CNN newsroom malfunction

[jersey_guy]

Watch now people will get fired for this (NOT). Next time they'll probably use a bull's eye target. That's why CNN has become a total joke and barely anybody in the US watches it anymore.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3cnc.htm

[Sulus]

Well, a lot of people really do still watch CNN. More people than watch Fox News actually, they just don't watch it for a very long time. I watch neither.

According to CNN:
"Upon seeing this unfortunate but very brief graphic, CNN senior management immediately investigated. We concluded this was a technological malfunction not an issue of operator error. A portion of the switcher experienced a momentary glitch. We obviously regret that it happened and are working on the equipment to ensure it is not repeated."

Maybe they're correct. I don't know. If not, well, even less of a reason to get your news from any of the 24 hour cable networks.

[New York XC]

According to CNN:
"Upon seeing this unfortunate but very brief graphic, CNN senior management immediately investigated. We concluded this was a technological malfunction not an issue of operator error. A portion of the switcher experienced a momentary glitch. We obviously regret that it happened and are working on the equipment to ensure it is not repeated."



Yeah, that's complete bull****e. There is no way that was not intentional. Somebody really should lose their job over that, though they probably won't and it won't matter cause all this is going to do is to drive more people away from CNN, so it's gonna hurt them in the long run.

[wineturtle]

From what I can see it looks like there is some sort of text in black underneath the X and obscures part of the CNN textbox at the bottom......any idea what it says????

[Wolverine318]

Watch now people will get fired for this (NOT). Next time they'll probably use a bull's eye target. That's why CNN has become a total joke and barely anybody in the US watches it anymore.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3cnc.htm

i watch it. CNN is better than the garbage they call Fox news. At least they stand up to the conservative disease ravaging this country.

[Jwaksman]

Of course you like CNN, because it's the closest channel to your viewpoint. It's identical to why Republicans say that they watch Fox News because they standup to the "leftist disease" ravaging every other television channel.

Everyone picks the channel that's closest to them. If they had North Korean or Cuban television, then that would be your favorite channel.


I sometimes wonder if there was ever a time where people were not so idealogically frozen that they couldn't bear to see the other side of an argument presented...

[MoMo]

People are SOOOO quick to assume conspiracies.

Of COURSE it was a mistake. No fool at CNN would be so stupid as to do that -- an obvious firing offense -- on purpose. That would be tantamount to someone at the Washington Post putting a major obscenity in a Page One headline.

Sometimes accidents are just that -- accidents.

[xcrider]

Of COURSE it was a mistake. No fool at CNN would be so stupid as to do that -- an obvious firing offense -- on purpose. That would be tantamount to someone at the Washington Post putting a major obscenity in a Page One headline.

Sometimes accidents are just that -- accidents.

Or the President having inappropriate relations with an intern. :D

[Wayne B]

Waksman,

"Of course you like CNN, because it's the closest channel to your viewpoint. It's identical to why Republicans say that they watch Fox News because they standup to the "leftist disease" ravaging every other television channel."

There is one very significant difference. CNN makes a reasonable attempt to disclose the truth. In my opinion, Fox is set up strictly as the mouthpiece of the right. It might even be argued that CNN is actually slight to the right of center.

[Wolverine318]

Everyone picks the channel that's closest to them. If they had North Korean or Cuban television, then that would be your favorite channel.


The CBC and the BBC pwns Fox News and every other news organization out there.

[jersey_guy]

The CBC and the BBC pwns Fox News and every other news organization out there.

You forgot Al Jazeera.

[New York XC]

Come on, if Fox News flashed an "X" over Ted Kenndy's face during a speech, liberals would be going crazy about how it was a) intentional and b) shows Fox's right wing bias.

And while I grant Fox generally takes a right wing point of view, the person who said CNN was slightly right of center is sadly mistaken as to what center is in this country. CNN is as to the left as Fox is to the right.

[MoMo]

CNN just explained the glitch -- the big black "X" is used to cue up the CNN logo when they're about to show it, and normally the X is seen in the control room but not on air. Somehow, through a computer glitch, it became visible on air.

[exjersey1]

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2005/11/22/publiceye/entry1065734.shtml (http://)

And from here (http://) note especially this paragraph:
"Mainstream conservative blogger Michelle Malkin, responding to mail from readers with broadcasting experience, writes she is "convinced" it was just a technical goof. Malkin has, in the past, been a vocal critic of news service photo manipulation of Secretary of State Rice and an insulting caption of President Bush on a major news site."

[Sebrle]

Did you guys ever see the Simpsons where they make fun of fox news, it's hilarious:

Fox: Welcome to Fox News. Your Voice for Evil. Tonight we'll be interviewing the top two candidates for Springfield's 24th congressional district. For the Republicans? Beloved children's entertainer, Krusty the Clown. ..and for the Democrats, this guy. (Candidate appears with on-screen devil's horns, communist flag in background)
Candidate: I have a name!
Fox: Yes, I'm sure you do, comrade. I appreciate your being here, you're (switches to split shot of both candidates, and Krusty has an on-screen halo) usually so mired in sleaze it must be an effort to come down to the studio.
Krusty: May I say something?
Fox: Certainly congressman. (switches to split shot of both candidates, and other guy is now upside down)
Candidate: He hasn't won yet!!
Fox: You make a very adulterous point. We will now conclude this debate with a Krusty campaign commercial..


During the above dialogue, a Fox type news crawl appears across the bottom of the screen;
Pointless News Crawls Up 37 Percent...
Do Democrats Cause Cancer? Find Out at foxnews.com...
Rupert Murdoch: Terrific Dancer...
Dow Down 5000 Points...
Study: 92 Percent of Democrats Are Gay...
JFK Posthumously joins Republican Party...
Oil Slicks Found to Keep Seals Young, Supple...
Dan Quayle: Awesome...

[Zat0pek]

At least they stand up to the conservative disease ravaging this country.

I just love intelligent, rational, thoughtful political discourse.

[Zat0pek]

There is one very significant difference. CNN makes a reasonable attempt to disclose the truth. In my opinion, Fox is set up strictly as the mouthpiece of the right. It might even be argued that CNN is actually slight to the right of center.

I have expressed my strong disdain for all of the cable news channels on these boards before, and I wouldn't give a plugged nickel for any of them. I certainly don't defend Fox, nor do I think that this CNN incident is anything other than a technical glitch.

All of that said, I have to disagree with what you wrote. If there has been a bias in the press in the last 40 years, it has been a bias in favor of the left. It could be equally argued that Fox was established to counter that bias. And I very much disagree that CNN is to the right of center.

But my entire post and this entire thread points to the real issue: "News" is now presented with an agenda behind it. That has always been the case to one degree or another, but we reached a point where the majority of news is agenda or bias driven. The news organizations that one usually claims to be the "best" or "most objective" will almost always be those that present the news with the agenda that matches your own. It is so subtle its barely noticed. But its there.

About the only thing you can do is expose yourself in equal amounts to both "conservative" and "liberal" media sources and hope that you can cobble together the real story using both points of view. Most people don't do that; they side with media sources that support their view of the world and it never gets any further than that.

[Jwaksman]

There is one very significant difference. CNN makes a reasonable attempt to disclose the truth. In my opinion, Fox is set up strictly as the mouthpiece of the right. It might even be argued that CNN is actually slight to the right of center.



Of course you believe that - because you're a leftist. Any rightwinger will tell you that Fox News atleast makes a reasonable attempt to disclose the truth while CNN is set up strictly as a mouthpiece of the left (remember, its founder is Ted Turner, who is really far to the left).

I suppose some super right wingers would argue that Fox News is even to the left of center - but no objective person would do anything but laugh at that statement, just as they would laugh at the statement that CNN is right of center.

[xcrider]

It would be near impossible to find an unbiased news source. If you have a human element(reporter, editor, etc.) you have some bias. I for one am thankful that we can have all the different perspectives on the news in this country and others. Even if it is mostly the liberal slanted networks that we have :D

[Zat0pek]

I have an idea.

How about a "News Dissection Thread"?

We can post stories that we dissect throughout the body of the story by adding our own questions or comments. The news story could be pasted in blocks using the quote function, and could interject our own comments and questions.

[exjersey1]

It just struck me how humorously this thread started off.

The guy sounding the death knell of CNN as a serious and unbiased news source (calling it a joke) takes his info from The Drudge Report. Talk about your reputation for accuracy and unstrained information.....

[Wolverine318]

Of course you believe that - because you're a leftist. Any rightwinger will tell you that Fox News atleast makes a reasonable attempt to disclose the truth while CNN is set up strictly as a mouthpiece of the left (remember, its founder is Ted Turner, who is really far to the left).

I suppose some super right wingers would argue that Fox News is even to the left of center - but no objective person would do anything but laugh at that statement, just as they would laugh at the statement that CNN is right of center.

only a right winger deals in absolutes

[KevinM]

only a right winger deals in absolutes

Quoted for hilarity.

[Sulus]

CNN seems to have somewhat of a pro-Democratic, pro-left slant to it, but it's probably less than it used to be. I only say this since many on the left are claiming it has a corporate-bias since the departure of Ted Turner. Yes, he was the founder. But he ain't there anymore. But what I see on Fox News is more just outright propaganda it seems. Just the way everything is framed and presented is very pro-right/republican/administration. There is also evidence to suggest that there is a systematic and concious effort to present the news in such a way. This is not to mention the overwhelmingly right orientation of opinion shows on the network either.
Edit: Just want to mention that I disagree with Jwak's position that FNC and CNN occupy the opposite portions of a kind of dichotomy. It seems to me that their biases are different both in nature and degree.

Serbrle- It's funny that you mention the story about the lampooning of Fox News done on the Simpsons since Matt Groening alledged that FNC threatened to sue Fox Entertainment over the incident. Rupert "Howling Mad" Murdoch was not crazy enough to sue himself. Fox denied any of this ever happening.

[Wayne B]

CNN seems to have somewhat of a pro-Democratic, pro-left slant to it, but it's probably less than it used to be. I only say this since many on the left are claiming it has a corporate-bias since the departure of Ted Turner. Yes, he was the founder.

In watching this argument progress, I was struck by the vehemence of the arguments against my statement that CNN has a slightly right of center bias. I stand by that statement. My reasoning is this:
A) Turner, when young, tended towards the right from my understanding. (He has since moved considerably towards the left. My guess is that this is in part Jane Fonda's influence.)
B) He targeted CNN towards a place where viewership would be maximized (and remember that in its early days, CNN had no competition), and this positioned it somewhat right of center. He recognized that there was a belief that the networks, with their NY/LA bias, tended to be perceived as left of center by much of middle America. It was a business decision.
C) I would argue that the traditional networks historically have made reasonable attempts to provide a reasonable rendition of the truth. There has been a 30+ year program orchestrated by a number of heavily moneyed sources to manipulate the thinking of America. This effort has put extreme rightists on the radio, etc. and has to a great degree succeeded. This effort is well described in David Brock's The Republican Noise Machine. Note that with the desire for cmmentary on the news, some of this relative lack of bias has diminished.

Thus, in spite of your disagreeing, I stand by my position.

Zat,
I have to thank you for, while disagreeing, doing so respectfully and at least clearly stating your case and backing it up with a cogent argument. That's something most of the other posters here do not do.

[Kalaby]

There is one very significant difference. CNN makes a reasonable attempt to disclose the truth. In my opinion, Fox is set up strictly as the mouthpiece of the right.

Emphasis on the bolded part above.

Personal politics always plays a significant role in how one views the inherent bias displayed by a particular media outlet.

Before those that are left of center get on me, the same would hold true had the post above read:

There is one very significant difference. Fox makes a reasonable attempt to disclose the truth. In my opinion, CNN is set up strictly as the mouthpiece of the left.

[mzungu]

below is a timely AP story about fox news. a real story, in contrast to the delusional rantings of the originator of this thread. But let me just point out my observation, shared by others, about the right's recent approach to relativism. Relativism is the view that universal truth cannot be attained, because our attempt to reach truth is necessarily confined in validity to our own particular, e.g., individual, cultural, gender, race, national perspectives, context, and biases. The dogmatic declaration of relativism in this form is obviously self-refuting. In any case, in the 1980s, the right made a big deal about criticizing leftist academic deconstructionist and postmodernist discourses as allegedly relativist (a misreading in most cases, I would argue), in contrast to the absolute, universal values held by the right. Recently, however, there has been a dramatic turn, such that while the right has held onto its absolute self-confidence in the universal truth of its values, religious and otherwise, it has attempted hypocritically to discredit the uncomfortable 'truths' discovered by the media and muckrakers about republican operations both according to the familiar ad hominem logical fallacy, attacking the messengers, and less obviously according to the dogmatic, self-refuting assertion of relativism. By this latter account, which we have seen expressed in various forms here on this site by jwaksman and zat0pek, most prominently, it is impossible to choose one side or another on the basis of truth value because all of the media and all of us are unable ever to overcome our own cultural-political-evaluative biases in reporting world, national, or local events. By this means, the right seeks to inoculate itself against all fact-based criticism from the left.

" Fox News Won't Show Ad Opposing Alito 1 hour, 20 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Fox News is refusing to air an advertisement critical of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, citing its lawyers' contention that the spot is factually incorrect.

A spokesman for the groups sponsoring the ad said the network's decision reflects the political right's effort to shield President Bush's choice for the high court.

The ad says that as an appellate court judge, Alito has "ruled to make it easier for corporations to discriminate ... even voted to approve strip search of a 10-year-old girl." Referring to a document Alito wrote in 1985 while seeking a job in the Reagan administration, it quotes him as saying that "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion."

The groups backing the ad include the Alliance for Justice, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, People for The American Way and abortion rights organizations.

"It's not about ideology, it's about quality and honesty," Irena Briganti, a Fox News spokeswoman, said of the decision to reject the ad.

She noted that Fox had refused to run one ad by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in which Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry was called a traitor and recently turned down a spot from the Republican National Committee because of content and its use of excerpts from other news programs.

Jim Jordan, a spokesman for the groups, said, "The entire right wing establishment, from Pat Robertson to Jerry Falwell to Fox News, has circled the wagons around Sam Alito."

Paul Schur, a Fox spokesman, said that according to the network's lawyers, the ad is "factually incorrect and we've given them an opportunity to fix it."

Asked about changing the ad in response to Fox's request, Jordan said, "Roger Ailes doesn't get to edit our ads." Ailes is chairman of Fox News.

Bush nominated Alito to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who is retiring. Alito's confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee are to begin Jan. 9. In a letter to the nominee Tuesday, Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record) of Vermont, the panel's top Democrat, pressed Alito to complete a background questionnaire quickly, saying delays would make it hard for the panel to prepare for early January hearings.

In a 2004 decision, the 3rd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in the case of four police officers who faced a lawsuit after the search of a mother and her 10-year-old daughter in the course of executing a search warrant for narcotics.

The court said "searching Jane and Mary Doe for evidence beyond the scope of the warrant and without probable cause violated their clearly established Fourth Amendment rights." The court pointed out that "a search warrant for a premises does not constitute a license to search everyone inside."

Alito dissented in the case, saying the best reading of the warrant was that it authorized the search of anyone found on the premises. He added that even if the warrant didn't explicitly give that authorization, "a reasonable police officer could certainly have read the warrant as doing so."

The groups said the ad would run on cable television news programs nationally as well as in Maine and Rhode Island, two states that have a total of three moderate Republican senators.

They declined to say how much would be spent, but officials at rival organizations placed the expenditure at less than $65,000, an amount unlikely to make a significant impact."

[jersey_guy]

I take back what I said about CNN. It looks they fired a switchboard operator after he said the CNN defaced our Vice President on purpose.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashcf.htm

Good call by the network, and it will help them restore some credibility.

[New York XC]

"We did it just to make a point. Tell them to stop lying, Bush and Cheney. Bring our soldiers home."

"Was it not freedom of speech? Yes or No?"

"If you don't like it, don't watch."



the words of a CNN operator....

[Jwaksman]

Somehow I think that if Foxnews had put an X across John Kerry during a speech that this wouldn't be brushed under the rug... In fact, it would probably be the biggest story on the news for atleast a week, and momo and mzungu would be telling us how this was all an orchestration of Bush, Cheney and the Jewish Neocon cabal :D

[gesser]

Yeah, that's complete bull****e. There is no way that was not intentional. Somebody really should lose their job over that, though they probably won't and it won't matter cause all this is going to do is to drive more people away from CNN, so it's gonna hurt them in the long run.

No, no it won't.

Don't you think most people watching CNN hate Cheney in the first place? If anything, it'll endear them more to the channel.

Secondly, that's pretty funny. It's arguable, but I think he is the most vile person in the country today. Child rapists can't hold a candle to that guy. Can't wait for him to get another heart attack. Maybe that ahole should jog. Heck, Bush does that.

[jersey_guy]

I think [the Vice President] is the most vile person in the country today. Child rapists can't hold a candle to that guy. Can't wait for him to get another heart attack.

Thanks to people like you, Republicans have and will continue to win federal elections. Keep it up.

[gesser]

Thanks to people like you, Republicans have and will continue to win federal elections. Keep it up.

This is not a matter of party affiliation JG. It's a matter of humanity and social consciousness. Am I serious about my sentiments? Eh, probably not. But I certainly believe he's one of the most heinous Americans. If Christians believe that capital punishment is the only fair punishment for murder, my religion tells me being a complete moron who has been a indirect cause of 1000's of deaths only deserves death too.

Go eat more fatty foods Dick.

[Jwaksman]

gesser, come on man. Regardless of how you feel about any of the major politicians in this country, it's pretty absurd to compare Bush, Kerry, Cheney, Dean or any of them to a child rapist. They are all doing what they think is best for the country. Even if you disagree with what they think is best for the country, their intentions are still far better than those of anyone who rapes little children. Wishing for the death of a sitting United States Vice President is something that I hope you'll grow out of as you mature.

[gesser]

gesser, come on man. Regardless of how you feel about any of the major politicians in this country, it's pretty absurd to compare Bush, Kerry, Cheney, Dean or any of them to a child rapist. They are all doing what they think is best for the country. Even if you disagree with what they think is best for the country, their intentions are still far better than those of anyone who rapes little children. Wishing for the death of a sitting United States Vice President is something that I hope you'll grow out of as you mature.

I suppose my diatribe shows how frustrated I am at politics in general. However, I still contend that Dick Cheney is clearly a villain who will soon die due to lifestyle habits. And when he does, I can honestly say I won't be shedding a tear. Some people are just bad eggs. Wishing death upon a person...I don't condone unless the person is pretty bad, and in my eyes he is.

I feel the same way about big CEOs who swindle their shareholders. These people never change and don't think about anyone but themselves. Disregard for your fellow citizens is reprehensible to me and Dick Cheney tops that list.

*I believe in Cheney and Halliburton having influence over Iraq, so this is why I feel this way. Argue with me on this all you guys want, but I strongly feel that when W and Dick were discussing Iraq, they brought up a list of positives and negatives. Somewhere at the top of the pros list was a big ass contract for Halliburton. Sure, it's legal, but I still dk how they got away with it. Sure, I don't believe it was the reason for going to Iraq. However, I definitely think it clouded their judgement and Cheney should've stepped up to the plate. Conflict of interest in its truest sense.

The guy was the freakin CEO and I believe has shares in the company!!!

I hate conspiracy theory as much as the next guy. However that's not a irrational thinking at all.

[Jwaksman]

Done your research, eh? Dick Cheney sold all shares of his company before becoming Vice President. He receives a stipend from them, but it is a fixed amount - he receives no financial benefit if Halliburton makes larger profits. It's an obvious fact to anyone who actually knows the facts of the situation that if Gore had been elected President in 2000 we'd still have gone to war with Iraq and Halliburton still would have been hired to do what they did.

Don't late irrational hatred blind your thoughts and cause you to say silly things.

[mzungu]

wrong as usual:

"Cheney retired from the company during the 2000 U.S. presidential election campaign with a severance package worth $20 million.

Cheney's deferred compensation from Halliburton, which appeared on his 2001 financial disclosure statement, generated an income between $50,000 to $100,000. Cheney also retains 433,000 share-equivalent unexercised stock options at Halliburton.

On the question of Cheney's deferred compensation from Halliburton, officials of the Bush-Cheney campaign said that before entering office in 2001, Cheney bought an insurance policy that guaranteed a fixed amount of deferred payments from Halliburton each year for five years so that the payments would not depend on the company's fortunes. The officials also said he had promised to donate to charity any after-tax profits he made from exercising his stock options. These steps are not unusual for corporate executives who enter government."

cheney's stock options rise in value with halliburton's stock.

[Sebrle]

"That still would leave the possibility that Cheney could profit from his Halliburton stock options if the company's stock rises in value. However, Cheney and his wife Lynne have assigned any future profits from their stock options in Halliburton and several other companies to charity. And we're not just taking the Cheney's word for this -- we asked for a copy of the legal agreement they signed, which we post here (http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/Cheney%20Gift%20Trust%20Agreement.pdf) publicly for the first time.

The "Gift Trust Agreement" the Cheney's signed two days before he took office turns over power of attorney to a trust administrator to sell the options at some future time and to give the after-tax profits to three charities. The agreement specifies that 40% will go to the University of Wyoming (Cheney's home state), 40% will go to George Washington University's medical faculty to be used for tax-exempt charitable purposes, and 20% will go to Capital Partners for Education , a charity that provides financial aid for low-income students in Washington, DC to attend private and religious schools.

The agreement states that it is "irrevocable and may not be terminated, waived or amended," so the Cheney's can't take back their options later."

Kerry Ad Falsely Accuses Cheney on Halliburton (http://www.factcheck.org/article261.html)

[Jwaksman]

Exactly. As usual, mzungu tries to find something wrong with what I say and fails miserably. I don't even understand why he thinks that he can get away with ignoring every major source of facts and information in the world, and just repeat what he sees posted on dailykos.com, and think that he's going to convince anybody.....

[gesser]

Done your research, eh? Dick Cheney sold all shares of his company before becoming Vice President. He receives a stipend from them, but it is a fixed amount - he receives no financial benefit if Halliburton makes larger profits. It's an obvious fact to anyone who actually knows the facts of the situation that if Gore had been elected President in 2000 we'd still have gone to war with Iraq and Halliburton still would have been hired to do what they did.

Don't late irrational hatred blind your thoughts and cause you to say silly things.


The guy was the freakin CEO and I BELIEVE has shares in the company!!!

Like I said, I wasn't sure. However, it's impossible to deny it's a huge conflict of interest.

Secondly, I dk who to believe. What's mzungu's source? He must have cashed out some money in the process. I do believe his options now go toward charity. However the point is this benefits Cheney's friends still at Halli and it will keep the company that he led going strong. So it's still a conflict of interest no matter what he's doing with his shares right now.

[gesser]

BTW, what is so bad about wishing death upon this man Jwak?

One, I have no influence over his mortality.

Two, death happens.

Three, he's in poor health and it's due to himself.

Four, being unfit to serve as VP is a diservice to the American public who semi-elected him.

Five, I don't know why you think wishing death upon ppl is immature. How many intelligent Americans wanted Tim McVeigh, Terry Nichols, Sacco and Vanzetti, and the Son of Sam dead? Millions. Why? Because they saw them as evil ppl who had a hand in the deaths of others. That is the same way I feel about Cheney. He's an evil person who has had a hand in the deaths of others. Sure everyone's somewhat responsible for someone else's death. But Cheney's sketchy connection to Iraq (show me 10000000 articles on how it's legal, but I'll always contend it's pretty sketch) is pretty sick.

[Jwaksman]

gesser... you have to be kidding me if you think that Bush started an entire war so that friends of one of his friends could make a little bit more money. I mean, seriously, think about what you're saying.


And wishing death upon a leader of your country is just flat-out wrong. I save my death wishes for people like Osama Bin Laden and Robert Mugabe. Dick Cheney has not broken any laws or done anything outside the bounds of his job. He is simply being Vice President. You can disagree with his policy opinions... but they're just opinions. He believes that he knows what is best for the country, and you have your own opinion. To wish death on someone simply because they have a different view of what's best for the country is just stupid - there's no better word for it.

[Kalaby]

Gesser, you're WAY over the line with your Cheney death wish sentiments.

[Wolverine318]

BTW, what is so bad about wishing death upon this man Jwak?

One, I have no influence over his mortality.

Two, death happens.

Three, he's in poor health and it's due to himself.

Four, being unfit to serve as VP is a diservice to the American public who semi-elected him.

Five, I don't know why you think wishing death upon ppl is immature. How many intelligent Americans wanted Tim McVeigh, Terry Nichols, Sacco and Vanzetti, and the Son of Sam dead? Millions. Why? Because they saw them as evil ppl who had a hand in the deaths of others. That is the same way I feel about Cheney. He's an evil person who has had a hand in the deaths of others. Sure everyone's somewhat responsible for someone else's death. But Cheney's sketchy connection to Iraq (show me 10000000 articles on how it's legal, but I'll always contend it's pretty sketch) is pretty sick.

I love you

[gesser]

gesser... you have to be kidding me if you think that Bush started an entire war so that friends of one of his friends could make a little bit more money. I mean, seriously, think about what you're saying.



You're bypassing key words in my statements like...
"*I believe in Cheney and Halliburton having influence over Iraq, so this is why I feel this way. Argue with me on this all you guys want, but I strongly feel that when W and Dick were discussing Iraq, they brought up a list of positives and negatives. Somewhere at the top of the pros list was a big ass contract for Halliburton. Sure, it's legal, but I still dk how they got away with it. Sure, I don't believe it was the reason for going to Iraq. However, I definitely think it clouded their judgement and Cheney should've stepped up to the plate. Conflict of interest in its truest sense."

So no I'm not kidding you because I don't believe Bush started an entire war over Cheney and his buds...which I clearly wrote.

[Dyenimator]

Gesser is probably pulling a jersey_guy, no one could ever make such off the wall comments.

[gesser]

Gesser, you're WAY over the line with your Cheney death wish sentiments.

Over the line? What is the line? Who details what this line is? Does god make this line?

Honestly, I feel like you're saying I'm over the line because you voted Bush-Cheney. Therefore, you feel like he's "your" guy.

Hey I'm not making death threats or wishing him a slow and painful death. I'm just saying I'm not going to cry when he dies and if God would smite him tomorrow so be it. I'm not going to push him in front of a bus, but I won't be the one who sweeps him away to save him. (This is if I outlive Cheney which I hope to do)

[gesser]

Gesser is probably pulling a jersey_guy, no one could ever make such off the wall comments.

What's so off the wall?

I never explicitly say someone should kill him. I wouldn't make a comment like that.


I suppose my diatribe shows how frustrated I am at politics in general. However, I still contend that Dick Cheney is clearly a villain who will soon die due to lifestyle habits. And when he does, I can honestly say I won't be shedding a tear. Some people are just bad eggs. Wishing death upon a person...I don't condone unless the person is pretty bad, and in my eyes he is.

Nope. Nothing in there that says anything crazy.

It's arguable, but I think he is the most vile person in the country today. Child rapists can't hold a candle to that guy. Can't wait for him to get another heart attack. Maybe that ahole should jog. Heck, Bush does that.

Hmm...nothing in there that says someone should kill him. "Can't wait for him to get another heart attack"...a mean line but I'm not crazy for saying that. A jerk in this situation, yes. Psycho, no.

[gesser]

To expand on what I said before...

I think some of you guys are upset and calling my comments off the wall because you have some allegiance to Cheney via your vote.

Like if someone said:
"I hope Mark McGwire gets a tumor because he scammed us all"

A hardcore Cardinals and Big Mac fan may say:
"That's off the wall"


But is it? I think it's sweet justice to be honest.

[Sebrle]

Guess who owns moore halliburton stock than Cheney (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47174)

[Sebrle]

Guess who owns moore halliburton stock than Cheney (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47174)

[Kalaby]

Over the line? What is the line? Who details what this line is? Does god make this line?

Honestly, I feel like you're saying I'm over the line because you voted Bush-Cheney. Therefore, you feel like he's "your" guy.

Hey I'm not making death threats or wishing him a slow and painful death. I'm just saying I'm not going to cry when he dies and if God would smite him tomorrow so be it. I'm not going to push him in front of a bus, but I won't be the one who sweeps him away to save him. (This is if I outlive Cheney which I hope to do)

It has absolutely nothing to do about his political affiliation. I NEVER agree with people wishing bad things/death upon others. Though, I can make a rare exception for the Hitlers and Stalins, etc. It would be the same thing for me had you said Clinton or Gore instead of Cheney. Sorry, I think it is strange to have that type of reaction. You are certainly entitled to express your feelings, but they are far from normal regardless of whether you voted for Bush/Cheney or not.

[mzungu]

Exactly. As usual, mzungu tries to find something wrong with what I say and fails miserably. I don't even understand why he thinks that he can get away with ignoring every major source of facts and information in the world, and just repeat what he sees posted on dailykos.com, and think that he's going to convince anybody.....

wrong. your claim was wrong and I disproved it. as for dailykos, they reported exactly the same story that I later posted from the washingtonpost.com, and I notice that you did not then acknowledge that you were wrong.

[mzungu]

I also find it laughable that jwaksman, or anyone for that matter, seriously thinks that all american politicians are out solely for their perception of the good of the country. that is just ridiculous. some are, not all.

[gesser]

It has absolutely nothing to do about his political affiliation. I NEVER agree with people wishing bad things/death upon others. Though, I can make a rare exception for the Hitlers and Stalins, etc. It would be the same thing for me had you said Clinton or Gore instead of Cheney. Sorry, I think it is strange to have that type of reaction. You are certainly entitled to express your feelings, but they are far from normal regardless of whether you voted for Bush/Cheney or not.

Fair enough. "We agree to disagree" on the issue of wishing death/harm upon ppl I suppose.

[Jwaksman]

I also find it laughable that jwaksman, or anyone for that matter, seriously thinks that all american politicians are out solely for their perception of the good of the country. that is just ridiculous. some are, not all.


I find it laughable that you think that you can misquote me over and over again and that if you keep throwing mud against the wall that some of it will stick. I'm sorry, but you lost your credibility a long time ago. If you want to get it back you have to learn how to make a post without it turning into an fact-less assault on me.


Obviously politicians tend to listen to lobbyists and think about their own personal interests. BUT, they also believe that what they do, in general, is better for the country. And, giving out pork is way different from STARTING A WAR. No one would start a war to make their friends money. To even suggest such a thing is so absurd as to make me question whether you are being serious or not.


Just so you know: If your goal really is to just make the left look bad, you're going too far. Cause I don't think too many people here believe this act any more.

[mzungu]

gesser, come on man. Regardless of how you feel about any of the major politicians in this country, it's pretty absurd to compare Bush, Kerry, Cheney, Dean or any of them to a child rapist. They are all doing what they think is best for the country.

qfe :D

[Jwaksman]

you're an idiot :rolleyes:


If I said that so-and-so was a "good person" does that mean that I'm saying that they've never done something wrong in their ENTIRE LIVES??? No, I'm saying that in general they do the right thing. So, politicians are there because they want to do what is right - most of the time. Sure, they might take some money from Walmart to raise the minimum wage, but they figure that won't do too much harm anyway. No politician would start a WAR to make friends of friends a little bit more money. That's just absurd.


If you don't raise the level of your discourse soon I'm going to be forced to make you the 3rd person I ignore for atleast a period of time (the other two were TD and JG, who both made really offensive anti-semitic comments a while back).

[MoMo]

Ah, not me??

Damn. Where have I gone wrong? :p

[gesser]

qfe :D

Whoa. I didn't realize how misquoted I was by Jwak there. He put freaking words into my mouth...or words onto the screen.

This is what I said:
Secondly, that's pretty funny. It's arguable, but I think he is the most vile person in the country today. Child rapists can't hold a candle to that guy. Can't wait for him to get another heart attack. Maybe that ahole should jog. Heck, Bush does that.

This is what he said:
gesser, come on man. Regardless of how you feel about any of the major politicians in this country, it's pretty absurd to compare Bush, Kerry, Cheney, Dean or any of them to a child rapist. They are all doing what they think is best for the country.

I'm not likening them to child rapists. I'm saying: Since I believe W. and Cheney had thoughts of Halli in their minds when deciding on war, and 2100+ dead Americans later, he's worse than a child rapist. Because you're showing wanton disregard for human life.

[Sebrle]

I believe W. and Cheney had thoughts of Halli in their minds when deciding on war, and 2100+ dead Americans later, he's worse than a child rapist. Because you're showing wanton disregard for human life.

A fallen soldier from any country is always a terrible tragedy and hopefully one that will someday go the way of the dodo…

But, in your belief is there any milestone our outcome in Iraq, which will validate the sacrifice of our volunteer military? 1 year from now, 5 years from now, a decade?

Just for perspective…

“The U.S.-led war in Afghanistan may have been justified to win a larger peace, but it is too soon to judge whether the Iraq war was warranted.” The Dali Lama (awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989)

[gesser]

A fallen soldier from any country is always a terrible tragedy and hopefully one that will someday go the way of the dodo…

But, in your belief is there any milestone our outcome in Iraq, which will validate the sacrifice of our volunteer military? 1 year from now, 5 years from now, a decade?

Just for perspective…

“The U.S.-led war in Afghanistan may have been justified to win a larger peace, but it is too soon to judge whether the Iraq war was warranted.” The Dali Lama (awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989)

What do you mean by volunteer?

"But, in your belief is there any milestone our outcome in Iraq, which will validate the sacrifice of our volunteer military? 1 year from now, 5 years from now, a decade?"

Your wording's a little funky. Do you mean when will the war be validated? If yes, I say never. I think 10 years from now the average American will have to pause and almost be reminded of the war...mostly because the war hasn't/didn't accomplish anything of significance to the average 2015 American.

If you mean what will validate the war? Peace in the area and less terrorism in America due to America's beat down in Iraq.

[jersey_guy]

2100+ dead Americans later, he's worse than a child rapist. Because you're showing wanton disregard for human life.

But when Klinton sat on his ass doing nothing when hundreds of thousands of people were being slaughtered in Rwanda, he had all the respect and admiration for human life.

[gesser]

But when Klinton sat on his ass doing nothing when hundreds of thousands of people were being slaughtered in Rwanda, he had all the respect and admiration for human life.

I knew this would come up.

You're missing my point. Cheney had a severe conflict of interest here.

If your point was valid we could be here for days saying every President should be dead according to my beliefs. Unfortunately, I have been talking about when you have greedy top guys with alterior motives that screw the little guy. Like my CEO and implied Enron example from earlier.

[Dyenimator]

If you mean what will validate the war? Peace in the area and less terrorism in America due to America's beat down in Iraq.

Excuse me, but there wasn't hardly any terrorism in America before this war. 911 and the '91 WTC attack were both Al-Qaeda related, am I correct? '93 in Waco wasn't Iraq related and either was '95 in Oklahoma City. Please enlighten me on what terrorism was occurring?

[MoMo]

But when Klinton sat on his ass doing nothing when hundreds of thousands of people were being slaughtered in Rwanda, he had all the respect and admiration for human life.

Sir, would you kindly point me to documentation of a call from some prominent Republican politician of that time -- not from human rights groups -- for us to intervene in Rwanda? I'd appreciate it.

[MoMo]

I managed to find one interesting comment through my own humble research.
From a transcript of the 2000 presidential debate. The question is from Jim Lehrer:

MODERATOR: ... the reverse side of the question, Governor, that Vice President Gore mentioned, 600,000 people died in Rwanda in 1994. There was no U.S. intervention, no intervention from the outside world. Was that a mistake not to intervene?

BUSH: I think the administration did the right thing in that case. I do. It was a horrible situation, no one liked to see it on our TV screens, but it's a case where we need to make sure we have an early warning system in place in places where there could be ethnic cleansing and genocide the way we saw it there in Rwanda. And that's a case where we need to use our influence to have countries in Africa come together and help deal with the situation. The administration, seem like we're having a great love for us tonight, but the administration made the right decision on training Nigerian troops for situations just such as this in Rwanda, and so I thought they made the right decision not to send U.S. troops into Rwanda.

[mzungu]

please, please ignore me, jwaksman!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

but until then, here are the exact words that YOU used:
"They are all doing what they think is best for the country."

I really do not believe that for many politicians. And few Americans do.

I didn't make the other comment you attributed to me.

sebrle, I think that it is an interesting question what would validate the iraq war. certainly the failure to discover wmd was a significant blow to the argument that we should go to war to prevent saddam's use of wmd. the installation of a democratic, non-repressive government, which is in process and which may or may not occur in a stable way (look at the cold war), would validate the argument that we are going to war for political freedom in iraq. rapidly reducing the body count, american and iraqi, would help validate the argument that going to iraq would save lives by deposing a dangerous dictator who would have killed more people if left in power. creating political stability would validate the war against pre-criticism that said that invading iraq would create political instability and civil war (which it has, so far). not to be forgotten is the question of global terrorism: bush and cheney argued that war in iraq would reduce terrorism and to this point it has dramatically increased terrorism. incidentally, bush-cheney often suggest that most of the insurgency consists of foreign terrorists, but according to John Murtha's briefings by generals, only 7% of the insurgency fits into that category. Most are Iraqi sunnis.

[gesser]

Excuse me, but there wasn't hardly any terrorism in America before this war. 911 and the '91 WTC attack were both Al-Qaeda related, am I correct? '93 in Waco wasn't Iraq related and either was '95 in Oklahoma City. Please enlighten me on what terrorism was occurring?

Excuse me? Huh?

I was just trying to answer the guy's question with no attitude. Unfortunately you seem to be upset at someone.

My answer:
"If you mean what will validate the war? Peace in the area and less terrorism in America due to America's beat down in Iraq"

You're not looking at what I said the right way. I wasn't implying Iraq or ppl in Iraq have done terror in America. I mean America's beat down will send a message to the rest of the world, especially domestic or foreign terrorists.

However, my personal opinion is this will never happen and I don't like the message of beating down on small sovereign nations. He asked me what will validate the war and I said what would validate it for me. Too bad that will never happen. War in Iraq will continue to fester hate for America(ns) and in turn more crazies wanting to drop bombs/planes on us.

So why the attitude? I never said Tim McVeigh was from Baghdad or the Waco Wackos are really the Karbala Krazies.

Nice try in being condescending and trying to make me look like an absolute moron though. I appreciate it.

[gesser]

The validation of the war:

I don't know what would realistically validate it for me. I've said what would validate it. Peace in the region & less fear of terrorism in America.

However, I know that won't ever happen consistently over a span of time. So I just want this Constitution to work out along with the government. I'm no expert on reconstructing a country so I'll leave that up to those who know. But just set up the people in place. Again, I have no knowledge, but a strong legal system would seem to be a absolute must. Not oppressive, but I worry about the safety of these officials. A murder of one of them would set things back each and every time.

From America's standpoint, I just want the end to come quickly. Make a timeframe, even if it is fluid. Each day we hear about 5 more soldiers dying, and the light at the end of the tunnel seems to grow dimmer and dimmer.

I've recently watched 4-5 news shows showing stories about a reporter following a group of soldiers. In each instance you can feel how much the citizens hate the Americans being there. Checking their cars. Screaming at them in another language. Rumaging thru their belongings. Patting down their bodies. All of this because they're 20-50 yrs old and male.

I put myself in their shoes. What if Hitler had a son named Franz who led a super Germany into America. He left his Nazi troops here to pull me over on I-95 because I don't have blonde hair. They screaming at me in German. Now I dk if I could blow some one up, but you'd have to imagine some Americans would be pissed enough to try and blow these guys up.

My point is America being there makes matters worse for the most part. So finish it up soon and bring the remaining troops home.

These are fairly obvious statements, but I just wanted to rant.

[Dyenimator]

I read it wrong, calm down. I thought Sebrle said that.

[gesser]

I read it wrong, calm down. I thought Sebrle said that.

Okay. I'm calm.