FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Democrats at it again: Caught in another lie





S3nd K3ys
You won't see this on CNN or MSNBC. The Democrats are at it again (still?). They've been caught trying to lie again to make the current admin look bad, or to make themselves look good (that's not going to be easy if they keep this crap up).

I wonder how much of these lies weren't caught?

Quote:
IN KATRINA'S WAKE
Politician caught in tearful lie

Parish prez fabricates claim about feds leaving coworker's mom to die
Posted: September 15, 2005
2:06 p.m. Eastern


© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

The president of a Louisiana parish tearfully told a national TV audience the heartbreaking story of a coworker whose mother was left to die in a flooded nursing home days after Hurricane Katrina immobilized New Orleans – but, as it turns out, the story isn't true.

...

"Aaron Broussard's crocodile tears came at the tail-end of a tirade against FEMA, in response to a question from [host] Tim Russert asking whether the mayor of New Orleans and the governor of Louisiana could have been 'more forceful, much more effective and much more organized in evacuating the area.'"

The site claims Broussard, a Democrat, was "trying to score political points" by blaming federal officials when Louisiana's



Source
shr3dd
SHOCKING really now, come on libs, lying? I know this is nothing new, I know this isn't the end. This is truely sad, people are exploiting people's emotions for personal gain. This means two things: ******, and liberal.
lib
Re-read this post in another thread:
http://www.frihost.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=51832#51832

All you two have been doing all over these forums is to find these stupid stories and post them, then blast the liberals. "Liberals this, liberals that!!"

Well, Bush just lied to the American public... using the 9/11 attacks and the emotions of the people to attack Iraq and then later retracting his statements and saying that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, but it already got him into Iraq...

So, first Bush lies and advertises the war against Iraq as a reaction to 9/11 and later dismisses it? So, there you go, Bush lying and manipulating the people and their minds. It's about time the conservatives opened their eyes, took off their tin-foil hats and started taking notice of at least those policies of the liberals which make sense. All you seem to do is find anything that has anything to do with liberalism and scream "Lies! Bullshit! Tin-foil hats! Blah blah blah".... re-read that post I linked to, and then tell me who's got their eyes closed.

Here's another link, by the way:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm
I quote 2 paragraphs from this link I found very amusing:
Quote:
"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks," Mr Bush told reporters as he met members of Congress on energy legislation.

Many Americans believe that some of the hijackers were Iraqi - when none were - and that the attacks had been orchestrated by Baghdad, despite any concrete evidence to support that.

This confusion has been partly attributed to, at best a lack of clarity by the administration and at worst, deliberate obfuscation, correspondents say.


Oh, and by the way, this is BBC. It's not biased... if you scream "Liberal media" to this, I will consider it a waste of my time completely to ever argue with you.
xalophus
S3nd K3ys wrote:
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

Unbiased media ?
your source of information ?
why don't you tell us more about your source of information ?

Ofcourse you won't.
Let me help you with that,
The following are some more headlines from this "unbiased" source -
Quote:
FBI joins drills on nuke terror - Military, U.S. law enforcement step up weapons-of-mass-destruction exercises

Where nuke proliferation leads - Expert projects 6-year hypothetical scenario

America's need for civil defense - Get special Whistleblower report on facing nuke threat

Hospitals on alert for possible terror threat - People with false credentials asking for info about layout, capabilities

Bible brought into 21st century on remarkable video - For limited time, get $120 off acclaimed 'WatchWORD' DVD set

4 years later, U.S. still can't track visitors - 'If I were a terrorist, that would appear to be a soft spot'

Tortured for Christ - The extraordinary story of 1 man's victory over Communism

'Are We Living in the Last Days?' - Greg Laurie takes clear, refreshing look at biblical End-Times prophecy

Shock a Muslim – with the truth! - Read 'The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)'

Want a brat? Then don't discipline your child - Acclaimed book presents biblical, practical training tips


Neutral ? unbiased ? news ?

That's not neutral or unbiased or even news.
That's your fanaticism, your standpoint, your propaganda.

That's not just a bunch of biased articles.
That's a deliberate attempt at terrorizing the public with "hypothetical scenarios" and "possible threats".
An attempt to not only make the people submit themselves to being ruled and disciplined by the military, but to make them beg for it.
An attempt to justify American politician's (PNAC) war against the world.

Not to forget -
An attempt at demonizing anything that is not Bible.
An attempt at justifying a christian "jehad".


S3nd K3ys wrote:
You won't see this on CNN or MSNBC.

You also won't see such the terror campaign on CNN and MSNBC,
probably because they are news channels, not propaganda loudspeakers.
GW_Addict
You know, I don't buy into the rubbish that one political faction is better htan another. The truth is that every politician out there, regardless of his faction wants power for him or her self. They all "play the game" when it comes to feeding the media, or pretending to do this or that to gain favor. In the end all we can do is look at these people and thier actions and try to determine which of them is worthy of coninuing in office - i.e.: choosing the lesser of two (or more) evils, and technically none of them deserve to be where they are (more often than not anyway.)
52tease
This is one of the biggest issues with politics in the US and our 'supposed' system of checks and balances. We have lifetime politicians, born with a silver spoon up their noses, making decisions about the needs of the 'regular people' after consulting with the big-money and big-business that keep them in power.

Thank god the Supreme Court is taking up compaign finance reform this year because we really need to change the way money flows in and out of politicians' pockets.

The real problem is that our politicians are also responsible for making sure that they aren't accepting graft and they get to choose their own paychecks. What a great job!

I wish I could give myself a raise every year and at the same time drive my company into debt and despair.
mirzapirza
I like how WDN's source is http://wuzzadem.typepad.com/wuz/

Yeah, those rhinos sure got the liberals cornered..
gonzo
lib wrote:
Re-read this post in another thread:
All you two have been doing all over these forums is to find these stupid stories and post them, then blast the liberals [for their documented behavior]


You're just chalked full of logical fallcies aren't you? First you tried the Strawman Fallacy, and now you're attacking the character of the poster instead of addressing the issue.

Typical.


Quote:
Well, Bush just lied to the American public


Source please.
lib
gonzo wrote:
and now you're attacking the character of the poster instead of addressing the issue.

Addressing the issue:
lib wrote:
Re-read this post in another thread:
http://www.frihost.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=51832#51832

More addressing the issue:
lib wrote:
Well, Bush just lied to the American public... using the 9/11 attacks and the emotions of the people to attack Iraq and then later retracting his statements and saying that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, but it already got him into Iraq...

More addressing the issue:
lib wrote:
Here's another link, by the way:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm
I quote 2 paragraphs from this link I found very amusing:
Quote:
"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks," Mr Bush told reporters as he met members of Congress on energy legislation.

Many Americans believe that some of the hijackers were Iraqi - when none were - and that the attacks had been orchestrated by Baghdad, despite any concrete evidence to support that.

This confusion has been partly attributed to, at best a lack of clarity by the administration and at worst, deliberate obfuscation, correspondents say.


gonzo wrote:
Source please.

The link provided in the quote above this one has a link. And like I wrote before,
lib wrote:
Oh, and by the way, this is BBC. It's not biased... if you scream "Liberal media" to this, I will consider it a waste of my time completely to ever argue with you.


But once again, your post was proof you only chose to see what you wanted to see. In your own words,
gonzo wrote:
Typical.
S3nd K3ys
lib wrote:
gonzo wrote:
Source please.

The link provided in the quote above this one has a link. And like I wrote before,
lib wrote:
Oh, and by the way, this is BBC. It's not biased... if you scream "Liberal media" to this, I will consider it a waste of my time completely to ever argue with you.


But once again, your post was proof you only chose to see what you wanted to see. In your own words,


I don't see proof, lib. Where's the proof that shrubby lied? And before you point to the link you already pointed to, do a dictionary search for LIED.
ilibrium
Waoooah, the BBC is as biased as you get. James Naughtie, one of the presenters on Radio 4, was interviewing a Labour minister before the election and said "When we win the election..." Not if, when, and not you, we. It's frightening the political bias the BBC is allowed to show, especially in its anti-US stance. They do not have a single positive word to say about the USA. I'm not saying I do either, but then I'm not a huge organisation taking tax-payers' money.
shr3dd
Wow, I wish I had heard that, but I don't watch the BBC (I'm in the US) and I just plain don't watch tv. I agree that huge corporations like the BBC and the like show bias like that. As of yet I haven't heard anything like that out of American news corps. but it's unbelievably obvious how biased they are.
S3nd K3ys
ilibrium wrote:
Waoooah, the BBC is as biased as you get. James Naughtie, one of the presenters on Radio 4, was interviewing a Labour minister before the election and said "When we win the election..." Not if, when, and not you, we. It's frightening the political bias the BBC is allowed to show, especially in its anti-US stance. They do not have a single positive word to say about the USA. I'm not saying I do either, but then I'm not a huge organisation taking tax-payers' money.


Agreed. I must have missed that the first time around.

Liberal journalists are working hard to discredit the link between Iraq and al-Qaeda. Take a good look at the news item below, “Rumsfeld doubts Saddam-Laden link.” (BBC 10-04-2004) I have numbered the paragraphs for your convenience. Paragraphs three and six contain the only actual quotes of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. We will assume they are accurate for the purposes of this exercise.
.
In paragraph three Rumsfeld clearly states there is no link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin-Laden. Rumsfeld, well known for his precise use of language, addresses only the issue of a direct personal connection between the two individuals.

Based on this, the headline is accurate, but paragraph one is not supported by the Rumsfeld quote (or anything else presented in the article.) The reporter has stretched Rumsfeld’s statement there is no evidence linking the two as individuals into a statement there is no evidence linking Saddam with al-Qaeda as an organization.

Paragraph two is factual but its inclusion implies a further stretch to Rumsfeld’s quote. Since Iraqi government connections to al-Qaeda as an organization were a justification for liberating Iraq, the implication is that Rumsfeld has somehow undermined this assertion by noting there is no connection between Saddam and Osama as individuals.

In fact the 9-11 Commission Report pages 61, 66, and 128 describe Iraqi government and intelligence ties to al-Qaeda. They do not show evidence of direct ties between Saddam Hussein as an individual and al-Qaeda as an organization.

Paragraph four exists to justify the idea that the reporter has got something here -- all he has is his bias.

Paragraph five should read: “If Rumsfeld had said what we are trying to make you think he said, it would suggest the Bush administration is in the process of retreating from previously held positions.”

Paragraph six means one thing if you recognize what Rumsfeld actually said-- another if you buy what the BBC correspondent is trying to sell.

Paragraph seven describes Rumsfeld’s statements “about a link” --without specifying a link between who or what--very sly writing. The Cheney statement that allegedly goes ‘further’ is supported by page 61 of the 9-11 Commission report which describes Iraqi government assistance to al-Qaeda’s Ansar al Islam group. Cheney (and the 9-11 Commission) go ‘further’ than Iraq -- al-Qaeda ‘connections’ but not as far as connecting Osama and Saddam as individuals.

Paragraph eight is factual, but its inclusion insinuates that Rumsfeld’s quote somehow is a retreat from the assertion that Saddam’s dictatorship was a supporter of terrorists of all stripes.

In eight paragraphs, the liberal reporter has transformed a quote denying direct individual links between Saddam and Osama into a denial of Saddam’s support for terrorism in general. If this is what BBC does at a widely covered speech in New York, what do you think they are doing with coverage of events in Iraq or Afghanistan?


Quote:
Rumsfeld doubts Saddam-Laden link

By Justin Webb
BBC correspondent in Washington

1) US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has cast doubt on whether there was ever a relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.

2) The alleged link was one of the justifications used by President Bush for the invasion of Iraq.

3) In front of an audience in New York, Mr Rumsfeld was asked about connections between Saddam and Osama Bin Laden. "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two," he said.

No proof

4) Donald Rumsfeld's off-the-cuff comments are often very revealing.

5) If he really meant what he said, it suggests that the Bush administration is in the process of retreating from previously held positions.

6) When asked about the putative link during a session at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, defence secretary said: "I have seen the answer to that question migrate in the intelligence community over a period of a year in the most amazing way."

7) In the past, Mr Rumsfeld has spoken of credible information about a link and Vice President Dick Cheney regularly goes further and talks of Saddam Hussein having provided safe harbour and sanctuary for al-Qaeda.

Cool The idea that Saddam Hussein was a supporter of terrorism has been one of the key justifications used by the administration for his removal.


Link to BBC article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3715396.stm

More fun reading about BBC's left bias..

http://blitheringbunny.com/archives/2005/05/15/the-annual-political-tax/

http://thepoliticalteen.net/2005/09/28/kingbill/

http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/

http://usconservatives.about.com/od/mediawatchdogs/a/liberalmedia.htm
Quote:
"The argument over whether the national press is dominated by liberals is over. Since 1962, there have been 11 surveys of the media that sought the political views of hundreds of journalists. In 1971, they were 53 percent liberal, 17 percent conservative. In a 1976 survey of the Washington press corps, it was 59 percent liberal, 18 percent conservative. A 1985 poll of 3,200 reporters found them to be self-identified as 55 percent liberal, 17 percent conservative. In 1996, another survey of Washington journalists pegged the breakdown as 61 percent liberal, 9 percent conservative."
Shocked

http://www.labour-watch.com/bbcbias.htm

http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/02/10/edcross_ed3_.php
flexibledogma
Regardless of who lied, who tried to score points, who tried to cover up, was the response really adequate at any level? Local, City, State, or Federal Government really demonstrate a capability to handle a major crisis?

It's 4 years after 9/11. Why are we as a nation still unpreprared? What have our leaders been doing?
illini319
shr3dd wrote:
SHOCKING really now, come on libs, lying? I know this is nothing new, I know this isn't the end.


No political side is clean...

Tom Delay. Have you all been following this development? I'm not even going to provide ANY reference (for fear of being accused biased for my references). However, I would suggest that you CHOOSE your favorite news agency: blue CNN or red FOX or AP or REUTERS or worldnetdaily...etc. I don't really care which you all decide to read. Any which way you cut this, Tom Delay, a Republican, has allegedly illegally funneled campaign funds. Is this true? Maybe we will find out (maybe not).

Quick history lesson...

Bill Clinton - "I did not have sexual relations with that woman - Monica Lewinsky..." <-- we all know what happened there...even Osama knows.

the Clinton's - Whitewater: too many people either died or went to jail for the public to ever know the truth; how convenient

Gore - "I invented the internet" <--- I don't think this was a lie though; I think this was just plain stupid

Newt Gingrich - After preaching moral decrepitness in Clinton's White House, good 'ol Newt subsequently admitted to having an affair.

First Bush - "Read my lips..." damn good thing I don't lip read.

Richard Nixon - watergate.


shall I go on? Do we really need references for these???


Welcome back everyone.
S3nd K3ys
Quote:
Welcome back everyone.




lib wrote:
Oh, and by the way, this is BBC. It's not biased... if you scream "Liberal media" to this, I will consider it a waste of my time completely to ever argue with you.


:crickets:

S3nd K3ys wrote:
ilibrium wrote:
Waoooah, the BBC is as biased as you get. James Naughtie, one of the presenters on Radio 4, was interviewing a Labour minister before the election and said "When we win the election..." Not if, when, and not you, we. It's frightening the political bias the BBC is allowed to show, especially in its anti-US stance. They do not have a single positive word to say about the USA. I'm not saying I do either, but then I'm not a huge organisation taking tax-payers' money.


Agreed. I must have missed that the first time around.

Liberal journalists are working hard to discredit the link between Iraq and al-Qaeda. Take a good look at the news item below, “Rumsfeld doubts Saddam-Laden link.” (BBC 10-04-2004) I have numbered the paragraphs for your convenience. Paragraphs three and six contain the only actual quotes of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. We will assume they are accurate for the purposes of this exercise.
.
In paragraph three Rumsfeld clearly states there is no link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin-Laden. Rumsfeld, well known for his precise use of language, addresses only the issue of a direct personal connection between the two individuals.

Based on this, the headline is accurate, but paragraph one is not supported by the Rumsfeld quote (or anything else presented in the article.) The reporter has stretched Rumsfeld’s statement there is no evidence linking the two as individuals into a statement there is no evidence linking Saddam with al-Qaeda as an organization.

Paragraph two is factual but its inclusion implies a further stretch to Rumsfeld’s quote. Since Iraqi government connections to al-Qaeda as an organization were a justification for liberating Iraq, the implication is that Rumsfeld has somehow undermined this assertion by noting there is no connection between Saddam and Osama as individuals.

In fact the 9-11 Commission Report pages 61, 66, and 128 describe Iraqi government and intelligence ties to al-Qaeda. They do not show evidence of direct ties between Saddam Hussein as an individual and al-Qaeda as an organization.

Paragraph four exists to justify the idea that the reporter has got something here -- all he has is his bias.

Paragraph five should read: “If Rumsfeld had said what we are trying to make you think he said, it would suggest the Bush administration is in the process of retreating from previously held positions.”

Paragraph six means one thing if you recognize what Rumsfeld actually said-- another if you buy what the BBC correspondent is trying to sell.

Paragraph seven describes Rumsfeld’s statements “about a link” --without specifying a link between who or what--very sly writing. The Cheney statement that allegedly goes ‘further’ is supported by page 61 of the 9-11 Commission report which describes Iraqi government assistance to al-Qaeda’s Ansar al Islam group. Cheney (and the 9-11 Commission) go ‘further’ than Iraq -- al-Qaeda ‘connections’ but not as far as connecting Osama and Saddam as individuals.

Paragraph eight is factual, but its inclusion insinuates that Rumsfeld’s quote somehow is a retreat from the assertion that Saddam’s dictatorship was a supporter of terrorists of all stripes.

In eight paragraphs, the liberal reporter has transformed a quote denying direct individual links between Saddam and Osama into a denial of Saddam’s support for terrorism in general. If this is what BBC does at a widely covered speech in New York, what do you think they are doing with coverage of events in Iraq or Afghanistan?


Quote:
Rumsfeld doubts Saddam-Laden link

By Justin Webb
BBC correspondent in Washington

1) US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has cast doubt on whether there was ever a relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.

2) The alleged link was one of the justifications used by President Bush for the invasion of Iraq.

3) In front of an audience in New York, Mr Rumsfeld was asked about connections between Saddam and Osama Bin Laden. "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two," he said.

No proof

4) Donald Rumsfeld's off-the-cuff comments are often very revealing.

5) If he really meant what he said, it suggests that the Bush administration is in the process of retreating from previously held positions.

6) When asked about the putative link during a session at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, defence secretary said: "I have seen the answer to that question migrate in the intelligence community over a period of a year in the most amazing way."

7) In the past, Mr Rumsfeld has spoken of credible information about a link and Vice President Dick Cheney regularly goes further and talks of Saddam Hussein having provided safe harbour and sanctuary for al-Qaeda.

Cool The idea that Saddam Hussein was a supporter of terrorism has been one of the key justifications used by the administration for his removal.


Link to BBC article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3715396.stm

More fun reading about BBC's left bias..

http://blitheringbunny.com/archives/2005/05/15/the-annual-political-tax/

http://thepoliticalteen.net/2005/09/28/kingbill/

http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/

http://usconservatives.about.com/od/mediawatchdogs/a/liberalmedia.htm
Quote:
"The argument over whether the national press is dominated by liberals is over. Since 1962, there have been 11 surveys of the media that sought the political views of hundreds of journalists. In 1971, they were 53 percent liberal, 17 percent conservative. In a 1976 survey of the Washington press corps, it was 59 percent liberal, 18 percent conservative. A 1985 poll of 3,200 reporters found them to be self-identified as 55 percent liberal, 17 percent conservative. In 1996, another survey of Washington journalists pegged the breakdown as 61 percent liberal, 9 percent conservative."
Shocked

http://www.labour-watch.com/bbcbias.htm

http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/02/10/edcross_ed3_.php


Still waiting for lib to jump in and defend his precious BBC... Oh, wait, he prolly already read my post and just decided to ignore it and hope this whole nasty topic about the BBC being biased will just go away. Wink

illini319
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Quote:
Welcome back everyone.


why did you quote me??? did I miss something?

S3nd K3ys wrote:

Still waiting for lib to jump in and defend his precious BBC... Oh, wait, he prolly already read my post and just decided to ignore it and hope this whole nasty topic about the BBC being biased will just go away. Wink


I absolutely agree with you. The BBC, notwithstanding any official policy they may have about being fair and balanced, is biased in many of their reports. So is WorldNetDaily. So is CNN; and most certainly so is FOX. who cares. News agencies don't write articles. People write articles; and until computers write articles autonomously, all reports about everything will have a personal slant. Call it bias, call it yellow journalism, call it reality. Again, welcome back everyone.
lib
http://blitheringbunny.com/archives/2005/05/15/the-annual-political-tax/ wrote:
Aitken looks like an off-duty army officer in one of the tougher regiments. He lives in north Oxford with his wife, Sarah, and describes himself as a "middle-of-the-road Conservative",

I don't feel the need to say any more Wink
Quote:
Gradually, Aitken gained a sharper understanding of the BBC’s mindset.
Making a hero of the man who's talking about BBC being liberal-biased, while he himself is Conservative. What fun!
Yes, and I browsed through some of the other articles on that site. It seems pretty anti-BBC to me. Go see yourself. So much for "BBC is biased" from an unbiased site.

