks that represented AMWAY (talk about globalists). For those of you that may have been fortunate enough to not know what AMWAY is, they were a pyramid marketing corporation out of Michigan, that essentially kept recruiting new folks at the bottom to create upstream income - and then those same people at the bottom had to then go out and also recruit new folks if they wanted to expand their "downstream" income. They could choose to just expand and sell the products that AMWAY pushed, but they were guaranteed to work harder for their money in the long run. They could still make money, but the model was really based on recruiting more and more downstream members to allow for more money to flow to (and through) you. It was there, for the FIRST TIME ( i was kind of ignorant of this issue before that time), that I got a glimpse of the plan to move corporations into China, and these guys were all salivating at finding folks to go over there and begin to expand in their market. At the time (1992) I distinctly remember that China was still kind of an unknown in many ways - other than the fact that we had products produced over there, most of "us" really didn't hear much about China day-to-day so much of the thought process was still "communist", "sort of bad guys", "sure I eat Chinese food but where do these folks really come from", etc. Anyway, these AMWAY folks were preaching engagement with the Chinese and the way to do it was to recruit these folks to AMWAY over there and begin to bring them in and expose them to US culture and products, not to mention a HUUUUUUGE untapped pool of downstream members. Pretty much anyone that could successfully get any kind of organization setup over there was guaranteed to become a very rich person. For example in the US, the guy that owns the Orlando Magic was, and still makes a lot of money from AMWAY. These folks were the kind that said a pledge of allegiance at every meeting, and were very big on patriotism. But they also promoted a form of globalism as a way to expose other cultures to US culture and products as a form of engagement.

>
> What you really need to do is compare reporting
> from media all over the world.
>
> There is a certain deficit of reporting in this
> country. It's very selective and "we the people"
> only are allowed to know a certain amount of
> current world events. If you ever travel to
> Europe, you might experience this cognitive
> dissonance evoking reality -- the things being
> reported on in Europe are much different than what
> is reported on here in America.
> ...
> If you compare the reporting outside this country
> to the reporting inside this country, you begin to
> realize that all of the media outlets in this
> country seem to answer to the same masters. There
> is not one single media outlet in this country
> that reports something that the others don't.
> They follow a script.

That is true from any perspective. National media in countries overseas report their local issues much in the same way our media does here in the US. If you were a citizen of those countries, I am sure in many cases you would feel the media was very selective on what they decided to cover. Many of the overseas media focuses on stories to paint the US in a negative light - again, shaping the opinions of folks by focusing on their own brands of selective reporting. Do they make note of the fact that the US is the largest charitable giver in the world? Or provides monies for more global programs than any other nation in the world? Probably not. It is in their governments (and I guess their corporate) best interest to make the US look like the bad guy (or show ways their policies don't appear to work) in many ways.

I don't refute the fact that what our media reports is very selective, and seems to come from the same script, but I don't think Matt Drudge started out focusing on what corporate interests were promoting as "the news". Even today, I think he picks up and focuses on items that are outside of what they would want - but certainly many of the items he does select are what end up getting talked about. If you go back to the election, there were a number of news stories in Chicago papers and news outlets about Barack Obama that reflected much of his negatives - and yet those stories never made it to the mainstream. Or look at the Oil for Food scandal - I don't think that ever made it to the mainstream, yet it was one of the major issues behind why Saddam was able to thumb his nose at the world.

>
> It's not a chicken or egg question. It's a "who
> the fuck owns the chicken" question. Cui Bono?
> Who benefits??
>
> NBC, supposedly liberal, and all that bullshit, is
> owned by the largest Defense Contractor on the
> fucking planet.
>
> Liberal as they may be, they reported for years to
> the American Public, with all their liberal bias,
> in such a way that kept people buying into the
> Cold War, and invading Grenada, and suppressed
> information about the US support for fascist and
> militaristic regimes in South America, and so many
> other things.
>
> It isn't Liberal/Conservative. We are distracted
> by that. The game is about who makes money from
> all of our taxes, and how to keep us paying more
> and more taxes. They love making the "liberals"
> and "conservatives" fight amongst themselves while
> they keep growing government, taxing and spending
> more, and keeping us distracted.

If we follow your logic, then FOX would be one of the better networks - Rupert Murdoch may have a "conservative" agenda, but he is not funded by the corporate giants that would have a vested interest in pushing agendas that favor their businesses. Murdoch has been controversial through the years, but he seems to be motivated by self-interest more than some larger, hidden corporate agenda.

Rupert Murdoch Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch

NBC has been owned by GE for a LONG time. They have consistently had a very liberal bias, and have been one of the biggest networks in doing hit jobs or reporting negatively on conservative issues IMHO. So if you follow that - then what? I guess they are an anti-christian corporation with large military interests that would like to influence public opinion to continue funding an agenda compatible with their operations? I dunno - has NBC been pushing the nuclear power agenda? Since GE is one of the larger players in that market as well I thought. I get the whole military/industrial complex conversation, but sometimes it is just another boogeyman.

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Radiophile,
>
> What is it with you liberals?
>
> Why do you think Acorn is going to have a major
> role in the 2010 Census?
>
> Why do you liberals want Nancy Pelosi and a bunch
> of old men telling you how to put your pants on?
> What do you have to gain?


As usual Alias, you are quite confused about facts. Yes, Acorn is "partner" with the census bureau to help publicize the event. Avon is also a partner. Acorn workers will Not be banging on your door, Acorn workers will not have access to your information, and acorn workers will not toss away your census paperwork if you are white.

Said Sen Gary Locke

Locke, April 23, 2009: [T]he Census will not be hiring anyone from ACORN. We use these so-called partners to get the word out and to spread the word about the need for people to respond and answer the questionnaires. ...We control the hiring. We do not use any government funds to subcontract with any organization to do any activity. ...We are not delegating anything to ACORN.

and this from the Census itself

Census Bureau statement, March 2009: Any charge of claim that a Census Bureau partner could influence or have direct input into census operations is baseless and inaccurate. The sole entity that will conduct the 2010 census is the U.S. Census Bureau, along with its hundreds of thousands of dedicated workers. Further, the Census Bureau has strict quality assurance procedures in every operation to prevent the introduction of errors and/or fraudulent information into the national count.

What "major role" do you think Acorn will be playing? In reality (not your own reality), Acorn will help publicize the event, point people who need work to the Census Bureau, or loan some conference rooms for training. All applicants get fingerprinted and and FBI background check. They will be CENSUS employees, not Acorn employees. Avon, and tens of thousands of other companies and organizations have volunteered to do the exact same thing.

You can partner too, Alias and do the EXACT thing Acorn does if you wish. Here is the website.
http://2010.census.gov/2010census/more_information/007657.html


So please, tell us what "major role" Acorn will be playing? I would LOVE to hear all about it.

And this whole thing about Pelosi telling us how to put our pants on. You need to someone to tell you to check the facts before you spew your thoughts. I searched The Congressional Record and can find no meaningful reference Speaker Pelosi made about "pants".


Many people, like yourself are ignorant. It means you just do not know. But being stupid is very different. Ignorance is curable, Alias. Stupidity is forever.

Judicial Watch Obtains Obama Commerce Department Documents Detailing ACORN Partnership for 2010 Census:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2009/may/judicial-watch-obtains-obama-commerce-department-documents-detailing-acorn-partnership

Quote

The documents also list the types of organizations ineligible for partnering with the U.S. Census. They include: "...Hate groups, Law enforcement, anti-immigrant groups, any groups that might make people fearful of participating in the Census..." The release of these Obama Commerce Department documents comes in the wake of an Obama Department of Homeland Security report released in April linking opposition to illegal immigration to "rightwing extremist radicalization."

In its official statement responding to the ACORN controversy, the Obama Commerce Department downplayed ACORN's participation in the Census, and labeled "baseless" the notion that ACORN would be involved in any Census count. However, the Census Bureau offered ACORN the opportunity to "recruit Census workers" who would participate in the count. Moreover, as an "executive level" partner, ACORN has the ability to "organize and/or serve as a member on a Complete Count Committee," which, according to Census documents, helps "develop and implement locally based outreach and recruitment campaigns."

...

"Given its history of illegal activity and fraud, ACORN should be nowhere near the 2010 Census," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "And shame on the Obama Commerce Department for continuing to demonize conservatives by lumping together law enforcement and anti-immigration groups with 'hate groups.' This discriminatory policy raises First Amendment concerns. Indeed, these documents provide further evidence that the Obama administration is politicizing the 2010 Census."

