Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 44

Thread: Fox news is garbage.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Excelsior Springs, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    42

    Post imported post

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_qUv...%5Fany%5Fworse

    What he said was true, but poorly worded. The CIA and the 9/11 commission report back up his assertion though.

    Unfortunetly the spin machine at fox decided he's a conspiracy theorist now

  2. #2
    Regular Member qednick's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Bandera, TX
    Posts
    524

    Post imported post

    Yup it's unfortunate. Ron Paul is absolutely the most 2nd amendment (and freedom) friendly politician running in 2008. It's a shame that the MSM are bought and paid for by the same people that bought and paid for the other big government candidates.

    Go Ron Paul 2008!!

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    92

    Post imported post

    Ron Paul is a great man, but he does not follow the Neo-Con agenda so the party will not follow him.

  4. #4
    Regular Member qednick's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Bandera, TX
    Posts
    524

    Post imported post

    Bite My Ass wrote:
    The other day on the Faux News "debate" someone asked if any of the candidates DIDN'T believe in evolutin. Three raised their hands.

    Ron Paul is about a carriage short of being a loose cannon on deck.

    So far I don't see anyone on either side I'd want running the show. And of some candidate dons cammies and a shotgun and starts claiming "I'm a hunter and support the Second Amendment." I'm gonna go after them with a double bore side by side.



    Well if you look at Ron Paul's voting record you'll see he's NEVER voted for any federal restrictions on gun ownership. You can't exactly say that of Rudy McRomney or pretty much any other politician. Also, unlike the main three candidates, he doesn't flip-flop on issues.

    I don't agree with him 100% but I'd rather agree with someone 95% than all the rest that maybe hit 10-20% in my book.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Kelly J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Blue Springs, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    511

    Post imported post

    qednick wrote:


    Well if you look at Ron Paul's voting record you'll see he's NEVER voted for any federal restrictions on gun ownership. You can't exactly say that of Rudy McRomney or pretty much any other politician. Also, unlike the main three candidates, he doesn't flip-flop on issues.

    I don't agree with him 100% but I'd rather agree with someone 95% than all the rest that maybe hit 10-20% in my book.


    OT

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    797

    Post imported post

    Actually, uh, Ron Paul has stances on most of those issues.

    He wants to get rid of the IRS and the Federal Reserve and have the govt issue metal backed money.

    While a gold/silver based system certainly has many drawbacks, the main advantages outweight them by alot

    Namely:

    1. Your money won't devalue nearly as fast as fiat money, it could even rise in value of the supply of gold/silver was reduced...

    2. The government wouldn't have endless spending potential by simply printing money. <-- This is by far the most important issue ever. If the government hadn't been printing money all these years we wouldn't have been capable of ******* off terrorists....

    While I understand most terrorists are crazy insane people, their leaders are not. (You don't see Osama blowing himself up do you? That's because he knows it would be stupid.) Terrorist leaders know well that without U.S. foreign intervention, they wouldn't be able to unite the already warring tribes to fight against the U.S. It's a case of us doing exactly what the enemy wants. If you don't believe this I can show you tons of documents written by members of the CIA even.... And even Osama says this if you were to read what he writes.

    All other issues are moot. A majority of our problems today come from fiat money. Paul understands this issue infinitely more than any other candidate. Infinitely, because the other candidates don't even think about it ever. I only hope Paul has a chance to explain his monetary stance to the general public, as it's currently not even being discussed anywhere.

    In short, fiscal policy makes are breaks a country. It is the end-all issue. Every other issue stems from fiscal policy. Our government is large, bureaucratic, corrupt, and constantly going to war simply because they can print money behind the scenes and delay the cost to the citizens... (or simply hide it from the ignorant ones.... inflation sucks)

    Also, if security of our country is so important to politicians, why are we spending much, much more money in Iraq than for securing our own country?

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    No longer in Alexandria, Egypt
    Posts
    2,798

  8. #8
    Regular Member Kelly J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Blue Springs, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    511

    Post imported post

    kurtmax_0 wrote:
    Actually, uh, Ron Paul has stances on most of those issues.

    He wants to get rid of the IRS and the Federal Reserve and have the govt issue metal backed money.

    While a gold/silver based system certainly has many drawbacks, the main advantages outweight them by alot

    Namely:

    1. Your money won't devalue nearly as fast as fiat money, it could even rise in value of the supply of gold/silver was reduced...

