# media manipulation by enemies



## zegnamtl (Apr 19, 2005)

Please, no red or blue bashing,
just a little introspection of the situation.

But this smells odd.

https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6100906.stm

Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said media manipulation by enemies of the US is the only thing keeping him awake at night.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Even before 9/11, the Bush administration was secretive and uncooperative with the news media. If they believe there is an adversarial relationship or that the public is not being properly informed, they ought to blame themselves. Instead they hope to increase their already impressive propaganda campaign that has included secretly paying conservative commentators to write about specific agendas.

Uninformed people likely will line up along political lines about this. However, in my blue state, the news media had a similarly adversarial relationship with a recent Democratic governor's administration because it was secretive, manipulative, dishonest and disrespectful of the public's right to know. You know, if you want positive coverage, try honesty instead of spin. A flood of propaganda will only steel the resolve of news organization to dig deeper because the general reaction will be, "How dare they believe we are this easily misled."


----------



## zegnamtl (Apr 19, 2005)

I wish I had recorded the interview Rumsfeld gave on the Larry King show athe outbreak of the Iraq situation,
LK asked DR about the growing media backlash,
DR replied, they will come around, there are ways to make them see.
LK asked for clarity, DR forced the conversation in a different direction and LK did not pursue it.
DR was certainly correct in the short term!

https://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=19381

US rated 57th if I recall correctly.

I love the States, it is such a beautiful, brilliant and industrious place.
It kills me to see it in such turmoil.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

zegnamtl said:


> I wish I had recorded the interview Rumsfeld gave on the Larry King show athe outbreak of the Iraq situation,
> LK asked DR about the growing media backlash,
> DR replied, they will come around, there are ways to make them see.
> LK asked for clarity, DR forced the conversation in a different direction and LK did not pursue it.
> ...


Turmoil? We're in a state of turmoil around here? Nah. From a distance It looks worse than it really is. It's pretty much business as usual where the buffalo roam(ed) and the amber grain waves. 1965 to 1974 - now that was a tumultuous time. Very cool, it was.


----------



## zegnamtl (Apr 19, 2005)

Lushington said:


> ..... 1965 to 1974 - now that was a tumultuous time. Very cool, it was.


:--)
I was in elememtary school at the time,
so this is the most turmoil I know first hand!
I guess that is a good thing for everyone involved.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

We must remember the wise words of I.F. Stone:

"All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out."


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

No doubt the enemy reads the US media. In Iraq I think that this war would have been over by now if it wasn't for this US media pushing the war on by trying to stop it. The US media keeps printing the deaths of US troops, thinking they haven't contributed, but I think without a doubt they have.

United we win. Divided we lose. And the US media has (intentionally?) divided us. There were many positive advancements that were made for Iraq during this war that was never printed, the US media is smashing hope to grab headlines and try to run this country, and they are not even elected.

I guess the hippies got what they wanted- another Vietnam- what a bunch of losers!!

I wasn't for this Iraq war, but being in it we should have won it.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> We must remember the wise words of I.F. Stone:
> 
> "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out."


Brilliant! Thanks.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Dismantling the institution of a free press, while fighting a war that putatively claims the expansion of such liberties, seems perverse.

Though the slogan is well worn by now, in this eventuality the terrorists would indeed win.



WA said:


> No doubt the enemy reads the US media. In Iraq I think that this war would have been over by now if it wasn't for this US media pushing the war on by trying to stop it. The US media keeps printing the deaths of US troops, thinking they haven't contributed, but I think without a doubt they have.
> 
> United we win. Divided we lose. And the US media has (intentionally?) divided us. There were many positive advancements that were made for Iraq during this war that was never printed, the US media is smashing hope to grab headlines and try to run this country, and they are not even elected.
> 
> ...


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

WA said:


> No doubt the enemy reads the US media. In Iraq I think that this war would have been over by now if it wasn't for this US media pushing the war on by trying to stop it. The US media keeps printing the deaths of US troops, thinking they haven't contributed, but I think without a doubt they have.
> 
> United we win. Divided we lose. And the US media has (intentionally?) divided us. There were many positive advancements that were made for Iraq during this war that was never printed, the US media is smashing hope to grab headlines and try to run this country, and they are not even elected.
> 
> ...


"Hippies"? The "hippies" got what they wanted? Which was another Vietnam? Wonders truly will never cease.

Complaints about knives in the back are generally preceded by a fall on one's face.


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

> The US media keeps printing the deaths of US troops, thinking they haven't contributed, but I think without a doubt they have.


Agreed. If we cut and run then terrorists will have a real victory.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

WA said:


> No doubt the enemy reads the US media. In Iraq I think that this war would have been over by now if it wasn't for this US media pushing the war on by trying to stop it.


All the media has tried to do is get a handle on reality in Iraq while the Administration has tried to apply layer after layer of perfume on the pig. Our problems are a result of terrible policy, not a media perception.

As an aside. If Karl Rove spent 1/2 the time selling Iraq to the Islamic world as he does dividing Americans to maintain power...think of where we'd be!

-spence


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

Why has Rove been divisive? The more divisive comments have come from Howard Dean and Harold Ford Jrs. comments on religion.


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

zegnamtl said:


> I wish I had recorded the interview Rumsfeld gave on the Larry King show athe outbreak of the Iraq situation,
> LK asked DR about the growing media backlash,
> DR replied, they will come around, there are ways to make them see.
> LK asked for clarity, DR forced the conversation in a different direction and LK did not pursue it.
> ...


What a simply ridiculous study...how many of the states listed ahead of the US have state controlled news agencies?


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Artisan Fan said:


> Why has Rove been divisive? The more divisive comments have come from Howard Dean and Harold Ford Jrs. comments on religion.


Yea, RIGHT! 

-spence


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Spence said:


> All the media has tried to do is get a handle on reality in Iraq while the Administration has tried to apply layer after layer of perfume on the pig. Our problems are a result of terrible policy, not a media perception.
> -spence


The media is an unelected party. If you haven't figured that out by now you had better be a youngster for an excuse.

The media has changed the course of history a number of times and it hasn't alway be good. They have mulct the unwary or gullible public, who knows how many times. Sometimes selling newpapers, or however they get money is, to them, best, not to mention a big name.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Lushington said:


> "Hippies"? The "hippies" got what they wanted? Which was another Vietnam? Wonders truly will never cease.


The hippies were not interested in winning the Vietnam war, nor are they interested in winning this one.

Their interest is not to win!!


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

BertieW said:


> Dismantling the institution of a free press, while fighting a war that putatively claims the expansion of such liberties, seems perverse.
> 
> Though the slogan is well worn by now, in this eventuality the terrorists would indeed win.


I never said anything against the "Free Press". When it becomes a political party, then it is no longer a free press.

When they are trying to control peoples minds, and often with silly nonsense and out right lies- how are they helping you make the right decisions for voting. They work hard to try and control your mind, so, how can you be objective if somebody else, or group, is running your mind? By leaveing pertinent knowlege out and manipulating the rest - a lot of people vote a lie. If you go back to Reagan he gave the media a chance, with warning, he gave his speech and the media made up a lie and told that to the people. So, Reagan gave them another chance or two, but the media could not tell the truth. So, Reagan gave his speechs over the radio for the people to hear what he wanted to tell them. There are countless stories of lies the media has done, because they did them. As much as the media lies it is a vice to them.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

How appropriate for Halloween:

Look, as always, people have to sort the rubbish from the truth. Both parties have their media mouthpieces. What is it you'd like the press to do, parrot your views (i.e. "the truth")?

By reading wide and varied sources, most of us can figure out shite from Shinola.



WA said:


> I never said anything against the "Free Press". When it becomes a political party, then it is no longer a free press.
> 
> When they are trying to control peoples minds, and often with silly nonsense and out right lies- how are they helping you make the right decisions for voting. They work hard to try and control your mind, so, how can you be objective if somebody else, or group, is running your mind? By leaveing pertinent knowlege out and manipulating the rest - a lot of people vote a lie. If you go back to Reagan he gave the media a chance, with warning, he gave his speech and the media made up a lie and told that to the people. So, Reagan gave them another chance or two, but the media could not tell the truth. So, Reagan gave his speechs over the radio for the people to hear what he wanted to tell them. There are countless stories of lies the media has done, because they did them. As much as the media lies it is a vice to them.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Artisan Fan said:


> Agreed. If we cut and run then terrorists will have a real victory.


From what I see, in one sense, the terrorists have already won. We took a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 or ongoing terrorism against the US (yes it was ruled by a terrible despot but he was/is non-religious and the Islamic fundamentalist terrorists hated/hate him too) and apparently turned it into a training and recruiting ground for many, many more terrorists.

Regardless of whether or not the war was "right", the arrogance of our Defense Secretary to ignore what the Secretary of State said about the need for overwhelming numbers of troops has also apparently been a major contributor to the problems that are occurring now.

Is it even possible to "win" there as we picture it? McCain apparently wants to bring in many more troops which may help, but can we ever turn this country into the democratic paradise that our fearless/clueless leaders say they want? This in not Italy or Holland at the end of WWII. The people in Iraq have thrown away the little flags we gave them to wave and turned back to their personal issues/hatreds/etc.

This is not to belittle anything our troops in the country are trying to do. These people are giving their all to try to make this a better place but they were sent there on what I and many others consider lies but what at best was clearly flawed intelligence. We are lucky to have a military that does what it is told (instead of doing the telling as in many other places in the world) but we should not waste this dedication on what is going on there now.

By the way, the people I have spoken to who have been there, tell me that what we see on the nightly news is actually tame compared to what actually goes on there. Our troops are trying their best and giving their all but from what I hear, it seems like some sort of crazed Hunter S. Thompson (without the Drugs) rant mixed with science fiction, Catch 22, a bad acid trip, the Spanish Inquisition with modern weapons and converted to radical Islam, Nazi Germany on speed, etc.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

WA said:


> When they are trying to control peoples minds, and often with silly nonsense and out right lies- how are they helping you make the right decisions for voting. They work hard to try and control your mind, so, how can you be objective if somebody else, or group, is running your mind? By leaveing pertinent knowlege out and manipulating the rest - a lot of people vote a lie. If you go back to Reagan he gave the media a chance, with warning, he gave his speech and the media made up a lie and told that to the people. So, Reagan gave them another chance or two, but the media could not tell the truth. So, Reagan gave his speechs over the radio for the people to hear what he wanted to tell them. There are countless stories of lies the media has done, because they did them. As much as the media lies it is a vice to them.


Just curious ... on what information are you basing your opinion that the news media lies? Unless you are directly employed by the White House or a major news organization, etc., all your knowledge is secondhand. Is it not _possible_ that whatever sources you believe are lying and that the mainstream news media are telling the truth? Logically, that possibility _must_ exist, whether you want to admit it or not. Because in essense, you are simply choosing one secondhand source over another secondhand source. It's your right, of course, to believe whatever you want, but wouldn't the sanest choice be to believe the source that employs the most resources and is accountable to shareholders rather than a source that has no real accountability? I think that when assessing which source to believe, you are choosing the one that agrees with your preconceived opinions and dismissing those that disagree with your preconceived opinions as "lies." After all, you likely have no firsthand knowledge of the situations in question -- so you wouldn't really know for sure, would you?


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

WA said:


> The media is an unelected party. If you haven't figured that out by now you had better be a youngster for an excuse.
> 
> The media has changed the course of history a number of times and it hasn't alway be good. They have mulct the unwary or gullible public, who knows how many times. Sometimes selling newpapers, or however they get money is, to them, best, not to mention a big name.


I believe aficionados refer to it as "The Fourth Estate."


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> Just curious ... on what information are you basing your opinion that the news media lies?


crs, just a point...it is very possibly to be 100% truthful in what one presents, yet create in the reader's mind something that is also 100% divergent from reality. What am I basing this on? Years of the occasional interview to local media on healthcare, either on the industry or a happening at my place of employment. Let us just say, the first time I saw what the local news cobbled together, I wondered who the heck that guy that resembled me was, 'cause I sure did not think I conveyed what one would logically take away from the segment!

As to the topic, we all need to acknowledge that the media is a powerful, powerful force. It is un-elected, intrusive, and ubiquitous. It can be powerful yet subtle as in the "feel good" movied from Hollywood during the Clinton reign when it was obvious the very sympathetically portrayed Prez was supposed to be Bill, to blatant propogandizing like many in talk radio. We all need to acknowledge that what the US media has to say is used either in support of or against what any President does around the world.

