The W
Views: 145984125
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
17.9.19 0025
The W - Current Events & Politics - Wow..
This thread has 6 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1(2105 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (19 total)
IsaacYankem
Polska kielbasa








Since: 4.3.03
From: Cybertron

Since last post: 5729 days
Last activity: 5653 days
#1 Posted on
This really isn't funny, but I couldn't help laughing anyway.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,947145,00.html



" Seeing these wrestling managers walking around with their big guts or their big breasts or their big mouths gave us hop that someday, we too could be part of the show, even if we weren't 6'5" with expletives tattooed on the back of our necks. Plus, anyone getting paid thousands of dollars to stand around in neon suits yelling 'KILL HIM!' towards the ring was certainly a profession to look forward to."
http://www.x-entertainment.com/messages/559.html
Promote this thread!
-proletarian-
Chipolata








Since: 29.4.03

Since last post: 5846 days
Last activity: 5845 days
#2 Posted on
You'd think that they would have waited until they got the juice back on in the country before doing something like this. How many Iraqi's could have possibly seen this?

Not that being talked down to by the defence secretary would be all that inspiring, but still......
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 3105 days
Last activity: 505 days
ICQ:  
#3 Posted on
OK, I know this is a UK article, but what in the hell does this paragraph have to do with ANYTHING in this article?

"Nowhere in the speech did he mention that he had been in Iraq almost 20 years ago, a private businessman acting on behalf of the Reagan administration and dealing with Saddam."

That was just out of left field. It is stuff like that which makes people say there is a "liberal" bias in the media. That had nothing to do with the topic of the article, but the writer felt it necessary to slip in that little piece of information. Hardly unbias reporting- can't even finish the story without making an attack...





Still on the Shelf #6
godking
Chourico








Since: 20.10.02
From: Toronto

Since last post: 5695 days
Last activity: 5640 days
#4 Posted on
It is stuff like that which makes people say there is a "liberal" bias in the media.

The Guardian is a liberal paper. It's no big secret. It's also not an American paper, so the arguments about media bias are rather besides the point seeing as how they're usually taken on a nation-by-nation basis, and believe me, when it comes to British papers, there's a very balanced field.
CarlCX
Salami








Since: 1.5.02
From: California.

Since last post: 1744 days
Last activity: 110 days
#5 Posted on
I don't see what's wrong with this.

It's not like he's saying something particularly damaging, and it's not like they need some vast removal of resources to film Rumsfeld's speech.

Whatever happened to "if the effort helps one person, it's worth it"?
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 3059 days
Last activity: 1513 days
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    Originally posted by godking
    The Guardian is a liberal paper. It's no big secret.

You know that if I replaced Guardian with New York Times it would still be true...but you would be apoplectic.




godking
Chourico








Since: 20.10.02
From: Toronto

Since last post: 5695 days
Last activity: 5640 days
#7 Posted on
You know that if I replaced Guardian with New York Times it would still be true...

Oh my yes. I mean, the Times is such a liberal paper it investigated the Whitewater "scandal" - which was investigated for over seven years and never a so much as a hint of wrongdoing found - more than any other newspaper in the United States. The Times backed the war in Iraq, ignored the Rick Santorum scandal almost completely and didn't pursue the Trent Lott story at all until the Washington Post and Boston Globe started making a big deal out of it, keeps a former speechwriter for William Nixon and Ronald Reagan on its editorial board, and has repeatedly insulted the Presidential campaign of Howard Dean, the only moderately progressive Democratic candidate for President.

That's some mad liberal jonesin', yo. That be all left-wing like bling-bling!
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 3059 days
Last activity: 1513 days
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    Originally posted by Grimis
    but you would be apoplectic.

Looks like I was right...



This is simply a reminder of the fantastic hypocrisy of many in Hollywood. They conflate robust criticism with censorship; they equate popular boycotts with government blacklists; they claim to be persecuted, while actually they have an amazing capacity to reach audiences other political activists can only dream of. And yet, when the slightest criticism directly affects them, they do all they can to shut dissent down. Instructive, isn't it? Industry honchoes who wouldn't have jobs without the right to free expression are only too eager to squash it when that speech dares to criticize them- Andrew Sullivan

godking
Chourico








Since: 20.10.02
From: Toronto

Since last post: 5695 days
Last activity: 5640 days
#9 Posted on
Looks like I was right...

"Apopleptic" implies anger towards you. There was none. There was, instead, great amusement at your wrongness.
Michrome
Head cheese








Since: 2.1.03

Since last post: 5622 days
Last activity: 4688 days
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
The Times is one of the most Liberal papers there is....They haven't supported a republican president since Eisenhower and they editorialize to the left on every major social, economic, and foreign policy issue.

The fact that they investigated Whitewater only means that they did their job. They editorialized strongly against the impeachment.
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni








Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 4777 days
Last activity: 4774 days
#11 Posted on
GASP! The editorials have opinions!

And any paper that said Ralph Nader was mucking up the election process has to be liberal.



Weekly Visitor - EXXXXTREME MARCH!

Jersey Is Dead - Feel my Grief
ges7184
Lap cheong








Since: 7.1.02
From: Birmingham, AL

Since last post: 524 days
Last activity: 512 days
#12 Posted on
Well they certainly did not say that because they thought he was costing a conservative an election.
Leroy
Boudin blanc








Since: 7.2.02

Since last post: 68 days
Last activity: 63 days
#13 Posted on

    Originally posted by eviljonhunt81
    GASP! The editorials have opinions!

    And any paper that said Ralph Nader was mucking up the election process has to be liberal.



The bigger problem is that debates have been pulled so far to the right in this country that anything left of Colin Powell is considered "liberal bias". Truth is, there has not been good reporesentation of the "liberal" or "left" is this country in quite some time, and criticism of the New York Times as a "liberal" paper simply because it leans more towards Democrats than Republicans is more evidence of that.

Never mind that vast majority of opinions on television and radio are so far to the right that it would make Lester G. Maddox blush.


    Originally posted by Pool-Boy

    That had nothing to do with the topic of the article, but the writer felt it necessary to slip in that little piece of information. Hardly unbias reporting- can't even finish the story without making an attack...



You know, it's not like the writer just made it up - he WAS is Iraq shaking hands with Hussein back when Hussein was gassing his own people (which we knew about). I don't see why it's an attack to mention our Secretary of Defense's history in country we fought and defeated. Seems pretty relevant to me.




"It's hard to be a prophet and still make a profit."
- Da Bush Babees
asteroidboy
Andouille








Since: 22.1.02
From: Texas

Since last post: 3219 days
Last activity: 423 days
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.95

    Originally posted by Leroy
    You know, it's not like the writer just made it up - he WAS is Iraq shaking hands with Hussein back when Hussein was gassing his own people (which we knew about). I don't see why it's an attack to mention our Secretary of Defense's history in country we fought and defeated. Seems pretty relevant to me.


Quiet you! No memories past 9/11 allowed! That could lead to all kinds of unpatriotic questions.





-- Asteroid Boy


Wiener of the day: 23.7.02

"My brother saw the Undertaker walking through an airport." - Rex
"Was he no-selling?" - Me
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 3105 days
Last activity: 505 days
ICQ:  
#15 Posted on
I am still baffled at how some thing that just because wrong was done in the past, that we can't now decide to do what is right.

Hell yeah, Rumsfeld shook the mans hand. SO WHAT? That part of the article was totally out of context, and was only inserted in there to attack the Bush administration.

Look at that quote again. How exactly was Rumsfeld supposed to slip that little piece of information in his address, and why would he? "Oh, and by the way, people of Iraq, 20 years ago, I was here on behalf of a past American Administration, when we were supporting your country in its war against Iran."

If the guy wanted to write an article on that, fine. Then he could take that little tidbit and put it in all of the context the situation deserves. But it was a real stretch suggesting that he include that in his address, when any moron knows that would be neither appropriate, or necessary.

(edited by Pool-Boy on 5.5.03 1101)




Still on the Shelf #6
oldschoolhero
Knackwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: nWo Country

Since last post: 3776 days
Last activity: 3710 days
#16 Posted on
I think the point is that Rumsfeld himself is a fucking hypocrite for personally supporting the exact same dictatorship when it suited his government's political agenda and then flip-flopping when the winds of change blow. This isn't the same as "us lefties" taking the whole of America to task for hypocrisy, because you can't put a nation on trial for something that happened over a decade ago. BUT, in this case, the criticism is wholely justified. RUmsfeld had no problems associating himself with Saddam when it suited him. He's not the man to be preaching down to the Iraqui people now.



Hail To The King, Baby

Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 3105 days
Last activity: 505 days
ICQ:  
#17 Posted on
You are right oldschool, he DOES deserve some criticism. Not the rash of venom you like to spew, I think, but I will agree that criticism is warranted.

But not in that article!

That story was written about Rumsfelds address to the Iraqis, not about Rumsfeld's history in Iraq. By dredging up that piece of information, and just tossing it in there, out of context, changed the whole article from a fact-based REPORTING of the news, to a one sided attack on Rumsfeld.

I am not suggesting that you should not be allowed to criticise our leaders (though I would hope that you would do so in a more rational manner than you usually do, Oldschool), but as a journalist, one is suppost to stick to the facts of the story along. Rumsfeld's visit to Iraq 20 years ago had NOTHING to do with the story at hand, especially out of context like that. Did the author mention that most of the atrocities we accuse Iraq of occured after that visit? Did he mention that that visit occured before we were at War with Iraq the first time, before they violated the treaty that ended that war? Did he describe in detail the political atmosphere of the time? Certainly not...

That is just bad journalism.


(edited by Pool-Boy on 5.5.03 1140)



Still on the Shelf #6
oldschoolhero
Knackwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: nWo Country

Since last post: 3776 days
Last activity: 3710 days
#18 Posted on
Although I'm usually above this kind of baiting (although I'd imagine this is more friendly than it appears, given our history)...

I don't consider criticising a leader for having previous mysterious criminal convictions, acting like a complete jackass in the build-up to war and appearing to be, by definition, illiterate "irrational". Take Tony Blair, our esteemed U.K leader. I don't agree with everything he does. But he genuinely believes in his convictions. The prospect of war genuinely appalls him, it's seen as an absolute last resort. He is intelligent, articulate and above all else responsible. He carries himself like a dignified, respectful, yet forceful leader. When was the last time you saw behaviour like that out of Dubya?

But that's another thread.

(edited by oldschoolhero on 5.5.03 1143)


Hail To The King, Baby

Leroy
Boudin blanc








Since: 7.2.02

Since last post: 68 days
Last activity: 63 days
#19 Posted on

    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    You are right oldschool, he DOES deserve some criticism. Not the rash of venom you like to spew, I think, but I will agree that criticism is warranted.

    But not in that article!

    That story was written about Rumsfelds address to the Iraqis, not about Rumsfeld's history in Iraq. By dredging up that piece of information, and just tossing it in there, out of context, changed the whole article from a fact-based REPORTING of the news, to a one sided attack on Rumsfeld.

    I am not suggesting that you should not be allowed to criticise our leaders (though I would hope that you would do so in a more rational manner than you usually do, Oldschool), but as a journalist, one is suppost to stick to the facts of the story along. Rumsfeld's visit to Iraq 20 years ago had NOTHING to do with the story at hand, especially out of context like that. Did the author mention that most of the atrocities we accuse Iraq of occured after that visit? Did he mention that that visit occured before we were at War with Iraq the first time, before they violated the treaty that ended that war? Did he describe in detail the political atmosphere of the time? Certainly not...

    That is just bad journalism.


    (edited by Pool-Boy on 5.5.03 1140)



Actually, what the article does fail to mention is that the United States was perfectly aware of the atrocities Hussein committed while Rumsfeld was visiting for the Reagan administration (the same atrcocities we used to justify this latest aggression).... but I digress.

Fact: Rumsfeld visited Iraq 20-some years ago.

Fact: He failed to mention that is his speech last week.

You seem to get downright indignant when reporters don't tell the story the way you want it told. Here you have a reporter actually mentioning FACTS - things that actually happened - and yet your angry that the writer even bothered to include them. While these FACTS may be irrelevant to you, in my view, these FACTS have been virtually ignored by the mainstream press during this whole debacle.

I can accept the WMD's, and the liberating of the Iraqi people, as justifications for the war - I don't agree with them, but I at least see the point. But when you ignore history (i.e. our government's involvement and support of this sociopath) because you don't like the context in which its presented, that very problematic. If anything, I would have liked to have seen more on the Reagan administrations role in Iraq during the 80's - and that's especially relevent now.




"It's hard to be a prophet and still make a profit."
- Da Bush Babees
Pages: 1Thread ahead: Ah, how I miss the South...
Next thread: protests re: Dixie Chicks.....one moron protestor in particular.....
Previous thread: Aces High?
(2105 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
I'm not sure if she's trying to defend herself from voting differently or if she's trying to say that the protests were wrong. I really hope nobody is giving her crap for not marching, for voting republican and what not.
The W - Current Events & Politics - Wow..Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2019 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.159 seconds.