|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/09/2004 04:51:29 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by RonB:
3) You are right about me being amazed. The U.S. Press, though not highly censored by government, IS highly censored by its own management - for example: CNN reporters cannot use the word 'liberal' to describe anyone, but are encouraged to use the word 'conservative' wherever possible. They cannot say "Illegal Alien" only "Undocumented worker". They cannot say "pro-life", they can only say "anti abortion". They can't refer to Saddam Hussein as the "former dictator" only the "deposed president". etc. etc. |
Glad you cleared up that liberal thing. Oh and that illegal alien is never used on CNN. Certainly, it's good you checked your facts on the issue of pro-life never being used.
Though, you were correct that they never call Hussain a former dictator. They are usually more precise and use former Iraqi dictator
For someone who acts like such a stickler for accuracy, pedantic referencing of facts and quelling rhetoric, you seem a bit out in right field today.
|
|
|
|
04/09/2004 05:00:04 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by louddog:
Originally posted by orussell:
Which leads one to wonder why Dubya and Dick agreed to testify only under these conditions: 1. it would be in private 2. they would not be under oath. Can you say "impeach" boys and girls? |
Or maybe they forseen what Kerry did to Rice and didn't want that to be nationally televised? Not only did he call her Dr Clark, more then once, he also used part of his time to berate the Bush policy on Iraq. I'm sorry, but a commission investigating the events leading up to 9/11 is not the place to spew your political agenda. Call a meeting with her if you want to tell her what you think. |
I think you are right on the money there. 9/11 is 9/11.
|
|
|
|
04/09/2004 05:03:35 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by nborton:
I for one am not suprised that the rest of the world is against the US on most everything. A recent poll for the European Commission asked which counrtries pose a threat for world peace. The US was tied for second with North Korea and Iran (#1 was Isreal).
There are numerous sites out there showing this poll. Here's just a random one Poll
It's just part of being the dominate country in the world. The US didn't get to where it is today by being a nation of followers.
Ah, but do you think that poll would have come out the same way 5 years ago? I think not. The USA was respected a whole lot more, and feared a whole lot less then.
On a side note, it also shows that there are still seeds of hatred toward Isreal in Europe among the average person. |
Yeah. Very sad. :( |
|
|
|
04/09/2004 05:08:00 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Originally posted by nborton:
I for one am not suprised that the rest of the world is against the US on most everything. A recent poll for the European Commission asked which counrtries pose a threat for world peace. The US was tied for second with North Korea and Iran (#1 was Isreal).
There are numerous sites out there showing this poll. Here's just a random one Poll
It's just part of being the dominate country in the world. The US didn't get to where it is today by being a nation of followers.
Ah, but do you think that poll would have come out the same way 5 years ago? I think not. The USA was respected a whole lot more, and feared a whole lot less then.
On a side note, it also shows that there are still seeds of hatred toward Isreal in Europe among the average person. |
Yeah. Very sad. :( |
where did that second to last paragraph come from (the one about 5 years ago)? i didn't write it. |
|
|
|
04/09/2004 06:08:32 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Glad you cleared up that liberal thing. Oh and that illegal alien is never used on CNN. Certainly, it's good you checked your facts on the issue of pro-life never being used.
Though, you were correct that they never call Hussain a former dictator. They are usually more precise and use former Iraqi dictator
For someone who acts like such a stickler for accuracy, pedantic referencing of facts and quelling rhetoric, you seem a bit out in right field today. |
Chastening received and acknowledged - thank you. It's Friday, and I'm tired, and I was posting information that is "old" and has obviously changed in the last 6 months or so ( probably under pressure from Bill O'Reilly and Bernard Goldberg ).
But not all things changed. The references you show for "liberal" only use it in-context, or quoted, not as an adjective of the reporters choosing. 'Pro-life', likewise, as it pertains to the abortion issue, is only used in-context, or quoted. It IS used by CNN reporters in references having nothing to do with the abortion issue ( like the "Mars pro-life camp" article ). Granted, you may even find those terms used somewhere on the CNN site - so I will grant that if I was in error on one or two, I could, as easily, be in error on all four. One can only hope.
Anyway, thanks for pointing out my error.I know that you rely on me to bring truth to this forum and I'm sorry that I let you down. I promise to try to be more diligent in the future.
