31 Comments:

• At 22/6/06 10:03 AM,  Anonymous said…

  Well I don't know that I'd put it the way you did but yeah, I'm not surprised about the weapons. We've seen them used before, the Kurds remember? I think the major problem is that most people think WMD=nuke, a misconception helped by the media. It doesn't have to be a nuke however. WMDs can be chemical, biological, etc.

   

• At 22/6/06 10:47 AM,  Cody O'Connor said…

  Robby said...
  "Well I don't know that I'd put it the way you did"
  
  No? Go on, I'm intrigued.

   

• At 22/6/06 12:18 PM,  Anonymous said…

  Well, it's just, calling Democrats "souless bastards" seems a little extreme don't you think?

   

• At 22/6/06 12:28 PM,  Anonymous said…

  I mean don't get me wrong, I don't feel sorry for them, but it makes you look less credible.

   

• At 22/6/06 1:52 PM,  Allisoni Balloni said…

  When the Bush administration holds a press conference and takes back the comments about NOT finding anything, then maybe it will mean something. Although even then I find it difficult to believe much of anything they say.

   

• At 22/6/06 3:26 PM,  Anonymous said…

  When the Bush administration holds a press conference and takes back the comments about NOT finding anything, then maybe it will mean something. Although even then I find it difficult to believe much of anything they say.
  
  So you believe people selectivally? You believe the president when he says what you want him to say but not when he says things you disagree with? That's not very open-minded of you you know. Actually I disagree with Bush saying there weren't any WMDs. There were. We saw them during the gassing of the Kurds. I'm not sure how you can deny that that ever happened.

   

• At 22/6/06 3:35 PM,  Allisoni Balloni said…

  So you believe that the war is going well because the president says it...but don't believe other things he says because you don't want to...that's the pot calling the kettle black...

   

• At 22/6/06 3:42 PM,  Allisoni Balloni said…

  "This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."
  
  That part of the article that you linked to seriously just makes me laugh. Nice try, Santorum.

   

• At 22/6/06 9:20 PM,  Cody O'Connor said…

  Robby said...
  "Well, it's just, calling Democrats "souless bastards" seems a little extreme don't you think?"
  
  Nah. It's more like an understatement.
  
  "but it makes you look less credible."
  
  I don't need to sound credible at the moment because I have a news story backing me up. If people don't want to believe the news than that's their problem not mine.

   

• At 22/6/06 9:49 PM,  Cody O'Connor said…

  Also, I'm talking about Democrats in office, not regular people who are registered Democrats when I call them souless.

   

• At 22/6/06 10:05 PM,  Anonymous said…

  So you believe that the war is going well because the president says it...
  
  No, actually I beleive its going well based on several factors such as news and experiances soldiers tell about (interviews etc.). The president just happens to agree with my position. YOU however, only cited the president regarding the WMD arguement.
  
  Also, I'm talking about Democrats in office, not regular people who are registered Democrats when I call them souless.
  
  Oh, well insulting politicians is ok I guess.

   

• At 23/6/06 2:16 PM,  PlaidBaron said…

  I knew there were weapons I just didn't know there was 500. Kinda shows how the media ignores these things.

   

• At 23/6/06 3:48 PM,  Gayle said…

  Cody, I understand how you feel. It's very frustrating that they are still in denial. They always will be. They owe President Bush and this country an apology for calling the President a liar, and for many other things as well. But apologies he - and we - are not going to get. It takes character to admit it when you know you are wrong. They have none!

   

• At 23/6/06 3:51 PM,  Gayle said…

  By the way Plaidbaron, Fox News didn't ignore it. They covered it and said it was 500 Cannisters filled with Serin and Mustard gas. Naturally most of the rest of the MSM didn't cover it because it makes them look like jackasses!

   

• At 23/6/06 5:12 PM,  Allisoni Balloni said…

  THE PRESIDENT'S OWN OFFICIALS SAID THAT THERE WERE NO WMD'S! Why on earth would anyone ever owe any of them an apology?? I like how no one responded to the part in the article where the official said that this was NOT the reason we went to war...these are NOT the weapons they were looking for, and NOT the weapons they were suspected to have...No one will ever get an apology from me...

   

• At 23/6/06 5:41 PM,  Cody O'Connor said…

  allisoni said...
  "THE PRESIDENT'S OWN OFFICIALS SAID THAT THERE WERE NO WMD'S!"
  
  I guess they weren't right then. My guess is that it was just political manuvering to weasel the administration out of a potential no WMD scandal, but now, we can see that they don't have to do that.
  
  "Why on earth would anyone ever owe any of them an apology??"
  
  Usually you apologize when you call someone a liar and are wrong. Most people do anyways.
  
  "I like how no one responded to the part in the article where the official said that this was NOT the reason we went to war...these are NOT the weapons they were looking for, and NOT the weapons they were suspected to have...No one will ever get an apology from me..."
  
  Does it matter? We went to Iraq because of WMD's (though that was only one of the many reasons), and we found WMD's. Just because the weapons we found weren't the ones we were looking for doesn't make Iraq not justified. It still proves Iraq was a threat to us and others.
  
  You don't have to apologize if you don't want to, but you must know that arrogance is not what the American people are looking for when they vote.

   

• At 23/6/06 7:17 PM,  Anonymous said…

  I like how no one responded to the part in the article where the official said that this was NOT the reason we went to war...these are NOT the weapons they were looking for, and NOT the weapons they were suspected to have...
  
  Well YEAH the WMDs aren't the only reason we went to war. Why do liberals keep harping on about them all the time anyway? In fact there were 33 reasons we went to war but the left only focuses on the ones that turned out differently than we expected. So it's an interesting point but doesn't exactly help your arguement any. And just because Bush said there weren't any you believe it? Since when did YOU start trusting Bush?

   

• At 23/6/06 8:37 PM,  Allisoni Balloni said…

  You don't get it. And no matter how many times you say that I don't understand, that is only because you can't find good enough excuses for the horrible things that have happened to the world in the past years. This administration lies, sneaks around, and encourages an extremely partisan form of government. If they were open with their constituents about what was going on, who was in control, and DIDN'T manipulate us like this administration has done, we wouldn't be arguing over who believes what, who said what, and who was right or wrong. The "evidence" that you show for your party being right is not even credible--it comes from a payed off, COMPLETELY biased news source and this time the story was about two senators, not even officials on the war, who read a report and made statements CONTRADICTING what the officials in charge of finding these weapons actually said. I will never understand why any of you find that to be the least bit realiable, but I DO understand that the minute you read or hear anything that just may make you look better, you use it to back up your cause. FOX showed it because this administration PAYS them to feed you lies so that you will support them. Try to deny it, but I wish you luck, because I really don't think it's possible.

   

• At 23/6/06 9:33 PM,  Anonymous said…

  FOX showed it because this administration PAYS them to feed you lies so that you will support them.
  
  Oh that is RICH. That is really too much. Man oh man I love these conspericy theories the libs can come up with when they're losing an arguement. Oh and I'm gonna have a hard time proving they don't eh? All the proof I need is YOUR ABSCENCE of proof. Please give me a SHRED of evidence. Just ONE PIECE of evidence of your insane little theory that a major news outlet is paid off by the president of the United States. I'm looking forward to seeing you prove this one. C'mon then. Either you have some REALLY good evidence or you just made a major fool out of yourself on account of your hatred of the president. I either want to see the evidence or I think you'll have to admit that you lost your head. Of course you'll do neither. You are way too proud to admit a mistake so you'll either 1.) say you can't prove it but it's true, 2.) say that it's obvious but give no evidence or supporting detials, 3.) Ignore the question and spew more arrogent hate speech, or 4.) leave without a word. Pick an option, because you're not going to prove a conspericy theory like that.

   

• At 23/6/06 9:41 PM,  Cody O'Connor said…

  allisoni said...
  "FOX showed it because this administration PAYS them to feed you lies so that you will support them."
  
  And I bet you found that conspiracy at some Liberal website that is just as much reliable. Nice.
  
  As for the fact that the story is coming from senators doesn't bug me too much, there's been other reports of weapons being found, and because the left chooses to ignore them doesn't make them less credible.

   

• At 24/6/06 2:27 AM,  Allisoni Balloni said…

  http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067
  
  http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/10/31/fox/index.html
  
  http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1072
  
  I only had a few seconds to post, but searching just briefly for some articles about the undeniable bias (not that paying off part)--this is just the beginning of the good stuff I found. Make sure you get all the way through that first one..pretty good look at both sides and STILL FOX doesn't quite win...

   

• At 24/6/06 9:18 AM,  Anonymous said…

  I only had a few seconds to post, but searching just briefly for some articles about the undeniable bias (not that paying off part)
  
  Of course they're biased. I KNOW they're biased. But you claimed that they're paid off. I want proof they're paid off, not that they're biased. Of course they're biased. Just like CNN, CBS and ABC. Every news network is biased. I want you to provide proof that FOX is paid by the president as you proclaim. Don't dodge the question.

   

• At 24/6/06 12:44 PM,  Allisoni Balloni said…

  Paying off doesn't mean that they hand them cold hard cash, it means that they wouldn't exists without financial support through advertising that supports the Bush Administration and the foundations/think tanks that create advertising especially for them. Several times FOX News has refused to put on content that doesn't support or make the President look good, but gladly loads its airwaves with misinformation coming from those previously noted sources. EVERY news station has to please its advertisers, but ALL of FOX's advertisers are from one side of the spectrum...which is clearly the big difference.

   

• At 24/6/06 2:00 PM,  Anonymous said…

  Several times FOX News has refused to put on content that doesn't support or make the President look good, but gladly loads its airwaves with misinformation coming from those previously noted sources.
  
  It's called freedom of choice. There's nothing evil about that, unless of course you happen to dislike capitilism. Again, no concrete proof, just speculation and guesswork, and calling freedom of choice evil.

   

• At 24/6/06 2:49 PM,  Allisoni Balloni said…

  There's nothing wrong with freedom of choice...the problem is when people (such as yourself, young man) are brainwashed into believing everything they say. If they are choosing to put on slanted views and call them equal, or misinformation in advertising about political candidates, then you, the viewer, are being totally manipulated. It then doesn't come as a surprise that you defend it until the death, because frankly you know nothing else. There is plenty of proof, but I don't to show any because you have already admitted to understanding it's ridiculas bias and "freedom of choice."

   

• At 24/6/06 3:00 PM,  Anonymous said…

  There's nothing wrong with freedom of choice...the problem is when people (such as yourself, young man)
  
  You are 18 years old, 2 years older than me. Don't "young man" me like you're wiser and older, you're just barely an adult.
  
  If they are choosing to put on slanted views and call them equal, or misinformation in advertising about political candidates, then you, the viewer, are being totally manipulated.
  
  Okay then by your arguement YOU are being brainwashed by CNN, CBS and ABC. We all know that all news stations are guilty of bias. You only hate FOX because they don't agree with you. At least I can admit that my station is biased.
  
  There is plenty of proof, but I don't to show any because you have already admitted to understanding it's ridiculas bias and "freedom of choice."
  
  I know it is biased. We agreed on that. You are totally dodging the question. You claimed that FOX was paid by Bush. That's the part you won't back up. Stop dodging the question! Do you or do you not stand by your claim that Bush pays FOX? If you do give me proof. If not admit you were wrong and stop trying to steer the topic to bias.

   

• At 24/6/06 6:11 PM,  Allisoni Balloni said…

  I already explained what I meant by that comment, so you must have missed it. I have also already explained the difference between FOX's bias and that of CNN, ABC, etc. so maybe read up on that.

   

• At 24/6/06 6:52 PM,  Anonymous said…

  I have also already explained the difference between FOX's bias and that of CNN, ABC, etc. so maybe read up on that.
  
  Hey I explained it too. You don't agree with FOX, therefore it's different. Typical liberal logic. But you're dodging again.
  
  Let's skip the bias issue here.
  The only question I want you to answer is this: Do you or do you not stand by your claim that Bush pays FOX? Yes or no? I can't be any clearer.

   

• At 24/6/06 9:57 PM,  Cody O'Connor said…

  allisoni said...
  "Paying off doesn't mean that they hand them cold hard cash, it means that they wouldn't exists without financial support through advertising that supports the Bush Administration and the foundations/think tanks that create advertising especially for them."
  
  So you are basically saying that in one way or another the GOP pays Fox and in return Fox reports stories in favor of Republicans. But you aren't just claiming Fox is biased, you are just trying to find reasoning behind the fact that you don't believe the story they are giving you. You think it is an all out LIE and you want to find a reason why they would lie.
  
  Okay, I'll give you that Fox is biased, there's no argument there. But I will not believe that a news channel would make bogus news just because they need the money. I never buy into conspiracies and I won't start, and frankly the only lies I'm seeing spread are coming out of your mouth.

   

• At 24/6/06 11:32 PM,  Allisoni Balloni said…

  It isn't a conspiracy theory, it's the truth with evidence to back to it up.
  
  Dark--get over it. I explained the comment and it's time for you to move on.
  
  Also, regarding the "young man" comment, I remember being your age, and I now know, even three years later, how young that really is. There are people my OWN age that I would call "young," and every once in a while I suppose I am young as well. However, not nearly as young as I was three years ago.

   

• At 25/6/06 11:16 AM,  Anonymous said…

  It isn't a conspiracy theory, it's the truth with evidence to back to it up.
  
  
  WHERE? I've seen NO EVIDENCE?
  
  Dark--get over it. I explained the comment and it's time for you to move on.
  
  Why? You haven't answered it yet. All you've done is claim bias. I know its biased, can we not focus on that anymore? I want proof of your claim that they're funded by Bush. You can't give any. Is it really so hard to admit that you were wrong?
  
  Also, regarding the "young man" comment, I remember being your age, and I now know, even three years later, how young that really is. There are people my OWN age that I would call "young," and every once in a while I suppose I am young as well. However, not nearly as young as I was three years ago.
  
  
  Okay, that makes sense. I just wanted to make sure it wasn't meant in a conescening sense.

   

Post a Comment

<< Home