That's a great piece; too bad it has nothing to do with what we're talking about. We are talking about the Newsmedia, not shows that are basically opinion oriented. The media is involved in mass indoctrination, regardless of what political bias you may think it has. Hence the all Republicans are dumb argument, Clinton is a victim yadda yadda. Of course nobody wanted to defend Clinton; he was a criminal who lied under oath and got away from it because the Democrats in the senate didn't have the gonads to do the right thing
There is a reason that "Bias" was a best-seller and "Slander" is as well and sells many more copies than "Stupid White Men"(which when I first saw, I though Michael Moore had written an autobiography).
Incdientally, I really don't have much use for Rush because all he does is praise Republicans even when they do screw up.
Were "Slander" and "Bias" better sellers because they were pushed harder by larger media conglomerates than that which released Moore's book? Maybe? Perhaps? Please, please show me that the media has a liberal bias.
Also, a lot of the names on that list are not on opinion shows.
I think the fact that Michael Moore's book hit #1 three and a half months after it's release without the publishing company running ONE AD says a hell of a lot more than however many people decided to pick up a copy of Ann Coulter's "book".
"The only difference between lilies and turds are those humankind have agreed upon, and I don't always agree." ---George Carlin
"Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music." ---Anon.
Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastardAnn Coulter's "book".
Heh -- I like that. Puts the right amount of doubt as to whether it's an actual book, or the product of a roomful of dittomonkeys banging randomly on typewriters.
I remember a phrase that someone used to describe Rush Limbaugh's first book ("if you could call it a book"): "This is a book so bad that you want to smack it with a rolled-up newspaper, saying, "Bad book! Bad book!'"
But, of course, her definition of "liberal" includes "anyone who dares to fact-check what she writes or question its veracity."
"No society has managed to invest more time and energy in the perpetuation of the fiction that it is _moral, sane and wholesome_ than our current crop of _Modern Americans_." -- Frank Zappa
Damn, this is a long thread. I think vsp and OlFuzzyBastard said most of the things that I wanted to say already, but I do have a couple of things to add. One, that President Reagan gave a speech during Russia's invasion of Afghanistan that praised the Taliban as "courageous freedom fighters," or something similar. I'm sorry I don't have the link; I read it in an issue of Harper's though.
Second, I was in Afghanistan for three months while I was in the Rangers, and the average Taliban soldier didn't have a fucking clue who Osama Bin Laden was. These were just some poor bastards trying to hang onto the fucking huts that they lived a shitty, squalid existence in. All they knew was that we were there to fuck them up and they defended themselves. Can you really blame them?
Also, something that really pissed me off is all you fucks saying that civilian casualties in Afghanistan were "accidents," like the Air Force had no idea that bombing the shit out of a major metropolitan area might possibly kill some concombatants. Are you fucking stupid? And how do you think these peasants feel when we level their houses and kill their children for a reason they don't even know about? Maybe a little like we did when Al Qaeda bombed the WTC, hmm?
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for stringing Bin Laden up by his own intestines, but Bush and his jackbooted puppeteers are using this shit as an excuse to start a conflict with any country that they don't like. Wouldn't it make a little more sense to use MI and Special Forces to maybe locate the fucker and snipe his ass rather than carpet bombing an entire country, which, I might add, also makes it impossible to tell if his corpse is in a pile of smoking rubble? Yes, Afghanistan was a brilliant display of military strategy, if indiscriminate and, IMHO, criminal carelessness is considered good strategy. That shit was the reason I never reenlisted. Being over there made me fucking sick, and if you had any clue what you were talking about, you would be ashamed of yourselves, for being ignorant and supporting fucks like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. Hell, I'm ashamed for you.
Jake, I salute you. This whole time, I was wondering why we didn't just send in Special Forces and nail the fuckwad. Oh, right, al Qaeda, which is STILL active, last time I checked. (le sigh) As long as he gets his, I guess Bush doesn't really care about taking the best route.
That's what everybody in my platoon was wondering. They send a shitload of Rangers over there, and all we did was neutralize airfields. I don't know exactly what the Greenies were up to, but apparently it wasn't anything useful. And the Delta boys, obviously no one knows what the hell they were doing, but since they didn't bring back Osama's head, they must have been off playing fuck-fuck games, too, while the Air Force and Navy got the main role in what should have been a specops operation, and all they did was blow up a bunch of civilians and goat herders with AKs. Rumsfeld is a useless cretin.
(edited by Jakegnosis on 2.8.02 1716) Moo hoo ha ha.
It's a necessary task if they're going to make Baghdad (and Iraq as a whole) stable and ripe for governing. You can't have millions of people running around using, buying and selling guns in a war-torn country if you intend to restore peace and order.