    2. The government wouldn't have endless spending potential by simply printing money. <-- This is by far the most important issue ever. If the government hadn't been printing money all these years we wouldn't have been capable of ******* off terrorists....

    While I understand most terrorists are crazy insane people, their leaders are not. (You don't see Osama blowing himself up do you? That's because he knows it would be stupid.) Terrorist leaders know well that without U.S. foreign intervention, they wouldn't be able to unite the already warring tribes to fight against the U.S. It's a case of us doing exactly what the enemy wants. If you don't believe this I can show you tons of documents written by members of the CIA even.... And even Osama says this if you were to read what he writes.

    All other issues are moot. A majority of our problems today come from fiat money. Paul understands this issue infinitely more than any other candidate. Infinitely, because the other candidates don't even think about it ever. I only hope Paul has a chance to explain his monetary stance to the general public, as it's currently not even being discussed anywhere.

    In short, fiscal policy makes are breaks a country. It is the end-all issue. Every other issue stems from fiscal policy. Our government is large, bureaucratic, corrupt, and constantly going to war simply because they can print money behind the scenes and delay the cost to the citizens... (or simply hide it from the ignorant ones.... inflation sucks)

    Also, if security of our country is so important to politicians, why are we spending much, much more money in Iraq than for securing our own country?
    OT

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Centreville, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,761

    Post imported post

    I think every citizen should be required to sit and listen to that video feed....3/4 of them would probably say Bah, hogwash, that can't happen

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    797

    Post imported post

    Please tell me what Iraq has to do with terrorists? Last I heard we practically declared war on Iraq in the late nineties....

    "Regime change act" or something bs like that. Don't remember exactly, I could look for it if you like.

    Also, there isn't one answer for why terrorists attacked us, but you would have to be largely ignorant to not see that our foreign policy greatly contributed to their decision to attack us.

    Terrorist leaders aren't stupid. If they were, we would have killed them all already. They know that they couldn't recruit a large amount of people without their most powerful recruiting tool: the U.S. messing around in the middle east.

    If we pulled out, there would still be alot of terrorists but at least:

    1. They would not be increasing in number like they are now.
    2. We could spend all the money we spend in foreign countries right now to secure ours, and have our military here in case of a disaster..

    Remember, terrorist leaders want us in the middle east. Osama even said this. Seems like they are winning and not us....

  11. #11
    Regular Member qednick's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Bandera, TX
    Posts
    524

    Post imported post

    Kelly J wrote:
    Â*I grant you we have made a lot of mistakesÂ* but I do not believe for one second that we have done anything to the Terrorist to provoke them into this war, it is all on them, they have decided that we are the enemy and are out to assimilate or destroy us which ever takes place first, and personally I am not a Church going person but I will tell you this I would not accept any religious doctrine that condones the use of people killing themselves for their twisted beliefs, the way these people have, and I would never believe in the promise of X number of Virgins to be there in the after life sounds to me like Satin recruiting followers for his dominion, rather than any real faith based religion, as I understand it the Muslim Faith does not condone these actions taken by the Terrorist so where does that leave the argument, they have made, on the behalf of their faith.
    That there is the very problem. You think Amercia is absolutely totally blameless. Well I'm sorry but when a country decides to police the world and stick their nose in here and there then you can only expect some people somewhere to get a tad pissed off. By your logic, they would've targeted Switzerland, Norway or Canada by now too.

    So the 9/11 commission report and the CIA are wrong, but Fox News is right???

    The old soviets and red chinese knew they were being spoonfed propaganda by the establishment. That's where the real genius of the western systems comes in. The people are still being fed propaganda - they just don't realize it.

    Are you seriously going to tell me that you think these rag heads woke up one morning and just decided, out of all the free western countries, that they hated Amercians & Brits and so began to terrorize us? And, to keep our "free country" status, we're being persuaded to hand over our freedoms on a plate? Real ID, Patriot Act, etc.

    Don't get me wrong. I'm not against Fred Thompson per se and would definitely prefer him to the Rudy McRomney trio or the top 3 democrats - but he's still a big government neo-con in the pockets of big corporations.
    The appeal to me of Ron Paul is not just his 2 amendment record but also his commitment to a smaller government, less taxes and greater personal liberties. I don't know about you but I personally don't want some government bureaucrats telling me what I can eat on my food or spying on me with CCTV cameras, etc.

