Fox "News"

Political Discussion: You've been warned! Please remember we are all friends here. Insults will not be tolerated!
andrewgd
Liberty High Graduate
Posts: 676
Joined: Sep 11th 2002, 9:49 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Fox "News"

Post by andrewgd » Apr 16th 2003, 5:03 am

Maybe not political, per se, but it seems to go here.

I can't stand it. I've got to get my Fox "News" rant out. Y'know, its bad enough Fox "News'" streetside news scroll taunted and made fun of protesters in NYC, but yesterday I was watching ORielly for the spectacle of it. I knew it was a mistake, but...I come to find out that Fox "News", according to ORielly, is spearheading the effort to boycott all these entertainers who are speaking out against the war.

WTF?

This is a NEWS station leading a boycott? When did this start? And this is supposed to be the "No Spin Zone", "Fair and Balanced", "We Report, You Decide"? Since WHEN is leading a boycott against people for speaking out against war being fair and balanced?? How is villifying people just because they speak out against the government? Haven't we learned from McCarthy? The way ORielly puts it, it sounds like the Dixie Chicks were saddling up right besides Saddam and firing chemical weapons at our troops.

What makes it even worse, is these people at Fox "News" is where the largest percentage of Americans are getting their news. It totally disgusts me. I seriously fear for our country when it is being led around by such incompetance.

Please excuse spelling errors, I've stayed up way to late to try and correct my spelling.
"Your imagination, like a child, will explode with unrestrained possibilities for adventure."

User avatar
Sascha (sab)
MSCL.com Team
MSCL.com Team
Posts: 1546
Joined: Jun 10th 1999, 5:20 pm
Location: Switzerland
Contact:

Re: Fox "News"

Post by Sascha (sab) » Apr 16th 2003, 7:25 am

andrewgd wrote: What makes it even worse, is these people at Fox "News" is where the largest percentage of Americans are getting their news. It totally disgusts me. I seriously fear for our country when it is being led around by such incompetance.
And it gets broadcasted all over the world - e.g. here in Europe. I watch Fox News from time to time and I always shake my head in disbelief - hoping that this channel doesn't represent the opinion/attitude of the entire US population. Looks for me like a war propaganda channel which is only interested in good ratings. But it's really hard these days to find a neutral TV news source. War sells. As far as I can tell, the german public TV stations did a good job during the war. While they also didn't do anything more than showing those handful pictures from the Iraq over and over, they emphasised repeatedly that all news sources (be it US or Iraqi) could be biased or propaganda material and only show a small part of the truth.

User avatar
Bubba
Overlooked Sibling
Posts: 46
Joined: Dec 3rd 2002, 2:45 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Post by Bubba » Apr 16th 2003, 8:01 am

Two things: First, CNN is at least as liberal as Fox News is conservative, and they've admitted this week to turning a blind eye to Saddam's regime of torture and death just to keep their office in Bagdad. Are they more trustworthy? I don't think so.


Since WHEN is leading a boycott against people for speaking out against war being fair and balanced?? How is villifying people just because they speak out against the government? Haven't we learned from McCarthy?

Since when is a boycott -- even one organized by a privately owned media organization -- tantamount to McCarthyism? I was under the impression that, like censorship, McCarthyism requires government involvement.

The boycott is a legal tactic in this country: it is the organized use of individual economic freedoms to make a political point. If a company is too eco-unfriendly, you boycott it. If a company is buying advertising for a morally objectionable television show, you boycott it. And if a celebrity is trying to use his status of fame to make political points you strongly disagree with, you boycott him.

What's wrong with that?
Truth. Beauty. Freedom. And above all things... Love.

User avatar
mglenn
MSCL.com Team
MSCL.com Team
Posts: 552
Joined: May 25th 1999, 4:46 pm
Location: Butler, PA ( AKA: Three Rivers, PA )
Contact:

Post by mglenn » Apr 16th 2003, 10:19 am

First off O'reilly is a Political Commentator, that means he looks and the news and gives you his commentation on it. Its not the same thing as Britt Hume or Wolf Blitzer.

