Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: JBA on November 29, 2007, 10:54:40 AM
-
Once again the lame stream media gets “used” again. Could you imaging the caterwauling the we would hear if FOX pulled these stunts.
BOOB TUBE: CNN 'DUPED' BY HILLARY PLANT AT REPUBLICAN DEBATE
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/7085.html
CNN Cooper: 'I had not heard that he's actually working for a campaign. If so, that would certainly be an issue that should be addressed immediately'...
VIDEO: Anderson Cooper's Mea Culpa...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28CCf4cEDpI
MSNBC HOST: 'Total crap to suggest that nobody in CNN knew'...
McCain: 'I think it should have been revealed'...
http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071129/NATION/71129002/1001
REPORT: CNN Republican questioners were DECLARED Edwards and Obama voters...
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/11/29/digging-out-the-cnnyoutube-plants-abortion-questioner-is-edwards-supporter/
-
Originally posted by JBA
Once again the lame stream media gets “used” again. Could you imaging the caterwauling the we would hear if FOX pulled these stunts.
BOOB TUBE: CNN 'DUPED' BY HILLARY PLANT AT REPUBLICAN DEBATE
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/7085.html
CNN Cooper: 'I had not heard that he's actually working for a campaign. If so, that would certainly be an issue that should be addressed immediately'...
VIDEO: Anderson Cooper's Mea Culpa...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28CCf4cEDpI
MSNBC HOST: 'Total crap to suggest that nobody in CNN knew'...
McCain: 'I think it should have been revealed'...
http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071129/NATION/71129002/1001
REPORT: CNN Republican questioners were DECLARED Edwards and Obama voters...
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/11/29/digging-out-the-cnnyoutube-plants-abortion-questioner-is-edwards-supporter/
Politicians pull tricks... both the Lefties and the Righties. None of them are pure. Blowing the whistle on them all, Left and Right, is a good idea.
On the first link... what does "openly gay" actually mean in the terms Kerr spoke of?
I think the “don't ask; don't tell” policy is a workable compromise for everyone.
TIGERESS
-
I hope this whole YouTube debate questioning is just a fad and that it does not come back in 2012. I hate it and think it is only done for ratings. Is CNN unable to find intelligent moderators that can ask serious questions so they have to rely on some stooge with a web cam?
-
Staged or not, the candidates managed to answer their questions just fine.
One of my favorite responses of the night, however, was when a guy asked the candidates to describe what guns they own.
Fred said, and I paraphrase, Yes I own some guns, and I have no intention of telling you what they are or where they are.
That was great :)
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
None of them are pure.
IMO one is... And that'd be the one who answered "Washington didn't change me..." last night.
-
The funny thing is, the Democratic Party candidates refused to debate on Fox News (anyone heard of Fox pulling anything like this in past debates?). My own opinion is that sinse they know CNN pulls this kind of thing on the Rebublicans, they just assume Fox would pull a similar trick on the Democrats.
According the the gay ex-general, he not only was allowed to ramble on during the debate, but CNN actually paid for his airfair, hotel, and local transportation to be physically present at the debate. How many other questioners did they do that for? Any? And they want us to believe that no one at CNN was aware of this guy's (or the other left-supporting BoobTube questioners) political affliliations?:rolleyes: Puleeeeeaaaasssee!
-
You almost couldn't see the strings on Ron Paul.
I agree with ROC that was a great answer by Fred. Just as good when Rudy got boo'd during his answer to guns...
Huckabee was doing well also.
:aok
Mac
-
it was retarded of them to agree to a boob tube "debate"
lowered them to the childish level of a dumbacrat
-
Ron Paul FTW!!!!!!!
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
IMO one is... And that'd be the one who answered "Washington didn't change me..." last night.
I hope you are proven right, dear.
Meanwhile I watch from the shadows... not trusting anyone who is a professional spender of taxpayer's dollars.
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
I hope you are proven right, dear.
Meanwhile I watch from the shadows... not trusting anyone who is a professional spender of taxpayer's dollars.
TIGERESS
I'm confident that, if given the chance, Ron Paul would prove me right. His track record of supporting the constitution and being a true conservative is unmatched, and his actions (voting record thus far) backs up his previous campaigns' rhetoric.
To illustrate the character I see in RP read THIS (http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr040300.htm) , would ya? It's from 2000, regarding a bill to award Ronald and Nancy Reagan the Gold Medal of Freedom, and why RP voted against it. It didn't pass his test of whether it was a constitutionally authorized function of the federal government, so he voted against it and instead invited the rest of congress to all join him pitch in $100 to give the Reagans their medal. NONE of 'em took him up on his offer.
Regarding watching from the shadows, that's where I was at prior to Paul announcing his candidacy. I even moved to NH as a part of the Free State Project due to more or less giving up on a return to sanity at the federal level. Ron Paul cured my apathy.
-
another example of RPs unmatched fiscal conservatism:
Ron Paul on Voting Against Congressional Gold Medal for the Dalai Lama (http://www.ronpaulnation.com/?p=244)
You also might enjoy reading this (http://www.house.gov/paul/nytg.htm), Tigress. In libertarian circles we refer to this as the "Not Yours To Give Parable".
-
And yet another Liberal cuddlinghunk newswoman makeing and ares out of herself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HgvQgGDJuw
-
Originally posted by JBA
And yet another Liberal cuddlinghunk newswoman makeing and ares out of herself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HgvQgGDJuw
Dang, JBA,! What an bellybutton she is... grrrr
I view MSNBC in the same light I view FOX NEWS. Both of these news outlets are political washing machines on Permanent Spin Cycle, in my well considered view.
