If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!
"Ray Fischer" wrote in message ... mikey4 wrote: On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 09:26:21 +0100, Chris H wrote: Yes I have watched Fox. Also I have seen the comments from CNN, BBC and others on Fox and their handling of stores. BFD, what does that prove? Every news outlet trailing in the ratings will More petulant whining from the child. -- What a lonely life you must lead. A sad little man who can only run down everyone else, what a shame. |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!
mikey4 wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote in message mikey4 wrote: "Ray Fischer" wrote in message Of course the political commentators on Fox News have a political bias. That's why O'Reilly et al are aired. You don't have an understanding of what a political commentator is. Political commentators aren't supposed to lie in order to sow hatred. That's supposed to be the jobs of propaganda ministers working for corrupt dictatorships. another rant from the sad little man Quit whining, child. We all know that you blindly believe everything lie you're fed, and we can see your petulance every time you're cherish icons are shown to be wrong or corrupt. LOL, you've never shown them to be wrong. Show that Fox news bull****ters are wrong?!? That's not even hard. In fact sad little man you don't have the balls to do anything but run down other peoples thoughts and LOL! You're projecting again, child. Come on; let's see what you've got. So far all you've been able to do is post bull**** and whines. -- Ray Fischer |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!
"Neil Harrington" wrote in message ... "Chris H" wrote in message ... In message , Neil Harrington writes "DRS" wrote in message om.au... "Chris H" wrote in message In message , DRS writes [...] And why the US is seen as a rouge stage by most of the world. A rouge state? Only by the wingnuts in here. It is not acceptable to merely deem someone a terrorist or a criminal by fiat. It must be established by evidence. Afghanistan offered to give OBL to the US is the USA had any credible evidence.... the USA could not produce any evidence and the Afghans did not turn him over. SO the USA illegally invaded. There is genuine dispute among international jurists about the legitimacy of the Taliban government given the state of armed resistance to it. The "Taliban GOVERNMENT"?! You seem to be saying that there is some question about whether the Taliban is or is not the legitimate government there At the time of the invasion the Taliban were the legitimate government of Afghanistan I wasn't aware that Afghanistan had any such thing as a "legitimate government of" then. And the one they have now seems only barely so, if that. It does not seem to be a country that one associates easily with the concept of legitimate government. because the Afghan government and army are showing "armed resistance to it." That certainly seems an odd view. After the invasion "elections" were held at which some parties were not permitted to run for office.... So it was hardly free and democratic. This is why there is still a war going on. I doubt that's the only reason and question whether it's an important one. Afghanistan's political instability seems to be rooted largely in its tribalism. It is also why the US has now followed the UK's lead (and greater experience) in saying any solution must now involve discussions with the Taliban. An "organisation" that has run the US military into the ground for the last 7 years, as it did the Russians. And at least two earlier British efforts. But "discussions" with the Taliban seem a naive and foolish idea, something like having a discussion about future relationships with a rattlesnake. When you're dealing with a group that believes cutting off people's hands, feet, arms or legs are reasonable forms of corrective punishment for paying insufficient attention to their view of proper Muslim rectitude, what common ground is there for discussion? Exactly. These people have carried religion to its most ridiculous extreme. They believe that their god wants them to kill off every last person on earth, just to get rid of all the non-Muslims. Why he can't do this all by himself doesn't seem to occur to their miniscule minds. But in any case, its them or us, and the sooner we realize this, the better off we will be. |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!