By their own definition ACORN should be excluded since they are a group that will make certain political groups fearful of participating in the Census.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/09/2009 05:06PM by Registered Voter.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Judicial Watch Obtains Obama Commerce Department
> Documents Detailing ACORN Partnership for 2010
> Census:
> http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2009/may/judicia
> l-watch-obtains-obama-commerce-department-document
> s-detailing-acorn-partnership
>
>
> The documents also list the types of organizations
> ineligible for partnering with the U.S. Census.
> They include: "...Hate groups, Law enforcement,
> anti-immigrant groups, any groups that might make
> people fearful of participating in the Census..."
> The release of these Obama Commerce Department
> documents comes in the wake of an Obama Department
> of Homeland Security report released in April
> linking opposition to illegal immigration to
> "rightwing extremist radicalization."
>
> In its official statement responding to the ACORN
> controversy, the Obama Commerce Department
> downplayed ACORN's participation in the Census,
> and labeled "baseless" the notion that ACORN would
> be involved in any Census count. However, the
> Census Bureau offered ACORN the opportunity to
> "recruit Census workers" who would participate in
> the count. Moreover, as an "executive level"
> partner, ACORN has the ability to "organize and/or
> serve as a member on a Complete Count Committee,"
> which, according to Census documents, helps
> "develop and implement locally based outreach and
> recruitment campaigns."
>
> ...
>
> "Given its history of illegal activity and fraud,
> ACORN should be nowhere near the 2010 Census,"
> said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "And
> shame on the Obama Commerce Department for
> continuing to demonize conservatives by lumping
> together law enforcement and anti-immigration
> groups with 'hate groups.' This discriminatory
> policy raises First Amendment concerns. Indeed,
> these documents provide further evidence that the
> Obama administration is politicizing the 2010
> Census."
>
>
> By their own definition ACORN should be excluded
> since they are a group that will make certain
> political groups fearful of participating in the
> Census.

Since when did idiots like you become a political party? Oh, wait, the Republican Party is what you call yourselves.

Yes, if someone is looking for employment, Acorn, as a partner, can point them in the direction of the Census Bureau. Tens of thousands of other partners with the exact same "influence" (none) can do the same.

And the Complete Count Committe means Acorn, as well as Avon, can hang up posters urging people to participate in the census.

"Recruit" is the wrong word. I would think Judicial Watch would know the correct word to use. The closest applicable definition of "Recruit" (checking my Merriam Webster) means "To secure the services of". Acorn WILL NOT "Recruit". The will not interview, they will not recommend Census hire someone, they will not handle ANY paperwork for the Census Bureau, they will not get a commission if someone they sent to Census gets hired. \ The role is to simply publicize the fact that Census is hiring and quite possibly pointing someone in their direction. That is it! Shame on Judicial Watch for using this "scare language" and shame on you RV for not checking the facts.

Ding Dong, AVON, along with tens of thousands of other companies, non profits, civic groups, garden clubs, etc etc etc, is also on the list of "partners" and they all have the same power (very little) as Acorn does when it comes to the census. They publicize the census, the let people know census is hiring, they have access to posters to hang on the wall and can loan a conference room if needed. That is it!

Do you have a career that requires speaking with authority on any matter? Here, you fail.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/09/2009 08:38PM by Radiophile.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't believe FOX pushes a "globalist" agenda in
> any way. That is probably the farthest thing from
> their reporting. Many years ago (after I was in
> the military) I was exposed to some folks that
> represented AMWAY (talk about globalists). For
> those of you that may have been fortunate enough
> to not know what AMWAY is, they were a pyramid
> marketing corporation out of Michigan, that
> essentially kept recruiting new folks at the
> bottom to create upstream income - and then those
> same people at the bottom had to then go out and
> also recruit new folks if they wanted to expand
> their "downstream" income. They could choose to
> just expand and sell the products that AMWAY
> pushed, but they were guaranteed to work harder
> for their money in the long run. They could still
> make money, but the model was really based on
> recruiting more and more downstream members to
> allow for more money to flow to (and through) you.
> It was there, for the FIRST TIME ( i was kind of
> ignorant of this issue before that time), that I
> got a glimpse of the plan to move corporations
> into China, and these guys were all salivating at
> finding folks to go over there and begin to expand
> in their market. At the time (1992) I distinctly
> remember that China was still kind of an unknown
> in many ways - other than the fact that we had
> products produced over there, most of "us" really
> didn't hear much about China day-to-day so much of
> the thought process was still "communist", "sort
> of bad guys", "sure I eat Chinese food but where
> do these folks really come from", etc. Anyway,
> these AMWAY folks were preaching engagement with
> the Chinese and the way to do it was to recruit
> these folks to AMWAY over there and begin to bring
> them in and expose them to US culture and
> products, not to mention a HUUUUUUGE untapped pool
> of downstream members. Pretty much anyone that
> could successfully get any kind of organization
> setup over there was guaranteed to become a very
> rich person. For example in the US, the guy that
> owns the Orlando Magic was, and still makes a lot
> of money from AMWAY. These folks were the kind
> that said a pledge of allegiance at every meeting,
> and were very big on patriotism. But they also
> promoted a form of globalism as a way to expose
> other cultures to US culture and products as a
> form of engagement.
>

There's a difference between Global Trade, and what Globalists seek to achieve. Globalists hope to eventually create a single world government. Some, like Al Gore and Hillary Clinton, want to use the UN as the foundation, others like Rupert Murdoch and David Rockefeller prefer a more corporatist model, and want to do away with the UN.

BTW, Amway still exists, they just changed their name when they finally figured out that Amway had become a derogatory term. I think it's now "Quixtar" or something like that.


> That is true from any perspective. National media
> in countries overseas report their local issues
> much in the same way our media does here in the
> US. If you were a citizen of those countries, I am
> sure in many cases you would feel the media was
> very selective on what they decided to cover. Many
> of the overseas media focuses on stories to paint
> the US in a negative light - again, shaping the
> opinions of folks by focusing on their own brands
> of selective reporting. Do they make note of the
> fact that the US is the largest charitable giver
> in the world? Or provides monies for more global
> programs than any other nation in the world?
> Probably not. It is in their governments (and I
> guess their corporate) best interest to make the
> US look like the bad guy (or show ways their
> policies don't appear to work) in many ways.
>
> I don't refute the fact that what our media
> reports is very selective, and seems to come from
> the same script, but I don't think Matt Drudge
> started out focusing on what corporate interests
> were promoting as "the news". Even today, I think
> he picks up and focuses on items that are outside
> of what they would want - but certainly many of
> the items he does select are what end up getting
> talked about. If you go back to the election,
> there were a number of news stories in Chicago
> papers and news outlets about Barack Obama that
> reflected much of his negatives - and yet those
> stories never made it to the mainstream. Or look
> at the Oil for Food scandal - I don't think that
> ever made it to the mainstream, yet it was one of
> the major issues behind why Saddam was able to
> thumb his nose at the world.
>

Matt Drudge doesn't write the script, he's an aggregator, and thus can only pull from the allowed script.

I'm not talking so much about the difference between one nation's self fluffing reporting and another's. I'm talking about how stories are just left out completely. There's a thousand and one things that occur in any given day that have just as much importance or newsworthiness as the 10 stories reported in the mainstream media. The 10 that make it to print and air drive certain agendas.





> If we follow your logic, then FOX would be one of
> the better networks - Rupert Murdoch may have a
> "conservative" agenda, but he is not funded by the
> corporate giants that would have a vested interest
> in pushing agendas that favor their businesses.
> Murdoch has been controversial through the years,
> but he seems to be motivated by self-interest more
> than some larger, hidden corporate agenda.

First, Rupert Murdoch IS a corporation. He may be motivated by "self-interest", but that self is completely and irreversibly tied to the fate of a global media empire, News Corp, which spans 5 continents including satellite stations across Europe and Asia.

Second, Rupert is one of the strongest supporters of the globalist agenda.

>
> Rupert Murdoch Wiki:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch
>
> NBC has been owned by GE for a LONG time. They
> have consistently had a very liberal bias, and
> have been one of the biggest networks in doing hit
> jobs or reporting negatively on conservative
> issues IMHO. So if you follow that - then what? I
> guess they are an anti-christian corporation with
> large military interests that would like to
> influence public opinion to continue funding an
> agenda compatible with their operations? I dunno -
> has NBC been pushing the nuclear power agenda?
> Since GE is one of the larger players in that
> market as well I thought. I get the whole
> military/industrial complex conversation, but
> sometimes it is just another boogeyman.

It's not just another boogeyman. Sure, there is no organized conspiracy or a single conscious agenda, but as Ike said, its influence runs deep and wide in this country, because it is so enmeshed in our political and economic structures. It influences this country in ways that even years of careful meticulous study could never identify.

NBC does push the nuclear power agenda. They just don't do it overtly. They can even make it seem like they're being liberally-biased while doing it. They don't do it like Rush or Bill would do it -- by screaming "Stop being pussies and support nuclear power you flaming commies!" -- They do it the same way the global warming people subtly influence people -- what the fuck was Wall-e, other than a way to make people think of themselves as evil polluters and lazy blobs of fat. The movie didn't come out and say "We're bad people who are destroying the planet", but if you watch the movie and are, like most people, susceptible to being influenced by message entertainment, you walk away from it being a little bit more conditioned to accept the global warming alarmism.

