Renegade Public Forums
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » And people want to vote for this guy?
And people want to vote for this guy? [message #106349] Fri, 06 August 2004 07:16 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
SuperFlyingEngi is currently offline  SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma:
General (1 Star)
hydra1945


Now I get it! It's okay to lie if your intent is to stop a war (oh, and if your name is Michael Moore).


Moore wasn't lying when he added footage of war scenes and war injuries.

SuperFlyingEngi

Name just one factually incorrect statement (that means there are facts to prove the statement incorrect, so don't go saying "He said there were WMDs in Iraq, and that's not true!" because there are no facts to prove such a statement false) that Sean Hannity has not corrected himself for.


Everything they said about Saddam having nuclear weapons was factually incorrect. They were using intelligence from other countries while our own CIA was telling them that the intelligence was a forgery.

hydra1945

Firstly, it is largely a bloodless war since only 900 men have died out of 100,000 men stationed there. That's 0.9% of all men stationed there who have died. It's more bloodless than bloodful. Secondly, I remember seeing a coffin with an American flag on it being taken out of an airplane that held the body of someone who died in Iraq on Fox News, so how can he not allow cameras to view coffins when he DID allow them to view the coffins?


Hydra, blood should not be measured in what percent of our people died, but how many of them died. We've lost over 900 soldiers to a lie war. That's unacceptable.
And we're just going to keep on losing more, since we can't just leave, because the current administration has no real plan for fixing Iraq. Sovereign government, sovereign government, but when will we pull our troops out? Probably not for years, because we can't without having Iraq be destroyed.

There are pictures of coffins because one reporter snuck a camera in and took pictures. She got in some trouble for it, but there was nothing wrong about the photographs.

hydra1945

EDIT: Apparently SuperFlyingEngi isn't the only one mad at Fox News. As told in this article, some Democrats have written a letter to Rupert Murdoch whining about the "bias" on Fox news. Read the article. It's a good read.


That entire article is bullshit. "squealing like babies?" Boortz is a moron. I suggest you stop reading his online articles and pretending they are news.

Nodbugger

And photographing coffins have always been shunned upon.


So now you're changing your story from "coffins were never allowed to be photographed" to it being shunned upon? Do you even know what you're talking about?

hydra1945

Ah, so the percentage is even lower than 0.9%! You shouldn't be complaining that it's so high, Super, you should be celebrating that it's so low!


I'd be celebrating if we hadn't lost a single soldier.

hydra1945

That's only 0.02% of the Iraqi population. How many more people died in Iraq when Saddam was still in power and people were snatched from out of their homes during the middle of the night, rounded up in a single place, and massacred and buried in mass graves?


Mass graves are a lie. They don't exist. They never did. Only about 5,000 Iraqis died during Saddam's regime. And last week, the number came out that the number of Iraqi civilians killed is more like 36,000. But, SURPRISE, this administration hasn't released any numbers about casualties itself.


"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)

The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: How Bush will steal the 2004 Election...
Next Topic: Litmus test for liberals
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Wed Jun 19 04:30:36 MST 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01129 seconds