I don't want media people spinning the news to the left or right. :furious
Let the politicians on both sides do their own spinning; that's what they do professionally.
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
I'm confident that, if given the chance, Ron Paul would prove me right. His track record of supporting the constitution and being a true conservative is unmatched, and his actions (voting record thus far) backs up his previous campaigns' rhetoric.
To illustrate the character I see in RP read THIS (http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr040300.htm) , would ya? It's from 2000, regarding a bill to award Ronald and Nancy Reagan the Gold Medal of Freedom, and why RP voted against it. It didn't pass his test of whether it was a constitutionally authorized function of the federal government, so he voted against it and instead invited the rest of congress to all join him pitch in $100 to give the Reagans their medal. NONE of 'em took him up on his offer.
Regarding watching from the shadows, that's where I was at prior to Paul announcing his candidacy. I even moved to NH as a part of the Free State Project due to more or less giving up on a return to sanity at the federal level. Ron Paul cured my apathy.
Thanks BSDAddict,
I did read it and was very impressed by it, both links in their entirety. Very impressed. I will start learning more about Ron. I think I might start with his voting record during his presence in Congress.
Out of curiosity, does your call sign have anything to do with UNIX? ...as in Berkeley Software Distribution? I love UNIX and the fact that it is a most powerful operating system and that it is in the public domain thus is a freely distributed open source operating system appeals to me.
Without it there would probably not be an internet still. http://www.freebsd.org/
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
Thanks BSDAddict,
I did read it and was very impressed by it, both links in their entirety. Very impressed. I will start learning more about Ron. I think I might start with his voting record during his presence in Congress.
you're very welcome. :) The voting record's an excellent place to start researching ANY candidate, I wish more people would look past what they say and consider what they do.. These might help, if you don't have them already...
http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=296
http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm
Out of curiosity, does your call sign have anything to do with UNIX? ...as in Berkeley Software Distribution? I love UNIX and the fact that it is a most powerful operating system and that it is in the public domain thus is a freely distributed open source operating system appeals to me.
Without it there would probably not be an internet still. http://www.freebsd.org/
TIGERESS [/B]
yup, the "bsd" in my nick is a unix reference. I've been bsdaddict online (my AIM handle too) for about 10 years now, starting when I got into unix. nice catch!
-
BS,
My biggest problem with RP isn't his stances or his voting records. It's the fact that he courts the trufers. Notice I didn't say he's a 911 truther, I'm saying he courts them by playing into their legitimacy.
I also don't agree with his stance on the immediate withdrawl from Iraq. Other than that I like alot of the things he has to say but those two are deal breakers for me.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
BS,
My biggest problem with RP isn't his stances or his voting records. It's the fact that he courts the trufers. Notice I didn't say he's a 911 truther, I'm saying he courts them by playing into their legitimacy.
I also don't agree with his stance on the immediate withdrawl from Iraq. Other than that I like alot of the things he has to say but those two are deal breakers for me.
fair enough. I agree that he does attract some fringe types, however, I wouldn't even go so far as to say he courts them. More like he doesn't discount them, as everyone else does. As to the war in Iraq, that is indeed a big issue to differ with him on. The best arguments I could make to you is 1) we can't afford it, and 2) the US military does not exist to enforce UN sanctions. RP says if we exhaust our diplomatic options and the American People (via congress) see the need for military action, we should declare war, get in, kick bellybutton and get out. Basically, follow the constitution. We have a limited number of troops and RP says we need them on OUR border, not occupying foreign countries.
Then there's my opinion that (prowar) Hillary vs. a (prowar) Republican = a Dem victory. THAT got my Dad thinking.
Edit: also, check out why he opposed the war in the first place, straight from the horses mouth. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLV7zDhKzDY
-
like I said I don't agree with him on Iraq. I do like what he is saying.
BUT,
He does not immediatly discount the 911 truthers out there and that to me is HUGE deal breaker. There Ideas of reality have been shot down and disproven time and again and yet they are still out there.
He even goes on air on a program that courts them and stirs the pot. I"m looking for the link that I heard.
-
not discounting does not equal agreeing with. The only thing he agrees with them on is that a new investigation is warranted into the events LEADING UP TO 9/11, including a thorough examination of the role played by our foreign policy over the last 50 years.
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
including a thorough examination of the role played by our foreign policy over the last 50 years.
i agree, lets start with the marshal plan to rebuild Europe and the rebuilding of japan, the Berlin airlift, the defense of south Korea, we can go on from there.
-
Originally posted by john9001
i agree, lets start with the marshal plan to rebuild Europe and the rebuilding of japan, the Berlin airlift, the defense of south Korea, we can go on from there.
more like beginning with Iran in 1953, when the CIA secretly engineered a coup to replace the democratically elected prime minister of Iran with the Shah, whose secret police proceeded to terrorize and torture the Iranian people (with the support of the U.S. government) for the next 25 years, ultimately leading to the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the taking of the U.S. hostages.
-
<>
well, lets see what we got here, a pro communist leader that nationalized a british oil company and the british asked the US to help depose him.
so you put all the blame on US foreign policy?
-
as you've pointed out, the events in '53 has it's own influences. I'm just saying that, in discussing "the events LEADING UP TO 9/11, including a thorough examination of the role played by our foreign policy over the last 50 years" that the "marshal plan to rebuild Europe and the rebuilding of japan, the Berlin airlift, the defense of south Korea" aren't really pertinent to why some middle eastern religious nut-jobs would want to attack us on 9/11.
as to your question, US foreign policy is responsible for US involvement in Iran and the middle east from 1953 onward when we started meddling in their internal affairs. Prior meddling by the British and the USSR aren't the result of US foreign policy.