Radiophile Wrote:
>
> Since when did idiots like you become a political
> party? Oh, wait, the Republican Party is what you
> call yourselves.
>

First off, I don't really consider myself a Republican anymore. I consider myself a realist first, and most likely a libertarian at heart - not a liberal under some other name. I am pretty sure most of the founders would turn over in their graves if they saw what we had allowed ourselves to become today. I believe religion has a role in society, and shapes the laws a society uses for moral guidance, but I don't believe the country should be run by religion. I also believe that there should be some level of personal accountability - ie if you want to be an idiot and jump off a cliff, as long as no one will be under you when you hit the ground, I say go for it.

> Yes, if someone is looking for employment, Acorn,
> as a partner, can point them in the direction of
> the Census Bureau. Tens of thousands of other
> partners with the exact same "influence" (none)
> can do the same.
>
> And the Complete Count Committe means Acorn, as
> well as Avon, can hang up posters urging people to
> participate in the census.
>

Assuming you know how government contractors work (I do) it is entirely feasible for ACORN or some other organization to contract workers to help on any number of tasks. What is most troubling to me about the entire statement is that an organization like ACORN is not only trusted, they were INVITED (if you read through the attachment containing the correspondence you would see that) by the Census folks to become a partner. Yet, someone working for say, law enforcement is excluded.... huh? WTF is that - law enforcement ends up, at the end of the day, working as an extension of the justice department - and the folks supposedly working for Census would have to pass a background check performed by someone in law enforcement. I would think in many people's minds, ACORN would have a larger negative effect on people responding to the Census in other areas of the country than where the ACORN folks will most likely be targeted - and vice-versa. In any case, who knows what kind of contract positions Census will end up with - or temp positions - and when they make a statement that only folks working for Census will be performing the counts, that still leaves a wide opening for whomever they decide to get involved. From an organization that managed to overcount in some areas, and undercount in others in the last census, I find it hard to take them at their word.

> "Recruit" is the wrong word. I would think
> Judicial Watch would know the correct word to use.
> The closest applicable definition of "Recruit"
> (checking my Merriam Webster) means "To secure the
> services of". Acorn WILL NOT "Recruit". The will
> not interview, they will not recommend Census hire
> someone, they will not handle ANY paperwork for
> the Census Bureau, they will not get a commission
> if someone they sent to Census gets hired. \ The
> role is to simply publicize the fact that Census
> is hiring and quite possibly pointing someone in
> their direction. That is it! Shame on Judicial
> Watch for using this "scare language" and shame on
> you RV for not checking the facts.
>

I read the attachments - did you? Please, don't insult OUR intelligence with your huge oversimplification of what ACORN will and won't do. They will be able to refer folks to Census for work, and if you read the documents, you will note that one of the enticements Census offers to ACORN in their invitation is the fact that there will be many jobs created in the areas where ACORN has influence, and how good it will be for them to get jobs for their folks (seriously).

> Do you have a career that requires speaking with
> authority on any matter? Here, you fail.

I can post an opinion based on my reading just as well as you can. I at least read what I post about. Shame on you for trying to obfuscate with BS.

I have to say, honestly, based on the UN members I would prefer to have globalization with a more corporate bias to it. The UN can't even figure out who should be the most qualified folks on a human rights board - nor can they make or enforce any meaningful rules to halt weapons proliferation on even the most basic levels. At least with corporations you know where they are coming from - money - and it should be no surprise to people when things turn out the way they do.

At some point it would be good to have some form of world body... but the UN is not even close. Why anyone would try to even base something off of it makes no sense to me at all. How can you honestly believe that nations who are barely democratic in many cases if at all would support any form of world body that elects its leaders? And with the UN made up of an overwhelming number of non-democratic (or fake ones under some form of theocracy) governments, I can't see that being in our best interests here.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/10/2009 01:19AM by Registered Voter.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> First off, I don't really consider myself a
> Republican anymore. I consider myself a realist
> first, and most likely a libertarian at heart -
> not a liberal under some other name. I am pretty
> sure most of the founders would turn over in their
> graves if they saw what we had allowed ourselves
> to become today. I believe religion has a role in
> society, and shapes the laws a society uses for
> moral guidance, but I don't believe the country
> should be run by religion. I also believe that
> there should be some level of personal
> accountability - ie if you want to be an idiot and
> jump off a cliff, as long as no one will be under
> you when you hit the ground, I say go for it.

We need more of this. The partisan shit that has pervaded for the last 20 years is not helping anyone but those in power from both parties. (and I often wonder if these two parties haven't agreed, in a smoke-filled backroom, to share power while they keep playing the party card on all of us.)



>
> Assuming you know how government contractors work
> (I do) it is entirely feasible for ACORN or some
> other organization to contract workers to help on
> any number of tasks. What is most troubling to me
> about the entire statement is that an organization
> like ACORN is not only trusted, they were INVITED
> (if you read through the attachment containing the
> correspondence you would see that) by the Census
> folks to become a partner. Yet, someone working
> for say, law enforcement is excluded.... huh? WTF
> is that - law enforcement ends up, at the end of
> the day, working as an extension of the justice
> department - and the folks supposedly working for
> Census would have to pass a background check
> performed by someone in law enforcement. I would
> think in many people's minds, ACORN would have a
> larger negative effect on people responding to the
> Census in other areas of the country than where
> the ACORN folks will most likely be targeted - and
> vice-versa. In any case, who knows what kind of
> contract positions Census will end up with - or
> temp positions - and when they make a statement
> that only folks working for Census will be
> performing the counts, that still leaves a wide
> opening for whomever they decide to get involved.
> From an organization that managed to overcount in
> some areas, and undercount in others in the last
> census, I find it hard to take them at their
> word.

You do realize that both parties are very efficient in their gerrymandering, and can effectively ensure a senator and congressman's career in office by manipulating voting districts, don't you?

We accept and play along with all this political manipulation.

When it comes time to take a census, it just depends on who is in office at the time, which party they are affilliated with, and the opposition will make all kinds of petty attacks.

This isn't about liberals or republicans or fairness.

Get over the party politics. Divide and conquer is an age-old tactic.

We fail when we stick to supporting one party over the other.

Obama is a "democrat", he beat McCain, who was a "republican". What most people don't realize is that the people who own this nation backed both candidates, and would have been just as happy with one as they are with the other.

That is why I don't understand why the Thomas Paine stuff only got a lukewarm response. The guy is not advocating for either party if you listen to him. He is advocating common sense. And no, he is not a racist just because he wants the government to enforce immigration laws. If we want to survive as a nation, let alone people with a common cause, we need to embrace our country. It is fine to teach tolerance and acceptance and respect and honor - let folks show their culture however they want, but don't ram another country's culture down my throat - much like religion, no one appreciates having their beliefs and commonality tossed out the window for some idealist view of multi-cultural utopia.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/10/2009 01:32AM by Registered Voter.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That is why I don't understand why the Thomas
> Paine stuff only got a lukewarm response.

to be honest, i didnt look at it because my computer at work is shitty and it would probably blow up if i watched a video on it.

its probably not racism, so much as it is xenophobia.. which personally i think is a completely natural reaction to any drastic changes one may experience to his own culture.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/10/2009 01:32AM by Kenny_Powers.

\



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/29/2012 02:51PM by Alias.

I was under the impression that you thought CNN was one of the "liberal" media sources, why are you using a video clip from their network to prove your point?

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Radiophile Wrote:

>
> Assuming you know how government contractors work
> (I do) it is entirely feasible for ACORN or some
> other organization to contract workers to help on
> any number of tasks.

Can you read what the census said? There is no scare language here. There is no fear mongering here. Pretty straight forward.

Census Bureau statement, March 2009: Any charge of claim that a Census Bureau partner could influence or have direct input into census operations is baseless and inaccurate. The sole entity that will conduct the 2010 census is the U.S. Census Bureau, along with its hundreds of thousands of dedicated workers. Further, the Census Bureau has strict quality assurance procedures in every operation to prevent the introduction of errors and/or fraudulent information into the national count.

>What is most troubling to me
> about the entire statement is that an organization
> like ACORN is not only trusted, they were INVITED
> (if you read through the attachment containing the
> correspondence you would see that) by the Census
> folks to become a partner.

Along with tens of thousands of other orgainizations. You to can apply for the same status as Acorn and I encourage you rto do so.

>Yet, someone working
> for say, law enforcement is excluded.... huh? WTF
> is that - law enforcement ends up, at the end of
> the day, working as an extension of the justice
> department - and the folks supposedly working for
> Census would have to pass a background check
> performed by someone in law enforcement.

An extreme over exaggeration.
>I would
> think in many people's minds, ACORN would have a
> larger negative effect on people responding to the
> Census in other areas of the country than where
> the ACORN folks will most likely be targeted - and
> vice-versa.

I am more concerned with Avon. They may try to sell you make-up when they knock on your door to take the census. Oh wait, they and Acorn will have no direcrt impact or influence on the census.

In any case, who knows what kind of
> contract positions Census will end up with - or
> temp positions - and when they make a statement
> that only folks working for Census will be
> performing the counts, that still leaves a wide
> opening for whomever they decide to get involved.