S3nd K3ys wrote:
http://thepoliticalteen.net/2005/09/28/kingbill/

Now let me quote a comment on that article that I found amusing:
Quote:
That’s hilarious! King and O’Lielly on the Republican Network(FOX) complaining about the bias of MSNBC!

Apart from that, go through the site again, especially that ad on the left that says "Annoy a Liberal!"... yep, yet another unbiased site calling BBC biased. Go go go!

S3nd K3ys wrote:
http://usconservatives.about.com/od/mediawatchdogs/a/liberalmedia.htm
Quote:
"The argument over whether the national press is dominated by liberals is over. Since 1962, there have been 11 surveys of the media that sought the political views of hundreds of journalists. In 1971, they were 53 percent liberal, 17 percent conservative. In a 1976 survey of the Washington press corps, it was 59 percent liberal, 18 percent conservative. A 1985 poll of 3,200 reporters found them to be self-identified as 55 percent liberal, 17 percent conservative. In 1996, another survey of Washington journalists pegged the breakdown as 61 percent liberal, 9 percent conservative."

Yes, I know that majority of the press is liberal-biased. It's a sad situation. I don't like it any more than you do.

However, I think you will find this as amusing as I did. BTW, this is quoted from one of the links you provided, http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/02/10/edcross_ed3_.php

Quote:
But however much Fox News feels vindicated by the verdict, it should not ignore the fact that many foreign observers feel that the political right has taken over America's news media, and that the overt political bias of Fox News and Clear Channel Radio has become a serious obstacle to the fair workings of democracy.
Laughing

S3nd K3ys wrote:
Oh, wait, he prolly already read my post and just decided to ignore it and hope this whole nasty topic about the BBC being biased will just go away.

Wiped the smirk off your face yet?

illini319 wrote:
News agencies don't write articles. People write articles; and until computers write articles autonomously, all reports about everything will have a personal slant.

I agree.

And I cannot deny that an article or two on BBC or any other "unbiased" news source will not have a little bias because of this precise reason. However, on the whole, I believe BBC to be one of the better unbiased news sources among the major news providers, at least as far as the Rest Of the World News is concerned (Rest Of The World as in outside Britain)

Since we've come so far off-topic as to discuss how media is almost always biased, how do you think we can access unbiased media? Someone (on this site) suggested reporters' blogs. I found that hilariously stupid, should have saved the link as a bookmark, but anyway.
atomictoyz
1)Politics is the art of screwing you without you being aware.

2)Like was stated earlier, neither the Democrats or Republicans are Clean.

3)The media historically has CIA messing with it i.e. propaganda.

4)The Covert nature of Covert activity precludes not only acknowldgement but also falsifiability. Spies and Secret agents do not advertise motives nor facts. The ability to prove a connection between Bin Ladin and Saddam is nearly impossible even if they met weekly. Every country does it.

5)There is no such thing as bias free.

6)There is nothing wrong with changing your mind after seeing more information or situations change. Sticking to your guns despite your nose is stupid. But not being able to make up your mind is just as stupid.

I personally believe there is a connection between Osama and Saddam. I also believe that there are other onging issues the US isn't talking about that even parts of the 9-11 commission are aware of.

Peace,
Atomic
Related topics
Conservative Christian Dictionary.
sailing? windsong's maiden voyage (disaster!)
Is Lucifer the Devil?
The Middle East Conflict
The Truth Hurts
When Jesus was born...
The Fates Are Fair
Genesis in the spotlight..1
Related topics
Teabaggers/townhall rightwingers: insane or just stupid?
US health care changes take effect today. SUPER
Another “Occupier” makes terroristic threats
Obama’s Indefinite Detention of US Citizens
Absolutely ridiculous
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.