Bush Justified in Wiretapping

[Nightwish]

The poll was a 'voluntary' reader response poll. Being Newsmax, it is going to be to the right. Surprisingly, not as biased in results as one would think. My guess, they had a story that appealed to some 'moderates.' It wasn't trying to be 'scientific.'

No, but it does pretend to be a representative sample of the American public sentiment at large, which it isn't. If you don't think it was pretending to represent the American public at large, but just the Newsmax readership, then you should go back and reread the opening sentence. At any rate, the poll about which RWA and I are arguing is a different poll, published a few weeks ago, a poll which was falsely reported by Newsmax, but not carried out by Newsmax.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

No, but it does pretend to be a representative sample of the American public sentiment at large, which it isn't. At any rate, the poll about which RWA and I are arguing is a different poll, published a few weeks ago, a poll which was falsely reported by Newsmax, but not carried out by Newsmax.

That is not enough to dismiss them as a news source.

 

[Nightwish]

That is not enough to dismiss them as a news source.

Based on one incident, no. But they haven't only done it once. They've falsified and outright fabricated information on a number of occasions.

The falsified poll numbers.

The aluminum tubes report, published after the White House and IAEA had already admitted it was incorrect.

The protest sign incident at a Kerry rally, which Newsmax reported based on "eyewitness" evidence, only for the "eyewitnesses" to come forward and say they were never interviewed by anyone from Newsmax and that no such incident occurred.

The list goes on.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Based on one incident, no. But they haven't only done it once. They've falsified and outright fabricated information on a number of occasions.

The falsified poll numbers.

The aluminum tubes report, published after the White House and IAEA had already admitted it was incorrect.

The protest sign incident at a Kerry rally, which Newsmax reported based on "eyewitness" evidence, only for the "eyewitnesses" to come forward and say they were never interviewed by anyone from Newsmax and that no such incident occurred.

The list goes on.

Sounds like a whole lotta nothing.

 

[Nightwish]

Sounds like a whole lotta nothing.

So you like to harp on about one single incident of false news reporting on CBS, but a trend of false news reporting on the part of a right-wing source is "nothing." That speaks volumes about your ability to think for yourself.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

So you like to harp on about one single incident of false news reporting on CBS, but a trend of false news reporting on the part of a right-wing source is "nothing." That speaks volumes about your ability to think for yourself.

Protest signs? ooh the story of the century.

 

[Nightwish]

Protest signs? ooh the story of the century.

Well, if you're happy with Newsmax, despite their propensity for lying, bully for you. As long as we're on the subject, let me recommend a couple other journals that are about as reliable, which you might enjoy -- Weekly World News, and the Onion. And if you're feeling spiritual, Landover Baptist is always looking for new blood.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Well, if you're happy with Newsmax, despite their propensity for lying, bully for you. As long as we're on the subject, let me recommend a couple other journals that are about as reliable, which you might enjoy -- Weekly World News, and the Onion. And if you're feeling spiritual, Landover Baptist is always looking for new blood.

You just dismiss any source that doesn't confirm your addled views. It's obvious.

 

[Nightwish]

You just dismiss any source that doesn't confirm your addled views. It's obvious.

I dismiss any source that pretends to be a legitimate journal, while routinely printing fake stories for unsuspecting readers in order to sell an agenda. I also don't make a regular habit of watching CBS and FOX news or reading the New York Times. Those other mags I listed are satire journals and satire websites, they don't expect their readers to believe they're truthful. I'm actually a bit shocked that you didn't get the joke. Did you honestly not know that Weekly World News, the Onion, and Landover Baptist are satirical?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I dismiss any source that pretends to be a legitimate journal, while routinely printing fake stories for unsuspecting readers in order to sell an agenda. I also don't make a regular habit of watching CBS and FOX news or reading the New York Times. Those other mags I listed are satire journals and satire websites, they don't expect their readers to believe they're truthful. I'm actually a bit shocked that you didn't get the joke. Did you honestly not know that Weekly World News, the Onion, and Landover Baptist are satirical?

Maybe soon you'll be able to answer simple questions. :rotflmao:

 

[Nightwish]

Maybe soon you'll be able to answer simple questions. :rotflmao:

I can't help it you're having trouble reading. I gave the answer to you twice. I'm not going to give it to you a third time. If you can't figure out how to scroll up the page and find it, that's your problem.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I can't help it you're having trouble reading. I gave the answer to you twice. I'm not going to give it to you a third time. If you can't figure out how to scroll up the page and find it, that's your problem.

No trouble here. You just can't admit that your great plan to oust saddam amounts to leaving sanctions in place and "tweaking" the people to rise up. As if they could. That's a shit plan. You're a cruel fool for putting faith in that piece of crap idea.

 

[MtnBiker]

Weren't UN sactions blamed the cause of death to hundreds of thousands of Iraq children?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Weren't UN sactions blamed the cause of death to hundreds of thousands of Iraq children?

Yes. Nightwish thinks sanctions were helping turn the people against saddam, and that if we had just held out a little longer, they would have risen up. What foolishness and cruelty.

 

[Annie]

Weren't UN sactions blamed the cause of death to hundreds of thousands of Iraq children?

Yep, they weren't working. Saddam and UN cronies were getting what they all wanted off of Oil For Food, while the people suffered.

 

[Emmett]

I dismiss any source that pretends to be a legitimate journal, while routinely printing fake stories for unsuspecting readers in order to sell an agenda. I also don't make a regular habit of watching CBS and FOX news or reading the New York Times. Those other mags I listed are satire journals and satire websites, they don't expect their readers to believe they're truthful. I'm actually a bit shocked that you didn't get the joke. Did you honestly not know that Weekly World News, the Onion, and Landover Baptist are satirical?

I wasn't aware that the press actually reported non biased news stories anymore. Every time I overhear what I think could possibly be one I listen for a moment only to realize it was not so. Soon, along comes the prop! :read:

 

[Nightwish]

No trouble here. You just can't admit that your great plan to oust saddam amounts to leaving sanctions in place and "tweaking" the people to rise up. As if they could. That's a shit plan. You're a cruel fool for putting faith in that piece of crap idea.

How the hell would you know if it's a shit plan? You're nothing but an armchair warrior. You're sitting there in the comfort of your living room pretending you know jack squat about what would and wouldn't have worked. And yet you have nothing to say about the numerous times in history where things exactly as I have described have happened and worked.

You asked me for ideas of what, besides all-out war, might have worked, and I offered a few ideas. Would they have worked? Who knows (sure as hell, not you), and now we'll never know. But the best you've had to offer is to sit there behind the comfort of your computer screen mindlessly bleating GOP talking points, and refusing to think one single thought that didn't originate with some right-wing buffoon.

 

[Nightwish]

Yes. Nightwish thinks sanctions were helping turn the people against saddam, and that if we had just held out a little longer, they would have risen up. What foolishness and cruelty.

No, you moron, that isn't what I said. I said nothing, zilch, nada about holding out longer. I suggested that the atmosphere of discontent was already there, and that instead of recklessly going in with tens of thousands of troops and sparking a quaqmire that it'll take us many more years to get out of, we could have instead sent in some covert agents, CIA, NSA, who the hell ever, to provide the spark that could have exploded into a revolution. We're not talking about something that would take months or years to build, we're talking about sparking a pressure-cooker that was already built, something which could have potentially been done in a matter of weeks, if done correctly, taking no longer to accomplish than it took to do it with the full military.

I can't say whether or not it would have worked (and neither can you), but it was a viable option, and it wasn't even attempted. They could have taken a lesson from history and all the successful overthrows that arose from similar situations, but they chose to let those history books gather dust, in favor of the guns-a-blazing approach. Why? Because Bush had failed to catch bin Laden when he had him cornered in Afghanistan, and his numbers were slipping drastically, that's why. Without something to dramatically push his numbers back up, he would have had no chance at re-election. Ever seen the movie "Wag the Dog?" Watch it, you'll learn something?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

How the hell would you know if it's a shit plan? You're nothing but an armchair warrior. You're sitting there in the comfort of your living room pretending you know jack squat about what would and wouldn't have worked. And yet you have nothing to say about the numerous times in history where things exactly as I have described have happened and worked.

You asked me for ideas of what, besides all-out war, might have worked, and I offered a few ideas. Would they have worked? Who knows (sure as hell, not you), and now we'll never know. But the best you've had to offer is to sit there behind the comfort of your computer screen mindlessly bleating GOP talking points, and refusing to think one single thought that didn't originate with some right-wing buffoon.

SO move onto idea #2. You said there dozens, or hundreds of alternatives to war. Thousands? Do I hear 10 thousand? Sold to the loser named nightwish.

 

[Nightwish]

I wasn't aware that the press actually reported non biased news stories anymore. Every time I overhear what I think could possibly be one I listen for a moment only to realize it was not so. Soon, along comes the prop! :read:

There's a world of difference between biased news, and fabricated news. Every news source is biased. That simply means they are predisposed to one side of the political line, and they are going to concentrate on the facts that glorify that side, while glossing over the facts that don't. Newsmax does plenty of that, too. I have no problem with that. You can present a biased story that is still factually accurate (it just won't contain ALL the facts). But Newsmax (as well as World Net Daily, and Weekly Standard, on occasion) go beyond mere bias into complete fabrication, just making shit up, outright lying.