The War
Floppy Death! noES!!!
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 21,218
Likes: 0
From: Scranton, PA
Originally posted by Slow-N-Low
I feel fine, thanks.
I feel fine, thanks.
Ok... so the media has been known to exagerate to make it more news worthy.... ok so who WOULD you believe?
Does the president himself have to come to your house and tell it to you? Even if they did prove it on the evening news... would you believe it? Or would you rather they work it into the story line of next weeks Smallville episode? What would be more believable?
I'm not disagreeing that the media likes to toot it's own horn.... but what high and mighty source would you believe if you believe nothing from any media network?
Does the president himself have to come to your house and tell it to you? Even if they did prove it on the evening news... would you believe it? Or would you rather they work it into the story line of next weeks Smallville episode? What would be more believable?
I'm not disagreeing that the media likes to toot it's own horn.... but what high and mighty source would you believe if you believe nothing from any media network?
What's that smell?
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
I already answered you. I believe evidence. I don't blindly follow X, Y or Z. I don't think you understand--I don't care how grandiose the lie becomes, I don't believe lies or liars. The truth can be proved, lies can't.
In reference to the topic, misdirection like what clickwir has been doing in this thread is exactly what I was talking about when I said that Bush picked Iraq to distract us with. The issue still remains that Bush, and his apologists, still have no justification for what they're doing.
In reference to the topic, misdirection like what clickwir has been doing in this thread is exactly what I was talking about when I said that Bush picked Iraq to distract us with. The issue still remains that Bush, and his apologists, still have no justification for what they're doing.
Floppy Death! noES!!!
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 21,218
Likes: 0
From: Scranton, PA
I hear what your saying... but I don't think I am understanding. Who would you accept the truth from? CNN? Suppose for a min that CNN had a 100% truthful story.... would you believe it? Who would you believe if they had proof?
No, they have no justification if you don't believe what anyone tells you. I, for one, have been told the reasons and the justifications and believe it. Maybe it's by the media but who else is there to believe?
No, they have no justification if you don't believe what anyone tells you. I, for one, have been told the reasons and the justifications and believe it. Maybe it's by the media but who else is there to believe?
Sinner
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 6,599
Likes: 0
From: NoVA
Re: The War
Originally posted by maffiososs
Hi guys..
(I know this **** isn't about honda/acura..)
Whats your opinion about the war against Iraq. My opinion is that Saddam have to be killed, by Bush, or by someone else..So why use all this armies, and all this weapons to kill one human. Just send a Serialkiller and kill that mothafu'a
Cuz if all that armies will attack on Iraq, there will be children and mothers killed..
Write your opinions
Hi guys..
(I know this **** isn't about honda/acura..)
Whats your opinion about the war against Iraq. My opinion is that Saddam have to be killed, by Bush, or by someone else..So why use all this armies, and all this weapons to kill one human. Just send a Serialkiller and kill that mothafu'a
Cuz if all that armies will attack on Iraq, there will be children and mothers killed..
Write your opinions
Sinner
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 6,599
Likes: 0
From: NoVA
Originally posted by Slow-N-Low
I think it's ironic that people who never even thought about Saddam a year ago suddenly think it's more important than life itself to get him. You've been duped by the old "look, behind you!" trick.
I always thought that good people had morals, and they stood by them. Terrorists are the ones who use violence to get their way. Guess who fits the definition of terrorist in this case?
After 9/11, the mandate was to go after Al Qaeda, not Saddam. Some people have been using sweeping generalizations in making excuses why Saddam should be included. The problem is that those sweeping generalizations say that we should be attacking half the world. If we are really and truly going after real threats, why are we not going after N. Korea, or Pakistan for that matter? Please, don't bother saying "but Pakistan is cooperating with us..."! I know a double standard when I see one.
Saddam is an easy target. Iraq has been under siege for a dozen years, and is an "easy kill" as a result. I think that Bush picked a weak country to attack for his own glory. But weak countries are not what threatens us.
Let's not forget that the reason why Al Qaeda chose the WTC to attack on 9/11 was to bring financial ruin to the USA. Al Qaeda failed to do that, but Bush is picking up right where Al Qaeda left off. The US is already broke; we can't afford this war. So those of you who are cheering for this war are really cheering for Al Qaeda to win. Way to go, guys.
I think it's ironic that people who never even thought about Saddam a year ago suddenly think it's more important than life itself to get him. You've been duped by the old "look, behind you!" trick.
I always thought that good people had morals, and they stood by them. Terrorists are the ones who use violence to get their way. Guess who fits the definition of terrorist in this case?
After 9/11, the mandate was to go after Al Qaeda, not Saddam. Some people have been using sweeping generalizations in making excuses why Saddam should be included. The problem is that those sweeping generalizations say that we should be attacking half the world. If we are really and truly going after real threats, why are we not going after N. Korea, or Pakistan for that matter? Please, don't bother saying "but Pakistan is cooperating with us..."! I know a double standard when I see one.
Saddam is an easy target. Iraq has been under siege for a dozen years, and is an "easy kill" as a result. I think that Bush picked a weak country to attack for his own glory. But weak countries are not what threatens us.
Let's not forget that the reason why Al Qaeda chose the WTC to attack on 9/11 was to bring financial ruin to the USA. Al Qaeda failed to do that, but Bush is picking up right where Al Qaeda left off. The US is already broke; we can't afford this war. So those of you who are cheering for this war are really cheering for Al Qaeda to win. Way to go, guys.
here we go again.
Sinner
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 6,599
Likes: 0
From: NoVA
Originally posted by Slow-N-Low
Just because someone said it on TV doesn't make it true. No, I'm not some slack-jawed yokel who blindly accepts everything that's fed to me. I can and do think critically. I demand proof. When there is no proof, I say "BS".
Just because someone said it on TV doesn't make it true. No, I'm not some slack-jawed yokel who blindly accepts everything that's fed to me. I can and do think critically. I demand proof. When there is no proof, I say "BS".
i'm a firm believer in "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"