I am sure the "media" has always had an element of this, it is a logical and useful wing of any political agenda. We just have to judge what any media outlet has to offer like an informed consumer, i.e. research the product and beware of defects. The only problem is, a "recall" is hard to launch in the media, corrections are always on page 52


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

BertieW said:


> Look, as always, people have to sort the rubbish from the truth. Both parties have their media mouthpieces. What is it you'd like the press to do, parrot your views (i.e. "the truth")?


Your right about sorting the rubbish from the truth.

The smarter press tells what people really belive the way those people really belive it. Then, if the press thinks there is a better way to do something, they explains what they think is best. That way there is objectivity. But, instead so much of the press choose to lie, lie, lie. Benjamin Franklin fought for freedom of press- he wasn't fighting for freedom to lie.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

crs- There is a difference in searching for the truth and putting words in peoples mouths.

What do shareholders know? They are easiely conned into giving $20,000,000. plus, other nonsence, to ceo's they fire. The shareholders don't hold the media to account almost ever. Most of them seem not to know what is going on, anyway. Besides, shareholders own shares for the money. All the share holders want is the stock to go up or the dividens to get bigger. Shareholders are not reporters anymore than either know how to weld pipes 200 feet below the surface of water.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Lushington said:


> I believe aficionados refer to it as "The Fourth Estate."


That works.

I wish they were honestly "The Fourth Estate", otherwise it is like a land scam.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

WA said:


> crs- There is a difference in searching for the truth and putting words in peoples mouths.
> 
> What do shareholders know? They are easiely conned into giving $20,000,000. plus, other nonsence, to ceo's they fire. The shareholders don't hold the media to account almost ever. Most of them seem not to know what is going on, anyway. Besides, shareholders own shares for the money. All the share holders want is the stock to go up or the dividens to get bigger. Shareholders are not reporters anymore than either know how to weld pipes 200 feet below the surface of water.


But again, you don't address the fact that your information is secondhand and that you don't know for a fact the media are lying. Why don't you just stop using such harsh, inaccurate words like "lies" and be honest -- simply say you disagree and list your source. Because, WA, when you say the news media are lying, it is you who is telling the lie, basically slandering an entire industry without any hard evidence because it does not represent your biased viewpoint. You have no firsthand knowledge, thus you have no real basis for calling the media liars, you have only your opinion. Have the integrity to disagree without telling untruths about others.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> crs, just a point...it is very possibly to be 100% truthful in what one presents, yet create in the reader's mind something that is also 100% divergent from reality. What am I basing this on? Years of the occasional interview to local media on healthcare, either on the industry or a happening at my place of employment. Let us just say, the first time I saw what the local news cobbled together, I wondered who the heck that guy that resembled me was, 'cause I sure did not think I conveyed what one would logically take away from the segment!


Well, the truth is that some interview subjects are better at conveying their point than others. An experienced interviewer -- and one who has prepared for the interview by researching the subject -- will say when there is possibility of ambiguity or misunderstanding, "Let's clarify, did you mean this or that?" I don't think I've ever seen anyone's words intentionally twisted, but obviously there is huge variance in the skill levels of individual reporters. Let's face it, we do have some at the bottom end who are not all that intelligent or experienced. But it is a stretch to extrapolate dishonesty from mere incompetence.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> Well, the truth is that some interview subjects are better at conveying their point than others. An experienced interviewer -- and one who has prepared for the interview by researching the subject -- will say when there is possibility of ambiguity or misunderstanding, "Let's clarify, did you mean this or that?" I don't think I've ever seen anyone's words intentionally twisted, but obviously there is huge variance in the skill levels of individual reporters. Let's face it, we do have some at the bottom end who are not all that intelligent or experienced. But it is a stretch to extrapolate dishonesty from mere incompetence.


crs, not going down the road of making the quality of work(or lack there of), integrity and ethics (or lack there of), etc. of the media and journalists. Sorry but that road has ruts in it with you and we both end up in the space spot at the end of the road.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

crs said:


> Well, the truth is that some interview subjects are better at conveying their point than others. An experienced interviewer -- and one who has prepared for the interview by researching the subject -- will say when there is possibility of ambiguity or misunderstanding, "Let's clarify, did you mean this or that?" I don't think I've ever seen anyone's words intentionally twisted, but obviously there is huge variance in the skill levels of individual reporters. Let's face it, we do have some at the bottom end who are not all that intelligent or experienced. But it is a stretch to extrapolate dishonesty from mere incompetence.