In message , Bill Graham
writes "Neil Harrington" wrote in message news:eOudnT2s ... "Chris H" wrote in message news:Un0zfYCDz1xKFAb ... In message , Neil Harrington writes "DRS" wrote in message news:UNidnVWBibNWclnXnZ2dnUVZ_gCdnZ2d@westnet. com.au... "Chris H" wrote in message In message , DRS It is also why the US has now followed the UK's lead (and greater experience) in saying any solution must now involve discussions with the Taliban. An "organisation" that has run the US military into the ground for the last 7 years, as it did the Russians. And at least two earlier British efforts. But "discussions" with the Taliban seem a naive and foolish idea, something like having a discussion about future relationships with a rattlesnake. Worked before all over the world. Including with the US supported PIAR When you're dealing with a group that believes cutting off people's hands, feet, arms or legs are reasonable forms of corrective punishment for paying insufficient attention to their view of proper Muslim rectitude, what common ground is there for discussion? The USA executes people too.... believes in torture and has no problem wit killing civilians. Exactly. These people have carried religion to its most ridiculous extreme. And of course the Christian right in the US don't? They believe that their god wants them to kill off every last person on earth, just to get rid of all the non-Muslims. Why he can't do this all by himself doesn't seem to occur to their miniscule minds. But in any case, its them or us, and the sooner we realize this, the better off we will be. The religious right in the US is no different to the religious fanatics anywhere else. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 13:14:07 +0100, Chris H wrote:
In message , tony cooper writes On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 11:46:46 +0100, Chris H wrote: In message , mikey4 writes On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 09:26:21 +0100, Chris H wrote: Yes I have watched Fox. Also I have seen the comments from CNN, BBC and others on Fox and their handling of stores. I don't believe this. I think you are flat-out making it up. You may have seen or heard negative comments about Fox News programming, but were they about Fox News news segments or Fox News political commentary host's programs? Either. The latter are not news programming. That's why it is necessary to understand what a political commentator's role is. Something you clearly don't understand. I do understand but having seem FOX news and many others the same pictures with slightly different words can portray a very different scene. I recall during the floods in New Orleans there was a comment that there were gangs of black criminals looting and white vigilantes trying to keep the peace and get supplies for people. I don't believe this either. The meaning of the word "vigilantes" would be understood by any professional journalist, and not used to describe "keeping the peace". A description using "vigilantes" would be as negative as a description using "looters". In other words gang warfare but the very subtle differences in the words portrayed one group as criminals and the other as upholding the law The word "vigilantes" does not mean upholding the law. Vigilantes operate outside of the law and contrary to the law. Any use of "vigilante" has negative meaning and negative connotation. when in fact there was on the whole no difference between the two groups. However that is what the audience wanted to believe. If something like what you report was said, the point would have been that there is no difference between the groups. It is your lack of understanding of the meaning of the word that creates the problem. I don't suppose you have a link to one of those comments. You never do. You just hand-wave. "Those comments" are usually on a live broadcast not a web site. The problem is you only believe things on web sites. That's not necessarily true. Yes, I want cites for what you claim because I don't find you to be credible. You make things up, you tend to generalizations and hyperbole, you rely on anecdotal information, you offer opinion as fact, and you are quite often completely wrong. You may present some valid information, but it's difficult to know what is valid and what is just hand-waving. So, I ask for cites from you. You don't see me asking, say, Savageduck for cites. He is credible. There are others that post here that I consider credible. You say you use your own name like that is some sort of validation. So does Bill Graham, and I see you in the same light as I see Bill Graham. Both of you are people with a strong personal bias and agenda who are often wrong, never seem to be willing to admit that they have been wrong, and slither away when asked to produce some other source as a back-up of their claims. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!
