Poll

Do you think that US Soldiers like killing people, seriously?

Yes29%29% - 102
No51%51% - 179
I don't know11%11% - 39
Do not wish to comment8%8% - 28
Total: 348
spastic bullet
would like to know if you are on crack
+77|6797|vancouver

CameronPoe wrote:

Spastic Bullet - I don't think anyone who is still possessed of their senses could ever describe the odious neo-con voicepiece 'FOX News' as unbiased. Scary channel. It is THE US-Israel-Big Money propaganda machine. I trust Horseman knows that it is biased too.

PS I'm not trying to say there are not equally biased liberal news channels.
I think bias tends to be in the eye of the beholder.  But I guess whether someone else is "still possessed of their senses" is as well!  It comes down to whether you take in a wide enough frame of reference to exercise reasonable judgement.  If all you watch (or read) is FOX, how are you even going to know they're to the right of basically everybody else?

My guess is that most FOX News viewers know it has a tilt, but believe the tilt is "necessary" to offset what FOX News calls the "liberal media".  From an outsider perspective, it's a vicious circle of sorts, but a reasonably sound and innovative strategy nonetheless, on the part of FOX News.  They're basically locking down the loyalty of their audience by painting themselves as the sole arbiter of fairness and balance.  Ironic, but who even knows what that means anyway?  Thanks, Alanis!

By never failing to mention the "liberal media", you can gradually create a widespread impression that such a thing "indisputably" exists.  If enough people believe it, you've succeeded in moving the debate further right with nothing more than simple repetition, because most people don't want to be too far from the "middle" of any debate.

Not only that, but it has become self-perpetuating.  The phrase "liberal media" shows up in posts here almost as often as "Bush" or "Iraq", generally accompanied by an assertion of the "fact" of its "indisputable" existence.  Occasionally, someone might present an instance of journalistic negligence as "proof" (like Dan's Rather enjoyable brush with justice), but that's about it.  It's mostly re-repetition and forceful assertion.

I don't doubt there are "liberal" journalists working in the media, and maybe even a lot of them, but it's never explained why their bosses can't rein them in or, if "they're all liberals too", why the owners can't fire them for bias.  Are we supposed to believe owners of multinational media concerns generally tilt left, relative to the general population?  Give me a fucking break.

Whether any "equally biased liberal news channels" actually exist is a matter of perspective, but if you accept the implicit assumptions of the question, it will mostly come down to where you perceive the middle to be.  Some Americans seem to think they get in their car every day and drive right down "the middle of the road" and it all works out okay, so who knows? 
spastic bullet
would like to know if you are on crack
+77|6797|vancouver

kr@cker wrote:

spastic bullet wrote:

Lastly, if "all their critics and competition are to their left" but "they are in the middle of the road", that's a lot of road just going to waste.
pretty much
LOL.  Why does FOX have no critics to their right?
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6805|Southeastern USA
FOX catches hell from those that seem to think it needs to be a mouthpiece of conservatism  and they catch hell from the more conservative extremes for not being more aggressive when going after libs, this due to their trying to keep some semblance of balance, Bill O'Reilly, Geraldo, Brit Hume and others all receive regular critiscisms from those further to the right, and the domain of talk radio pretty much balances out the spectrum in concern to CNN and such, if you want to see what CNN does when it's not concerned with trying to pass itself off as a legitimate news source, watch a CNN International newscast

Last edited by kr@cker (2006-06-17 21:53:33)

TrollmeaT
Aspiring Objectivist
+492|6928|Colorado
I don't think they like killing people, who in their right mind would want to kill someone.
I'm glad they protect my freedoms even if my goals aren't being projected to the world.
Thanks armed forces.
spastic bullet
would like to know if you are on crack
+77|6797|vancouver

kr@cker wrote:

FOX catches hell from those that seem to think it needs to be a mouthpiece of conservatism  and they catch hell from the more conservative extremes for not being more aggressive when going after libs, this due to their trying to keep some semblance of balance, Bill O'Reilly, Geraldo, Brit Hume and others all receive regular critiscisms from those further to the right, and the domain of talk radio pretty much balances out the spectrum in concern to CNN and such, if you want to see what CNN does when it's not concerned with trying to pass itself off as a legitimate news source, watch a CNN International newscast
Why would CNN only concern itself with trying to pass itself off as legitimate inside the US?  Are Americans super-discerning in a way that mere foreigners aren't?  Or does CNN just not care if non-Americans think it's biased?