Ron
edited for spelling - I hate it when I don't catch it until after I click the Post button.
Message edited by author 2004-04-09 18:10:21. |
|
|
|
04/09/2004 06:20:43 PM · #81 |
Any of you folks running for public office in the near future?
I didn't think so.
Surely you all can find better things to do with your time and obvious knowlege of the political arena, rather than sit here and argue facts and opinions that have not nor will be changed. Granted, I have no life, otherwise I'd be elsewhere at the moment, but here are my 2 cents worth.
What is, is. What isn't, isn't. Those who do not like the way things are going in the world today have three choices...either run for office to change policies yourselves, vote regularly and with purpose to ensure policy change through the candidates elected, or do neither and accept the results. No matter which choice you make, shut the heck up and start commenting on a few photos! That's what this site is for, isn't it??????
|
|
|
|
04/09/2004 06:47:33 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by ChrisW123:
I think we should get out of Iraq... Those people are living like savages in the 700th century and apparently want to remain that way, so let 'em. |
At this rate, I expect we will all have indeed descended into savagery in another 680 centuries ... although I do hope we're out of Iraq by then. |
lol, very nice paul
Message edited by author 2004-04-09 19:04:03.
|
|
|
|
04/09/2004 07:23:25 PM · #83 |
This doesn't surprise me at all, Ron. You have posted links in the past that when I referred to them found that some of them actually to have made points supporting my point of view. I have pointed these out to you and told you, on more than one occassion, that I don't think you read some of your links. I am questioning your credibility especially in light of your post this morning splitting hairs about the word "farce" in regards to Gordon's post about the Mossad's wrongful assessment of Iraq's wmds. You challenged him to site one post about this and he met it, but you wouldn't acknowledge it...and a very credible source it was.
I agree with Gordon when he says to you: "You have a real talent on focusing on the non-issues and expending a lot of energy avoiding the point. It must be an enjoyable diversion. I hope it serves you well." (This is exactly what lawyers do when the truth is not on their side.)
You followed that with: "I would be more than willing to focus on issues, if you would be willing to limit your postings to issues of legitimate debate instead of political posturing through use of innuendo and inflammatory rhetoric. Or is that so ingrained in your psyche that you cannot avoid it?
If it hasn't dawned on you yet, the majority of my responses, at least thus far, have been to counter such innuendo and inflammatory rhetoric by pointing out that they do not represent the truth. I don't care where on the political spectrum you fall, I will acknowledge that which is true. I will decry and point out that which is false. Mostly, though, I haven't been challenged to respond to legitimate postings. Perhaps you can change that? Ron"
I find that jocks such as Rush and Hannity and Mark Levin insight exactly what you decry above, that is "innuendo and inflammatory rhetoric."
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Glad you cleared up that liberal thing. Oh and that illegal alien is never used on CNN. Certainly, it's good you checked your facts on the issue of pro-life never being used.
Though, you were correct that they never call Hussain a former dictator. They are usually more precise and use former Iraqi dictator
For someone who acts like such a stickler for accuracy, pedantic referencing of facts and quelling rhetoric, you seem a bit out in right field today. |
Chastening received and acknowledged - thank you. It's Friday, and I'm tired, and I was posting information that is "old" and has obviously changed in the last 6 months or so ( probably under pressure from Bill O'Reilly and Bernard Goldberg ).
But not all things changed. The references you show for "liberal" only use it in-context, or quoted, not as an adjective of the reporters choosing. 'Pro-life', likewise, as it pertains to the abortion issue, is only used in-context, or quoted. It IS used by CNN reporters in references having nothing to do with the abortion issue ( like the "Mars pro-life camp" article ). Granted, you may even find those terms used somewhere on the CNN site - so I will grant that if I was in error on one or two, I could, as easily, be in error on all four. One can only hope.
Anyway, thanks for pointing out my error.I know that you rely on me to bring truth to this forum and I'm sorry that I let you down. I promise to try to be more diligent in the future.
Ron
edited for spelling - I hate it when I don't catch it until after I click the Post button. |
|
|
|
|
04/09/2004 07:25:28 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by laurielblack:
Any of you folks running for public office in the near future?
I didn't think so.
Surely you all can find better things to do with your time and obvious knowlege of the political arena, rather than sit here and argue facts and opinions that have not nor will be changed. Granted, I have no life, otherwise I'd be elsewhere at the moment, but here are my 2 cents worth.
What is, is. What isn't, isn't. Those who do not like the way things are going in the world today have three choices...either run for office to change policies yourselves, vote regularly and with purpose to ensure policy change through the candidates elected, or do neither and accept the results. No matter which choice you make, shut the heck up and start commenting on a few photos! That's what this site is for, isn't it?????? |
Unfortunately, I'm legally not allowed to run for office or vote. However, I prefer not to just pay my taxes, shut up and accept the results. Any other options you've got ?
Message edited by author 2004-04-09 19:25:52.
|
|
|
|
04/09/2004 07:29:51 PM · #85 |
If you don't like what's being said, why don't you go out and take some pictures, instead of coming back here and telling us what to do and what our options are? I see you have only posted in the two threads about Iraq...why don't you post in threads about photography?
Dissent in a democracy is a good thing. Freedom of speech is guaranteed in the constitution.
Originally posted by laurielblack:
Any of you folks running for public office in the near future?
I didn't think so.
Surely you all can find better things to do with your time and obvious knowlege of the political arena, rather than sit here and argue facts and opinions that have not nor will be changed. Granted, I have no life, otherwise I'd be elsewhere at the moment, but here are my 2 cents worth.
What is, is. What isn't, isn't. Those who do not like the way things are going in the world today have three choices...either run for office to change policies yourselves, vote regularly and with purpose to ensure policy change through the candidates elected, or do neither and accept the results. No matter which choice you make, shut the heck up and start commenting on a few photos! That's what this site is for, isn't it?????? |
|
|
|
|
04/09/2004 08:07:06 PM · #86 |
| At last, a sign that we're going to get this situation under C.O.N.T.R.O.L |
|
|
|
04/09/2004 08:12:28 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
At last, a sign that we're going to get this situation under C.O.N.T.R.O.L |
lol w00t! |
|
|
|
04/09/2004 08:58:57 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
If you don't like what's being said, why don't you go out and take some pictures, instead of coming back here and telling us what to do and what our options are? I see you have only posted in the two threads about Iraq...why don't you post in threads about photography?
Dissent in a democracy is a good thing. Freedom of speech is guaranteed in the constitution.
|
Sorry it took a while to get back...I was out taking pictures that I can't post because I can only post one per contest. As for the forums, I haven't posted about photography yet simply because I wouldn't dream of making an attempt to talk about something that I have relatively little experience or knowledge about.
Hmmmmmmmmmmm..................
Guess that thought hasn't crossed the minds of some people around here.
Besides, you folks are way too serious...take a little sarcastic humor, for Pete's sake!
|
|
|
|
04/09/2004 09:01:45 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by laurielblack:
I wouldn't dream of making an attempt to talk about something that I have relatively little experience or knowledge about. |
It hasn't stopped me from talking about photography, it shouldn't stop you :)
Message edited by author 2004-04-09 21:02:16.
|
|
|
|
04/09/2004 09:08:48 PM · #90 |
lol...I admit, it's something I know little about too.
Originally posted by Russell2566:
Originally posted by laurielblack:
I wouldn't dream of making an attempt to talk about something that I have relatively little experience or knowledge about. |
It hasn't stopped me from talking about photography, it shouldn't stop you :) |
|
|
|
|
04/09/2004 10:47:28 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
This doesn't surprise me at all, Ron. You have posted links in the past that when I referred to them found that some of them actually to have made points supporting my point of view. |
Sure. That just goes to show you how fair I am. The truth is the truth, no matter which side it falls on.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I have pointed these out to you and told you, on more than one occassion, that I don't think you read some of your links. |
And I don't think that you read some of yours. There, we're even.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I am questioning your credibility especially in light of your post this morning splitting hairs about the word "farce" in regards to Gordon's post about the Mossad's wrongful assessment of Iraq's wmds. You challenged him to site one post about this and he met it, but you wouldn't acknowledge it...and a very credible source it was. |
Gordon said "Mossad have decided that their intelligence gathering in the middle east was a farce". He didn't say that that it was his OPINION that it was a farce. He said the "Mossad have decided" that it was a farce. If he had said that it was his opinion, then I would have respected it. But he didn't say that that was his opinion, he said that "Mossad have decided". That puts attribution on Mossad. But Mossad never said that. So, I challenged his statement. And, he couldn't support it. His link was interesting, and I read it. But it doesn't support his statement. His position, perhaps; but his statement, no.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I agree with Gordon when he says to you: "You have a real talent on focusing on the non-issues and expending a lot of energy avoiding the point. It must be an enjoyable diversion. I hope it serves you well." (This is exactly what lawyers do when the truth is not on their side.)