Glenn Beck, Rush, Jim Quinn, Michael Savage

These are all political Commentators who are right wing conservatives. Their opinions are going to come from that direction. If you want it from the other direction Try Randi Rhodes

But alas its not the news its commentary on the events of the day that made the news.
"When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit." - Ayn Rand

User avatar
fnordboy
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1954
Joined: Sep 25th 2002, 10:29 am
Location: Exit 16E, NJ
Contact:

Post by fnordboy » Apr 16th 2003, 10:46 am

mglenn wrote:These are all political Commentators who are right wing conservatives. Their opinions are going to come from that direction. If you want it from the other direction Try Randi Rhodes
I preferred him when he was the guitarist for Ozzy.... ;)

Seriously though, Mglenn is correct that these are commentators, who put forth their own opinions of the news as they see it.

Problem is that people turn these things on and take everything they say as fact since they are on a "news channel".

User avatar
fnordboy
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1954
Joined: Sep 25th 2002, 10:29 am
Location: Exit 16E, NJ
Contact:

Re: Fox "News"

Post by fnordboy » Apr 16th 2003, 10:49 am

sab wrote:I watch Fox News from time to time and I always shake my head in disbelief - hoping that this channel doesn't represent the opinion/attitude of the entire US population.
Only the white upper middle class an above ;)

User avatar
mglenn
MSCL.com Team
MSCL.com Team
Posts: 552
Joined: May 25th 1999, 4:46 pm
Location: Butler, PA ( AKA: Three Rivers, PA )
Contact:

Post by mglenn » Apr 16th 2003, 11:02 am

Problem is that people turn these things on and take everything they say as fact since they are on a "news channel".
I made this point in the Pledge discussion. Being ignorant is not an excuse to attempt change the way the world works!
"When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit." - Ayn Rand

User avatar
lance
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1983
Joined: Jul 6th 2002, 4:47 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Contact:

stuff

Post by lance » Apr 16th 2003, 11:45 am

Let's Get Ready to Rumble!

(just kidding).

Andrewgd and Sab

I share your deep felt exasperation of the Fox News Channel. Mostly these days I don't pay attention to it. Most of the people who want to know, know that the network is owned by Rupert Murdoch a notorious right winger if their every was one. I also think that even Fox knows that it has a certain tilt. I do think that Fox does represent a significant chunk of the American electorate and not just upper middle class white people. I think they do represent some of the white, blue collar, working class as well.

How many times has the Simpsons lampooned the Fox network on their show?

As to Bill O'Reilly I don't agree with him on just about everthing. However, he did do something extremely mensch like which did not make the national press. He took on members of the Conservative Christian Fundamentalist wing of the Republican Party on air over the issue of Gay adoption. He said that he sees nothing wrong with Gay and Lesbian couples adopting children. He further stated that he would rather see children in a caring, financially supportive home headed by a Gay couple than have children stuck in foster care.

For that I say good show Bill O'Reilly :D

Bubba wrote:
"Two things: First, CNN is at least as liberal as Fox News is conservative, and they've admitted this week to turning a blind eye to Saddam's regime of torture and death just to keep their office in Bagdad. Are they more trustworthy? I don't think so."
Does CNN have a bias absolutely? Absolutely! However, what you negleted to mention was the reason CNN gave for their glaring omissions. A spokesman for CNN was quoted on NPR's All Things Considered last week saying that they could not run certain stories at the time because those stories would expose their sources to bodily harm by members of the Saddam regime.

Best,

Lance Man


[/quote]

andrewgd
Liberty High Graduate
Posts: 676
Joined: Sep 11th 2002, 9:49 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Post by andrewgd » Apr 16th 2003, 12:53 pm

Bubba wrote:What's wrong with that?
Absolutely nothing. I'm all for boycotting something you don't like/agree with. My problem is that this seems to be led by a station that passes itself off as a news channel. Aren't they supposed to just report what is happening, and not act upon it to change events to how they see fit? Do we see Tom Brokaw trying to lead our country against people he doesn't agree with?
mglenn wrote:First off O'reilly is a Political Commentator, that means he looks and the news and gives you his commentation on it.
Ok, since I've never been able to sit through his entire show, is it prefaced with this fact? Is there a big "Commentary" flag that goes up at the beginning? Actually, I think I've seen one where there was a section specifically entitled 'Commentary'; which leads one to believe that the rest wasn't.
"Your imagination, like a child, will explode with unrestrained possibilities for adventure."

User avatar
mglenn
MSCL.com Team
MSCL.com Team
Posts: 552
Joined: May 25th 1999, 4:46 pm
Location: Butler, PA ( AKA: Three Rivers, PA )
Contact:

Post by mglenn » Apr 16th 2003, 1:10 pm

I'm not an O'reilly expert. ( I listen to Glenn Beck and Jim Quinn on the radio mostly.) But I do believe that O'reilly opens his show with "Talking Points" where he reviews the news and gives his take on it. Once again we are all reasonably inteligent individuals and we seem to understand that these things are his opinions. Why is it that we can make this distinction but the vast majority is being brainwashed by it?