Either way, I've seen both vanilla and International and I still think CNN is a mouthpiece for a very narrow range of essentially establishment-friendly views.  They'd have a much harder time of attracting advertisers otherwise, and that's the bottom line.  Literally.

Btw, those attacks on FOX "from the right" sound more like tactical disputes to me, but okay, sure... they're the Switzerland of the American political environment... 
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6785|Global Command

spastic bullet wrote:

Why would CNN only concern itself with trying to pass itself off as legitimate inside the US?  Are Americans super-discerning in a way that mere foreigners aren't?  Or does CNN just not care if non-Americans think it's biased?
Because their extreme anti-American bias would not be as welcomed here as it is overseas.

spastic bullet wrote:

Either way, I've seen both vanilla and International and I still think CNN is a mouthpiece for a very narrow range of essentially establishment-friendly views.  They'd have a much harder time of attracting advertisers otherwise, and that's the bottom line.  Literally.
The only establishment they seem friendly to is the DNC. Ted Turner is a avowed communist.

spastic bullet wrote:

Btw, those attacks on FOX "from the right" sound more like tactical disputes to me, but okay, sure... they're the Switzerland of the American political environment... 
Not quite. Fox does try and take a stand.
spastic bullet
would like to know if you are on crack
+77|6797|vancouver
Anti-American?  Isn't CNN American-owned and -operated?  I don't get it.  I live in Canada and I've never met any "anti-Americans".  Or "anti-Canadians", for that matter.

If Ted Turner is an avowed communist, you'll have no difficulty pointing me to a reference for that.  If not, I'll have no difficulty pointing you to the dictionary definition of "avowed".  And "communist".

Fox tries "to take a stand"?  What does that mean exactly, Alexanderthetroll?  I mean grape...
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6785|Global Command
http://newsbusters.org/node/5003 I'm sure this will not make you happy because it's from ( gasp) right wing blog.
Fox tries not to endlessly spew domocrat talking points masked as news.
Hers some other info on commie teddy;
http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2002/cyb … _extra.asp
http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=17063
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6817
The only one of those that mentions Communism is the first one, which is suspect at best.  And besides, suicide bombers are a whole lot braver than the IDF.
spastic bullet
would like to know if you are on crack
+77|6797|vancouver

Alexanderthegrape wrote:

Ted Turner is a avowed communist.

spastic bullet wrote:

If Ted Turner is an avowed communist, you'll have no difficulty pointing me to a reference for that.  If not, I'll have no difficulty pointing you to the dictionary definition of "avowed".
Enjoy.
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6805|Southeastern USA
there's stuff all over the place linking ted to communism, especially on the environmentalist front, I was looking for something else when i found this piece with a short synopsis of Ted/CNN/Castro relations, not much but you'll remember it better if you find it

http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/ … 9308.shtml


ha! i actually got a (nameless of course) neg for linking an admitted conservative writer, as opposed to some ap hippy that tries to pass itself off as impartial, does it make it any less true that CNN's peter arnett went on Iraqui state TV promoting US defeat? any less true that CNN funded the production of "Live from Baghdad", a movie praised by Hussein sympathizers?

Last edited by kr@cker (2006-06-18 09:05:44)

Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7093

CameronPoe wrote:

Spastic Bullet - I don't think anyone who is still possessed of their senses could ever describe the odious neo-con voicepiece 'FOX News' as unbiased. Scary channel. It is THE US-Israel-Big Money propaganda machine. I trust Horseman knows that it is biased too.

PS I'm not trying to say there are not equally biased liberal news channels.
You kinda missed the question. still waiting for that ( other ) Right Wing Channel or News Organization other than Fox. Ps Fox is Scary ?  lol.
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6811

Horseman 77 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Spastic Bullet - I don't think anyone who is still possessed of their senses could ever describe the odious neo-con voicepiece 'FOX News' as unbiased. Scary channel. It is THE US-Israel-Big Money propaganda machine. I trust Horseman knows that it is biased too.

PS I'm not trying to say there are not equally biased liberal news channels.
You kinda missed the question. still waiting for that ( other ) Right Wing Channel or News Organization other than Fox. Ps Fox is Scary ?  lol.
I'm sure it probably is the only right wing channel. I wasn't really concerned with the original question. There is plenty of right wing propaganda in print though - although printed media probably isn't as popular as the TV variety.

It's funny someone mentioned CNN International vs CNN USA. I found it funny that people deplored CNN as a propaganda station much like FOX because I never saw any evidence of it - UNTIL I SAW THE US VERSION!!! There is a huge marked difference between what CNN broadcasts internationally and what it broadcasts in the US. If it broadcast the US version here it would have zero credibility. FOX news has zero credibility here already because it didn't soften itself for the international market and the bias is there for all to see.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-06-18 12:39:14)

rootbeer73
Member
+24|6841|in a small dark place
no one rememeber the us governnmment supporting Afganastan in its fight agaisnt  the Soviets.Now you bomb it?
US is money hungary, oil hungary and power hungry.
US supported t he bin laden family for years   :......
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7093

CameronPoe wrote:

. FOX news has zero credibility here already because it didn't soften itself for the international market and the bias is there for all to see.
So, You like your news.....soft ?

add " Team America " Song Here.
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6811

Horseman 77 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

. FOX news has zero credibility here already because it didn't soften itself for the international market and the bias is there for all to see.
So, You like your news.....soft ?

add " Team America " Song Here.
Not so much soft - I mean it is hardline right-wing whereas US version of CNN is hardline-liberal. CNN were obviously ashamed to broadcast their stuff in Europe so they made it more middle ground, less editorial, just concentrate on the facts. FOX remain unashamedly neo-conservative and 'the US is coming to take over the world and you better get used to it'-tastic.

PS where exactly did this term 'liberal' spring from? Both parties in the US are right wing, each more right wing than most european right wing parties. The way the term gets used in this forum you'd think the democrats were communists or something!?!

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-06-18 16:57:54)

Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7093
I was just funnin you !
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7097|Cologne, Germany

Do I think that US soldiers like killing people ? no, not more so than any other person who joins the armed forces ( of any nation ) and certainly not in a psychological sense. This would imply that every single US soldiers has serious mental health problems, and I don't think that's the case.

Killing is part of the job as a soldier, and one a more basic level I think it's only natural to chose your own life over someone else's in a life or death situation, wether you are a soldier or not.
Collateral damage happens, and as long as armed soldiers don't shoot deliberately at unarmed civilians, and every use of lethal force occurs within the boundaries of SOP/ RoE, I have no problems with it personally.

Two additional issues, off-topic, but in response to some arguments made in this thread.

1.) I think it is possible to support the troops and still openly criticize the reasons behind their presence in the area after all. I think most americans wish the men and women serving in Iraq no harm, mostly because they are also wifes and husbands, sons and daughters, mums and dads, brothers and sisters, you get the idea.
You don't have to be for the war in Iraq to be allowed to support the troops. I think the two issues co-exist.

2.) Certainly, the US troops are not fighting for freedom in general in Iraq. Maybe for the Iraqi's freedom but only on a limited scale. I am not more free now than I was before the war in Iraq began and I think the same is true for americans. Some will even argue that the overall security situation has worsened since the war began.
Armed Forces do what they have always done. They fight for their country's interests. Sometimes those are more accessible, as in world conflicts, or in cases of obvious self defense, when the fate / suvival of the nation is on the line. In other cases, the motivations behind military actions are not as easily understood and some even turn out to be questionable. History has shown that the public is often lied to about the true motivations for war, and it has also shown that governments - even democratically elected ones - may go to war for reasons that later turn out to be BS. This is especially true in those cases where members of the government also happen to serve in high-profile positions of companies that profit from the war.

The truth - if such a thing exists these days - most likely is somewhere in between. Every nation is free to define its own national interests and the means to protect those, and different nations have different capabilities in that regard.
History will be the judge, and I can only hope that the outcome will prove worthy of all the hardship and death we see today.
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7093

B.Schuss wrote:

Some will even argue that the overall security situation has worsened since the war began. .
Has there ever been a time when citizens of any country felt safer while its country ( was ) at war?