You followed that with: "I would be more than willing to focus on issues, if you would be willing to limit your postings to issues of legitimate debate instead of political posturing through use of innuendo and inflammatory rhetoric. Or is that so ingrained in your psyche that you cannot avoid it?
If it hasn't dawned on you yet, the majority of my responses, at least thus far, have been to counter such innuendo and inflammatory rhetoric by pointing out that they do not represent the truth. I don't care where on the political spectrum you fall, I will acknowledge that which is true. I will decry and point out that which is false. Mostly, though, I haven't been challenged to respond to legitimate postings. Perhaps you can change that? Ron"
I find that jocks such as Rush and Hannity and Mark Levin insight exactly what you decry above, that is "innuendo and inflammatory rhetoric." |
Well at least you preface your conclusion with "I find that". That makes it your opinion, and I respect that. In fact, I don't dispute it entirely - on occasion they have been guilty of that kind of rhetoric. As I have tried to show, I will respect just about ANY statement that starts with "I think that", "I feel that", "I believe that", "I find that", "In my opinion", "From my perspective", etc. etc. But when attribution is not made, and the statement is disquised to look like "fact", or attribution is implied, but either the attribution or the statement is not credible, then I will feel free to challenge it.
Ron |
|
|
|
04/09/2004 10:58:06 PM · #92 |
I read all of the links I cite :)
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I have pointed these out to you and told you, on more than one occassion, that I don't think you read some of your links. |
And I don't think that you read some of yours. There, we're even.
Ron |
|
|
|
|
04/10/2004 11:25:20 AM · #93 |
I know it's a long piece for these forums but it may help people understand why Iraq is being compared to Vietnam.
Vietnam's Lessons Then and Now
By Colbert I. King, Saturday, April 10, 2004
" 'No one starts a war, or rather no one in his senses should do so,' Clausewitz wrote, 'without first being clear in his mind what he intends to achieve by that war and how he intends to achieve it.' Mistake number one in Vietnam. Which led to Clausewitz's rule number two. Political leaders must set a war's objectives, while armies achieve them. In Vietnam, one seemed to be looking to the other for the answers that never came."
-- "My American Journey," by Colin Powell
Was the Bush administration clear in what it intended to achieve by invading Iraq? In the weeks leading up to the war, the answer seemed clear. President Bush and his advisers, in a series of public statements, repeatedly cited Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein's link with al Qaeda as threats to the United States and reasons for going to war. That's not what we're hearing today.
A different set of war goals has emerged over the past year. We are now in Iraq, according to various administration pronouncements, to: bring about self-government and create conditions for economic growth and development; build a unified Iraq that does not pose a threat to international peace; leave behind us a constitution and parliament; help build a disarmed, law-abiding Iraq that is whole, free, at peace with itself and its neighbors, and that no longer supports or harbors terror; and to help Iraqis assume responsibility for their own defense and future. These goals are worth revisiting in light of current conditions in Iraq.
The political reconstruction of Iraq is going poorly. A reclusive but powerful Shiite cleric, the Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, is jerking the United States around, throwing monkey wrench after monkey wrench into a political process that's supposed to produce a sovereign Iraq on June 30. The current Iraqi uprising has caused more American fatalities and injuries that have occurred in any single week since the fall of Baghdad a year ago and shows signs of spreading in the country. And there are ominous indications that Sunni and Shiite Muslims at the street level may be making common cause against the U.S. occupation.
So how does the Bush administration intend to accomplish its postwar goals? Sloganeering -- "stay the course," "don't cut and run" -- won't do the trick. How are the administration's goals going to be achieved when some U.S.-created Iraqi national police and civil defense units seem unwilling to fight and die defending their country against armed insurgents? Those aren't Americans cutting and running and abandoning their posts in Iraqi government buildings and police stations, they're Iraqis. Why should it fall to the U.S. Central Command to put down the unrest in Baghdad and Fallujah while Iraqi police are turning over their weapons, vehicles and offices to the insurgents? "Stay the course." As Iraqis abandon the fray?
U.S. forces, at some cost, can put down the insurgency and stabilize the country. But if ever there was a moment for the president to explain how he expects to build a law-abiding Iraq that is whole, free and at peace with itself -- and how Americans will know when that goal has been reached -- it's now.
"I recently reread Bernard Fall's book on Vietnam, 'Street Without Joy.' Fall makes painfully clear that we had almost no understanding of what we had gotten ourselves into. I cannot help thinking that if President Kennedy or President Johnson had spent a quiet weekend at Camp David reading that perceptive book, they would have returned to the White House Monday morning and immediately started to figure out a way to extricate us from the quicksand of Vietnam.
-- "My American Journey," Colin Powell
Powell's right; if only we had listened to Fall. I was a student in three of Fall's classes at Howard University in the 1960s. We saw each other for the last time in 1962 at a New York airport. I was in uniform wearing the gold bar of a second lieutenant and en route to Fort Niagara in upstate New York. Fall had been in Detroit and was headed out of the country again. He died five years later in Vietnam, killed by a Viet Cong booby trap.
Fall's message still has resonance. Today in Iraq, as in Vietnam, we are up against an enemy who is prepared to pay the price in bodies. And now, as then, the enemy unsportingly refuses to play the game our way -- an observation Powell made in his book. Rather than engage us in a knockout battle, the Viet Cong refused to cooperate, Powell said. They "would melt into their sanctuaries . . . refit, regroup, and come out to fight again," he said. Sound familiar?
We went into Iraq knowing next to nothing about the Arab world, its culture, customs or the role of Islam in the lives of people. Instead, for information we relied on a handful of self-serving Iraqi exiles and Arab intellectuals skilled in handling and indulging Western conceit and arrogance. It was tantamount to foreigners' seeking out elite black conservatives and think-tank experts to explain the thoughts and ways of inner-city folks.
"I had gone off to Vietnam in 1962 standing on a bedrock of principle and convictions. And I had watched that foundation eroded by euphemisms, lies, and deception."
-- "My American Journey," Colin Powell
Iraq one year later: more than 600 Americans dead; casualties rising; billions of dollars out the door; fighting raging; no weapons of mass destruction.
What about now? What about now?
© 2004 The Washington Post Company |
|
|
|
04/10/2004 11:42:55 AM · #94 |
Originally posted by nborton:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Originally posted by nborton:
I for one am not suprised that the rest of the world is against the US on most everything. A recent poll for the European Commission asked which counrtries pose a threat for world peace. The US was tied for second with North Korea and Iran (#1 was Isreal).
There are numerous sites out there showing this poll. Here's just a random one Poll
It's just part of being the dominate country in the world. The US didn't get to where it is today by being a nation of followers.
Ah, but do you think that poll would have come out the same way 5 years ago? I think not. The USA was respected a whole lot more, and feared a whole lot less then.
On a side note, it also shows that there are still seeds of hatred toward Isreal in Europe among the average person. |
Yeah. Very sad. :( |
where did that second to last paragraph come from (the one about 5 years ago)? i didn't write it. |
My mistake, and I apologize, nborton.
I am new to this forum stuff. I tried to respond to individual sentences within your quote, and didn't realize it stayed in the same font.
Looking back, I see the same thing happened on a long series in a reply to louddog.
Very sorry as I see how this looks like those words would be attributed to you.
I guess one needs to cut and paste one's replies, not simply insert. :( |
|
|
|
04/10/2004 11:52:51 AM · #95 |
|
|
|
04/10/2004 11:54:02 AM · #96 |
My apologies to RonB and Russell as well, as I mistakenly replied in the same manner to individual sentences of your quotes the same way.
If you go back to my replies to your quotes, you will see my words now mixed in with YOUR words.
Sorry about that. Plus, you may have missed the undeniable sagacity of my arguments. ;) :D |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 06/27/2025 02:44:03 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/27/2025 02:44:03 AM EDT.
|
