Posts by dubla

159

The Answer to high Gas Prices.....

by ThiChi in

any thoughts on mr. taylor?s claims?.

u.s. demands greater oil output, lower prices.

"finance ministers from the united states and other major industrialized countries, hoping to affect the outcome of a battle within the organization for the petroleum exporting countries, formally demanded yesterday that oil-exporting nations raise production and lower prices to a level 'that is consistent with lasting economic prosperity,'" the new york times reports.

dubla

double post

159

The Answer to high Gas Prices.....

by ThiChi in

any thoughts on mr. taylor?s claims?.

u.s. demands greater oil output, lower prices.

"finance ministers from the united states and other major industrialized countries, hoping to affect the outcome of a battle within the organization for the petroleum exporting countries, formally demanded yesterday that oil-exporting nations raise production and lower prices to a level 'that is consistent with lasting economic prosperity,'" the new york times reports.

dubla

simon-

When America has 1/10th the culture and history that Europe has then I'd like to hear about it.

if i didnt know you better, id say that sounded like a direct slam on america.....but i know you dont get into america bashing, thank goodness.

aa

92

One Soldier's Viewpoint of Iraq

by ThiChi in

one soldier?s viewpoint of iraq.

greetings (names withheld).

as i head off to baghdad for the final weeks of my stay in iraq, i wanted to say thanks to all of you who did not believe the media.

dubla

to all,

i asked abaddon:

would you like some facts on the majority of journalists being liberal, especially compared to the public?

i thought id back this up, in case anyone was interested to see some facts on it:

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=829

Journalists at national and local news organizations are notably different from the general public in their ideology and attitudes toward political and social issues. Most national and local journalists, as well as a plurality of Americans (41%), describe themselves as political moderates. But news people especially national journalists are more liberal, and far less conservative, than the general public.

its also obvious that the majority of the self-proclaimed "moderates" are decidedly liberal in their views when looking at the way conservatives, moderates, and liberals answered the questions on "ideology and values". the media isnt just somewhat more liberal than the public, its markedly so......a landslide.

aa

92

One Soldier's Viewpoint of Iraq

by ThiChi in

one soldier?s viewpoint of iraq.

greetings (names withheld).

as i head off to baghdad for the final weeks of my stay in iraq, i wanted to say thanks to all of you who did not believe the media.

dubla

abaddon-

but I'm just having fun mate...

glad to hear it.....if i wasnt having fun on here, i wouldnt be here. i was, apparently, under the misconception that you were taking this a bit too seriously...but its good that youre keeping it lighthearted. it is fun, isnt it?

Nor is it manical laughter

actually, i said diabolical. maniacal would carry a meaning closer to "insanity", whereas diabolical is more like "devilish". one definition of devilish: "mischievous, teasing, or annoying." i could see where you would have mistaken it for "maniacal" though, as i grouped it in a sentence that also suggested you were "losing it"....that was my sloppy usage, sorry.....and i was only playing.

although I suppose characterising my amusement with 'maniacal' as distinct from 'mocking' helps fit the cartoon-chacterisation of the 'left' (ooo! scarey tremble quiver!) you seem to hold dear.

why do you think i hold this "cartoon-characterisation" dear? furthermore, it seems to me that youre using a tactic here, as simon and others have, that attempts to paint me in a corner as a "neo-con", or standing firmly on the far right. just fyi, im not against gay marraige whatsoever, im all for legalizing drugs, and im 100% pro-choice. still think im a fascist conservative?

You stated FOX didn't change people's opinions of Saddam when there were stats further up the page showing FOX demonstrably had altered people's opinions of Saddam so that they held a misconception.

alright, due to the fact that you keep beating me over the head with this, im going to go ahead and respond to it. the "stats" that you showed do not in any way "prove" that fox has altered anyones opinion of saddam. with that evidence, you could argue that fox may have influenced viewers one way or the other......but it doesnt prove it, not by a long shot. lets look at your clip first:

For example, 33 percent of Fox News viewers incorrectly believed it was true that the U.S. has found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction; only 11 percent of people who said they relied on PBS or NPR for news got this wrong. Thirty-five percent of the Fox viewers thought that world opinion favored the U.S. invasion of Iraq; only 5 percent of those who get their news from PBS or NPR had this misconception. And an overwhelming 67 percent of those who relied on Fox thought that the U.S. had found clear evidence that Saddam Hussein had worked closely with Al Qaeda; if you got your news from PBS/NPR, you had just a 16 percent chance of believing this falsehood.
In Fox's defense, viewers of CNN and the broadcast networks, particularly CBS, were not much better informed. But on three major questions central to the debate about Iraq, Fox viewers were the most likely to get it wrong.

okay, i looked through your links, and couldnt find this particular clip....so youll have to point it out to me to examine further. but, just at first glance, your statement that fox "demonstrably had altered peolpes opinion of saddam" already has glaring holes.

first off, i assume this is survey based info, correct? well, we all know what a survey does, it takes a very small group of people (in this case viewers), and projects their answers on the full viewership, as if it were fact. its not science, but they do work as a gauging tool. notice at the bottom of your clip here, that viewers of cnn and all the other broadcast networks "were not much better informed". what does, "not much better" mean? a percent? again, i dont have the exact info in front of me. and what was the fudge factor of the survey? so far, this is hardly "demonstrable" proof about fox specifically shaping anything.

secondly, have you ever stopped to think that theres a chance the majority viewership of fox is conservative, and therefore less likely to say, be trustworthy of saddam in the first place? perhaps the viewers (that answered the survey) already had these notions before turning on fox news. can you prove otherwise? maybe they have a harder time giving saddam the benefit of the doubt when it comes to terrorism then say, the average pbs viewer.

so, again, you have minute evidence that may or may not show the average "fox" viewer to have this specific opinion of saddam (the al-qaeda ties) as opposed to the average "cnn" viewer. in fact, the evidence you provided indeed also shows the average "cnn" viewer probably has/had these same opinions/"misconceptions". my stance, that the general opinion of saddam has stayed consistant since before fox news existed, can be backed up with much more substantial evidence.

Building on your assertion you've claimed brainwashing theories about FOX were laughable - funny, I never said ANYTHING about brainwashing. I only showed viewers of channel A were more likely to be misinformed than channel b, etc. and asked why this might be. And there hasn't been one real answer yet. Did you think changing my argument to one of "brainwashing" would make things easier for you... old chap?

now im confused. my first statement on the subject, that you responded to, was:

these "fox news is the right-wing brainwashing machine" theories are hilarious, imo.

now, if this idea of brainwashing was so far from your actual argument, then why challenge my statement in the first place? why not correct me with something along the lines of "dubla, im not claiming "brainwashing", not in the least....."?.....and then i could have happily ended the entire argument by apologizing for misconceiving your original premise. due to the fact that you specifically challenged me to back up my statement, i assumed i had it correctly. if i have been way off this entire time regarding your actual premise, then i do apologize.

Despite the fact under most descriptions of the events you would be described as "wrong", you move your position from "FOX didn't change people's opinions of Saddam"

no, i havent changed that.....its still my opinion that fox hasnt shaped anything for saddam, he shaped it himself long ago.

So, if someone has a bad reputation, then we need not be concerned if a news channel distorts facts and gives people misconceptions which might make them support actions they otherwise would not support? Seriously?

well, if we are going by your "stats" from above, they show that cnn must have also given people these "misconceptions", otherwise they would have been pretty close to 100% correct on the question, right? or maybe, just maybe, these cnn viewers had these opinions due to something other than the channel specifically steering them down the wrong path....maybe the fox viewers too. maybe they already had a hatred for saddam, and thus were quick to jump to conclusions that the manical dictator who had slaughtered thousands of innocents was likely to be involved in terrorism.?.

And your fiddle-faddle about you knowing Saddam was once considered a good guy ignores that the ONLY reason his 'classification' changed ten years ago was due to him invading Kuwait. He was a 'good guy' to the USA and some other Western powers when he was violating human rights prior to that point. After that the government HAD to re-classify him as a 'bad guy', as he had outlived his usefulness to the US's strategic interests in the area by going rouge (a democracy supporting and aiding a psychopathically violent and ruthless dictator? What could possibly go wrong?).
What a wonderful view you have from the moral high-ground...

abaddon, seriously, can we quit with the strawman stuff? im not trying to side-step the issue of saddams "good guy/bad guy" switch, and ill be happy to discuss it with you if youd like.....and youd probably be surprised to find out that i actually agree with some of your above points on it. the thing is, this issue has nothing to do with our specific discussion of fox news, which wasnt in existance until 1996......wouldnt you agree? and then you take the opportunity to slam me on a "moral" basis, without even knowing my views on the above.....you are better than that.

WHATEVER the reasons for the current invasion actually were (which I would have supported from the get-go if it had been under the banner of restoring human rights and democracy to the people of Iraq rather than the cover story used at the time), there was a concerted campaign to win public opinion over to back an extra-territorial conflict. Characeterising Saddam as a threat to the USA (when no 911 link existed and no viable campaign to hold stocks of WoMD to threaten external powers existed - by viable I mean 'having enough to pose a real threat') allowed this to happen.

for the most part, i agree with you. i still think that if the wmds werent there, he couldve easily proven it, but ive already argued that one to death on other threads, and we can pick it up on one of those if you get the inclination.

You keep your analysis at a sufficiently superficial level to avoid smelling the stink...It just gets better and better

how so? my analysis of saddam, or my analysis of news reporting?

I couldn't have shown how your concern for truth in news reporting is dependant upon a political agenda if I had tried.

i dont think news reporting is without spin or agenda in this country. i just dont think its quite the mind-bending, brainwashing tool some make it out to be....but you are not one of those "some", as youve already clarified (i think) that the "brainwashing" idea is not one you hold.

im still interested to know what "political agenda" you think im trying to propagate?

Oh: hahahahahaha. I am stroking my pussey and fiddling with my pinkie in the corner of my mouth...

great visual....lol.

aa

398

Wasn't Saddam ousted for doing precisely this sort of thing?

by Simon in

utterly disgusting.

those responsible should be lined against a wall and shot.

publicly.. i think that would win more hearts and minds than bombing cities and using gunships on civilian areas.. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4855930/.

dubla

simon-

One or two shells does not make a "stockpile". You are using words like that to bolster your weak case. We know they were used in the war with Iran

i think youre under the misconception that every "stockpile" that is referred to by me (or government officials, unscom, the u.n., etc.) is automatically a stockpile saddam created after a certain date. the fact is, many of the unaccounted for stockpiles that saddam was asked to account for were indeed "old". the problem was, he couldnt do it. hiding the weapons, or in this case (if this is your opinion), not being able to account for them, was the issue.

aa

24

US Needs To Treat It's Allies Better? Keep Tourists/Terrorists Out!

by Englishman in

the us needs to lighten up on the brits especially.

uk visitors are down 30%.

the media is abuzz with tales of how rudely visiting brits to the usa are treated sometimes as they go through the port of entry.

dubla

simon-

You know there is no greater insult to Candians than calling them American

actually, my s.o.(from canada) always corrects me when i refer to myself as "american" in a way that suggests she is not, reminding me that canadians are americans too.....just not "yanks".

aa

92

One Soldier's Viewpoint of Iraq

by ThiChi in

one soldier?s viewpoint of iraq.

greetings (names withheld).

as i head off to baghdad for the final weeks of my stay in iraq, i wanted to say thanks to all of you who did not believe the media.

dubla

abaddon-

your diabolical laughter cues me in that you just might be losing it here, lol.

like if you'd read my posts properly you wouldn't have insisted that FOX didn't shape people's opnions of Saddam as the evidence I cited showed they DO shape people's opinions of Saddam....ha!

i still hold to the fact that the poor opinion of saddam was shaped without the help of fox....and i backed it up with proof, directly from "the left".....you can keep grasping at straws and belly laughing if it makes you feel better....honestly, this subject is a lot more important to you than it is to me. remember how this argument started? it started when i made a comment about how these conspiracy theories are so hilarious.....i find them funny, you rant on and on about them....see the difference? which action uses up more energy?

and when you finally conceed your error you do so with ill grace

i dont remember conceding any error...if i did, i certainly didnt mean to. your post about saddam-al qaeda proves nothing about the extremely poor opinion of saddam thats been in place before clinton, and in fact reinforced by clinton.

Then you, as illustrated by Simon, ignore that Saddam WAS a "good guy" for years as far as the actions of US foreign policy indicated.

im fully aware that saddam was a "good guy" for years, i have no problem with admitting that. the thing is though, that fact has absolutely no bearing on our discussion about fox, which is why simons comment was out of place. you really like that strawman dont you?

You also ignore that you can still spread misinformations about someone who people think is bad to influence their opinion; bad Saddam in Iraq killing Iraqis is one thing to use to justify an invasion; bad Saddam with WoMD who helped Al-Q strike NYC is another thing that will garner far more support for an invasion.

so, your ultimate point out of all this, is that fox might have made some peoples already bad opinion of saddam worse? lol, okay, i can concede that. touche, excellent work.

Then you say CNN are 'left slanted'! Hahahahahaha! If that's your perspective you must be a little to the right of Ghengis Khan. I'd love to see credible commentary proving your claims of CNN leftism.

most of the media is....only blind liberals think otherwise. would you like some facts on the majority of journalists being liberal, especially compared to the public? let me know, id be happy to provide them.

And as you know dick about FOX and can't even see the ride you're being taken for

what "ride"? didnt i already say i didnt watch fox news? another strawman eh?

I'm afraid I find it hard to group your opinion with "credible commentary"

honestly abaddon, i could care less where you group my opinion......my only real opinion that started this was the fact that i thought your brainwashing paranoia was funny, which i still do. its understandable that you take offense to that opinion, but as far as im concerned, you can group it wherever you please....im pretty sure i wont lose any sleep over it.

purely based on the mistakes you make and selective considerations you employ to justify your politcal stance.

what exactly is my "political stance"? that saddam needed to go? i wasnt aware that i was even trying to justify my stance here......i thought i was just explaining why i thought your brainwashing theories were laughable.

aa

24

US Needs To Treat It's Allies Better? Keep Tourists/Terrorists Out!

by Englishman in

the us needs to lighten up on the brits especially.

uk visitors are down 30%.

the media is abuzz with tales of how rudely visiting brits to the usa are treated sometimes as they go through the port of entry.

dubla

eman-

if its any consolation, we are experiencing extremely long delays, and sometimes very rude treatment as well (my personal experience), just traveling inside the country! the delays, to me, are a very small price to pay for extra security, and im happy to wait them out. as far as the rude treatment, well, i try to give the guys the benefit of the doubt, considering their job is to look for bombs and such all day long.....it would probably put me on edge too. its no fun to deal with though.

of course youll run into the power trip types as well, which stinks. one time, BEFORE 9-11, i was coming across the boarder with my s.o. from canada (at the time we had just met, and she was coming for a visit), and we ran into a power tripper at the boarder who denied us access into the country! the customs agent tore through all of her bags, questioned us for over an hour, and then sent us back into canada to aquire a long list of documents and proof that she was coming back........and the woman let me know that if we tried to cross at any other port without such documentation, i would be arrested for "smuggling canadians".....lol, i didnt even know there was a trade for that. anyhow, point is, most everyone i know has border horror stories, and most of us have had them even being a citizen of the u.s., and even before 9-11.....its only expected that they would be much worse now, and that the rules will only get more stringent for visitors.

aa

398

Wasn't Saddam ousted for doing precisely this sort of thing?

by Simon in

utterly disgusting.

those responsible should be lined against a wall and shot.

publicly.. i think that would win more hearts and minds than bombing cities and using gunships on civilian areas.. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4855930/.

dubla

simon-

Actually, as artilliary pieces they need to be fired for the chemicals to mix.

any explosion can mix the two chemicals, but they are much more effective when fired from an artillery piece......which is why i said that amount (4 liters) could kill thousands if detonated properly. it obviously wasnt. it appears they didnt know what they had, which is a very good thing.

It would be silly to stockpile chemical weapons but not the crucial bit to make them deadly, I'm sure you will agree !

im quite sure that when saddam was stockpiling such weapons he had every intent to fire them properly (actually he already has in the iran-iraq war). just because the guys who rigged it didnt use it correctly doesnt mean thats the way it was intended to be used originally......this is pretty elementary stuff here.

the significance of the find is that there are obviously shells left over that were not declared by saddam. take your stance for example....that saddam was indeed trying to prove that all of his chemical munitions were destroyed. how did this particular shell, the largest artillery shell he utilized, filled with 4 liters of sarin, slip through the cracks? and if its because it was simply "misplaced", then how could he possibly have proven all of the stockpiles to be destroyed, not even knowing where they all were?

aa

398

Wasn't Saddam ousted for doing precisely this sort of thing?

by Simon in

utterly disgusting.

those responsible should be lined against a wall and shot.

publicly.. i think that would win more hearts and minds than bombing cities and using gunships on civilian areas.. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4855930/.

dubla

realist-

two so far, both rigged as ieds......for the sake of everyone in iraq, i hope youre right, that there isnt more to come. the one bomb had 4 liters of sarin in it.....considering one drop can kill you, id say 4 liters isnt anything to sneeze at (it could actually kill thousands if detonated properly in a populated area). pretty dangerous stuff, especially considering saddam didnt declare any (that means zero) of these types of shells as still existing. but, most of us knew saddams declarations were b.s. long ago. maybe, stealing a phrase from blix, there were some sarin shells misplaced with the marmalade?

aa