    Here's a good video about your "fair and balanced" Fox News:

    http://freedocumentaries.org/theatre.php?id=534


    EDIT:
    Also, I just wanted to make it clear right now that I'm no surrender monkey. I believe we were justified in going to Afganistan and after the Taleban. Iraq turned out to be unjustified (false evidence?) but I agreed with it at the time. Personally I think we should've got out once we caught Saddam. Now, we're stuck in the middle of a civil war that's just costing tons of money and more American lives and with no real solution in sight.
    Essentially, with the current state of affairs, there's no way on earth the Republicans can win the next election with another warmongerer running for office.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Kelly J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Blue Springs, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    511

    Post imported post

    kurtmax_0 wrote:
    Please tell me what Iraq has to do with terrorists? Last I heard we practically declared war on Iraq in the late nineties....

    "Regime change act" or something bs like that. Don't remember exactly, I could look for it if you like.

    Also, there isn't one answer for why terrorists attacked us, but you would have to be largely ignorant to not see that our foreign policy greatly contributed to their decision to attack us.

    Terrorist leaders aren't stupid. If they were, we would have killed them all already. They know that they couldn't recruit a large amount of people without their most powerful recruiting tool: the U.S. messing around in the middle east.

    If we pulled out, there would still be alot of terrorists but at least:

    1. They would not be increasing in number like they are now.
    2. We could spend all the money we spend in foreign countries right now to secure ours, and have our military here in case of a disaster..

    Remember, terrorist leaders want us in the middle east. Osama even said this. Seems like they are winning and not us....
    OT

  13. #13
    Regular Member Kelly J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Blue Springs, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    511

    Post imported post

    OT

  14. #14
    Regular Member qednick's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Bandera, TX
    Posts
    524

    Post imported post

    qednick, I think you should go back and reread your history of the events that led up to this point in time, your say Fox news is selling Propaganda to the masses yet you are willing to accept the Propaganda of the Mass Media, I guess that because they are many and Fox is one Fox by that account is wrong. I never said that America was Blameless only that this Terrorism is totally on the Radical Muslims, and as for the CIA, and the 911 Commission, that sort of falls under the category of Military Intelligence, a misnomer.

    Where did I say I was willing to accept the propaganda of the mass media? I said I wasn't willing to accept Fox News' propaganda. One could infer that also applies to the other networks - which is actually the case. I only trust the internet these days.


    The old soviets and red Chinese knew they were being spoon-fed propaganda by the establishment. That's where the real genius of the western systems comes in. The people are still being fed propaganda - they just don't realize it.

    I totally fail to see any relevance here, but if you wish you may try to connect the dots.


    Connect what dots? There are none to connect. Do you really think we're not being fed propaganda here?

    You never read Rag Heads in any of my statements, they are people that I do not share a Religious Belief with but I do not disrespect anyone who has demonstrated the will and apparent ability to inflict great harm to us here, their own kind there and to our troops in the field, I hold to the premise you keep your friends close but your enemy closer. Never underestimate your enemy.

    I called them rag heads.


    I get that you don’t like Fox News and I’m fine with that, the Video is what it is, and I have no comment one way or the other, pro or con, it is up to the individual to make up their own mind on the issue of Fox or any other network Station, I’m sure that a piece can be done on any one of them and I assure you there is dirt under the rug at them all.


    I couldn't find videos about any of the other networks - only Fox News. I'm pretty sure the others are just as bad.


    As to Iraq being an unjustified, unfounded, lack of evidenced war will be brought out in the history of the event after the fact, the problem I have with this position that it was not justified is a very simple one, just for the sake of argument what if the weapons of mass destruction were taken out of Iraq as has been suggested before we went in, there was some evidence of Truck convoys between Iraq and Syria before hand and if you consider the fact that Jet aircraft were buried in the desert and only found after a storm removed enough sand to expose the tail section, then what would stop the Iraqis from burring the weapons, I am not saying they did or they didn’t, and this is old stuff that has been tossed around before and will be again, and until it is proven one way or the other it is nothing more that a theory.