Is there bias in the news media? Sure. Not arguing that. Is CNN leftist and Fox baised toward the right? Sure. Between the to are we getting the news? I think so.

Is discussing the news media going to make the world a better place? Not really! What I believe is the issue that worries the left is that more and more people are tuning in to Fox for the news because they agree with their views and editorals of the news.
"When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit." - Ayn Rand

User avatar
GaryEA
So-Called Addict
Posts: 773
Joined: Oct 30th 2002, 6:45 pm
Location: Exit 15W, NJ
Contact:

Post by GaryEA » Apr 16th 2003, 9:50 pm

Speaking from a sort of leftish side of all of this, I look at it like this;

While all major news outlets, from cable to local affiliates, have adopted various degrees of it to ramp up their delivery of the facts, Fox News is, by far, the master of sensationalism.

Are they spearheading anything? I could care less. If people want to believe they are, all I can think of, oddly enough, is Obi-Wan Kenobi...

"Who's the more foolish? The fool or the fool that follows him?"

Yeah, it's a line from a movie, but DAMN it makes sense.

Besides, a celeb news commentator trying to get people to boycott celeb protestors is a surreal and ridiculous idea, much like Lou Dobbs' public decision to replace the term "terrorist" with "Islamic Extremist".

Who are they trying to kid? O'Reilly can talk all he wants, strut his stuff, and languish in his popularity, but much like the popularity of Rush during the 90's, it's all talk, with little substance. To me, at least.

Dobbs' decision to be more particular, more decisive, in his wording, a move that got him an interview on MSNBC ("Oh, how clever", I thought to myself, sarcastically), did little. It didn't make him better at dispensing the news, or in offering a clearer picture. Many still use the former term,mostly because it goes to the heart of the matter. After 9/11, we've become freaking terrified of being destroyed on our own soil.

Truth be told, I watch CNN. Fox News is not my cup of tea, and MSNBC, a station I watched years ago, completely fell out of my favor when they ran a countdown clock while Saddam's chances to reconcile at the 11th hour slipped by. THAT was purely unnecessary, and shoddy in an editorial standpoint. Counting down to war (read: death) should not resemble midnight on New Year's in New York.

On a whole, NONE of the news outlets are the ideal, mostly because they're specifically geared towards one side or another. Tell the news, let the masses decide. Instead, the news is tailored and then we get to decide from there.

To me, it's the one pure downside to politics; the truth is always diluted by the ideal, when it should be the other way around.

Gary

User avatar
Sammi
Substitute Teacher
Posts: 189
Joined: Sep 28th 2002, 8:57 pm
Location: Sometimes Texas, Sometimes Iowa

Re: Fox "News"

Post by Sammi » Apr 16th 2003, 11:16 pm

fnordboy wrote:
sab wrote:I watch Fox News from time to time and I always shake my head in disbelief - hoping that this channel doesn't represent the opinion/attitude of the entire US population.
Only the white upper middle class an above ;)
I wouldn't say that this is completely true. I primarily watch Fox News (No I don't believe everything they tell me nor do most Americans) and I am a poor white college student, who is a moderate Republican at the most. I sometimes watch CNN, but I decide on which channel to watch based on what story on each channel is the most interesting. (Before the war I primarily watched CNN and probably will start watching CNN mostly when the war has died down). So I guess my message in short is for everyone not to claim devotion to one channel or another, but take it segment by segment.

User avatar
mglenn
MSCL.com Team
MSCL.com Team
Posts: 552
Joined: May 25th 1999, 4:46 pm
Location: Butler, PA ( AKA: Three Rivers, PA )
Contact:

Post by mglenn » Apr 17th 2003, 9:28 am

After 9/11, we've become freaking terrified of being destroyed on our own soil.
There are those that are scared. I would have to say that its not most Americans, but I don't believe we should stand by while the middle east acts as a breeding ground for these "Islamic Extremist". Is it the political structure of these countries thats the issue? Is it the fact that they so strictly adhere to extreme islam that keeps them from having a society like they rest of us have? Is it the "leaders" of these country that sell the oil and build ornate houses, while telling their citizens to strap a bomb to there chest and find a bus full of other civilians?

Or is it the evil Americans?

they ran a countdown clock while Saddam's chances to reconcile at the 11th hour slipped by. THAT was purely unnecessary, and shoddy in an editorial standpoint. Counting down to war (read: death) should not resemble midnight on New Year's in New York.
Although I agree with you that its cheesy, I'll allow Patton to explain one american's view of war:
Men, this stuff that some sources sling around about America wanting out of this war, not wanting to fight, is a crock of bullshit. Americans love to fight, traditionally. All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle.


You are here today for three reasons. First, because you are here to defend your homes and your loved ones. Second, you are here for your own self respect, because you would not want to be anywhere else. Third, you are here because you are real men and all real men like to fight. When you, here, every one of you, were kids, you all admired the champion marble player, the fastest runner, the toughest boxer, the big league ball players, and the All-American football players. Americans love a winner. Americans will not tolerate a loser. Americans despise cowards. Americans play to win all of the time. I wouldn't give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That's why Americans have never lost nor will ever lose a war; for the very idea of losing is hateful to an American.


You are not all going to die. Only two percent of you right here today would die in a major battle. Death must not be feared. Death, in time, comes to all men. Yes, every man is scared in his first battle. If he says he's not, he's a liar. Some men are cowards but they fight the same as the brave men or they get the hell slammed out of them watching men fight who are just as scared as they are. The real hero is the man who fights even though he is scared. Some men get over their fright in a minute under fire. For some, it takes an hour. For some, it takes days. But a real man will never let his fear of death overpower his honor, his sense of duty to his country, and his innate manhood.


Battle is the most magnificent competition in which a human being can indulge. It brings out all that is best and it removes all that is base. Americans pride themselves on being He Men and they ARE He Men. Remember that the enemy is just as frightened as you are, and probably more so. They are not supermen.


All through your Army careers, you men have bitched about what you call "chicken s**t drilling." That, like everything else in this Army, has a definite purpose. That purpose is alertness. Alertness must be bred into every soldier. I don't give a f*** for a man who's not always on his toes. You men are veterans or you wouldn't be here. You are ready for what's to come. A man must be alert at all times if he expects to stay alive. If you're not alert, sometime, a German son-of-an-asshole-bitch is going to sneak up behind you and beat you to death with a sockful of s**t! There are four hundred neatly marked graves somewhere in Sicily, all because one man went to sleep on the job. But they are German graves, because we caught the bastard asleep before they did.


An Army is a team. It lives, sleeps, eats, and fights as a team. This individual heroic stuff is pure horse s**t. The bilious bastards who write that kind of stuff for the Saturday Evening Post don't know any more about real fighting under fire than they know about f***ing! We have the finest food, the finest equipment, the best spirit, and the best men in the world. Why, by God, I actually pity those poor sons-of-bitches we're going up against. By God, I do.


My men don't surrender, and I don't want to hear of any soldier under my command being captured unless he has been hit. Even if you are hit, you can still fight back. That's not just bull s**t either. The kind of man that I want in my command is just like the lieutenant in Libya, who, with a Luger against his chest, jerked off his helmet, swept the gun aside with one hand, and busted the hell out of the Kraut with his helmet. Then he jumped on the gun and went out and killed another German before they knew what the hell was coming off. And, all of that time, this man had a bullet through a lung. There was a real man!


All of the real heroes are not storybook combat fighters, either. Every single man in this Army plays a vital role. Don't ever let up. Don't ever think that your job is unimportant. Every man has a job to do and he must do it. Every man is a vital link in the great chain. What if every truck driver suddenly decided that he didn't like the whine of those shells overhead, turned yellow, and jumped headlong into a ditch? The cowardly bastard could say, 'Hell, they won't miss me, just one man in thousands.' But, what if every man thought that way? Where in the hell would we be now? What would our country, our loved ones, our homes, even the world, be like? No, Goddamnit, Americans don't think like that. Every man does his job. Every man serves the whole. Every department, every unit, is important in the vast scheme of this war. The ordnance men are needed to supply the guns and machinery of war to keep us rolling. The Quartermaster is needed to bring up food and clothes because where we are going there isn't a hell of a lot to steal. Every last man on K.P. has a job to do, even the one who heats our water to keep us from getting the 'G.I. Shits.'


Each man must not think only of himself, but also of his buddy fighting beside him. We don't want yellow cowards in this Army. They should be killed off like rats. If not, they will go home after this war and breed more cowards. The brave men will breed more brave men. Kill off the Goddamned cowards and we will have a nation of brave men. One of the bravest men that I ever saw was a fellow on top of a telegraph pole in the midst of a furious fire fight in Tunisia. I stopped and asked what the hell he was doing up there at a time like that. He answered, 'Fixing the wire, Sir.' I asked, 'Isn't that a little unhealthy right about now?' He answered, 'Yes Sir, but the Goddamned wire has to be fixed.' I asked, 'Don't those planes strafing the road bother you?' And he answered, 'No, Sir, but you sure as hell do!' Now, there was a real man. A real soldier. There was a man who devoted all he had to his duty, no matter how seemingly insignificant his duty might appear at the time, no matter how great the odds.


And you should have seen those trucks on the rode to Tunisia. Those drivers were magnificent. All day and all night they rolled over those son-of-a-bitching roads, never stopping, never faltering from their course, with shells bursting all around them all of the time. We got through on good old American guts.


Many of those men drove for over forty consecutive hours. These men weren't combat men, but they were soldiers with a job to do. They did it, and in one hell of a way they did it. They were part of a team. Without team effort, without them, the fight would have been lost. All of the links in the chain pulled together and the chain became unbreakable.


Don't forget, you men don't know that I'm here. No mention of that fact is to be made in any letters. The world is not supposed to know what the hell happened to me. I'm not supposed to be commanding this Army. I'm not even supposed to be here in England. Let the first bastards to find out be the Goddamned Germans. Someday I want to see them raise up on their piss-soaked hind legs and howl, 'Jesus Christ, it's the Goddamned Third Army again and that son-of-a-f***ing-bitch Patton.' We want to get the hell over there." The quicker we clean up this Goddamned mess, the quicker we can take a little jaunt against the purple pissing Japs and clean out their nest, too. Before the Goddamned Marines get all of the credit.


Sure, we want to go home. We want this war over with. The quickest way to get it over with is to go get the bastards who started it. The quicker they are whipped, the quicker we can go home. The shortest way home is through Berlin and Tokyo. And when we get to Berlin, I am personally going to shoot that paper hanging son-of-a-bitch Hitler. Just like I'd shoot a snake!


When a man is lying in a shell hole, if he just stays there all day, a German will get to him eventually. The hell with that idea. The hell with taking it. My men don't dig foxholes. I don't want them to. Foxholes only slow up an offensive. Keep moving. And don't give the enemy time to dig one either. We'll win this war, but we'll win it only by fighting and by showing the Germans that we've got more guts than they have; or ever will have. We're not going to just shoot the sons-of-bitches, we're going to rip out their living Goddamned guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. We're going to murder those lousy Hun cock suckers by the bushel-f***ing-basket.


War is a bloody, killing business. You've got to spill their blood, or they will spill yours. Rip them up the belly. Shoot them in the guts. When shells are hitting all around you and you wipe the dirt off your face and realize that instead of dirt it's the blood and guts of what once was your best friend beside you, you'll know what to do!


I don't want to get any messages saying, 'I am holding my position.' We are not holding a Goddamned thing. Let the Germans do that. We are advancing constantly and we are not interested in holding onto anything, except the enemy's balls. We are going to twist his balls and kick the living s**t out of him all of the time. Our basic plan of operation is to advance and to keep on advancing regardless of whether we have to go over, under, or through the enemy. We are going to go through him like crap through a goose; like s**t through a tin horn!


From time to time there will be some complaints that we are pushing our people too hard. I don't give a good Goddamn about such complaints. I believe in the old and sound rule that an ounce of sweat will save a gallon of blood. The harder WE push, the more Germans we will kill. The more Germans we kill, the fewer of our men will be killed. Pushing means fewer casualties. I want you all to remember that.


There is one great thing that you men will all be able to say after this war is over and you are home once again. You may be thankful that twenty years from now when you are sitting by the fireplace with your grandson on your knee and he asks you what you did in the great World War II, you WON'T have to cough, shift him to the other knee and say, 'Well, your Granddaddy shoveled s**t in Louisiana.' No, Sir, you can look him straight in the eye and say, 'Son, your Granddaddy rode with the Great Third Army and a Son-of-a- Goddamned-Bitch named Georgie Patton!'
"When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit." - Ayn Rand

User avatar
GaryEA
So-Called Addict
Posts: 773
Joined: Oct 30th 2002, 6:45 pm
Location: Exit 15W, NJ
Contact:

Post by GaryEA » Apr 17th 2003, 1:50 pm

There are those that are scared. I would have to say that its not most Americans, but I don't believe we should stand by while the middle east acts as a breeding ground for these "Islamic Extremist". Is it the political structure of these countries thats the issue? Is it the fact that they so strictly adhere to extreme islam that keeps them from having a society like they rest of us have? Is it the "leaders" of these country that sell the oil and build ornate houses, while telling their citizens to strap a bomb to there chest and find a bus full of other civilians?

Or is it the evil Americans?
I find it hard to believe that "most Americans" do not have some level of fear or anxiousness about terrorists breaching our already tightened security and doing it all over again. Maybe "most Americans" will not reveal it (going to war is a good way to redirect those anxieties), but I find it hard to believe they do not fear it. It's a human response, and Americans are very good at proving they are very much human.

As for the culprits; If you're going to toss options at me as to whom is to blame, it would be all of the above, in various degrees.

Look, this "war" on terrorism is a war on a concept, an ideal. There could be people in Canada with the same ideal, maybe without the religious motivations, waiting to blow us all to hell for letting Robin Williams sing "Blame Canada".

We could root out every single man and woman that is willing, able and equipped to blow up a bus stop or destroy a building, and the ideal will still remain.

We could take over the world and install democracy in all of the four corners of the Earth, declare "this planet is clean", and sit back in our hubris. We'd be fooling ourselves. It's still there.

This isn't a war against a country, or an item like drugs, it's idealistic war, that desires an idealistic outcome. Ideals do not have countries, they are adopted by the people in countries. You cannot occupy it, create no-fly zones, or be diplomatic with it. It's rigid, steadfast and f'n stubborn.

And it will not listen. So far.

So the answer is "all of the above", but none really apply because the questions apply toward the end results and not the cause of the problem. Years of bloodshed has proven to the clouded eyes that terror works and who the enemies are.

I have no answers or suggestions as to how to fix it or to disprove the ideal, other than the fact that we need to alter our percept on this war on terrorism. Troops can go a long way to create change, it takes much more than brute force to eradicate the ideals of madmen.

About the news ticker; Could you please explain to me how Patton has anything to do with the poor editorial decision of a mediocre news network? He was talking to the soldiers, men who were poised to emerge from the circles of Hell, one way or another, for the cause so many years ago.

That count down, sorry, that Godddamn count down, was directed at us, the civilians, some of whom were families of soldiers. Whittling away the moments before the "bloody, killing business" while the talking heads prattle on, has no purpose, is beyond cheesy, and is a disgusting example of how screwed up the media can be.

Thanks for the speech though. It's always good to read some history. :wink:

Gary

User avatar
mglenn
MSCL.com Team
MSCL.com Team
Posts: 552
Joined: May 25th 1999, 4:46 pm
Location: Butler, PA ( AKA: Three Rivers, PA )
Contact:

Post by mglenn » Apr 17th 2003, 2:36 pm

Here is how I like to but it: America is the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave! You can not have one without the other.

If you can understand the depth of that statement you'll understand quite a bit of my worldview.

Yes I agree we will never eliminate evil and those wishing harm on others. I do not relish the use of force against others, but I do understand and respect the power that the application of force can provide.
We could take over the world and install democracy in all of the four corners of the Earth, declare "this planet is clean", and sit back in our hubris. We'd be fooling ourselves. It's still there.
Let me ask you if we have issues with a bunch of terroist routinely blowing up buses and commiting atrocities here in the US and other "civialized" countries. Not saying it never happens, but it is no where near the levels in these countries. Which leads one to consider that maybe the social stucture of those countries may have something to do with it. And now that those actions are being targeted at us, should we not take action to correct the root of the problem, which will lead to a reduction of such activities.

We can not remove evil from the world but we can take steps to lessen its power and sphere of control.
Could you please explain to me how Patton has anything to do with the poor editorial decision of a mediocre news network?
It was more a commentary (that would mean its my opinion on the subject and not a fact :D ) on the fact that americans look forward to a good fight, because they expect our forces to win and as Patton states Americans love a winner. Yes some Iraqis and americans died, but many many more would have died under Saddam. Look at the protests that were staged the other day, under Saddam every single one of them would have been executed! Those Iraqis that died were mainly those that fought to uphold the ablity of Saddam to do that. It may make me heartless person but I feel no pity for them.
"When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit." - Ayn Rand

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest