The W
Views: 98624884
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
2.9.07 1223
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - 20 Things We've Learned Since 9/11
This thread has 2 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next(2047 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (119 total)
deadbeater
Morcilla
Level: 52

Posts: 421/623
EXP: 1052879
For next: 30969

Since: 12.2.02
From: Parts unknown

Since last post: 4320 days
Last activity: 4320 days
#81 Posted on 6.8.02 1659.31
Reposted on: 6.8.09 1708.21
Point 15--the corporate one, can be said by Judicial Watch, for they are the ones spearheading the investigations inro Enron, Haiburton, etc. I like to know that a think tank for once doesn't play favorites.
Scott Summets
Sujuk
Level: 64

Posts: 247/1008
EXP: 2134922
For next: 79187

Since: 27.6.02

Since last post: 3854 days
Last activity: 3823 days
#82 Posted on 7.8.02 0951.07
Reposted on: 7.8.09 0959.01

    Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastard
    9. We've learned much about the dangers of religious fundamentalism in Islam, but we've also learned about dangers posed by our own religious fundamentalists - eager for a Christian theocratic society, symbolized most recently by a Secret Service agent scrawling on a Muslim suspect's refrigerator "Islam Is Evil, Christ Is King" -



This point makes no sense at all -- because of one agent's writing on a prayer sheet (bigoted as it was), the whole government is anti-Islamic and evil? Just for everyone to know, the agent that wrote the anti-Muslim comments was taken off the force and most likely will be fired.
chazerizer
Italian
Level: 34

Posts: 47/242
EXP: 250742
For next: 2912

Since: 11.7.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 4339 days
Last activity: 796 days
AIM:  
#83 Posted on 7.8.02 1036.26
Reposted on: 7.8.09 1046.51
Yeah, but the people who wrote this thing will probably say he was fired because he gave away the secret of the new "American Theocracy".

"I'm sorry agent Johnson, we trusted you with information and you let the public have some of it"

silly liberals, Trix are for kids

BigWhalebony
Bauerwurst
Level: 23

Posts: 46/96
EXP: 62544
For next: 5180

Since: 26.7.02
From: SALEM

Since last post: 3661 days
Last activity: 2623 days
#84 Posted on 7.8.02 1513.33
Reposted on: 7.8.09 1515.08
Originally posted by Kidbrooklyn
BigWhalebony decided to grace us with this brilliant insight:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Pat Buchanan didn't get bushwhacked years ago by the LIBERAL media, he may have become President, and we would have killed off all threats to our country years ago. We also probably would have slowed immigration to our country and been more careful in accepting other people to live in our country and be allowed to enjoy life,liberty,and the pursuit of happiness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And there certainly wouldn't have been any of them "niggers", "spics", or "slants" around to poison your Aryan blood, right? Jesus Christ, if you think that the "LIBERAL" media "bushwhacked" good 'ol Pat YEARS AGO, you have MUCH bigger problems than picking a president to vote for.


Then he ended with this wisdom:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nader and Buchanan had an equal chance of attaining the Presidency...No Chance In Hell(which is too bad......in Buchanan's case).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sure. Nothing like a minority hating leader. But maybe you're right. If he were to have been elected president all those years ago, we wouldn't have had a terrorist problem because there is a pretty damn good possibility that the only people left on the planet would have been good, pure white folk. Yeah, there's a dream come true. Do you go in public with your hood?






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Wow, talk about proving my point exactly. Where did you learn to hate Pat Buchanan? Hmmm let me guess...the news.
I guess you are a pretty hateful person. Do you wear your Black Gloves in public. If, in your logic only, I'm a member of the KKK because I believe Pat Buchanan would have made a good President, then what the hell are you? Calling you a Black Panther wouldn't even be close because they did lots of good things for the community. You seem far too hateful to do any good for society. Now, while I may have prejudice towards people like you(and I mean idiots, not people who may be a different color than me), you might as well be categorized as a racist. Why don't you take your reverse discrimination bullshit and shove it. By being more cautious in letting people into our country, we might not have had an incident like 9/11. Those terrorists and the ones that are still in our country preparing for bigger attacks, might not have slipped through the cracks and been allowed in our country.
You should maybe take a lesson from the people you so kindly categorized as "slants" because they have adapted better to the quest for life,liberty, and the pursuit of happiness better than anyone in the last 50 years. They also have a bigger bone to pick than any other race because they were forced into internment camps after Pearl Harbor. They weren't even considered citizens of this country until 50 years ago. They strive to be the best at whatever they do. Maybe you should try the same instead of using reverse discrimination as means to get your point across.
Also wanted to mention that no one can say they aren't prejudice. If you say you are not, you are a liar(unless your name happens to be Jesus Christ). Being racist is a far different thing and Mr. Brooklyn you may be just that.
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni
Level: 66

Posts: 398/1084
EXP: 2426294
For next: 35570

Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2936 days
Last activity: 2933 days
#85 Posted on 7.8.02 1916.21
Reposted on: 7.8.09 1922.57
"Where did you learn to hate Pat Buchanan? Hmmm let me guess...the news."

Pat Buchanan: "The truth is, I've gotten fairer, more comprehensive coverage of my ideas than I ever imagined I would receive. . . I've gotten balanced coverage and broad coverage -- all we could have asked For heaven sakes, we kid about the liberal media, but every Republican on earth does that."
Jakegnosis
Morcilla
Level: 53

Posts: 107/645
EXP: 1089125
For next: 68001

Since: 26.7.02
From: Maine

Since last post: 2810 days
Last activity: 2794 days
#86 Posted on 7.8.02 2345.40
Reposted on: 7.8.09 2359.02

    Originally posted by BigWhalebony
    Wow, talk about proving my point exactly. Where did you learn to hate Pat Buchanan? Hmmm let me guess...the news


Well, hero, where the hell did you learn to love his fascist ass? Did you know him personally? Does Pat have you over for Sunday brunch? Do y'all watch Smackdown! together? I'd imagine that you learned to like him from... Hmmm, let me guess... the news, which is the only place that anybody in this country learns about the fuckers that we somehow are stupid enough to let run our lives for us. There's plenty of info out there about good ol' Pat and his good ol' peckerwood white supremacist horseshit. Oh, never mind, it's supplied by the LIBERAL MEDIA, so it must all be bullshit. Nevermind, Pat's a fucking saint.

I swear to God, the ideas y'all come up with. Name one place outside of the media where you get information about politicians. Unless you happen to know the dogfuckers personally, there isn't one. The media, by definition, encompasses all informative magazines, TV shows, newspapers, web pages, etc. If you take the so-called liberal media out of the equation, we'd be back to the days of carrier pigeons and the pony fucking express, where no one knows shit about shit because there's nothing there to inform anyone, except the national church or the ruler of the country in question, both of which are guaranteed to be totally full of shit. That's the Dark Ages, people, and I don't particularly want to live there. Maybe you do. There's places like that in the world right now, you know. Taliban Afghanistan is/was one of them. And look how great they turned out. There's a news source out there for anyone, no matter what their bias. I read Harper's because I'm a filthy, complaining liberal. You would probably enjoy National Review because you're the "America: love it or leave it" type. I have had extensive exposure to both extremes, and watching the news on TV is pretty much middle-of-the-road bullshit with most of the interesting parts played down or boiled away. I, personally, prefer opinionated journalism. Most TV news shows are too scared of offending people to be really interesting. I'd much rather read something FACT-BASED through the lens of some political extremist's column and be able to think for myself and say "you're a lunatic and an idiot," or "you're a zealot but you're on to something." If you take the opinion out of news it's just numbers and minutes of meetings. You can get the facts and a moderately informed opinion at once if you read a decent column. I personally would rather browse four or five very different articles in "opinion media" such as the Nation or National Review than watch the dumbed-down soulless version on CNN or CNBC.

I'm sure this reads like a meandering rant, but fuck it. I'm not even going to reread it to see if the spelling's OK, or even to see if it makes any sense whatsoever. It's hump day, I'm cranky, and I've only had 9 hours sleep since Saturday. Here's your fucking opinion media right here. Ha!
BigWhalebony
Bauerwurst
Level: 23

Posts: 48/96
EXP: 62544
For next: 5180

Since: 26.7.02
From: SALEM

Since last post: 3661 days
Last activity: 2623 days
#87 Posted on 8.8.02 0044.23
Reposted on: 8.8.09 0059.04

For those that don't seem to remember Pat Buchanan having a chance at the Presidency:

Despite the pretense that news outlets report on elections rather than attempting to manage them, most mainstream media were clearly distressed when it seemed possible that Buchanan might get the nomination--especially during the first primaries, when the media- favored candidate, the pro-NAFTA Bob Dole, was seen as floundering.
Some pundits went farther out on a limb than others: "Let me be bold," syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher declared on Feb. 16. "I think [Buchanan] not only can but probably will win the GOP nomination.... Let me be bolder still: If he wins the nomination, Buchanan is likely to unseat Bill Clinton." The L.A. Times' Doyle McManus predicted on CNN's Inside Washington (3/19/96) that "Buchanan is going to go into the convention with more delegates than anyone else."

For those that don't think Pat Buchanan was bushwhacked by the liberal media in 1996:

But the orchestrated campaign of defamation against Buchanan began before his victory in New Hampshire. Just days before the primary, a report issued by a liberal lobby calling itself the "Center for Public Integrity" accused Larry Pratt, a co-chair of Buchanan's campaign, of consorting with white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups. While it is true that such disreputable individuals have attended events at which Pratt has spoken, Myrna Shinbaum of the Anti-Defamation League admitted to the press that her organization has no record of Pratt expressing anti-Semitic or racist views. Pratt was placed on leave, and the opinion cartel used its self-generated controversy as an excuse to revisit slurs of racism and anti-Semitism which had been thrown at Buchanan during his 1992 campaign.

On four successive days leading up to the February 20th shoot-out in New Hampshire, the New York Times used its main editorial space to label Buchanan a "red-meat orator," who exudes "a certain reek of testosterone," has "a swaggering presence," offers "simplistic, but highly emotive harangues," can be counted on for "xenophobic views," and whose criticism of the Gulf War "was widely judged to be filled with anti-Semitic innuendo." William Safire, a syndicated columnist for the Times who describes himself as a "conservative," repeated without objection the sophomoric slur that Buchanan's speech at the 1992 Republican convention "sounded better in the original German."

Interspersed among all these smears, the New York Times managed to present accurately some of Buchanan's positions. While many Americans who heard these views nodded their heads in agreement, the Times' labeled them "overwhelmingly negative," noting:

[Buchanan] is against the United Nations and NATO, against free-trade agreements, against foreign aid and against American support for Israel. He would not have sent American troops to Bosnia just as he would not have sent them to the Persian Gulf five years ago. He has little use for arms control treaties....

Millions of Americans, including those who do not agree with every particular in Buchanan's platform, share his opposition to foreign aid and the attack on American sovereignty, and would gravitate toward a candidate who forcefully expresses those views. This is why the preferred tactic of Buchanan's critics is to keep people talking about the spurious accusations against the candidate as if they were established facts, rather than discussing his indictment of the Establishment and its policies.

Who and what is this Establishment:

Syndicated columnist Edith Kermit Roosevelt - a granddaughter of Teddy Roosevelt - accurately answered the question in one of her 1961 columns:

The word "Establishment" is a general term for the power elite in international finance, business, the professions and government, largely from the northeast, who wield most of the power regardless of who is in the White House. Most people are unaware of the existence of this "legitimate Mafia." Yet the power of the Establishment makes itself felt from the professor who seeks a foundation grant, to the candidate for a Cabinet post or State Department job. It affects the nation's policies in almost every area.

Had Edith Roosevelt chosen to identify the core of this "power elite," she could have pinpointed the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Washington Post ombudsman Richard Harwood explained in 1993 that the Council on Foreign Relations is "the closest thing we have to a ruling Establishment in the United States.... [Its members are] the people who, for more than half a century, have managed our international affairs and our military-industrial complex." That "ruling Establishment" includes the barons of the media, whom Harwood styled "Ruling Class journalists." These CFR propagandists use their positions and influence to spread CFR-approved views and attitudes, and to smother any contrary views.

Ever since its founding in 1921 by the socialists and internationalists who dominated the Woodrow Wilson Administration, the CFR's ultimate goal has been the establishment of a "new world order" which would dominate mankind economically through socialism and politically through world government.

While the CFR is the undeniable core of the Establishment, the Insiders rely on other groups and individuals to propel our nation into the new world order. Among these groups are the World Affairs Council, the Trilateral Commission, the Atlantic Council, the United Nations Association of the United States, etc. And on the CFR's list of 3,237 members (508 of whom are "U.S. Government Officials") can be found such notables as Bill Clinton, Warren Christopher, Newt Gingrich, Henry Kissinger, Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, and a score of senators and congressmen.

Where did I learn to like many of Pat Buchanan's ideas(not the news as 1 Fucktard assumed):

In high school I was afforded the opportunity to participate in some classes for students with outstanding academic performance. During these courses I began to get sick and tired of hearing the brainwashed views of my fellow students and especially my teachers. My friends and I began to research other political views other than the same old liberal views we had been taught our whole lives. Through research, we discovered Pat Buchanan and "The Black Avenger" Ken Hamblin(BTW:he's black-wanted to make that clear to the Moronoviches that might take his name the wrong way and think he is a white supremacist). While training for football, we would listen to Rush Limbaugh in the weight room. I had always found politics intriguing, but I had no idea about anything until discovering other view points. I too had been brainwashed my whole life through the liberal teachings during my schooling. I became so intrigued by politics that I became a Political Science major in college. After taking some courses, I decided I wanted to major in Communications and minor in Poli Sci. This way I could combine the two and also create more avenues for myself in the future. Although even my New American Conservatism teacher was somewhat liberal, I finished all of my Poli Sci classes over a year ago. I only have 3 Comm classes left that I would have finished a year ago as well, but they were not offered when I needed to take them. Damn school taking my money. Anyhoo, I read a lot of books during this time and one of them was "A Republic, Not an Empire" by Pat Buchanan. I do agree that the way he expresses some of his views could be seen as extreme, but that is because they are usually taken out of context. This seems to be something almost every one of you Retardo Montolbon's repeatedly do. You see one word in something I write and take it completely out of context. You people are fucking ridiculous. You are the reason a show like Politically Incorrect came into existence. You don't deal with the issues, but instead like to twist and turn everything you read without any thinking at all. I have answered everything you Shitlips have questioned about my postings. Read em and weep. Any poster that takes anything I write out of context can go fuck themselves. Learn how to read.

Sincerely,
BigWhalebony
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator
Level: 212

Posts: 1067/16176
EXP: 140288287
For next: 747499

Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 8 hours
Last activity: 8 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#88 Posted on 8.8.02 0055.55
Reposted on: 8.8.09 0059.06
Say, I hope you don't think I'm taking you out of context, but if you can't post without calling people "fucktard" and "shitlips," I'll be happy to direct you to any other message board besides this one.
BigWhalebony
Bauerwurst
Level: 23

Posts: 49/96
EXP: 62544
For next: 5180

Since: 26.7.02
From: SALEM

Since last post: 3661 days
Last activity: 2623 days
#89 Posted on 8.8.02 0102.36
Reposted on: 8.8.09 0107.05

I'll refrain from doing so in the future. I just got a little P.O.'d at the accusations and assumptions from some of these people. Some of the things that were written by other posters were far worse than the names I used out of frustration.
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni
Level: 66

Posts: 400/1084
EXP: 2426294
For next: 35570

Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2936 days
Last activity: 2933 days
#90 Posted on 8.8.02 0143.36
Reposted on: 8.8.09 0159.04
Um . . . I'd just like to say that I took a complete sentence of yours and offered a rebuttal, which you seemingly ignored.
BigWhalebony
Bauerwurst
Level: 23

Posts: 52/96
EXP: 62544
For next: 5180

Since: 26.7.02
From: SALEM

Since last post: 3661 days
Last activity: 2623 days
#91 Posted on 8.8.02 0233.43
Reposted on: 8.8.09 0235.10

Sorry, I was pretty busy responding to about 10 other people at the same time and missed your link. Whether or not the quote is true, or whether or not it is even quoted correctly(it seems to be taken from a college research paper), are somewhat irrelevant. While Buchanan may have said that he received balanced coverage, my previous post seems to contradict that statement. When Buchanan was seen as possibly winning the Republican nomination, the media became extremely pissed. Once the country's leading newspaper, The NY Times, started the hatchet job on Buchanan(ignoring the issues that Buchanan brought to the table), a great portion of the country's other media outlets followed suit.
The other problem I have with that quote is we don't know when Buchanan actually was quoted. Although the article where the quote was taken from was dated Aug. 96, that doesn't necessarily mean that particular quote was from the same time period. It very likely could have been before the media barrage that occured after Buchanan took control of the primary. It could have been from 92 or it could have been from even further in the past.
Thanks for the link though. Is it a college paper of yours?
Just curious, not being sarcastic. I've simmered down a bit from earlier.
MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 88

Posts: 570/2104
EXP: 6560962
For next: 89728

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 13 days
Last activity: 14 hours
#92 Posted on 8.8.02 0918.02
Reposted on: 8.8.09 0920.02
While Buchanan may have said that he received balanced coverage, my previous post seems to contradict that statement.

Forgive me if I take Pat Buchanans word about his media coverage over yours.

Click Here

Again, forgive me if I take Pat Buchanans word about his chances of winning the Presidency over yours.

It is interesting that your arguments about Buchanans chances, resonance with mainstream America, and treatment by the media is almost exactly the same arguments that Nader supporters give also.
BigWhalebony
Bauerwurst
Level: 23

Posts: 55/96
EXP: 62544
For next: 5180

Since: 26.7.02
From: SALEM

Since last post: 3661 days
Last activity: 2623 days
#93 Posted on 8.8.02 1543.57
Reposted on: 8.8.09 1559.04

Yeah, you probably would want to take Buchanan's word over mine, but like I said, that particular quote may not be accurate or if it was the actual quote used, may have been from before the hatchet job began in 96.

Thanks for the link, but it's from the 2000 election. It doesn't prove any of your points. It does have a good quote though(was in a newspaper, not a college research paper like the other quote in question):

"Clearly, we would like to win the presidency of the United States, that's why we got into this race and why we sought the Reform Party nomination," he said. "But if you're denied comparable money and you face a media blackout, and you're excluded from the presidential debates, it is not realistic to think you can overcome a 45-point lead."

MEDIA BLACKOUT
Buchanan would have smoked Bush and Gore in the debates and I don't think anyone could argue that.
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni
Level: 66

Posts: 401/1084
EXP: 2426294
For next: 35570

Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2936 days
Last activity: 2933 days
#94 Posted on 8.8.02 1617.09
Reposted on: 8.8.09 1617.14
It's from August 8, 1996. Well after the hatchet job began.
BigWhalebony
Bauerwurst
Level: 23

Posts: 56/96
EXP: 62544
For next: 5180

Since: 26.7.02
From: SALEM

Since last post: 3661 days
Last activity: 2623 days
#95 Posted on 8.8.02 1624.09
Reposted on: 8.8.09 1624.29
    Originally posted by BigWhalebony
    Although the article where the quote was taken from was dated Aug. 96, that doesn't necessarily mean that particular quote was from the same time period. It very likely could have been before the media barrage that occured after Buchanan took control of the primary. It could have been from 92 or it could have been from even further in the past.


And like I said previously, it seems to be from a college research paper.


Forgot to add: you admit there was a hatchet job by the media in your last post, thus rendering your entire argument pointless.



(edited by BigWhalebony on 8.8.02 1428)
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni
Level: 66

Posts: 402/1084
EXP: 2426294
For next: 35570

Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2936 days
Last activity: 2933 days
#96 Posted on 8.8.02 1704.22
Reposted on: 8.8.09 1729.03
It's from a site full of articles on different topics. You know, like a Journal. Regardless what it's from, the fact remains that Pat Buchanan admitted that he is treated fairly by the media in August of 1996, months after the New Hampshire Primary and months after whatever hatchet job would have occured.
BigWhalebony
Bauerwurst
Level: 23

Posts: 59/96
EXP: 62544
For next: 5180

Since: 26.7.02
From: SALEM

Since last post: 3661 days
Last activity: 2623 days
#97 Posted on 8.8.02 1718.55
Reposted on: 8.8.09 1729.09

There are no facts in that, jackson, but thanks for trying.
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni
Level: 66

Posts: 403/1084
EXP: 2426294
For next: 35570

Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2936 days
Last activity: 2933 days
#98 Posted on 8.8.02 1739.43
Reposted on: 8.8.09 1741.46
It's not a fact that Buchanan said that he was treated fairly by the media?
Eddie Famous
Andouille
Level: 90

Posts: 315/2182
EXP: 6948561
For next: 240075

Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 283 days
Last activity: 277 days
#99 Posted on 8.8.02 2129.10
Reposted on: 8.8.09 2133.42

    Originally posted by eviljonhunt81
    It's not a fact that Buchanan said that he was treated fairly by the media?


Of course he did, every time he want back to his own talk show and tried to "buddy up" to the broadcasters again.
BigWhalebony
Bauerwurst
Level: 23

Posts: 60/96
EXP: 62544
For next: 5180

Since: 26.7.02
From: SALEM

Since last post: 3661 days
Last activity: 2623 days
#100 Posted on 8.8.02 2353.48
Reposted on: 8.8.09 2357.41

    Originally posted by eviljonhunt81
    It's not a fact that Buchanan said that he was treated fairly by the media?


If the comments were legit, there are no facts that you have presented to prove the time period the quote was actually from. It doesn't matter anyway, considering you already admitted that there was a hatchet job in 96. So, whether Buchanan made such comments or not is irrelevant. If someone like yourself can see the media did a number on Buchanan, than there is no reason for you to continue the argument.
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 NextThread ahead: Caveat Emptor
Next thread: Georgie's vacation
Previous thread: New mutual fund
(2047 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - 20 Things We've Learned Since 9/11Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.245 seconds.