    I believe MI6 and/or CIA actually admitted to fabricating evidence. Whichever way you cut it, Ron Paul was only reciting what was written in the 9/11 commission report and recited by the CIA's Michael Scheuer. Are you saying the report and Michael Scheuer are wrong and you know better? Also, we never declared war (as per the constitution requires).



    I will say that we will agree to disagree on several of these points but I will also tell you that I served in the Military to preserve and protect your right to voice your opinion on any subject you choose.


    Of course we can agree to disagree but, with all due respect, stating that you served doesn't win your arguments for you. The reason I'm debating this in the first place is because I'm trying to help preserve the freedoms and liberties we have left. The way things are heading we're going to lose both the first and second amendments along with Habeus Corpus and everything else. Do you want your service to be in vain? Do you want your grandkids to be microchipped and tracked by the federal government? Do you want the US, Canada and Mexico to become one big country with a single currency?That's the way things are heading and, quite frankly, it scares the **** out of me.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Kelly J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Blue Springs, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    511

    Post imported post

    qednick wrote:
    Of course we can agree to disagree but, with all due respect, stating that you served doesn't win your arguments for you. The reason I'm debating this in the first place is because I'm trying to help preserve the freedoms and liberties we have left. The way things are heading we're going to lose both the first and second amendments along with Habeus Corpus and everything else. Do you want your service to be in vain? Do you want your grandkids to be microchipped and tracked by the federal government? Do you want the US, Canada and Mexico to become one big country with a single currency?That's the way things are heading and, quite frankly, it scares the **** out of me.


    OT

  16. #16
    Regular Member qednick's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Bandera, TX
    Posts
    524

    Post imported post

    Kelly J, I'm not sure what you're saying. You seem to assume that I'm some kind of conspiracy nutjob because I don't agree with you 100%. I already said I like Fred Thompson but I just think Ron Paul has better policies and is more genuine. I also actually agree with a lot that you're saying (ie. immigration, social security, taxes, etc.) - I just wanted to know why you think Thompson is the best.

    Perhaps if you can tell me why you think Fred Thompson is a better candidate I can understand where you're coming from better?

  17. #17
    Regular Member Kelly J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Blue Springs, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    511

    Post imported post

    qednick wrote:
    Kelly J, I'm not sure what you're saying. You seem to assume that I'm some kind of conspiracy nutjob because I don't agree with you 100%. I already said I like Fred Thompson but I just think Ron Paul has better policies and is more genuine. I also actually agree with a lot that you're saying (ie. immigration, social security, taxes, etc.) - I just wanted to know why you think Thompson is the best.

    Perhaps if you can tell me why you think Fred Thompson is a better candidate I can understand where you're coming from better?
    OT

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    dumries, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    321

    Post imported post

    kurtmax_0 wrote:
    Please tell me what Iraq has to do with terrorists? Last I heard we practically declared war on Iraq in the late nineties....

    "Regime change act" or something bs like that. Don't remember exactly, I could look for it if you like.


    It was called an " Uncontitional Surrender" after Desert Storm!

    " The lastI heard we practiclly declared war on Iraq"

    I can't belive you said that!!!!

    Iraq has been violating that surrender sence about 1996

  19. #19
    Regular Member Kelly J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Blue Springs, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    511

    Post imported post

    1st freedom wrote:
    kurtmax_0 wrote:
    Please tell me what Iraq has to do with terrorists? Last I heard we practically declared war on Iraq in the late nineties....

    "Regime change act" or something bs like that. Don't remember exactly, I could look for it if you like.


    It was called an " Uncontitional Surrender" after Desert Storm!

    " The lastI heard we practiclly declared war on Iraq"

    I can't belive you said that!!!!

    Iraq has been violating that surrender sence about 1996
    OT

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    dumries, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    321

    Post imported post

    Your right Kelly, there will be another attack and the blame America first crowed will be spewing out all kinda crap,taking the side of Islamic extreamist without acknowledging that they have been declaring war on this country sence the early 70's, taking cheap shots at us all over the globe.they should take note that that hasn't happend sence 9/11.

    We have a choise,civillians blownup in Bagdad or in Detroit,DC,Atlanta,I think the former is a better choise.

    I belive you have already stated your choise Kertmax-_o



    Am I wrong ??