We already had this discussion before.

Even you said some of the media wrote up totally false speechs, letters of what Reagan and Jerry Falwell said and wrote.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

WA said:


> We already had this discussion before.
> 
> Even you said some of the media wrote up totally false speechs, letters of what Reagan and Jerry Falwell said and wrote.


I have no idea what you refer to. Unless you can find it, I expect you to retract.

Edit: This will be an education for you, WA. See, in journalism, if you do not have the facts, you don't report it. You are not allowed to make crazy, unsubstantiated charges the way you do. We hold ourselves to far higher standards than you do.

So, I am calling your bluff. Show us where I said what you wrote here. Link to it. If you can't, an apology is in order.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> I have no idea what you refer to. Unless you can find it, I expect you to retract.


And put it on page 52 like SOP? :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

crs said:


> Edit: This will be an education for you, WA. *See, in journalism, if you do not have the facts, you don't report it. *You are not allowed to make crazy, unsubstantiated charges the way you do. We hold ourselves to far higher standards than you do.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> And put it on page 52 like SOP? :icon_smile_wink:


We run even minor corrections in a standard spot on A-2. And Wayfarer, you know better than that because yours does, too. So don't give us that BS.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

1. You might consider investing in a calendar. If you do so you will learn that the year is now 2006, not 1948.

2. WA's statement was:

Even you said some of the media wrote up totally false speechs, letters of what Reagan and Jerry Falwell said and wrote.

Logically, posting a well-analyzed and understood factual error by a newspaper does not support a claim that the news media intentionally lied by publishing speeches and letters, purportedly by Ronald Reagan and Jerry Falwell, that they did not actually deliver or write.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

That's not an unsubstantiated charge, it's a mistake. They printed -- more than half a century ago -- what appeared true at press time, just like newspapers did in 2000. The presses have to run at the same time each night. That is something entirely different than WA just making stuff up.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

crs said:


> That's not an unsubstantiated charge, it's a mistake. They printed -- more than half a century ago -- what appeared true at press time, just like newspapers did in 2000. The presses have to run at the same time each night. That is something entirely different than WA just making stuff up.


Just a joke crs.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> 1. You might consider investing in a calendar. If you do so you will learn that the year is now 2006, not 1948.
> 
> 2. WA's statement was:
> 
> ...


It's 2006? Well thank you Jack. Again, it was a joke and I was not responding to WA's statement. I was making a joke about crs's comment. 
btw, I do not think all journalists report "just the facts." Read Ann Coulter or Ted Rall for an example.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Laxplayer said:


> Read Ann Coulter or Ted Rall for an example.


I would consider both to be commentators, not journalists. Neither do any reporting, they just spout. They run on opinion pages, not news pages.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

crs said:


> I would consider both to be commentators, not journalists. Neither do any reporting, they just spout. They run on opinion pages, not news pages.


I agree that they run on op/ed pages, but Coulter was awarded the Conservative Journalist of the Year by the Media Research Center, and Rall the RFK journalism award.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Journalists aren't any more objective than historians, physicians, or judges - and we know that members in the latter groups permit personal feelings to drip into their duties. Human beings are not robots and - for better or worse - there will probably always be bias (both intentional and unintentional). The kinds and severity of bias vary widely...not only source to source, but journalist to journalist - even from minute to minute. This is why it is critical to seek out many different sources (both mainstream and not-so-mainstream) before one even begins to entertain a conclusion about an issue.

That said, I respect those who make efforts to lay aside their prejudices and report events from as balanced a perspective as they can muster.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Laxplayer said:


> I agree that they run on op/ed pages, but Coulter was awarded the Conservative Journalist of the Year by the Media Research Center, and Rall the RFK journalism award.


Rall won the RFK twice, but for editorial cartooning, not reporting. The organization that honored Coulter is not a journalists' organization, but rather conservatives who say they "monitor" the news media.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> We run even minor corrections in a standard spot on A-2. And Wayfarer, you know better than that because yours does, too. So don't give us that BS.


Sorry bud, I keep telling you I never read the Red Star. And lighten up Francis.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

crs said:


> I have no idea what you refer to. Unless you can find it, I expect you to retract.
> 
> Edit: This will be an education for you, WA. See, in journalism, if you do not have the facts, you don't report it. You are not allowed to make crazy, unsubstantiated charges the way you do. We hold ourselves to far higher standards than you do.
> 
> So, I am calling your bluff. Show us where I said what you wrote here. Link to it. If you can't, an apology is in order.


Having gone back and looked; It could have been somebody else. Or, maybe I miss read something you wrote. And then it is pretty easy to edit it out and forget about the editing, or perhapes you deliberately did without telling us. While I can't prove you wrote it, I'm pretty sure you did, unless, as I said before that I misunerstood. And, if you are a man of integrity and you do remember editing, then you will tell us.

Never the less, if anybody goes back and look at the media and then reads Reagans first speech or two, of which I write, and read what the media wrote- there is no question what the media did. Further more, the same with Jerry Falwell and his letters and, of course, many others.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

WA said:


> Having gone back and looked; It could have been somebody else. Or, maybe I miss read something you wrote. And then it is pretty easy to edit it out and forget about the editing, or perhapes you deliberately did without telling us. While I can't prove you wrote it, I'm pretty sure you did, unless, as I said before that I misunerstood. And, if you are a man of integrity and you do remember editing, then you will tell us.
> 
> Never the less, if anybody goes back and look at the media and then reads Reagans first speech or two, of which I write, and read what the media wrote- there is no question what the media did. Further more, the same with Jerry Falwell and his letters and, of course, many others.


Cut out, WA. Be a man about it and admit you were dead wrong. Basically accusing me of editing it is gutless on your part since you can't even produce a post about the topic that shows any signs of an edit. I called you on your BS and now you don't have the integrity to be honest. You coward.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Alright crs it wasn't you that admitted to media scandals of the 70's and 80's, and clearly still going on. 

The ones that have been edited do show they have been edited, at least mine do, didn't spend much time checking others. But they don't show the ones that have been deleted.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

WA, you can criticize the news media all you want. But now we both know you lack the spine to be one of us. If you pulled this kind of crap in a newsroom, you'd be ostracized by your peers and eventually fired. You make wild accusations without an iota of proof to back it up, and then you whine and cower and try to point fingers elsewhere when you're called on it. That just doesn't wash in my line of work. You couldn't cut it in my business, and now you know it. The people you criticize are better men than you'll ever be. People like you make me want to vomit.


----------



## indylion (Feb 28, 2005)

*hippies not interested?*



WA said:


> The hippies were not interested in winning the Vietnam war, nor are they interested in winning this one.
> 
> Their interest is not to win!!


And Bush , Chaney, and Rumsfeld were trying to win the Vietnam war?
Were they ever in "harms way"? Were they ever at risk back then or even now?


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

indylion said:


> And Bush , Chaney, and Rumsfeld were trying to win the Vietnam war?
> Were they ever in "harms way"? Where they ever at risk back then or even now?


Was Chaney ever a hippie? Not even sure Rumsfeld was, either.

Most of the people I see protesting the war are hippies. Of course they are not the only one prostesting the war, there are other groups, too.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

WA said:


> No doubt the enemy reads the US media. In Iraq I think that this war would have been over by now if it wasn't for this US media pushing the war on by trying to stop it. The US media keeps printing the deaths of US troops, thinking they haven't contributed, but I think without a doubt they have.
> 
> United we win. Divided we lose. And the US media has (intentionally?) divided us. There were many positive advancements that were made for Iraq during this war that was never printed, the US media is smashing hope to grab headlines and try to run this country, and they are not even elected.
> 
> ...


Ha!

You don't get out much, do you?


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

JLPWCXIII said:


> Ha!
> 
> You don't get out much, do you?


Explain what you mean. Because I think I explained it right. Not saying other irons are in the fire, because there are many other irons in the fire. Some are just more powerful than others.

Not sure I've seen that picture you showed, but others like it. How the world changes. It reminds me of Roosevelt and Stalin pictures. Together on one thing and enemies elsewhere.


----------

