With all this anti-American talk...

[headhuntersix]

Do u honestly think ur getting the real picture..or being told the truth. I saw a post a few months back on here about Iraq and something that happened. It was a bash the war post as usual...trying to make some lib point about violance etc. Funny thing was the event that took place was staged by our own guys, complete with a news release and eveything. Thats really deside the point. U guys don't get the full picture. The media has cut back in Iraq, that should tell u something.

[Dos Equis]

Haha so what's wrong with getting information from the  internet?  There are only three choices..........

1) Mainstream Media
2) The Internet
3) Military/Government complex

Who has the most to gain or the least to gain out of those three by lying?  Profits? Propaganda? 

4) Firsthand experience
5) Talking to people with firsthand experience

[Benny B]

4) Firsthand experience
5) Talking to people with firsthand experience

There isn't unanimity of thought with those who have "first hand experience". That's where intelligence and judgment have to be used to put the facts together. It is quite clear that you and your fellow butt-boy GI Joe lack both...intelligence and judgment.

[MuscleMcMannus]

Do u honestly think ur getting the real picture..or being told the truth. I saw a post a few months back on here about Iraq and something that happened. It was a bash the war post as usual...trying to make some lib point about violance etc. Funny thing was the event that took place was staged by our own guys, complete with a news release and eveything. Thats really deside the point. U guys don't get the full picture. The media has cut back in Iraq, that should tell u something.

The internet is like a book. You don't read a book and believe everything in it hook line and sinker.  Well people like you might.  You check the footnotes, the sources and the references.  I.e. Primary sources vs. secondary sources.  Remember those things they teach you in high school?  A good book has good sources and lots of them to back up it's main thesis or point.  Same thing with internet articles.  Sorry there are a helluva a lot of pro war/neocon right wing websites as  well as liberal left wing and thankfully for most of us everything in between.  Plus you have all international news agencies. 

Dude give your fucking liberalism is a mental disorder bullshit a rest.  Not everyone that questions the war or Bush and U.S. foreign policy is a granola eating, bandana wearing, free loving woodstock hippie liberal. 

[Deicide]

www.antiwar.com

One of the best sites out there for news; a bunch of Libertarians as well.

[MuscleMcMannus]

HH6 your willing to send your son to die for this fool''s fucking war? LOL. 

&feature=related

[MuscleMcMannus]

&feature=related

[Dos Equis]

There isn't unanimity of thought with those who have "first hand experience". That's where intelligence and judgment have to be used to put the facts together. It is quite clear that you and your fellow butt-boy GI Joe lack both...intelligence and judgment.

 

[Deicide]

Wow, Beach Bum, that's a great rebuttal!

[Dos Equis]

Wow, Beach Bum, that's a great rebuttal!

 

[OzmO]

4) Firsthand experience
5) Talking to people with firsthand experience

It's a source but it is limited in scope.

Personal experiences, the few you'd be privy to hear, would be miniscule in comparison to the overall numbers of people involved and their experiences.

Depending on who you talk to you will get different view points laced with personal beliefs and biases.  Overall objectivity will be low.

[Dos Equis]

It's a source but it is limited in scope.

Personal experiences, the few you'd be privy to hear, would be miniscule in comparison to the overall numbers of people involved and their experiences.

Depending on who you talk to you will get different view points laced with personal beliefs and biases.  Overall objectivity will be low.

Firsthand experience is actually the best source IMO.  You have a more informed view if you experience something firsthand as opposed to reading or hearing about it from someone else. 

[OzmO]

Firsthand experience is actually the best source IMO.  You have a more informed view if you experience something firsthand as opposed to reading or hearing about it from someone else. 

It's good in that respect.  However it's still limited.   for example a person serving a year in Iraq in an area that's very friendly to the US and with few incidents of violence will have a much different view of Iraq than someone who had been attacked daily and seen many of his friends die.

[Dos Equis]

It's good in that respect.  However it's still limited.   for example a person serving a year in Iraq in an area that's very friendly to the US and with few incidents of violence will have a much different view of Iraq than someone who had been attacked daily and seen many of his friends die.

I agree, although both will have pretty accurate firsthand experiences that simply need to be put in context (one was in a "friendly" area and one in a "hostile" area). 

[MuscleMcMannus]

Firsthand experience is actually the best source IMO.  You have a more informed view if you experience something firsthand as opposed to reading or hearing about it from someone else. 

So you experience the Iraq war first hand as a soldier so what.  That still doesn't mean you have any comprehension regarding who's pulling the strings behind the scenes.  Firsthand doesn't mean shit unless you can understand the big picture.  I have firsthand knowledge of a lot of things, that doesn't mean I actually understand what I'm looking at, what I've seen, or what I'm experiencing.  So first hand experiences are no more informed than anything else. 

[Dos Equis]

So you experience the Iraq war first hand as a soldier so what.  That still doesn't mean you have any comprehension regarding who's pulling the strings behind the scenes.  Firsthand doesn't mean shit unless you can understand the big picture.  I have firsthand knowledge of a lot of things, that doesn't mean I actually understand what I'm looking at, what I've seen, or what I'm experiencing.  So first hand experiences are no more informed than anything else. 

I agree and disagree.  Context is important and you need to understand the big picture.  So I agree with that part. 

On the other hand, you're assuming a person with firsthand experience doesn't understand the big picture.  Bad assumption.  Maybe they do, maybe they don't. 

Regarding the war, I'd rather hear from someone who has been on the ground about the situation on the ground than read some internet account.  The person on the ground is much more credible. 

[MuscleMcMannus]

I agree and disagree.  Context is important and you need to understand the big picture.  So I agree with that part. 

On the other hand, you're assuming a person with firsthand experience doesn't understand the big picture.  Bad assumption.  Maybe they do, maybe they don't. 

Regarding the war, I'd rather hear from someone who has been on the ground about the situation on the ground than read some internet account.  The person on the ground is much more credible. 

THere are a helluva of a lot of journalists embedded with the troops on the frontline.  True they might be biased as they work for corporate media but no more biased than the troops. 

[OzmO]

The BIAS media?

The Liberal media?

It's really all the "In business to sell advertising revenue" media.

I love it when nipple whores complain about the "liberal" media.  It shows their ignorance.

[headhuntersix]

So you experience the Iraq war first hand as a soldier so what.  That still doesn't mean you have any comprehension regarding who's pulling the strings behind the scenes.  Firsthand doesn't mean shit unless you can understand the big picture.  I have firsthand knowledge of a lot of things, that doesn't mean I actually understand what I'm looking at, what I've seen, or what I'm experiencing.  So first hand experiences are no more informed than anything else. 

Yeah except I have both forst hand knowledge and see the big picture...what do u have net articles and TV. Do u think ur getting the clear picture of the war, here. U libs love to put the military down, yet none of u idiots have served and based on the dim comments made, know a thing ur talking about. "The strings" give me a break.....the war was in our strategic best interest...thats it.

[240 is Back]

The BIAS media?

The Liberal media?

It's really all the "In business to sell advertising revenue" media.

I love it when nipple whores complain about the "liberal" media.  It shows their ignorance.

Yep.  When FOX news has contributor Karl Rove on to give an "Unbiased" account of Barack Obama's true motives, you have to wonder who really believes it's completely unbiased.

I mean, for the FOX fans here, you ADMIT it's biased right, dont you?  OReilly said 2 years ago that his job was to EVEN the field by going RIGHT on things everyone else went left on.

Does anyone really stiff defend FOX and say they're in the MIDDLE?

[headhuntersix]

&feature=related

He's wanted to be a Marine all his life, actually he wants to be a Scout Sniper. He wants to serve and do his part. No quake in his boots. Don't worry my son will protect u...sheep.

Ozmo....funny u guys don't attack MSNBC when they go hard Left.....There are few if any media types without an agenda..and I think u guys are getting editorial confused with news anyway.

[OzmO]

Ozmo....funny u guys don't attack MSNBC when they go hard Left.....There are few if any media types without an agenda..and I think u guys are getting editorial confused with news anyway.

You still don't get it do you?

Why do you think FOX news is rated #1?

Do you really think it's because of it's "Fair & Balanced" news?

BTW, just to show you how off base, stereotyping and assuming you can be at times........   I never watch MSNBC.   I'm pretty much CNN on TV and Fox on the radio.  I listen to Armstrong and Getty in the mornings, occasionally listen to Dobbs, and if i really want to hear a hate filled, ignorant rant, i listen to Savage, which even with all his crap, he occasionally makes great points.

But no, becuase i criticize the establishment i must be a liberal.   

Also, the same goes with editorials.   Editorials are a product.  No matter how you slice it.  If the editorial wasn't getting attention then it would be on the air.   The person giving the editorial wouldn't have the job.

[headhuntersix]

I get it pretty damm well actually. Fox is rated that why because maybe they don't doom and gloom the dogshit out of everything. U never have a crtical thing to say against the Dems, it Bush, the war, McCain..or somebody else.

[Dos Equis]

THere are a helluva of a lot of journalists embedded with the troops on the frontline.  True they might be biased as they work for corporate media but no more biased than the troops. 

Embedded troops have a good view, but the media doesn't report and/or emphasize everything the reporters see.   They focus primarily on carnage. 

[OzmO]

I get it pretty damm well actually. Fox is rated that why because maybe they don't doom and gloom the dogshit out of everything. U never have a crtical thing to say against the Dems, it Bush, the war, McCain..or somebody else.

No you still don't get it.

Fox is rated high because it plays to the conservative aspect of our society cantering to conservatives or like minded people believe and want to hear.   That's how they get ratings the same as CNN, MSNBC, CBS etc... does respectively.

All you seem to be doing is regurgitating  what people have told you to think.

Another example:  

U never have a crtical thing to say against the Dems, it Bush, the war, McCain..or somebody else.

I've been very critical of the dems.  You just assume, because of your paradigm that says:  "Because i criticize the establishment i must be a liberal."  Which means i must hate America and want the moral collapse of our society.

What you uncousiously choose to not acknowledge is:

-  I've been very critical of the Dems 8 years of not being able to come up with an electbale candidate
-  The dems forced pandering the the extremem left to manintain their voting base
-  The liberal attacks and criticisms on US soldiers
-  the dems having to sell out to the idea of pulling out of Iraq to get elected only to be bitched slapped by BUSH which they knew would happen

But here's the problem that your bias doesn't allow you to compute:

BUSH and the REpubs have been in control for 6 years and the better part of 7+
BUSH under his admin committed one of the worse decisions in US history in invading a sovereign country unprovoked based on false intel that has cost us trillion and thousands of lives
OUR economy doesn look good
We aqre int he middle of a home and credit crisis.


SO HH6, it's not like the Dems have really been at the forefront of news making.

And then to top it off, you have the KING of pandering whores, McCain running.

At the very least, like or dislike, at least Obama, is a lib and stands by it.  (although i'm real concern about his tax plans and could cause me to vote against him.)