"tony cooper" wrote in message ... On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 13:14:07 +0100, Chris H wrote: In message , tony cooper writes On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 11:46:46 +0100, Chris H wrote: In message , mikey4 writes On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 09:26:21 +0100, Chris H wrote: Yes I have watched Fox. Also I have seen the comments from CNN, BBC and others on Fox and their handling of stores. I don't believe this. I think you are flat-out making it up. You may have seen or heard negative comments about Fox News programming, but were they about Fox News news segments or Fox News political commentary host's programs? Either. The latter are not news programming. That's why it is necessary to understand what a political commentator's role is. Something you clearly don't understand. I do understand but having seem FOX news and many others the same pictures with slightly different words can portray a very different scene. I recall during the floods in New Orleans there was a comment that there were gangs of black criminals looting and white vigilantes trying to keep the peace and get supplies for people. I don't believe this either. The meaning of the word "vigilantes" would be understood by any professional journalist, and not used to describe "keeping the peace". A description using "vigilantes" would be as negative as a description using "looters". In other words gang warfare but the very subtle differences in the words portrayed one group as criminals and the other as upholding the law The word "vigilantes" does not mean upholding the law. Vigilantes operate outside of the law and contrary to the law. Any use of "vigilante" has negative meaning and negative connotation. when in fact there was on the whole no difference between the two groups. However that is what the audience wanted to believe. If something like what you report was said, the point would have been that there is no difference between the groups. It is your lack of understanding of the meaning of the word that creates the problem. I don't suppose you have a link to one of those comments. You never do. You just hand-wave. "Those comments" are usually on a live broadcast not a web site. The problem is you only believe things on web sites. That's not necessarily true. Yes, I want cites for what you claim because I don't find you to be credible. You make things up, you tend to generalizations and hyperbole, you rely on anecdotal information, you offer opinion as fact, and you are quite often completely wrong. You may present some valid information, but it's difficult to know what is valid and what is just hand-waving. So, I ask for cites from you. You don't see me asking, say, Savageduck for cites. He is credible. There are others that post here that I consider credible. You say you use your own name like that is some sort of validation. So does Bill Graham, and I see you in the same light as I see Bill Graham. Both of you are people with a strong personal bias and agenda who are often wrong, never seem to be willing to admit that they have been wrong, and slither away when asked to produce some other source as a back-up of their claims. I am only wrong in your eyes, Tony. I find that you will seek out some minor discrepancy in what I say, and seize on it to make your point....Savageduck does this frequently too. I do think in generalities, rather than specifics, and I don't argue when you correct my specifics. But I can see the difference between minor specifics and my general logic. Please point out where my general logic has been wrong, and I will change my thinking instantly. |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!
On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 17:11:41 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote: I am only wrong in your eyes, Tony. I find that you will seek out some minor discrepancy in what I say, and seize on it to make your point....Savageduck does this frequently too. I do think in generalities, rather than specifics, The devil is in the details. Although, claiming that US unemployment is at 20% or thinking that "vigilante" is an antonym for "looter" is hardly a petty detail. You and Bill Graham share a propensity for bungling the specifics. and I don't argue when you correct my specifics. But I can see the difference between minor specifics and my general logic. Oddly enough, this could very well be the defense that one of those political commentators like Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, or Sean Hannity would use when caught out. They might completely twist and spin the truth, but would claim that their general logic is correct even if their specifics are not. Please point out where my general logic has been wrong, and I will change my thinking instantly. I would not expect you to. You have a strong bias against the US and a disdain for the US military. You have deep-seated misconceptions about the American public. Pointing out your errors or misapprehensions isn't going to change your thinking. And, frankly, attempting to enlighten you isn't a game worth the candle. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!
"tony cooper" wrote in message ... On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 13:14:07 +0100, Chris H wrote: I do understand but having seem FOX news and many others the same pictures with slightly different words can portray a very different scene. I recall during the floods in New Orleans there was a comment that there were gangs of black criminals looting and white vigilantes trying to keep the peace and get supplies for people. I don't believe this either. The meaning of the word "vigilantes" would be understood by any professional journalist, and not used to describe "keeping the peace". A description using "vigilantes" would be as negative as a description using "looters". Not necessarily. "Vigilantes" implies a group of citizens that "take the law into their own hands," to use the common phrase. Sometimes that is the necessary and proper thing to do. Do you know where and when the term got started? In the mid-19th century, San Francisco, then a relatively small town, was much troubled by crime and violence. Honest men and women were attacked and robbed, businesses were too, streets and homes were unsafe, and the local judges and peace officers were worse than useless -- basically the local law was in cahoots with the criminals. Eventually the local citizens got fed up with this and formed what they called a "vigilance committee." (This of course is where "vigilante" comes from.) One day the committee rounded up a number of the most notorious crooks, including some of the local "law" I believe, gave them a speedy trial and hanged them. The effect on San Francisco was salutory. Criminals and corrupt law officers alike fled the city post haste, and it became (for a while) a peaceful, law-abiding and orderly town. As I recollect, the citizens of San Francisco had to do that twice, and on one occasion federal troops were called in to protect the corrupt local law, with mixed results. These very interesting and even instructive events are extensively covered in the book "The Barbary Coast," by Herbert Asbury, published in 1933 -- about five years after his better known book, "Gangs of New York." The latter of course was what the silly movie of that title with Leonardo DiCaprio was supposedly based on -- though to even suggest that there's any similarity between the book and the movie should be made a criminal offense. Both books are an excellent read and may still be available -- I have facsimile reprints of both, haven't read them for many years but must do so again soon. In other words gang warfare but the very subtle differences in the words portrayed one group as criminals and the other as upholding the law The word "vigilantes" does not mean upholding the law. Vigilantes operate outside of the law and contrary to the law. Any use of "vigilante" has negative meaning and negative connotation. It has that meaning and connotation for you, because of the way it is generally used and because you presumably don't know how the term originated.. But when there is no law organization doing the job the law is supposed to do, and peaceful, honest citizens are being attacked, robbed and worse -- as obviously was the case in New Orleans -- then the vigilante in one form or another becomes necessary. What else can people do to protect themselves? Remember that in New Orleans during Katrina, many of the police fled the city (two of them stole a police cruiser and were arrested in Texas) and the mayor fled also. Whatever police remained seem to have been absolutely useless. |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!
"Chris H" wrote in message ... In message , Bill Graham writes "Neil Harrington" wrote in message news:eOudnT2s ... "Chris H" wrote in message news:Un0zfYCDz1xKFAb ... In message , Neil Harrington writes "DRS" wrote in message news:UNidnVWBibNWclnXnZ2dnUVZ_gCdnZ2d@westnet .com.au... "Chris H" wrote in message In message , DRS It is also why the US has now followed the UK's lead (and greater experience) in saying any solution must now involve discussions with the Taliban. An "organisation" that has run the US military into the ground for the last 7 years, as it did the Russians. And at least two earlier British efforts. But "discussions" with the Taliban seem a naive and foolish idea, something like having a discussion about future relationships with a rattlesnake. Worked before all over the world. Including with the US supported PIAR When you're dealing with a group that believes cutting off people's hands, feet, arms or legs are reasonable forms of corrective punishment for paying insufficient attention to their view of proper Muslim rectitude, what common ground is there for discussion? The USA executes people too.... believes in torture and has no problem wit killing civilians. Exactly. These people have carried religion to its most ridiculous extreme. And of course the Christian right in the US don't? They believe that their god wants them to kill off every last person on earth, just to get rid of all the non-Muslims. Why he can't do this all by himself doesn't seem to occur to their miniscule minds. But in any case, its them or us, and the sooner we realize this, the better off we will be. The religious right in the US is no different to the religious fanatics anywhere else. Where in the U.S. do you see religious fanatics cutting people's hands and feet off for not properly following religious law? Where in the U.S. do you see religious fanatics stoning a girl to death on suspicion of her having had illicit sex with someone? Where in the U.S. do you see religious fanatics gang-raping a girl to punish her family for some alleged breach of religious or tribal rules? Do you ever *think* before you write all this rubbish? |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!
"tony cooper" wrote in message ... On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 18:47:20 +0100, Chris H wrote: And why the US is seen as a rouge stage by most of the world. Our face must be red. guffaw! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!! | Chris H | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | October 1st 09 08:24 AM |
The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!! | Bill Graham | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | September 17th 09 11:21 PM |
The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!! | Bill Graham | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | September 17th 09 11:14 PM |
The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!! | Bill Graham | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | September 17th 09 11:04 PM |