  21. #21
    Regular Member qednick's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Bandera, TX
    Posts
    524

    Post imported post

    Kelly J wrote:
    Some people just don't get it, they are so brain washed by the Left Media that they just can not think for themselves, maybe if there is another major Attack (GOD FORBID) on our soil they might wake up and smell the roses. But that will probably be our fault also because we are trying to defend against terrorism, in those Countries where it is located, so as not to have their ilk on our soil.
    Dang, I thought we'd settled this. So, to a neo-con, everyone that doesn't agree 100% with their agenda is "left wing" then? One could just as easily say:

    Some people just don't get it, they are so brain washed by the neo-con media that they just cannot think for themselves.

    C'mon Kelly J. I can't speak for kurtmax_0 personally but I think you may be jumping to conclusions when you assert that he's a left-winger. He's more likely a libertarian, like me. I can't stand left-wingers as much as I can't stand neo-cons. For the record, I'm not assuming you're a neo-con. I just think you should be a little more open-minded when it comes to the reasons behind the 9/11 attacks. Two months ago, I was like you. I supported the war (don't confuse supporting the war with supporting the troops - I'll always support the troops). However, you reach a point where you wonder what's up with the picture. You also realize that, with a pro-war neo-con at the helm of the republican party, we're going to end up with Hillary Clinton in office for sure - which I really don't want. You may notice from my location that I live in a big military town. I barely know anyone that isn't either active duty or retired military. I've yet to meet one that actually thinks this current Iraq war is winable. In a sense we already won it because we got Saddam out. Now, we're just left as unwelcome mediators in a civil war. I'm not sure what there is left to win.

    "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross" - Upton Sinclair

    I guess their next target will be Switzerland then. They have the world's smallest government and direct democracy. Any petition of at least 50,000 written signatures will prompt a public referendum on that matter, the results of which become binding in Swiss law - therefore making the Swiss the freest people on earth. They and their country are pretty dang well off too and the people are armed to the teeth.
    Of course, the Swiss government stick their nose into middle east politics just as much as the US government do don't they? - so I suppose they attacked America first because they're going in alphabetical order. And when they do attack Switzerland, it will obviously be because the Swiss people were all just sitting around thoroughly enjoying their freedoms.

  22. #22
    Regular Member qednick's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Bandera, TX
    Posts
    524

    Post imported post

    1st freedom wrote:
    Your right Kelly, there will be another attack and the blame America first crowed will be spewing out all kinda crap,taking the side of Islamic extreamist without acknowledging that they have been declaring war on this country sence the early 70's, taking cheap shots at us all over the globe.they should take note that that hasn't happend sence 9/11.

    We have a choise,civillians blownup in Bagdad or in Detroit,DC,Atlanta,I think the former is a better choise.

    I belive you have already stated your choise Kertmax-_o

    Am I wrong ??
    Why do you think they've been declaring war on us since the 1970's then???

    Nobody is supporting the islamic extremists. You've been watching too much Shaun Hannity.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    dumries, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    321

    Post imported post

    Iran, 1972, Jimmy Carter, hostiges,, C'omon man I know some of this is ringing a bell

  24. #24
    Regular Member qednick's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Bandera, TX
    Posts
    524

    Post imported post

    1st freedom wrote:
    Iran, 1972, Jimmy Carter, hostiges,, C'omon man I know some of this is ringing a bell
    I know exactly what you're talking about. I'm asking you why do you think all that happened? You seem to think they just did it because they simply decided one morning that they don't like us and our way of life. Is that what you're saying?

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    dumries, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    321

    Post imported post

    It would almost appear That way, but it is very complicated, some of the more obvious reasons are:

    Convert the infidelsto Islam or kill them,

    We are an allie to Israel.

    The western way of life has appieled to many in the middle east and that is a threat to the fundimentalist.

    Dictatorships that want to controle there neighbors, and pilfer their resourses are unable to doso, not because of the UN but because of the US

    Jealousy, pride , hatred of those that havefrom those that have not.

    The list goes on and on.

    And I know you are going to start talking obout our policies and global affairs,, but no matter how much you disagree how we do busness or who we do it with , It dose not justify taking non military personal hostage and exicuting them or blowing up embassies killing inoccentpeople or flying planes into buildings.

    These people want you dead! Your mother, her too,unless she is willing to put on the burka and praise allah.

    Tell me where i'm wrong.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •