100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: NeoCon | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
The media work for the neo cons which is a devastating outcome as they turn humans to a mere robots believing all kinds of excuses .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The media work for the neo cons which is a devastating outcome as they turn humans to a mere robots believing all kinds of excuses .
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Quikstepper
on
Sun 07/06/08 01:22 PM
|
|
You didn't answer the questions. You never do. I did answer the questions...you just don't like the answer... Besides... I could ask the same question to you. All I would hear is more Bush bashing & talk of how terrible American policy is & how arrogant we are. It's nice that you have the freedom to throw stones while others do the heavy lifting. Isn't it? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The media work for the neo cons which is a devastating outcome as they turn humans to a mere robots believing all kinds of excuses . Hi, Sam, Yes, some neocons have a massive hold on the media, e.g. Rupert Murdoch, who most recently purchased the Wall Street Journal. He also owns, IIRC, the Jerusalem Post and New York Post among many others. But the most worrisome thing is not that, in my opinion. It is that non-neocon media allowed themselves to be flimflammed by the neocons when it came to assessing the 'threat' of Saddam Hussein to the US, and to assessing the 'threat of Iran now to the US. The non-neocon journalists were astonishingly lax in investigating the claims of the White House, the Pentagon and the CIA, thus allowing the likes of Paul Wolfowitz and Doug Feith to present the neocon disinformation as if it were fact. Indeed, some journalists like Judith Miller of the New York Times became known among neocons as people who were willing and eager to print whatever was given them, unchallenged. The Washington Post and New York Times both apologized later to their readers for this failure of journalism, but, in my opinion, they are making the same gullible mistakes now with regard to Iran: the neocons are still dominating the media. Oceans |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, if the NeoCons support stopping global warming, as Rupert Murdoch is a HUGE supporter of the green movement, what does that mean? George Bush has jumped on this green bandwagon as well.
So.... exactly whose side is the "green" movement on? NBC has now bought the Weather Channel as well, and NBC is the biggest advocate in all media for the "green" movement. Isn't it funny that the biggest opponents of NeoCons here are also closely allied to them on a common cause of 'saving the world'. I find it hilarious. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just another note, the same people that hate NeoCons always greatly dislike those evil Evangelical leaders. Isn't it funny that the Evangelical leaders are also very supportive of the "green" movement to 'save the world' that you also support?
"In an "Evangelical Call to Action," 86 leaders call on President Bush to take greater steps toward curbing global warming." - http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5194527 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Naturally.
It makes sense that people will agree on some issues and not on others, no? I can't think of anyone who entirely agrees with me on the range of questions that I have opinions on, nor can I think of anyone with whom I am in 100% agreement. 'Labels' are of limited use when it comes to thinking. Oceans 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Naturally. It makes sense that people will agree on some issues and not on others, no? I can't think of anyone who entirely agrees with me on the range of questions that I have opinions on, nor can I think of anyone with whom I am in 100% agreement. 'Labels' are of limited use when it comes to thinking. Oceans Why did you have to ruin my fun? :) I know that, but I didn't think there were other people who actually think here. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Mon 07/07/08 08:25 AM
|
|
Just another note, the same people that hate NeoCons always greatly dislike those evil Evangelical leaders. Isn't it funny that the Evangelical leaders are also very supportive of the "green" movement to 'save the world' that you also support? "In an "Evangelical Call to Action," 86 leaders call on President Bush to take greater steps toward curbing global warming." - http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5194527 The "green movement" is a sham with a hidden agenda. I don't support it. It is a front for a different and very sinister agenda altogether. That agenda has to do with over population. Global warming is also a joke and a sham. JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Green Agenda:
We all want to be wise and careful stewards of the beautiful planet we call home. However, many aspects of the modern green movement that is permeating every segment of our society are not about saving the environment. You don’t have to dig very deep to discover the true beliefs and agenda of the influential leaders who are attempting to impose their vision of a New Green Order on the world. Please carefully consider the implications of the opinions that they so openly and freely express: (references and sources for the quotes below can be found here) "Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?" - Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation." - Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can't let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are." - Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund http://green-agenda.com/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, if the NeoCons support stopping global warming, as Rupert Murdoch is a HUGE supporter of the green movement, what does that mean? George Bush has jumped on this green bandwagon as well. So.... exactly whose side is the "green" movement on? NBC has now bought the Weather Channel as well, and NBC is the biggest advocate in all media for the "green" movement. Isn't it funny that the biggest opponents of NeoCons here are also closely allied to them on a common cause of 'saving the world'. I find it hilarious. Anything the Neocons support should be scrutinized very carefully. The organizations may sound good on the surface and yet be working against humanity and towards some other hidden agenda. JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The media work for the neo cons which is a devastating outcome as they turn humans to a mere robots believing all kinds of excuses . Hi, Sam, Yes, some neocons have a massive hold on the media, e.g. Rupert Murdoch, who most recently purchased the Wall Street Journal. He also owns, IIRC, the Jerusalem Post and New York Post among many others. But the most worrisome thing is not that, in my opinion. It is that non-neocon media allowed themselves to be flimflammed by the neocons when it came to assessing the 'threat' of Saddam Hussein to the US, and to assessing the 'threat of Iran now to the US. The non-neocon journalists were astonishingly lax in investigating the claims of the White House, the Pentagon and the CIA, thus allowing the likes of Paul Wolfowitz and Doug Feith to present the neocon disinformation as if it were fact. Indeed, some journalists like Judith Miller of the New York Times became known among neocons as people who were willing and eager to print whatever was given them, unchallenged. The Washington Post and New York Times both apologized later to their readers for this failure of journalism, but, in my opinion, they are making the same gullible mistakes now with regard to Iran: the neocons are still dominating the media. Oceans Uh...so what's your point about Ruppert Murdock? The counter culture has ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, NY Times, Daily News & I could go on & on. All rags as far as MANY are concerned. OMT...the only reason the libs went along was because they were too cowardly to say what they were really thinking...that would have been MASS suicide for them in light of 911. It just goes to show what liars & sneaks they really are. That should scare EVERYONE. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The media work for the neo cons which is a devastating outcome as they turn humans to a mere robots believing all kinds of excuses . Hi, Sam, Yes, some neocons have a massive hold on the media, e.g. Rupert Murdoch, who most recently purchased the Wall Street Journal. He also owns, IIRC, the Jerusalem Post and New York Post among many others. But the most worrisome thing is not that, in my opinion. It is that non-neocon media allowed themselves to be flimflammed by the neocons when it came to assessing the 'threat' of Saddam Hussein to the US, and to assessing the 'threat of Iran now to the US. The non-neocon journalists were astonishingly lax in investigating the claims of the White House, the Pentagon and the CIA, thus allowing the likes of Paul Wolfowitz and Doug Feith to present the neocon disinformation as if it were fact. Indeed, some journalists like Judith Miller of the New York Times became known among neocons as people who were willing and eager to print whatever was given them, unchallenged. The Washington Post and New York Times both apologized later to their readers for this failure of journalism, but, in my opinion, they are making the same gullible mistakes now with regard to Iran: the neocons are still dominating the media. Oceans Uh...so what's your point about Ruppert Murdock? The counter culture has ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, NY Times, Daily News & I could go on & on. All rags as far as MANY are concerned. OMT...the only reason the libs went along was because they were too cowardly to say what they were really thinking...that would have been MASS suicide for them in light of 911. It just goes to show what liars & sneaks they really are. That should scare EVERYONE. When it comes to religion ,politics and many aspects of life , people need their brains to sort out fiction and non fiction . Those who follow the crowd and the media with no reasoning are referred to as the new robots in a new century . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The media work for the neo cons which is a devastating outcome as they turn humans to a mere robots believing all kinds of excuses . Hi, Sam, Yes, some neocons have a massive hold on the media, e.g. Rupert Murdoch, who most recently purchased the Wall Street Journal. He also owns, IIRC, the Jerusalem Post and New York Post among many others. But the most worrisome thing is not that, in my opinion. It is that non-neocon media allowed themselves to be flimflammed by the neocons when it came to assessing the 'threat' of Saddam Hussein to the US, and to assessing the 'threat of Iran now to the US. The non-neocon journalists were astonishingly lax in investigating the claims of the White House, the Pentagon and the CIA, thus allowing the likes of Paul Wolfowitz and Doug Feith to present the neocon disinformation as if it were fact. Indeed, some journalists like Judith Miller of the New York Times became known among neocons as people who were willing and eager to print whatever was given them, unchallenged. The Washington Post and New York Times both apologized later to their readers for this failure of journalism, but, in my opinion, they are making the same gullible mistakes now with regard to Iran: the neocons are still dominating the media. Oceans Uh...so what's your point about Ruppert Murdock? The counter culture has ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, NY Times, Daily News & I could go on & on. All rags as far as MANY are concerned. OMT...the only reason the libs went along was because they were too cowardly to say what they were really thinking...that would have been MASS suicide for them in light of 911. It just goes to show what liars & sneaks they really are. That should scare EVERYONE. When it comes to religion ,politics and many aspects of life , people need their brains to sort out fiction and non fiction . Those who follow the crowd and the media with no reasoning are referred to as the new robots in a new century . So, you only respond to robots on some occassions? lol. Was this a programmed response fed to your core memory bank by your designers? |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Lindyy
on
Mon 07/07/08 04:00 PM
|
|
[ When it comes to religion ,politics and many aspects of life , people need their brains to sort out fiction and non fiction . Those who follow the crowd and the media with no reasoning are referred to as the new robots in a new century . ********************************************** ********************************************** ********************************************** May I ask what you determine to be fiction, and non fiction? And what are your qualifications to do such decision making? And how do you determine who is doing the 'no reasoning' as you put it? And, who gives you the authority to do so? And just what makes you right and everyone else wrong? I disagree with your above post 110%. I find it biased, prejudiced and stated without any intellectual verbage or facts to prove anything. You unabashadely put a 'blanket covering conviction/labeling' on eveyone who does not agree to your line of thinking. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Naturally. It makes sense that people will agree on some issues and not on others, no? I can't think of anyone who entirely agrees with me on the range of questions that I have opinions on, nor can I think of anyone with whom I am in 100% agreement. 'Labels' are of limited use when it comes to thinking. Oceans Why did you have to ruin my fun? :) I know that, but I didn't think there were other people who actually think here. Really? No thinkers here, you say? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By "moderate Palestinian govt.," do you mean aligned with US interests? We curretly support Saudi Arabia, a country of monarchy, suppression of women, beheadings and incubation of "radical Islam?" We have a history of supporting brutal dictators like the Saudi Royals, Saddam, Somoza, the Shah of Iran, etc. when it is in our interest. Why is it an affront to us when suppressed people of those regimes we've supported want to strike back? Why are we always right? Excuses. There is always an excuse. If there is no excuse, there is a reason. "For national security" is a good one. "To fight terrorism" is another good one. "He was a bad dictator.." is another good one. "They have weapons of mass destruction and plan to use them on us..." is a great one. "They are responsible for 9-11." "They harbor terrorists" I could go on and on. There are always reasons and excuses. JB Of which when brought down to brass tacks, is not a valid nor legitimate reason for any of it. Bin laden strikes us and we go after Saddam, huh? Regardless to whatever Saddam was, he did not strike us, bin laden did. Who has given his life for 9/11? Not bin laden, Saddam and thousands if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Was bin laden from Iraq? Did bin laden use Iraqis for his 9/11 plot? Where do we get the connection to Iraq from 9/11? I will say it again and this is not my philosophy, my friend warmachine is the one who brought it up, Terrorism is a warfare tactic, it does not describe a type of person, people, or nation. ALL warring nations employ terroristic tactics in warfare. The idiot leader of this country declared war against a warfare tactic. Utilized by all nations in conflict. But he is not so much of an idiot because he made more than half of this country believe that Saddam would stop another attack on this country when he did not do the first one. Pretty tricky there. He made people believe that we were protecting ourselves from "terrorists" who were never in Iraq to begin with. Pretty tricky there. It goes on and on. Terrorism is a warring tactic, it is not a type of people, country, etc.... It is a way of warring. Baby shrub made you believe that terrorists have a certain color, shape and type of face, when in reality they are all colors, shapes, types of faces, as all warring countries utilize terrorist tactics. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By "moderate Palestinian govt.," do you mean aligned with US interests? We curretly support Saudi Arabia, a country of monarchy, suppression of women, beheadings and incubation of "radical Islam?" We have a history of supporting brutal dictators like the Saudi Royals, Saddam, Somoza, the Shah of Iran, etc. when it is in our interest. Why is it an affront to us when suppressed people of those regimes we've supported want to strike back? Why are we always right? Excuses. There is always an excuse. If there is no excuse, there is a reason. "For national security" is a good one. "To fight terrorism" is another good one. "He was a bad dictator.." is another good one. "They have weapons of mass destruction and plan to use them on us..." is a great one. "They are responsible for 9-11." "They harbor terrorists" I could go on and on. There are always reasons and excuses. JB Of which when brought down to brass tacks, is not a valid nor legitimate reason for any of it. Bin laden strikes us and we go after Saddam, huh? Regardless to whatever Saddam was, he did not strike us, bin laden did. Who has given his life for 9/11? Not bin laden, Saddam and thousands if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Was bin laden from Iraq? Did bin laden use Iraqis for his 9/11 plot? Where do we get the connection to Iraq from 9/11? I will say it again and this is not my philosophy, my friend warmachine is the one who brought it up, Terrorism is a warfare tactic, it does not describe a type of person, people, or nation. ALL warring nations employ terroristic tactics in warfare. The idiot leader of this country declared war against a warfare tactic. Utilized by all nations in conflict. But he is not so much of an idiot because he made more than half of this country believe that Saddam would stop another attack on this country when he did not do the first one. Pretty tricky there. He made people believe that we were protecting ourselves from "terrorists" who were never in Iraq to begin with. Pretty tricky there. It goes on and on. Terrorism is a warring tactic, it is not a type of people, country, etc.... It is a way of warring. Baby shrub made you believe that terrorists have a certain color, shape and type of face, when in reality they are all colors, shapes, types of faces, as all warring countries utilize terrorist tactics. I do not believe in the Administration version of events vis a vis 9/11. I believe the conspiracy theories as they make more sense . We have to ask ourselves : who benefited from this tragedy ?. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Naturally. It makes sense that people will agree on some issues and not on others, no? I can't think of anyone who entirely agrees with me on the range of questions that I have opinions on, nor can I think of anyone with whom I am in 100% agreement. 'Labels' are of limited use when it comes to thinking. Oceans Why did you have to ruin my fun? :) I know that, but I didn't think there were other people who actually think here. Really? No thinkers here, you say? Most think winx, but it's quite evident to the thinkers that there are a few sheeple here as well! Cant you see them? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Naturally. It makes sense that people will agree on some issues and not on others, no? I can't think of anyone who entirely agrees with me on the range of questions that I have opinions on, nor can I think of anyone with whom I am in 100% agreement. 'Labels' are of limited use when it comes to thinking. Oceans Why did you have to ruin my fun? :) I know that, but I didn't think there were other people who actually think here. Really? No thinkers here, you say? Most think winx, but it's quite evident to the thinkers that there are a few sheeple here as well! Cant you see them? 
|
|
|
|
|