Forward looking and speculative. And fairly in-accurate if we look at the facts.

> From an organization that managed to overcount in
> some areas, and undercount in others in the last
> census, I find it hard to take them at their
> word.

Again, Acorn has no direct influence on the census.
>
> > "Recruit" is the wrong word. I would think
> > Judicial Watch would know the correct word to
> use.
> > The closest applicable definition of "Recruit"
> > (checking my Merriam Webster) means "To secure
> the
> > services of". Acorn WILL NOT "Recruit". The
> will
> > not interview, they will not recommend Census
> hire
> > someone, they will not handle ANY paperwork for
> > the Census Bureau, they will not get a
> commission
> > if someone they sent to Census gets hired. \
> The
> > role is to simply publicize the fact that
> Census
> > is hiring and quite possibly pointing someone
> in
> > their direction. That is it! Shame on Judicial
> > Watch for using this "scare language" and shame
> on
> > you RV for not checking the facts.
> >
>
> I read the attachments - did you? Please, don't
> insult OUR intelligence with your huge
> oversimplification of what ACORN will and won't
> do.

Tell me EXACTLY what they will do. I included a link that tells you EXACTLY what is expected of a partner of the census. Can you read?

They will be able to refer folks to Census for
> work, and if you read the documents, you will note
> that one of the enticements Census offers to ACORN
> in their invitation is the fact that there will be
> many jobs created in the areas where ACORN has
> influence, and how good it will be for them to get
> jobs for their folks (seriously).

Census will be hiring over 100,000 workers across the US. Not 500 workers on the south side of Chicago. People of all education levels and backgrounds will be considered. This is a good thing for MANY areas.

>
> > Do you have a career that requires speaking
> with
> > authority on any matter? Here, you fail.
>
> I can post an opinion based on my reading just as
> well as you can. I at least read what I post
> about. Shame on you for trying to obfuscate with
> BS.

I posted FACTS from the Census. You are merely speculating based on non-factual information. I urge you to be a partner with a census and report back on all the nefarious things you see Acorn do.

k



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/29/2012 03:46PM by Alias.

l



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/29/2012 03:44PM by Alias.

If you want a perfect example of media bias (a la CNN), read the following article.

The inferences on health care and the slant is so patently obvious that I do not know how you can call it an objective news article.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/06/canadian.health.care.system/index.html?iref=newssearch

"The reality is that despite GOP rhetoric to the contrary, no Democratic plan now on the table calls for a Canadian-like government run health care system."

What the hell is this doing in a news section?

]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/29/2012 03:37PM by Alias.

I concur.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Judicial Watch Obtains Obama Commerce Department
> Documents Detailing ACORN Partnership for 2010
> Census:
> http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2009/may/judicia
> l-watch-obtains-obama-commerce-department-document
> s-detailing-acorn-partnership
>
>
> The documents also list the types of organizations
> ineligible for partnering with the U.S. Census.
> They include: "...Hate groups, Law enforcement,
> anti-immigrant groups, any groups that might make
> people fearful of participating in the Census..."
> The release of these Obama Commerce Department
> documents comes in the wake of an Obama Department
> of Homeland Security report released in April
> linking opposition to illegal immigration to
> "rightwing extremist radicalization."
>
> In its official statement responding to the ACORN
> controversy, the Obama Commerce Department
> downplayed ACORN's participation in the Census,
> and labeled "baseless" the notion that ACORN would
> be involved in any Census count. However, the
> Census Bureau offered ACORN the opportunity to
> "recruit Census workers" who would participate in
> the count. Moreover, as an "executive level"
> partner, ACORN has the ability to "organize and/or
> serve as a member on a Complete Count Committee,"
> which, according to Census documents, helps
> "develop and implement locally based outreach and
> recruitment campaigns."
>
> ...
>
> "Given its history of illegal activity and fraud,
> ACORN should be nowhere near the 2010 Census,"
> said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "And
> shame on the Obama Commerce Department for
> continuing to demonize conservatives by lumping
> together law enforcement and anti-immigration
> groups with 'hate groups.' This discriminatory
> policy raises First Amendment concerns. Indeed,
> these documents provide further evidence that the
> Obama administration is politicizing the 2010
> Census."
>
>
> By their own definition ACORN should be excluded
> since they are a group that will make certain
> political groups fearful of participating in the
> Census.


You quote "Judicial Watch?" The same clowns that tried to get Miranda overturned? The same nimrods that count Mark Levin as an advisor? The same jerk- offs that tried to sue the government for prosecuting Scooter Libby. The same meat heads that filed lawsuits claiming Hillary Clinton was not eligible to be Secretary of State? That Judicial Watch?

Radiophile Wrote:

>
> I posted FACTS from the Census. You are merely
> speculating based on non-factual information. I
> urge you to be a partner with a census and report
> back on all the nefarious things you see Acorn do.

Dude, you need to learn how to READ.

If you look through all the documents submitted by Judicial Watch, in the middle of them (unfortunately I didn't have the correct version of adobe to cut and paste the section) is a document FROM Census directly to ACORN. The document is an invitation for their organization to join with Census - sure, just like other organizations received. The thing is, in that invitation, it makes it clear that there will be MANY jobs (temp/part-time/etc) created in areas they work in, and it will be great for them to be involved as they can have their folks apply for these positions.

Now sure, Census makes these comments and responses saying that they will conduct the Census counts themselves - but you are a fucking moron if you think they can't hire CONTRACT help, to perform many functions in the Census, up to and including COUNTing. IF for instance, they have a CONTRACT with an outside consulting firm (as MANY, if not ALL Federal Government agencies do) then it is entirely possible that some of these folks could be funneled to the contractors who may not have the same quality control in place to ensure their folks are adequately screened. Again, having worked for the fed in the past as a contractor, I can say with firm knowledge that it happens as we had issues with another contracting agency that brought people in and did not adequately screen them. It takes a while for those issues to be caught, even if the contractor says everything checked out.

Much like taking a vote for political office, there are many ways to screw with Census numbers. Who is to say that in reaching out to make sure folks are not "undercounted" the canvassers don't fill out and return Census forms that folks are not around to fill out? There are any number of ways they can do this - and based on ACORN's track record, it is not out of the realm of possibility. So they would not have to be involved in the counting - they could just helpfully fill out the forms for folks - much like they did for voter registrations. There is nothing on the Census form that prevents another person from filling it out for you and returning it.

Your mental density is a testament to why this BS can happen in the first place.

This is why folks like Hitler succeeded, blind (truly blind) loyalty in the face of even the thought or question of the folks involved. Ignorance truly must be bliss.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/10/2009 01:48PM by Registered Voter.

FUNdamental Wrote:

>
> You quote "Judicial Watch?" The same clowns that
> tried to get Miranda overturned? The same nimrods
> that count Mark Levin as an advisor? The same
> jerk- offs that tried to sue the government for
> prosecuting Scooter Libby. The same meat heads
> that filed lawsuits claiming Hillary Clinton was
> not eligible to be Secretary of State? That
> Judicial Watch?

The classic "attack the messenger-not the message" response.

Try again when you have something to add that is more meaningful than the fact that we already know you don't watch FOX News, or listen to any other conservative minded media.

Heritage Foundation:
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/19/acorn-gets-plum-census-assignment/

An Article About the Request - not by Judicial Watch
http://minneapolis.craigslist.org/pol/1250225882.html

EDIT: Here you go - this one might make more sense:
http://romanticpoet.wordpress.com/2009/06/01/acorn-soros-and-the-census/



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/10/2009 02:03PM by Registered Voter.
Attachments:

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have to say, honestly, based on the UN members I
> would prefer to have globalization with a more
> corporate bias to it. The UN can't even figure out
> who should be the most qualified folks on a human
> rights board - nor can they make or enforce any
> meaningful rules to halt weapons proliferation on
> even the most basic levels. At least with
> corporations you know where they are coming from -
> money - and it should be no surprise to people
> when things turn out the way they do.
>
> At some point it would be good to have some form
> of world body... but the UN is not even close. Why
> anyone would try to even base something off of it
> makes no sense to me at all. How can you honestly
> believe that nations who are barely democratic in
> many cases if at all would support any form of
> world body that elects its leaders? And with the
> UN made up of an overwhelming number of
> non-democratic (or fake ones under some form of
> theocracy) governments, I can't see that being in
> our best interests here.


The problem is that globalists aren't trying to create a "world body", they are trying to create a world government, that replaces and supercedes national governments.

I can only imagine that it would be modeled along the same structures as the EU, where they are slowly eroding national sovereignty, and where the leadership council or whatever it is called is not elected by the people, but by whatever remains of the governments of the member countries.

With all the anti-democratic types in this world (like you said), ceding sovereignty to a world government would only diminish democracy and further encourage autocratic or even totalitarian people to seek more power. Plus, with all the various cultures and even various forms of democracy, it is silly to think that a single body could make rules and enforce laws for everyone on this planet. It's hard enough for our federal government to rule in a fair and just manner for all of the various points of views in this country.

All the natural trends are towards deconsolidation of power, and the globalists are doing everything in their power to reverse this and go in the direction of consolidating power further and further until a single government reigns over the entire planet.

Nothing good can come from that.

Well, I guess the first step will be to destroy the dollar - which they are well on path to accomplishing. Once they do that, and can establish a global currency it won't be so far fetched for folks.

The funny thing, all these folks are talking about excess and greed - and the real culprits were a bunch of corporate CEOs and bank executives (along with some stupid regulators that didn't enforce the regulations already in place) that have been in a practice of siphoning off excessive amounts of money out of proportion to their value to the system. They are trying to come up with a solution that somehow penalizes EVERYONE for the excesses of a (relatively) small bunch of business fat cats and elected representatives that are more interested in themselves than the rest of us.

For folks here that think our current government can become distant and not representative of their interests, what makes you think a "global" government would make that any better?

OMG Registered Voter! I did not realize Acorn will be hanging up posters and post notices of the census in heir newsletters! WOW. They will also be allowing a census person to publicly speak? This is outlandish! I am now afraid, very afraid!

The point is you don't understand that forward looking statements are not facts.

But see, you beloved Heritage foundation lied to you. They lied. They said
It’s a concern, especially when you look at all the different charges of voter fraud. And it’s not just the lawmakers’ concern. It should be the concern of every citizen in the country. We want an enumeration. We don’t want to have any false numbers.

No one from Acorn was convicted of Voter Fraud. They were charged with Voter Registration Fraud - a MAJOR difference. But "Voter fraud" sounds more scary, so Heritage went with it.

The whole article from Heritage is a big nothing. They don't say specifically what Acorn will be able to do, because Acorn will be able to do very little except maybe hang a few posters. Read the article again and again and tell me where they say ANY threat is? They don't! And tell me what the headline means "ACORN Gets Plum Census Assignment" Acorn got the same "plum" assignment as tens of thousands of other groups.

Just be a little skeptical when you hear something from heritage or Fox News. Once you apply the slightest bit of critical thinking to what they are saying - it becomes very funny that people are falling for these stories meant to scare you over nothing.

And "Invited". Let me tell you about a few invitations.
Sadam Hussien INVITED Donald Rumsfeld to Iraq for a visit. Rumsfeld accepted and went.

Iron Maggie thatcher was INVITED to the House of Saud and accepted and there is even video of her bowing to the King there.

George W Bush INVITED a Saudi Diplomat to the White House a mere hours after 9-11 and showed him the plans for the invasion of Iraq. This, despite the fact that the majority of 9-11 hijackers were Saudi.

Acorn INVITED John McCain to speak at a meeting and JM was happy to oblige and asked to be INVITED back.

And then there was the the Congressman who INVITED the guy in the next bathroom stall... Oh never mind.

I know folks who work for the Heritage Foundation, they are normal people.

You need be as skeptical when you listen to or read the Daily KOS, or whatever else you see.

You sound just like the talking points for ACORN folks.

That's fine - A head in the sand mentality works. They have already proven their methods in hiring and how the folks work in doing voting registration. If you look at the documents, one of their interests will be in documenting more folks for their official records (ACORN) for the next election cycle and whatever else they are into. They will probably have better personal information on the folks covered in the census than the census itself will have by the time they are done. But ACORN is just a great, altruistic organization for the betterment of America - no worries.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/2009 12:54AM by Registered Voter.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, I guess the first step will be to destroy
> the dollar - which they are well on path to
> accomplishing. Once they do that, and can
> establish a global currency it won't be so far
> fetched for folks.
>

We've already heard rumblings, and not much has stirred people. The IMF's Special Drawing Rights has recently been named as the precursor to a new international currency, first by China's Central Bank, and then by China's Finance Minister, and I can't remember who else, but it's been raised a bunch of times.

> The funny thing, all these folks are talking about
> excess and greed - and the real culprits were a
> bunch of corporate CEOs and bank executives (along
> with some stupid regulators that didn't enforce
> the regulations already in place) that have been
> in a practice of siphoning off excessive amounts
> of money out of proportion to their value to the
> system. They are trying to come up with a solution
> that somehow penalizes EVERYONE for the excesses
> of a (relatively) small bunch of business fat cats
> and elected representatives that are more
> interested in themselves than the rest of us.
>

And this runs across all party lines. Once in power, politicians are more beholden to the guys with the really huge checkbooks, not the simple little voter.


> For folks here that think our current government
> can become distant and not representative of their
> interests, what makes you think a "global"
> government would make that any better?


That's what is so astonishing. While most people just consider it a conspiracy theory, the majority of people who figure out that it is actually something a great many in politics and the corporate world are truly seeking to achieve, they say things like "how bad would that be? We probably need a world government. It would stop all those wars, and we'd have peace and prosperity, and kumbaya!"

The natural order is for smaller units of government, governing smaller groups of people. Less strife occurs when a government is serving the interests of as many people within that governing zone as possible. The larger the zone being governed, the more discontent and strife will occur because, by nature, there will be larger divisions among all the disparate peoples. You can actually use the United States are a proving ground of this idea: We became a great nation with a decentralized system of a relatively weak central government and an expiremental mixing bowl of 50 state governments, not to mention counties and towns/cities and all the other regional and local forms of governance. We began our declines in world, economic, intellectual, manufacturing, and other power as our central government exerted more and more power over the states and slowly consolidated its power through different funding grants, the use of the commerce clause, new government agencies and regulators, etc. What do we have left? Our military and our Higher Education. Those are the only things of any significance that we still export. And those are coming into question, lately, too.

Plus, monopolies are always bad. The greater the number of different ideas generating different forms of government the better. If there's only one single government, it will eventually erode into basically a totalitarian regime, forced to do so by conflicts and strife generated by the inability to satisfy the needs of every group being ruled. Force and coercion will eventually be the only method of keeping order, and through the use of force and coercion, it will be compelled to use that force and coercion on ever greater numbers of the population, as each use creates further injustices and discontent, and so on and so forth.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/2009 01:18AM by Thurston Moore.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I know folks who work for the Heritage Foundation,
> they are normal people.
>
> You need be as skeptical when you listen to or
> read the Daily KOS, or whatever else you see.
>
> You sound just like the talking points for ACORN
> folks.
>
> That's fine - A head in the sand mentality works.
> They have already proven their methods in hiring
> and how the folks work in doing voting
> registration. If you look at the documents, one of
> their interests will be in documenting more folks
> for their official records (ACORN) for the next
> election cycle and whatever else they are into.
> They will probably have better personal
> information on the folks covered in the census
> than the census itself will have by the time they
> are done. But ACORN is just a great, altruistic
> organization for the betterment of America - no
> worries.


Most serial killers were considered "normal" by people who knew them. Nazi storm troopers officers running death camps went home every night and had a "normal" family life.

Appearing "normal" is no criteria for anything.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Thurston Moore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I have to say, honestly, based on the UN members
> I
> > would prefer to have globalization with a more
> > corporate bias to it. The UN can't even figure
> out
> > who should be the most qualified folks on a
> human
> > rights board - nor can they make or enforce any
> > meaningful rules to halt weapons proliferation
> on
> > even the most basic levels. At least with
> > corporations you know where they are coming from
> -
> > money - and it should be no surprise to people
> > when things turn out the way they do.
> >
> > At some point it would be good to have some
> form
> > of world body... but the UN is not even close.
> Why
> > anyone would try to even base something off of
> it
> > makes no sense to me at all. How can you
> honestly
> > believe that nations who are barely democratic
> in
> > many cases if at all would support any form of
> > world body that elects its leaders? And with
> the
> > UN made up of an overwhelming number of
> > non-democratic (or fake ones under some form of
> > theocracy) governments, I can't see that being
> in
> > our best interests here.
>
>
> The problem is that globalists aren't trying to
> create a "world body", they are trying to create a
> world government, that replaces and supercedes
> national governments.
>
> I can only imagine that it would be modeled along
> the same structures as the EU, where they are
> slowly eroding national sovereignty, and where the
> leadership council or whatever it is called is not
> elected by the people, but by whatever remains of
> the governments of the member countries.
>
> With all the anti-democratic types in this world
> (like you said), ceding sovereignty to a world
> government would only diminish democracy and
> further encourage autocratic or even totalitarian
> people to seek more power. Plus, with all the
> various cultures and even various forms of
> democracy, it is silly to think that a single body
> could make rules and enforce laws for everyone on
> this planet. It's hard enough for our federal
> government to rule in a fair and just manner for
> all of the various points of views in this
> country.
>
> All the natural trends are towards deconsolidation
> of power, and the globalists are doing everything
> in their power to reverse this and go in the
> direction of consolidating power further and
> further until a single government reigns over the
> entire planet.
>
> Nothing good can come from that.


Perhaps...just perhaps..the concept of the national sovereign state is outdated. Sovereignty models have changed many times over time....from the city state, feif doms, kingdoms to the Nation. Be prepared to change or be left behind.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/2009 07:19AM by Vince(1).

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I know folks who work for the Heritage Foundation,
> they are normal people.
>
> You need be as skeptical when you listen to or
> read the Daily KOS, or whatever else you see.


Assuming facts not in evidence. When did I provide a link from Daily Kos or similar website to support my argument? I did not, thats when. I provided a link from a US Government department, The Census. If you have a problem with that, then you are a moron.


> You sound just like the talking points for ACORN
> folks.

HA Ha HA, I love it. The truth being talking points! I wish Heritage would adopt the same policy. I provided specific facts to support my claim. You provided speculation and unsupported claims to support yours. You have yet to tell tell me WHAT Acorn could do that will hurt you or distort the census. They will be hanging up posters and the like. That is is. If you think their role will be bigger or they have more influence, you just dont get that Acorn has the same amount of influence as tens of thousands of other groups when it comes to the Census.

> That's fine - A head in the sand mentality works.

Better then fear mongering.

> They have already proven their methods in hiring
> and how the folks work in doing voting
> registration.

Proven their methods? OK. What are these methods. If they have been proven, please provide me these methods. I would only ask that you look up the word "method" before you answer my question so you can answer my request correctly.

If you look at the documents, one of
> their interests will be in documenting more folks
> for their official records (ACORN) for the next
> election cycle and whatever else they are into.

I have not seen these documents. And it appears you either have not seen them or have not read them.

> They will probably have better personal
> information on the folks covered in the census
> than the census itself will have by the time they
> are done.

"Probably" is speculative. We are dealing with facts here. And are you saying that Acorn will working "inside" the Census furthering their own agenda. Please provide ANY specific example of an Acorn badge wielding person working hand in hand with a census worker? You cant.

But ACORN is just a great, altruistic
> organization for the betterment of America - no
> worries.

I would trust them more than the Heritage Organization who insisted Iraq had WMD and very vocally supported the invasion in Iraq to the detriment of thousands of lives of our brave US soldiers who invaded a country to look for something that was not there.

The Heritage Foundation said in this report that "The use of a weapon of mass destruction is reasonably likely" and talked about Iraq in the same category. Heritage wrote the the President has the right to use preemptive force. How did that work out for us?
http://www.heritage.org/research/homelandsecurity/bg1600.cfm

Oh, it worked out great. We are now paying the Iraqis not to shoot at us. Great move.

Vince(1) Wrote:

>
>
> Most serial killers were considered "normal" by
> people who knew them. Nazi storm troopers
> officers running death camps went home every night
> and had a "normal" family life.
>
> Appearing "normal" is no criteria for anything.

Fuck you Vince. Personally. These are people I have known for many years and they have lives to lead just like most of us here. To have you, of all people, make those kind of implications/comparisons about folks I know is just the cake. I would suspect you of leading an armed revolution, or throwing people in camps that didn't agree with your ideals long before any of these people would come near that kind of behavior. Stop projecting and take your medication, call your therapist, whatever. I think they let you out too early.

Radiophile Wrote:

>
> Assuming facts not in evidence. When did I provide
> a link from Daily Kos or similar website to
> support my argument? I did not, thats when. I
> provided a link from a US Government department,
> The Census. If you have a problem with that, then
> you are a moron.
>

Quote

...
And "Invited". Let me tell you about a few invitations.
Sadam Hussien INVITED Donald Rumsfeld to Iraq for a visit. Rumsfeld accepted and went.

Iron Maggie thatcher was INVITED to the House of Saud and accepted and there is even video of her bowing to the King there.

George W Bush INVITED a Saudi Diplomat to the White House a mere hours after 9-11 and showed him the plans for the invasion of Iraq. This, despite the fact that the majority of 9-11 hijackers were Saudi.

...

I don't remember that being in any link you provided.

>
> HA Ha HA, I love it. The truth being talking
> points! I wish Heritage would adopt the same
> policy. I provided specific facts to support my
> claim. You provided speculation and unsupported
> claims to support yours. You have yet to tell tell
> me WHAT Acorn could do that will hurt you or
> distort the census.

I never said they would distort the Census - I said there are always ways to screw with anything, just look at how the voter registrations worked out - and with their record there were many ways to screw with a government organization through contractors and other help. You are putting words in my mouth. I posted a link to the documents that Judicial Watch asked for in a FOIA request. Based on track record of how ACORN hirelings have worked in the past, it is not a stretch to assume they will have a "few" (by definition those that get caught doing it) of their folks doing very questionable activities. I am sure when ACORN offered to help out with voter registrations, no one would have thought they would try and register a few hundred thousand extra people here and there, or perhaps help in filling out absentee ballots for folks that didn't exist. Why would they do that?

> They will be hanging up
> posters and the like. That is is. If you think
> their role will be bigger or they have more
> influence, you just dont get that Acorn has the
> same amount of influence as tens of thousands of
> other groups when it comes to the Census.
>

Sure, I am speculating on what they might do based on the past behavior of the folks that work for them. ACORN has proved very good at plausible deniability, good for them. Just pointing to the papers that spell out their "official" role means little other than pointing out what I did - that they are involved.

>
> Proven their methods? OK. What are these methods.
> If they have been proven, please provide me these
> methods. I would only ask that you look up the
> word "method" before you answer my question so you
> can answer my request correctly.
>

Lets look at it this way. They have a number of documented cases, in completely different areas of the country, of the exact same behavior during the last election cycle. Their excuse is, "oh, it is just a few bad apples"... Maybe they should have taken the extra step to do an internal investigation and show that they could document it didn't happen elsewhere. They are a proven partisan organization that states they are non-partisan - and yet we are supposed to believe they are going to do nothing else wrong during the Census.

You obviously missed the whole lesson on "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me".

> I would trust them more than the Heritage
> Organization who insisted Iraq had WMD and very
> vocally supported the invasion in Iraq to the
> detriment of thousands of lives of our brave US
> soldiers who invaded a country to look for
> something that was not there.
>
> The Heritage Foundation said in this report that
> "The use of a weapon of mass destruction is
> reasonably likely" and talked about Iraq in the
> same category. Heritage wrote the the President
> has the right to use preemptive force. How did
> that work out for us?

> http://www.heritage.org/research/homelandsecurity/
> bg1600.cfm
>
> Oh, it worked out great. We are now paying the
> Iraqis not to shoot at us. Great move.

Yes, and all those Democratic Senators that voted for the war were in the same boat. Lets remember, the same people on the democrat side were the ones who backed Clinton for firing cruise missiles and dropping bombs on Iraq during his time in office, for the exact same reasons that Bush and the other nations of the world use to back their calls for inspectors and other sanctions against Iraq before the war...

Clinton Orders Strikes on Iraq:
http://www.dailyrepublican.com/clintoniraqfiasco.html

Clinton View of Iraq and Al-Qaeda Ties:
http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/clintvon.htm

Quote

...
It does sound less than satisfying to one Bush administration official. "So, when the Clinton administration wants to justify its strike on al Shifa," this official tells me, "it's okay to use an Iraq-al Qaeda connection. But now that the Bush administration and George Tenet talk about links, it's suddenly not believable?"

The Clinton administration heavily emphasized the Iraq link to justify its 1998 strikes against al Qaeda. Just four days before the embassy bombings, Saddam Hussein had once again stepped up his defiance of U.N. weapons inspectors, causing what Senator Richard Lugar called another Iraqi "crisis." Undersecretary of State Thomas Pickering, one of those in the small circle of Clinton advisers involved in planning the strikes, briefed foreign reporters on August 25, 1998. He was asked about the connection directly and answered carefully.

Q: Ambassador Pickering, do you know of any connection between the so-called pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum and the Iraqi government in regard to production of precursors of VX?

PICKERING: Yeah, I would like to consult my notes just to be sure that what I have to say is stated clearly and correctly. We see evidence that we think is quite clear on contacts between Sudan and Iraq. In fact, al Shifa officials, early in the company's history, we believe were in touch with Iraqi individuals associated with Iraq's VX program.

Ambassador Bill Richardson, at the time U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, echoed those sentiments in an appearance on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer," on August 30, 1998. He called the targeting "one of the finest hours of our intelligence people."

"We know for a fact, physical evidence, soil samples of VX precursor--chemical precursor at the site," said Richardson. "Secondly, Wolf, direct evidence of ties between Osama bin Laden and the Military Industrial Corporation--the al Shifa factory was part of that. This is an operation--a collection of buildings that does a lot of this dirty munitions stuff. And, thirdly, there is no evidence that this precursor has a commercial application. So, you combine that with Sudan support for terrorism, their connections with Iraq on VX, and you combine that, also, with the chemical precursor issue, and Sudan's leadership support for Osama bin Laden, and you've got a pretty clear cut case."
...

Clinton: Iraq has abused its last chance
http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/

Snopes.com:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

The fact is, ACORN misrepresents their "non-partisan" status. They obviously do a shit job at screening their help. Based on your comments here, do you want the Heritage Foundation to help with the Census?