I feel safer in NYC than anytime since between 93 and  9-11.

I also know the vast majority of Iraqis feel more free and safer than they did under sadam.

A lot of people hang their every hope on some tragedy that may befall us yet,
I dont have the time for it. Life is to short. Plus Free Iraq seems to be winning despite all.
I think we might have to find something else to argue about very soon.

May I suggest 9mm vs the .45ACP or 30.06 Vs .270

I would like to be first to go on record as saying the 9mm sux

Last edited by Horseman 77 (2006-06-30 13:53:39)

kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6805|Southeastern USA
though beretta makes a fine piece, overall I don't care for nines, not enough stopping power, I don't wanna screw around in a pistol shootout, now glocks? glocks suck, whether you're talking 9mm,10mm, .38, .40, .45
well maybe suck is harsh, they just don't deserve the notoriety that they've gained, I admit they are state of the art stupid...anyone can grab a glock and pop a few with some competence, this is also the very reason I don't care for them in that their tolerances (manufacturing wise) are just too wide, pick one up and shake one, you'll see why they produce such ridiculous spreads, my dad's match shooting pistol, a Colt Gold Cup MK.IV .45, now that's a precision instrument

for rifles, I am torn between Ruger's .270, and my Browning .308, the Rug's great for short and medium distances, but most of the .270's no matter who makes them or their bore length, tend to lose stability over the longer distances, the .308 just seems to be more consistent over any range, though that could be just that the Browning is one badass rifle, bottom-fed 5 round mag, lever action, and a raised cheek-rest on the stock, I don't even have to pull my eyes off the scope's sight-line to chamber the next round, which I rarely need since that bastard rarely misses
JG1567JG
Member
+110|6844|United States of America
Hey kid grow up. I made a post on here about 15 days ago telling the guy that started the thread Thanks for serving our great country. 

I just got negative Karma by some troll that said "your country is not great and your face disgusts me pig dog." This dumb shit has never seen my face I garantee it. I guess he probably lives in some country that opresses its people or in some dictatorship somewhere.

So I will say it again to "Recon" and anybody else that is serving or has served
Thanks for serving our Great Country
If im gonna get -karma for saying thanks then bring on the negative

Last edited by JG1567JG (2006-07-01 01:03:04)

oug
Calmer than you are.
+380|6775|Πάϊ
2ndLt.Tucker: Does not the US army bear VX nerve gas along with all kinds of biological weapons and nukes?

How does that NOT violate UN sanctions on weapons? Or is it just saddam who is not allowed to possess them according to the UN?

Soldiers such as yourself always say that us civilians dont know what its like to go to war and what you are fighting for. More likely it is you who do not understand the latter. For if you did then clearly you would not be there dying over oil and stupid game sof world domination played by your government. Is t really so hard to see that you are being manipulated beacause of your love for your country? I pity the poor people in the US who have to join the army so they can live their families. But that's just your government's fault.

By the way, no WMDs found in Iraq, sorry...
Hey maybe the Iranians have some, why don't you go check?
ƒ³
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7093
Schools out it seems ! Sucker. lol
JG1567JG
Member
+110|6844|United States of America

oug wrote:

2ndLt.Tucker: Does not the US army bear VX nerve gas along with all kinds of biological weapons and nukes?

How does that NOT violate UN sanctions on weapons? Or is it just saddam who is not allowed to possess them according to the UN?

Soldiers such as yourself always say that us civilians dont know what its like to go to war and what you are fighting for. More likely it is you who do not understand the latter. For if you did then clearly you would not be there dying over oil and stupid game sof world domination played by your government. Is t really so hard to see that you are being manipulated beacause of your love for your country? I pity the poor people in the US who have to join the army so they can live their families. But that's just your government's fault.

By the way, no WMDs found in Iraq, sorry...
Hey maybe the Iranians have some, why don't you go check?
VX nerve gass is stockpiled in Newport, Indiana and is in the process of being destroyed.  The U.S. government does nto make VX anymore and in about the next 5--10 years all Stockpiles of VX in the U.S. will no longer exist. 

I live in Indiana and this has been all over the Indiananapolis Star newspaper.
Tjasso
the "Commander"
+102|6779|the Netherlands
i dont know

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard