PDA

View Full Version : SATAN AND THE LIBERAL MEDIA



Ellis Rowe
04-25-2005, 07:11 AM
I DON'T KNOW WHO TO ATTRIBUTE THE QUOTE TO, AND THIS MAY NOT BE VER BATIM BUT, "THE SMARTEST THING THAT SATAN EVER DID WAS TO CONVINCE MANKIND THAT HE DIDN'T EXIST." IN CONTRAST, I THINK THE SMARTEST THING THE NEO CONS HAVE DONE IS TO CONVINCE PEOPLE THAT A MAINSTREAM LIBERAL MEDIA DOES EXIST. WHERE IS IT? I CERTAINLY DON'T SEE IT.THE ONLY OUTRAGE THAT I SEE OVER 100,000 INNOCENT IRAQUIS KILLED IN THIS ILLEGAL WAR IS IN THE FORM OF LETTERS TO EDITORS. EVEN PUBLIC TV AND RADIO SEEM TO HAVE A SEE NO EVIL, HEAR NO EVIL ATTITUDE. PUBLIC TV HAS CASTRATED NOW, CUTTING IT TO HALF AN HOUR, AND ADDED THREE CONSERVATIVE PROGRAMS "IN THE INTEREST OF BALANCE" I'D CONTINUE THIS RANT, BUT I'M BETWEEN SPRAY COATS OF AWL GRIP AND NEED TO GET BACK TO THE PAINTING.

MJC
04-25-2005, 08:43 AM
THE ONLY THING WORSE THAN NEO-CONS IS A POST IN ALL CAPS!!
THE ONLY THING WORSE THAN NEO-CONS IS A POST IN ALL CAPS!!
THE ONLY THING WORSE THAN NEO-CONS IS A POST IN ALL CAPS!!
THE ONLY THING WORSE THAN NEO-CONS IS A POST IN ALL CAPS!!
THE ONLY THING WORSE THAN NEO-CONS IS A POST IN ALL CAPS!!
THE ONLY THING WORSE THAN NEO-CONS IS A POST IN ALL CAPS!!
THE ONLY THING WORSE THAN NEO-CONS IS A POST IN ALL CAPS!!
THE ONLY THING WORSE THAN NEO-CONS IS A POST IN ALL CAPS!!
THE ONLY THING WORSE THAN NEO-CONS IS A POST IN ALL CAPS!!
THE ONLY THING WORSE THAN NEO-CONS IS A POST IN ALL CAPS!!
THE ONLY THING WORSE THAN NEO-CONS IS A POST IN ALL CAPS!!
THE ONLY THING WORSE THAN NEO-CONS IS A POST IN ALL CAPS!!

[ 04-25-2005, 09:47 AM: Message edited by: MJC ]

Victor
04-25-2005, 08:47 AM
gosh it's loud in here

Ian McColgin
04-25-2005, 09:17 AM
Oh, I like the variation from upright to right slant.

For most of us, all caps really is like shouting: Oddly harder to comprehend.

As it happens - and no forumite of more than a few moment's history will be surprised - I agree with Ellis.

But the still calm voice . . . piano . . . and all that.

High C
04-25-2005, 09:34 AM
Originally posted by Ian McColgin:
...For most of us, all caps really is like shouting: Oddly harder to comprehend....On a related note, see if this is hard to comprehend, read it fast:

I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid Aoccdrnig to rscheearch taem at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Such a cdonition is arppoiately cllaed Typoglycemia smile.gif -
Amzanig huh? Yaeh and yuo awlyas thought slpeling was ipmorantt.

LeeG
04-25-2005, 09:45 AM
Tihs wlil gvei Dnon a copnition fit!

George.
04-25-2005, 09:45 AM
Shhh... don't tell Donn. ;)

LeeG
04-25-2005, 09:46 AM
But speaking of the liberal media,,they don't run the show.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/04/24/in_terror_wars_name_public_loses_information?mode= PF

Ian McColgin
04-25-2005, 09:49 AM
That is a fameous example. There are also typological examples where either the top half or bottom half of each letter has been eliminated. If I recall correctly, it's easier to read if the bottom half is missing.

But it is also work. A strangly spelled rant on a more difficult topic quickly becomes incomprehensible. For that reason - and this may appear strange coming from a dyslectic with huge spelling disabilities - I personally favor normal grammer and conventional spelling in most discursive writing.

Just as I prefer to talk with someone who is talking, not shouting.

Ellis Rowe
04-25-2005, 07:17 PM
Geezum MJC you really put me in my place didn't you? I only wish I knew more about operating this computer so I could find a font tiny enough to show how small I feel. I promise to try and follow protocol on any additional posts.

Katherine
04-25-2005, 07:24 PM
Was that sarcasm, could we possibly have another
http://collectdolls.about.com/library/graphics/troll.jpg

hmmm. . .

seafox
04-25-2005, 07:39 PM
For the record the 100,000 iraqies dead number has been proven false I seen to recall the number of civilian casulties is about 23.000 and that compaired to how many people sadam was killing an inprovement of about 108 people a day fewer than would have been killed had sadam still been in power.

further of those killed I wonder how many are killed by the terrorist as compaired to americans axcidently>

and how many of the "civilians " are in fact miscredited insergents?

the amazing thing is an american officer who was involved in chasing a bunch of terrorst is facing the end of his carrear because he put the mortally injured driver out of his misory. the iraqi terrorist could not be saved. he could not be medivaced so a mercy the officer killed him with a couple of pistle shots and then was honested when asked about it..

as for calling it an illeagle war was sadam following the armisist agreement? was he allowing unfettered inspections? was he not targeting allid aircraft and ocasionly tossing a missel at them as they petroled the no fly zones.

if the 91 war that was put on hold by the armisist was leagle sadams failure to live up to his end of the agreement means resumption of combat was also leagle

Ellis Rowe
04-25-2005, 07:59 PM
Yes Katherine, I must admit that was sarcasm. No, at present I'm all out. Seafox, where did you get the 23,000 figure, and who disspelled the 100,000 figure. Since the official policy of our government is that they do not track those figures it would seem to me that any government agency would be hard pressed to deny any figure put out by a reputable source. Of course it's an illegal war. President Bush himself stated that we were not in eminant danger, which is a pre condition for going to war.

kenkongs
04-25-2005, 08:31 PM
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

I keep this site.
It does nor include the weeks of bombing Bagdad and other population centers during the initial illegal invasion.

seafox
04-25-2005, 09:11 PM
intresting the iraqi body bount web site is rather anti american and it gives a range of 21,000 to 24,000

where is the requirement that we be in "emminant danger"? were the iraqis not targeting american aircraft every day? was sadam not failing to live up to his agreement when he signed the armisist that brought a tempory halt to the war in 91?

fact is all sadam had to do was allow unfettered inspection their would have been no war

do you wish sadam was still in power?

High C
04-25-2005, 09:17 PM
Originally posted by seafox:
...do you wish sadam was still in power?Truth is, Jeffery, that they simply haven't thought it through that far...

LeeG
04-25-2005, 09:38 PM
Truth is High,,president Cheney didn't think beyond deposing Saddam either.

kenkongs
04-25-2005, 10:54 PM
truth is, in my opinion, bush didnt go in to get saddam, he went in after the oil. people continue to talk about saddam, weapons, etc. A red herring. Who among you will be the last to accept that fact? There are still people who believe the Gulf of Tonkin was legit.
Remember, our nation loves dictators because they keep their country secure which Big Oil appreciates; democracys get in the way of Oil-Robber Barons. Saddam made the mistake of standing up for his country in the face of Empiralism. He paid for it. Should have cut a deal. He already had signed contracts with Germany and France and others to let them in on the oil pool; bush didnt like the fact that America wasnt invited to the party so he decided to crash the party. He first needed to whip us up into a fury by preaching fear and concocting the bogus 9/11 connection. To his dying day he will not express remorse or sorrow; his whole life he has been able to slip one by. It would be just fine with bush if he never heard the word Iraq again; he will continue to push no matter the cost to achieve what he perceives as power. I just hope the media at least asks questions when he starts selling his Iran invasion scheduled for this June. I want my country back.

Shang
04-26-2005, 01:20 AM
About the All Caps business...

Type Was Made To Be Read
by Berton Braley

"Type," said the Foreman, "was made to read,
And that is a maxim it's well to heed,
For the printer frequently gets a start
With a Craze for 'beauty,' a bug for 'art,'
Which holds him fast in a fearful gripe
And keeps him trying mad stunts with type,
With seventeen fonts and seventy styles
And borders by thousands and rules by miles.

"Type," said the Foreman, "was made to read,
But the printer, oftentimes, in his greed
For novel features and 'class' and 'tone,'
Forgets this fact he has always known
And sends out work that is fine to see
And 'smart' and 'natty' as it can be,
A job with a swagger and high-bred look,
But hard to read as a Chinese book!

( I had to hand-set this [and the several other verses] in twelve-point foundary-type and run it on the C&P letter-press in two colors before I could call myself a typesetter... )

[ 04-26-2005, 02:24 AM: Message edited by: Shang ]

PeterSibley
04-26-2005, 03:36 AM
as for calling it an illeagle war was sadam following the armisist agreement? was he allowing unfettered inspections? was he not targeting allid aircraft and ocasionly tossing a missel at them as they petroled the no fly zones.
To the first question ...Yes
To the second question...Yes
To the third question ... Yes and I suppose it's fairly likely both your and my counties would behave simlarly under the same circumstances.

and do you have a shift key on your keyboard? Could you learn to use it ?

MJC
04-26-2005, 05:54 AM
Originally posted by Ellis Rowe:
Geezum MJC you really put me in my place didn't you? I only wish I knew more about operating this computer so I could find a font tiny enough to show how small I feel. I promise to try and follow protocol on any additional posts.Extremism in defense of readability is no vice, Moderation in defense of readability is no virtue. Besides, I was in a pissyass mood yesterday. But, hey, you're not the only one that is made to feel small dowm in the bilge of the WBF. Join the crowd.

Ian McColgin
04-26-2005, 06:10 AM
Just a side note on the c. 22,000 v. 100,000 Iraqi dead.

The methodology for the former is a very careful count body by body with witnesses that each was the death of a non-combatant caused by direct US (& allied) military action. Civilian deaths by Iraqi's and civilian deaths by other causes are not counted.

The 100,000 figure covers a far longer time, going back to the Saddam era sanctions, and is an epidemiological-statistical study that eliminates pre-sanction morbidities. It thus includes deaths consequent to but not directly caused by US military actions.

Both numbers are useful in their contexts but the c. 22,000 Iraqi dead is a clear statement of the "colateral" deaths we are visiting on the Iraqis.

High C
04-26-2005, 08:37 AM
Originally posted by PeterSibley:
as for calling it an illeagle war was sadam following the armisist agreement? was he allowing unfettered inspections? was he not targeting allid aircraft and ocasionly tossing a missel at them as they petroled the no fly zones.
To the first question ...Yes
To the second question...Yes
To the third question ... Yes You got one out of three right...

PeterSibley
04-26-2005, 03:25 PM
Still believing the old lies ...eh C ?

Meerkat
04-26-2005, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by High C:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by seafox:
...do you wish sadam was still in power?Truth is, Jeffery, that they simply haven't thought it through that far...</font>[/QUOTE]I've thought it through that far - I just wish 1200+ US kids weren't dead and $300Bn wasn't wasted - which it/they where!

High C
04-26-2005, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by PeterSibley:
Still believing the old lies ...eh C ?Yes, it would appear that you are, eh P?

PeterSibley
04-26-2005, 07:21 PM
I'm charmed at our new level of intimacy C ( signed P) :D
There were no WMD ,there are between 23,000 and 100,000 Iraqis dead as a result,1200 of your young men,who probably had other things in mind for life plus $300 billion US.The whole thing was based on bad intelligence and lies . I heard Rumsfeld on the news this morning disembling happily on the subject of winning...not at all what he had in mind.After one year the insurrengcy is as strong as ever.I fervently hope they are not able to drag the ****es into a civil war...their aim ,I would say.The ****es are displaying remakable stoicism in the face of utter bastardry.

Another question might be how else in the name of peace and democracy could $300 billion have been spent.....something that saved lives ,not destroyed them.

Ellis Rowe
04-27-2005, 08:30 PM
Seafox, The requirement that a country must be attacked or in imminent danger of being attacked lies within the charter of the U.N. Being the primary architect of that charter you would think that we would be willing to comply with the rules. No, I don't wish that Saddam was still in power. So, what's next, N. Korea, Syria ?

Ross M
04-27-2005, 09:19 PM
Does the term "cease fire" mean anything in particular to you, Ellis?

Ross

Katherine
04-27-2005, 09:28 PM
20,000, 100,000 it doesn't really matter, there are still too many dead, and for what? Money? Oil? A mad man's whim? I agree that Saddam was evil and needed to be removed, but why the heck is this dragging out so long? They don't seem to want us there, the rest of the world is convinced we're evil (until they have their next disaster and need us). Why don't we just finish up what we need to do, clean up our mess, take our toys and go home.

High C
04-27-2005, 10:19 PM
Originally posted by Ross M:
Does the term "cease fire" mean anything in particular to you...Ooh oooh, I know, I know!! Does it mean that, in a war, both sides agree to stop shooting, as long as the other side stops, too? Is that it? And if one side starts shooting again, then the cease fire is off and the war is back on? Is that it?

Here this, those who wrongly claim that our invasion of Iraq was illegal; we had the legal and moral right to invade Iraq at any time in the last decade or so. Iraq repeatedly violated the terms of the 1991 Gulf War cease fire agreement by firing on our aircraft in the UN created "no-fly zones". All the rest of this chatter about "illegal war" is nothing more than partisan spin. It's nonsense. :rolleyes:

High C
04-27-2005, 10:24 PM
Originally posted by Katherine:
...They don't seem to want us there...Wanna bet!? See what the Iraqi reaction would be if we spoke seriously of pulling out.

LeeG
04-27-2005, 10:32 PM
fun reading for High

http://middleeastreference.org.uk/iraqweapons.html

pipefitter
04-28-2005, 02:57 AM
Illegal war,Bush's? After 911 what did the American people want? They wanted revenge on the whole mideast because they were/are all evil and it seems a 911 problem would have happened again maybe from yet another group of nutjobs following suit in the name of allah. I figure Bush's theory was to start with the countries we already had violent issues with to maybe show that we would react, even if illegally.But a softer action than going after some uninvolved mideast country.So now,by our irrational illegal war it seems we dont care who we blow up or that we need a real reason. But so what,it's an irrational world we live in and I atleast like knowing that other countries may think twice before starting something. Their neighboring countries then maybe should be real careful of their involvements with troublemakers. The Iraquis and the Afghani's should really just hunt down and find Osama and turn him over if they want to give us a real reason to leave.Does anyone here have a better suggestion than what Bush did? Wait them out? Osama tried before his success and look what waiting did. Look what happened from one attack on the US,2 whole countries got pretty much shut down. Now which country wants to try a more serious attack on us? I think maybe why we didnt see additional attacks, more than I believe national security prevented.

George Jung
04-28-2005, 01:04 PM
I considered posting earlier, but decided to wait for a more well-reasoned response than I have time for. Apparently the more considerate are still mulling their response. I tend to agree with you; and while there is an incredible amount of criticism of our entry into Afghan. and Iraq, I've never heard a plan B that appeared to hold much promise. You're right; after 9/11, the citizens of the US wanted 'something' done. In the long run, don't know how successful our approach will be (someone mentioned a nuke in NYC) but, what other options are viable? I agree that, before taking on Afghan and Iraq, the world pretty much considered the US all bark and no teeth. I think what we've done may have a temporary, neutralizing effect. But longer term.... I don't know.

Leon m
04-28-2005, 01:20 PM
And you may ask yourself
Where is that large automobile?