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/2009 10:54AM by Registered Voter.

Just as an interesting side bar, here is the Heritage Foundation evaluation on Iraq

In Post-War Iraq, Use Military Forces to Secure Vital U.S. Interests, Not for Nation-Building (2002)
http://www.heritage.org/research/iraq/bg1589.cfm

Quote

...
Why Nation-Building is the Wrong Approach

Under the Clinton Administration, the United States adopted a new approach to addressing turmoil in far-flung regions of the world called "nation-building."3 According to the Clinton Administration's national security strategy, U.S. forces would participate in so-called peace operations that "support democracy or conflict resolution."4 Because of this vague policy, U.S. military forces found themselves committed to many ill-defined, open-ended missions where no vital U.S. interests were at stake--such as in Somalia, Haiti, and the Balkans--in order to achieve unrealistic or inappropriate political or social goals.

Thus, under President Clinton, the policy of military interventions focused too little on national security requirements, too often on appeasing foreign views or demands, and too little on the circumstances necessary for undertaking successful peace operations.
...

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/2009 11:29AM by Registered Voter.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Most serial killers were considered "normal" by
> > people who knew them. Nazi storm troopers
> > officers running death camps went home every
> night
> > and had a "normal" family life.
> >
> > Appearing "normal" is no criteria for anything.
>
> Fuck you Vince. Personally. These are people I
> have known for many years and they have lives to
> lead just like most of us here. To have you, of
> all people, make those kind of
> implications/comparisons about folks I know is
> just the cake. I would suspect you of leading an
> armed revolution, or throwing people in camps that
> didn't agree with your ideals long before any of
> these people would come near that kind of
> behavior. Stop projecting and take your
> medication, call your therapist, whatever. I think
> they let you out too early.


Your mantra about taking medication is getting old. And I am not questioning...judging or making any statemnts about your "friends". I am questioning your ability to make any claims about being able to evaluate their normality. You can hardly write a very well spelled paragraph without adding an insult or profanity. Your recent support of the radical agenda of your "Thomas Paine" shows you to be a rather extreme right wing provocateur...call your Congressman or you are a traitor. By the way..when was the last time you called..or wrote your Congressional representatives. Id love for you to share some of those "Thomas Paine" opinions you so strongly relate to. You'll be on the Homeland Security watch list before you can shake a stick.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just as an interesting side bar, here is the
> Heritage Foundation evaluation on Iraq
>
> In Post-War Iraq, Use Military Forces to Secure
> Vital U.S. Interests, Not for Nation-Building
> (2002)
> http://www.heritage.org/research/iraq/bg1589.cfm
>
>
> ...
> Why Nation-Building is the Wrong Approach
>
> Under the Clinton Administration, the United
> States adopted a new approach to addressing
> turmoil in far-flung regions of the world called
> "nation-building."3 According to the Clinton
> Administration's national security strategy, U.S.
> forces would participate in so-called peace
> operations that "support democracy or conflict
> resolution."4 Because of this vague policy, U.S.
> military forces found themselves committed to many
> ill-defined, open-ended missions where no vital
> U.S. interests were at stake--such as in Somalia,
> Haiti, and the Balkans--in order to achieve
> unrealistic or inappropriate political or social
> goals.
>
> Thus, under President Clinton, the policy of
> military interventions focused too little on
> national security requirements, too often on
> appeasing foreign views or demands, and too little
> on the circumstances necessary for undertaking
> successful peace operations.
> ...
>
Further proof you can not comprehend what you read!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The artice, dated September 2002 says this in the first paragraph.

As the Administration intensifies its efforts to build international support for a U.S.-led campaign to end Saddam Hussein's brutal and menacing regime in Iraq, some are questioning America's commitment to an effort to rebuild Iraq after such a war. The Administration has yet to present its plans for post-war Iraq. Its plans should be the last element of its argument that military force is needed to oust a regime that actively supports terrorism and pursues weapons of mass destruction (WMD), despite pressure from the United Nations to stop. (Details of Iraq's WMD programs are included in the Appendix.)


Iraq supporting terrorism? Not! The 9-11 commission was very clear on that. Persuing WMDs? We never found any and boy did we look hard.

Do you see how dangerous forward looking speculation can be?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/2009 12:14PM by Radiophile.

What I was posting was part of the thinking that was going on BEFORE the war. Based on well founded policy by the Clinton administration and the prevailing opinion of the day for justifying previous and future military conflicts. Today we have the luxury of looking at it in hindsight.

I read just fine thanks. They ALL believed the WMD were there, even the Russians, the Germans and the French. The only reason they voted to keep extending sanctions was due to their Billions of dollars in business partnering they had with Iraq - in particular deals tied to having the sanctions removed (since they didn't want the US to perform a regime change and ruin their deals - the sanctions were better than war for them).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/2009 12:38PM by Registered Voter.

Vince(1) Wrote:
>
> Your mantra about taking medication is getting
> old. And I am not questioning...judging or making
> any statemnts about your "friends". I am
> questioning your ability to make any claims about
> being able to evaluate their normality. You can
> hardly write a very well spelled paragraph without
> adding an insult or profanity. Your recent
> support of the radical agenda of your "Thomas
> Paine" shows you to be a rather extreme right wing
> provocateur...call your Congressman or you are a
> traitor. By the way..when was the last time you
> called..or wrote your Congressional
> representatives. Id love for you to share some of
> those "Thomas Paine" opinions you so strongly
> relate to. You'll be on the Homeland Security
> watch list before you can shake a stick.

I write to my Congressmen fairly regularly on a number of issues. I pointed out the Thomas Paine (affected) video because it represented Common Sense. And it truly does. Nothing he says there is "revolutionary" or worthy of DHS notice.

This guy is not representing anything extreme right wing unless you say that quoting from the Constitution is somehow radical.... um. If you believe that, then you have a serious disconnect with reality - which we already know to be true based on your postings here.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What I was posting was part of the thinking that
> was going on BEFORE the war. Based on well founded
> policy by the Clinton administration and the
> prevailing opinion of the day for justifying
> previous and future military conflicts. Today we
> have the luxury of looking at it in hindsight.


I am not sure what the heck you are talking about. I have read the Dayton Accords and the framework for peace and stability were there. Is this what you are refering to?
>
> I read just fine thanks. They ALL believed the WMD
> were there, even the Russians, the Germans and the
> French. The only reason they voted to keep
> extending sanctions was due to their Billions of
> dollars in business partnering they had with Iraq
> - in particular deals tied to having the sanctions
> removed (since they didn't want the US to perform
> a regime change and ruin their deals - the
> sanctions were better than war for them).

They did NOT all believe this. The Germans gave us Curveballs statements with the comment that nothing could be verified and he is nuts. The administration took the statements and left out the the germans comments and presented them as facts.

The French were very vocal about no WMDs in Iraq and even though they had business ties to Iraq, someone should have listened. Iraq is after all, a two days drive from paris.

Th UN urged the US to let the inspectors continue looking. But our fearless leader knew "in his gut" a different approach should be implemented.

I urge you to see "Bush's War on Frontline. It will lay out the facts for you. And it is not liberal propaganda - both sides present what had happened every step of the way for a real nice chronological series of events that led up to the war.

Radiophile Wrote:

>
> The French were very vocal about no WMDs in Iraq
> and even though they had business ties to Iraq,
> someone should have listened. Iraq is after all, a
> two days drive from paris.
>
> Th UN urged the US to let the inspectors continue
> looking. But our fearless leader knew "in his gut"
> a different approach should be implemented.
>
> I urge you to see "Bush's War on Frontline. It
> will lay out the facts for you. And it is not
> liberal propaganda - both sides present what had
> happened every step of the way for a real nice
> chronological series of events that led up to the
> war.

The French and many other politicians were also receiving substantial oil money kickback from Iraq in the Oil for Food program. Did Frontline cover that also?

People like to say that "Bush's war" was about oil. The post-war story is still about oil, and covering up for all the OTHER people who were already in it for the oil. It seems that oil money is behind all the ills hmm?

Oh right - guess Frontline didn't cover that scandal:

IRAQ - Truth and Lies in Baghdad, November, 2002
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/iraq/sanctions.html

PBS is considered liberal media.. remember?

EDIT: Haha, this page at PBS makes it even more laughable

Global Corruption Roundup II
News updates from the world of corporate corruption
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/bribe/2009/07/global-corruption-roundup-ii.html

Ah an update - even better, PBS credits Kofi Anan for pushing for the investigation..... LOL
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/bribe/2009/04/timeline.html

Quote

In April 2004, two years into the Iraq war, U.N. Secretary
General Kofi Annan appointed an Independent Inquiry
Committee (IIC) to investigate the Oil-for-Food Program.
The program mandated that money from oil sales be used
by the Iraqi government to purchase only humanitarian
goods and services approved by the U.N. Under former
U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, the committee
concluded that more than 2,000 companies in roughly 40
countries paid $1.8 billion in kickbacks to Saddam
Hussein's government. The findings led to dozens of
FCPA cases. Examples include Volvo, who paid a $19.6
million fine to avoid prosecution, and Chevron, who,
without admitting liability, paid $30 million in a
settlement with the SEC.

Pretty nice spin on how that went down. Wow thanks for giving me the perfect segue to complete the thread topic :)



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/2009 01:34PM by Registered Voter.

It was common knowledge throughout the world...besides just the french...that there were no WMDs in Iraq. Intelligence officers who didnt have to report to Dick Cheney even knew it. The American peple were manipulated and lied to.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/2009 02:15PM by Vince(1).

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It was common knowledge throughout the
> world...besides just the french...that there were
> no WMDs in Iraq. Intelligence officers who didnt
> have to report to Dick Cheney even knew it. The
> American peple were manipulated and lied to.


Someone needs to point out where any of the UN Weapons inspectors thought Iraq had WMD. The folks with the most experience on the matter either out and out derided the idea or, at best, said it was doubtful given the state of the program when they left Iraq.

To all the Republicans out there bashing Obama, the fact is he inherited the worst economy since the late 70s. It took Reagan nearly two years to right the ship after the Carter Administration. I would suggest you give Obama the same amount of leeway you gave St. Ronnie.

WashingTone Locian Wrote:
St. Ronnie.


lol +1

WashingTone Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To all the Republicans out there bashing Obama,
> the fact is he inherited the worst economy since
> the late 70s. It took Reagan nearly two years to
> right the ship after the Carter Administration. I
> would suggest you give Obama the same amount of
> leeway you gave St. Ronnie.

Being a Republican now is like being a Democrat in 1981.

History is simply not on your side at this moment.

Never fear, when Chelsea Clinton screws up the country in 2036, it'll be your time again.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Radiophile Wrote:
>

> The French and many other politicians were also
> receiving substantial oil money kickback from Iraq
> in the Oil for Food program. Did Frontline cover
> that also?

By you r link below, you prove that Frontline DID cover that issue, in another episode. for you to think that "oil for food" program HAD ANYTHING to do with the invassion, I can assure you, it was the furthest thing from bush's mind at the time.
>
> People like to say that "Bush's war" was about
> oil. The post-war story is still about oil, and
> covering up for all the OTHER people who were
> already in it for the oil. It seems that oil money
> is behind all the ills hmm?

Sorry, if there is a point here - I am not getting it.

> Oh right - guess Frontline didn't cover that
> scandal:

They did.

> IRAQ - Truth and Lies in Baghdad, November, 2002
> http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/iraq/san
> ctions.html

Watch the show - if you can find any fact that Frontline presents as wrong, I will be impressed. But you will not find any errors. Just your uninformed opinions.
>
> PBS is considered liberal media.. remember?
Sometimes I think that "liberal" means presenting all relevant sides to a story.
And Mr. bush was the most LIBERAL US President, right. Under Bushs watch and Iraq under our controll, he had the military take away civillians guns - our constitution prevents that here. He granted the rights of the people in Iraq to have reproductive freedom - you know they keep arguing against that here. And Iraq has a a free healthe care system - something we dont have here. So Mr. Bush was a liberal.


> EDIT: Haha, this page at PBS makes it even more
> laughable
>
> Global Corruption Roundup II
> News updates from the world of corporate
> corruption
> http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/bribe/20
> 09/07/global-corruption-roundup-ii.html

Did you see the show? It is all about documented cases of bribery. See the show before you rush to judgement. Find out IF a country has WMDs before you invade. Simple concepts but they will make all of our lives better.

> Ah an update - even better, PBS credits Kofi Anan
> for pushing for the investigation..... LOL
> http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/bribe/20
> 09/04/timeline.html
>
>
> In April 2004, two years into the Iraq war, U.N.
> Secretary
> General Kofi Annan appointed an Independent
> Inquiry
> Committee (IIC) to investigate the Oil-for-Food
> Program.
> The program mandated that money from oil sales be
> used
> by the Iraqi government to purchase only
> humanitarian
> goods and services approved by the U.N. Under
> former
> U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, the
> committee
> concluded that more than 2,000 companies in
> roughly 40
> countries paid $1.8 billion in kickbacks to Saddam
>
> Hussein's government. The findings led to dozens
> of
> FCPA cases. Examples include Volvo, who paid a
> $19.6
> million fine to avoid prosecution, and Chevron,
> who,
> without admitting liability, paid $30 million in a
>
> settlement with the SEC.
>
>
> Pretty nice spin on how that went down. Wow thanks
> for giving me the perfect segue to complete the
> thread topic :)

The point was, PBS covers all this global corruption, and they covered Oil for Food like a footnote - somehow it failed to even get an honorable mention that the program was politically corrupt, with Saddam using kick-back bribes to politicians so they would push for and vote to end sanctions, and also vote against any additional action by the UN to take more aggressive action against them. Notice the note that is made at PBS talks about the corporations involved, and that somehow Kofi Anan is the one who instigated the investigation. That is a load of BS - he only had the Volcker investigation because of all the revelations being made by the press.

Its great they went into all the details on the public corporations - where are the list of politicians that were involved as well? Many of them resigned, or were drummed out because of it.

Did you look into the Oil for Food issue, or just take Frontline's word on how it went down? I am guessing the latter.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/16/2009 04:27PM by Registered Voter.

Ok, so I just read through all of the above posts and here's what I conclude:

Gobble Gobble.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/06/2010 02:35PM by Jive Turkey.

Jive Turkey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ok, so I just read through all of the above posts
> and here's what I conclude:
>
> (1) Score +1 to Radiophile for clarity and
> context. Argument won.
>
> (2) Score -1 to Alias for being a redneck.
> There's no place in Fairfax County for rednecks
> anymore. If you want more freedom, you should
> move to Wyoming.
>
> (3) Score -10 to Registered Voter for (i) overly
> reading through archived periodicals and journals
> on his free time (ergo, lacking a real life with
> personal relationships and such) and (ii) writing
> to his congress person regularly. If I knew you
> in real life, I'd think you're boring, petty and
> deserving of a bitch slap.
>
> That is all for now.
>
> Sheeyit Mayne. Gobble Gobble.

You aren't even worth rating since you added nothing to the conversation other than your name. Your conclusions are worthy more of the name Jive Troll - see if you can't get that changed - 6 posts and the most you can offer is ... nothing. Why did you even register? I would have to guess you don't vote regularly in elections either.

Wow..an issue right off yesterday's headlines....Food for Oil!

PBS is still "THE" best news orgaization on any network.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Vince:

Your opinion is no surprise given your inclinations.

I don't go around saying FOX News is the best news network - and I don't believe they are. I don't take anything at face value when it comes from talking heads - and these folks (on all sides) no longer report on the news as a rule, they offer their opinions on the news.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/16/2009 05:58PM by Registered Voter.

Of course I vote in every election, but I don't care to discuss my woes about the current system ad nauseum as you do.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/06/2010 02:36PM by Jive Turkey.

And... as if I care what the majority of folks here think about me. Your opinion for sure I could care less.

If I cared what they (or you) thought of me I probably would be worried about the wrong issues.

Then why did you just reply?

A couple months after the election, the President went on a retreat in Virginia with several congressional leaders,

CNN's website headline read; "Obama meets with House leaders at VA retreat."

local news CBS; "Obama on retreat in VA, meets with House Dem leaders,"

FOX news reported; "Obama retreats to Virginia"


WTF!! I'm sure the wording by FAUX news was purely unintentional

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince:
>
> Your opinion is no surprise given your
> inclinations.
>
> I don't go around saying FOX News is the best news
> network - and I don't believe they are. I don't
> take anything at face value when it comes from
> talking heads - and these folks (on all sides) no
> longer report on the news as a rule, they offer
> their opinions on the news.

No one should look to any one source for news. On a daily basis I listen to the news of 2 of the main networks...and PBS and CNN. In addition I get the W. Post newspaper and I regularly review a half dozen differnet on line "news" web sites. I am under the impression that the typical FOX news viewer only watches that network..you can tell who they are..they pick up the latest FOX theme and just keep wrattling off the latest "facts" as fed to them.

Of all those sources..the most valuable is PBS...if a person isnt watching PBS news at least 2 times a week...they are ignorant of the news. You dont have to agree with them on a damn thing...but you will be a better educated citizen.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Jive Turkey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm new here and, after lurking for a couple of
> weeks, I decided that I should register. Of
> course I vote in every election, but I don't care
> to discuss my woes about the current system ad
> nauseum as you do.
>
> Shit. Go outside, get some sun and do some
> jumping jacks already.
>
> My conclusions only state the obvious. Someone
> who posts as frequent as you do combined with the
> nature of your grievances makes for one whoppingly
> huge D-BAG. I'm sorry to have brought that on
> you, but from the looks of it, many here would
> agree with me.


I think you're a fucking douchebag...take some of your own advice and go the fuck outside. Loser.

quit your crying little lady!