» » Special Forces could CRUSH one terror cell at a time.
» »
» » The radicals don’t have armies or thousands of warriors dug-in in one
» » place to fight us toe-to-toe.
» »
» » Armed manless drones, Special Forces and Air Power.
» » That’s all we need to defeat those radical freaks, IMO.
» » One cell at a time.
» »
» » Special Forces could also find and kill Bin Laden.
» » Instead we “outsourced” the hunt for UBL and invaded Iraq, a secular
» » Muslim nation. Now the Taliban is back in Afghanistan.
» » Now Iraq is becoming an “Islamic State”.
» » Most women were better off under Saddam.
» » How lame is that???
» » Heck of a job Bushit & Co.
» »
» » BRING THE NATIONAL GUARD HOME NOW!
» » They didn’t sign up for this BS.
» » They should be guarding our “Homeland”.
» »
» » Occupying Iraq is making millions of people hate us all over the globe.
» » People that didn’t hate us before bombs dropped on their homes and
» their
» » water/power was cut off now side with the terrorists.
» »
» » Some people, IMO, don’t want terror to be defeated.
» » They want Boogie Men to scare us with, endless war profits and
» » geopolitical “influence” in the Middle East (and elsewhere).
» »
» » That, IMHO, is immoral and UN-AMERICAN and certainly not Christian
» » values.
» » I agree with Ron Paul on that! Lol.
» »
» » Just my opinion MPB.
» »
» » Happy New Year!
»
» explain how special forces can hunt down Bin Laden In Afghanistan when
» the govt of that country is protecting him, as well as the local tribesmen
» in those cave areas
Not only that… I believe the government of Pakistan (Musharraf and company) is protecting him. I think Sofar wants an all out “special forces” invasion of Pakistan just to get an irrelevant, incapacitated toad with the notion that this government, with nukes BTW, really wouldn’t mind. If only it were that freakin simple!
From 9/12, I’ve always believed that the US would not try to capture Bin Laden. Just make believe. With Bin Laden at large, the american policy in the Middle east is more easily adjustable. Bin Laden is not much of a real stake for the US. A good security policy at home as Bush has managed to ensure has been way more efficient to protect the US from a new lethal attack by this guy’s alleged lieutenants than our cripple though comprimising european governments have on our (my) land.
If Rumsfeld/Cheney/Bush had really been serious about getting Bin Laden, they would have thrown a lot more American boots onto Afghan soil from the beginning and kept them there. We would’ve had the guy a long time ago if it wasn’t for the Iraq debacle.
Well I’m glad to see you use such unbiased sources such as the “New York Times” for your fodder, LOL. Fox News Channel seems to be such the antithesis for you but everything the Times says in your opinion is gospel. How predictable from you Sofar and of course not the least bit hypocritical.
BTW, MPB, explain some strange thing to me: I often listen to Fox news radio as I had heard that Foxnews was the right wing media in the US. How come the main jock (Alan C.) is an unrepenting liberal (though rigorous when it comes to arguing and debating within the limits of his opinion)? I don’t understand…
I’m not sure about the specific person you cite, but in general a channel like Fox news will try to put up an opposing opinion to at least pretend to be “unbiased.” (No matter how biased a mainstream US media source might sound, they all ususally portray themselves as being unbiased.)
The majority of the mainstream US media leans mildly to the left/liberal. (Or Democratic-Party Left, if you wanna get more specific. Not all the left in America agrees with this party.) Some of this bias is intentional on the part of the people in the media, but most of it is just a product of the type of individuals who are likely to go into media careers and not really very intentional.
The more right-wing sources (like Fox) news are a much smaller percentage of the total US coverage, but they have compensated by being notably farther out from the center than the rest of the media. FM talk radio has been a particularly strong force in right-wing media in recent years.
» I’m not sure about the specific person you cite, but in general a channel
» like Fox news will try to put up an opposing opinion to at least pretend
» to be “unbiased.” (No matter how biased a mainstream US media source
» might sound, they all ususally portray themselves as being unbiased.)
»
I believe he is talking about Alan Combs and mos liberals will say that Fox just puts him on to be a flunky to Sean Hanity.
»
» The majority of the mainstream US media leans mildly to the left/liberal.
» (Or Democratic-Party Left, if you wanna get more specific. Not all the
» left in America agrees with this party.) Some of this bias is intentional
» on the part of the people in the media, but most of it is just a product of
» the type of individuals who are likely to go into media careers and not
» really very intentional.
»
» The more right-wing sources (like Fox) news are a much smaller percentage
» of the total US coverage, but they have compensated by being notably
» farther out from the center than the rest of the media. FM talk radio has
» been a particularly strong force in right-wing media in recent years.
Cal your liberalism is even clouding your own objectivity. You’re contradicting the intent of your argument. What I hear from your statements is that the mainstream media leans only “mildly” to the left, but Fox News might as well be directly plugged to the GOP. At least I hear debate on Fox. On the other networks, you usually have just a bunch of choir preaching or gang bang sessions… hardly just “mildly” left leaning but hey maybe that’s just my clouded judgement.
Get a grip MPB.
Couldn’t it be possible that one side is farther out than the other?
What the left lacks in extremity it more than makes up for in sheer volume of exposure. I’d be the first to agree that the influence of the mild-left media is absolutely inescapable in modern America, whereas the mouthpieces of the Right have to be actively sought-out more by the viewers.
But if you think the mainstream US media is REALLY a decent representation of the far left, then you’re just not informed. If you’re not even gonna attempt to get more than one side of the argument about anything, then please don’t vote anymore.
The mainstream US media is mostly just very stupid. But that does not make their positions reflective of the true FAR-left. Like I said in my other post, the mainstream media is more DEMOCRATIC-PARTY leaning than extreme-liberal leaning.
The Democratic party in this day & age basically means the Clintons more than any other single set of viewpoints. And they’re decidedly Center-Left rather than extreme. Always have been. (If you disagree about the Clintons basically being center-left on most issues, then your view is just hopelessly skewed and I’m not gonna bother to argue with you anymore. You don’t have to LIKE any of their views just to acknowledge where they lie in the range of things.)
Part of the reason that the Right’s rhetoric has been so effective in recent years is because we’re getting a neverending deluge of Left input that is pretty simplistic/stupid & relatively watered-down on most issues. (The media’s attempt to be “unbiased,” remember?) But then it’s countered with a sharp blast of a more decidedly one-sided conservative response. OF COURSE the right side sounds more sensible in that scenario. (Although I will say that the Right seems to have drifted back a little bit towards the center in the years since the '04 election.)
» Get a grip MPB.
» Couldn’t it be possible that one side is farther out than the other?
»
» What the left lacks in extremity it more than makes up for in sheer volume
» of exposure. I’d be the first to agree that the influence of the mild-left
» media is absolutely inescapable in modern America, whereas the mouthpieces
» of the Right have to be actively sought-out more by the viewers.
»
» But if you think the mainstream US media is REALLY a decent representation
» of the far left, then you’re just not informed. If you’re not even gonna
» attempt to get more than one side of the argument about anything, then
» please don’t vote anymore.
»
»
» The mainstream US media is mostly just very stupid. But that does not
» make their positions reflective of the true FAR-left. Like I said in my
» other post, the mainstream media is more DEMOCRATIC-PARTY leaning than
» extreme-liberal leaning.
»
» The Democratic party in this day & age basically means the Clintons more
» than any other single set of viewpoints. And they’re decidedly
» Center-Left rather than extreme. Always have been. (If you disagree
» about the Clintons basically being center-left on most issues, then your
» view is just hopelessly skewed and I’m not gonna bother to argue with you
» anymore. You don’t have to LIKE any of their views just to acknowledge
» where they lie in the range of things.)
»
»
» Part of the reason that the Right’s rhetoric has been so effective in
» recent years is because we’re getting a neverending deluge of Left input
» that is pretty simplistic/stupid & relatively watered-down on most issues.
» (The media’s attempt to be “unbiased,” remember?) But then it’s countered
» with a sharp blast of a more decidedly one-sided conservative response. OF
» COURSE the right side sounds more sensible in that scenario. (Although I
» will say that the Right seems to have drifted back a little bit towards
» the center in the years since the '04 election.)
Did I say they reflected the “far” left? But you’re right cal… I’m the one that should not vote since I practically live and breath politics instead of watching reality TV and Oprah like most of the dumb fucks in this country. BTW, I listen to NPR dude so I can get a gage on the wackiness of the other side… no I’m not permanently glued to FOX like you would want to believe. So enlighten me cal… What do I need to do to be “more” informed like you? What is “your” truth… so I can really vote in good consciousness…your fucking way.
Go back through the last couple of posts on here. Look at who has attacked who for saying what.
You’ve got every right to insist that the sky is green for all I care.
But if you really think it’s green, then I’m also not gonna try to argue with you about it. I’m just gonna call your view skewed, ask you not to vote in any future sky color ballots, and then leave the room.
» Go back through the last couple of posts on here. Look at who has attacked
» who for saying what.
»
»
»
» You’ve got every right to insist that the sky is green for all I care.
»
» But if you really think it’s green, then I’m also not gonna try to argue
» with you about it. I’m just gonna call your view skewed, ask you not to
» vote in any future sky color ballots, and then leave the room.
Man I would rather you just come out with it then spinning your casual type tongue and cheek subtle condescensions… so I will. FUCK YOU!
Hey MPB, why are we arguing about this? This got stupid really fast and there wasn’t even a good reason.
I still stand by my political points, but maybe your criticisms of my tone are justified. Maybe I reacted with condescention too quickly and the “hope you don’t vote” crack came out too early.
I’ve had a lot of these arguments in the past with other people in my life (along similar issue lines). I probably vented some of that pent-up frustration on you just now without realizing it. My bad. I switch into a mode as if I’ve already had it out with you on the subject a dozen times in the past and that’s not the case.
» Hey MPB, why are we arguing about this? This got stupid really fast and
» there wasn’t even a good reason.
»
»
» I still stand by my political points, but maybe your criticisms of my tone
» are justified. Maybe I reacted with condescention too quickly and the
» “hope you don’t vote” crack came out too early.
»
» I’ve had a lot of these arguments in the past with other people in my life
» (along similar issue lines). I probably vented some of that pent-up
» frustration on you just now without realizing it. My bad. I switch into
» a mode as if I’ve already had it out with you on the subject a dozen times
» in the past and that’s not the case.
No problem man. We’re cool. Politics can always lead to a heated debate and those opinions are part of what defines our individualism.
This is an advertising site for paid
advertisers to showcase successful hair restoration results only. It is not the
mandate of this site to engage in the discussion of failed, unsuccessful
procedures, lawsuits, litigations, refunds or complaint cases. Surgical hair
restoration procedures carry risks. Please do thorough research, consult your
own physician and investigate a doctor's background carefully before making a
decision. By proceeding to use our site, you agree to abide by our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy at http://hairsite.com/terms-of-use/ where you can also find a list of HairSite's sponsoring physicians.
