muddysmind.com

This article brings up a very good poing. Everybody knows that the media leans towards the left (anyone who ACTUALLY tries to see both sides of things, anyhow) That being so anyone outside our country who would see our media would think that our own people are against our Government. This, for the most part, is not the case (except for a few extremists among us). So the rest of the world is getting fed the same line of BS that we are from the liberal media.

hmmm do you think maybe thats part of the liberal agenda?

I think so.

Liberal compared to what?
Right or left of what?

What IS the center?

I find these "labels" we slap on people or organizations silly. When will we all stop trying to make "sides" and work together?
If the colonists who fought and died to make this great country argued and bitched at each other like we do today we would still be a British territory.
Sure they had their differences and also argued but when the time to shut up and just work together came they did.
We face now the biggest challenge of my life time. Terrorism and what I call Over-Government.
Stand back, look at this thing we call our country. Do you see men and women who are created equal and most are valueable? Or do you see liberals, right wingers, tree huggers, commies and socialists?

I love you like a brother Cwilli but all this hate between people on the left and right and front or back or whatever has to be stopped. We're Americans, if we don't stand as one we are dooomed.

Ok, rant over. About the NYT... they are a joke. Anyone who thinks they speak for the U.S. is about as clueless as anyone who thinks the BBC speaks for all the Brittish.

media is a word meaning ;'everything that conveys information' to say that media could be liberal or conservative is a misuse of the word.

the new york times was instrumental in the mis-reporting of East Timor (among other things) the NYT was used by certain individuals in the pentagon to lie to the people of the US (on the editorial page too) how is this liberal?

somewhere in america:

A Klansman calls the 700 Club the liberal media.

Muddy,

I agree with your points and would also like to live in a world where we have no left or right. However that’s not that way it is. I did not make it this way but you cannot deny that it IS this way.

Left or right compared to what? Compared to each other.

You cannot deny that you can read the same story spun each way from different news sources. You cannot deny that exists. I can show you example but I don’t think I have to. Those who refuse to believe that things are this way are the ones who get sucked into a side because they start to believe what they read and they are not careful to try to get both sides.

It’s not my fault but left and right agenda’s do exist.

“we face now the biggest challenge of my life time. Terrorism and what I call Over-Government.”

I could not agree more. The colonists who started this country would have gotten back into their boat and started a new country if they seen how this one turned out.

“We're Americans, if we don't stand as one we are dooomed.”

In a society where free speech is allowed you will always have a left and a right. You will always have a group with an agenda. This is the downside of free speech and is unavoidable. They don’t have this problem in China. This is because anyone speaking out against the Government is thrown in prison.

“to say that media could be liberal or conservative is a misuse of the word.”

Where not talking about correct English here. We are talking about a news source with an agenda based upon the political affiliation of its owners with a particular party. You cannot deny that this exists.

“the new york times was instrumental in the mis-reporting of East Timor (among other things) the NYT was used by certain individuals in the pentagon to lie to the people of the US (on the editorial page too) how is this liberal?”

That proves my point. During the 90’s if Bill Clinton would have stopped fast enough the NYT’s would have went right up his ass. During his administration they only reported what made him look good. This included being used to lie to the people. Example: Every news source (including the NYT’s) SAT on the Monica story because they didn’t want to hurt their beloved hero. It was Matt Drudge who broke that story only because he didn’t share the same political affiliation. We didn’t have FOX news then to balance the point of view. That also started the revolution of the Internet as a news source to include sources on both sides of the coin.

Do you actually think that the NYT’s would sit on a similar story about GW? Yea, right.

So actually I agree with you that the NYT’s would lie to people for the pentagon. However you don’t get a much more liberal news source than the NYT’s.

Besides when a news source like the NYT’s actually backs a candidate in its editorial (Kerry) then that kind of breaks the mold of your definition of ‘media’ and moves more towards ‘propaganda’ I can give you the definition of that if you want.

” somewhere in america: A Klansman calls the 700 Club the liberal media.”

And somewhere in America there is someone who thinks their dog talks to them.

So what’s your point?

"If the colonists who fought and died to make this great country argued and bitched at each other like we do today we would still be a British territory.
Sure they had their differences and also argued but when the time to shut up and just work together came they did."

Yeah, but the colonists back then *grew up* and *lived* under British rule...and even though some colonists didn't mind being under that rule, the majority understood how important it was to break away. They knew there had to be a better way than what the British were giving. They *knew* it would be a bloody battle (in more ways than one) but they also knew it was a war worth fighting.

Besides, life back then was different anyhow as alot of colonists also had experience dealing with the Indians - which, I think we could ALL agree that the Indians were treated *horribly*! BUT that is NOT my point. My point *is*, is that because the majority of the colonists had very ruff lives back then (as compared to us today as people who are now very spoiled to a degree and lead fairly comfortable lives here in America - away from the battlefield of our present day war) ...they (the colonists) knew - for the most part - what a war would demand from them but they gave anyway.

Today, we have not *grown up* under the threat of terrorism (though we *did* grow up under the threat of the cold war - but that's a different subject entirely.) AND we have only actually *lived* under the threat of terrorism (not to mention an *actual* attack) for relatively a short time. Yes, all that we *have* been through so far (I believe) should very well be enough for EVERYONE to be united in the fight against terrorism but there *are* (as you know) some out there who STILL believe we can resolve this threat "peacefully" - which is obviously (as I know you would agree) not only quite nieve but just plane STUPID!

Not to mention the differences in the politicians of then and now. Then...they worked together (with "some" problems) for a common goal. Now? Well, some (I believe) genuinely try to do that but the majority of the time, some politician just gives the people what they what to hear so as they can be elected and then run the show the way *they* (the politician) wants to run it.

"Do you see men and women who are created equal and most are valueable? Or do you see liberals, right wingers, tree huggers, commies and socialists?"

Yes. I think we all would *love* to see each other as *just* men and women who are indeed created equally. But you (people in general) cannot *help* but notice to see the liberals, right wingers, tree huggers, commies and socialists because they won't *let* you forget who they are. Alot of them are always up in your face demanding we accept their way of life as "THE way of life" and that the rest of us need to "change our 'evil' ways". They will admit that "we are the people" and deserve equal rights and they will also go as far to say we all have right to believe the way we want....as long as we agree with them. So, yeah, you just can't help but notice them.

"I love you like a brother Cwilli but all this hate between people on the left and right and front or back or whatever has to be stopped."

Maybe you didn't mean to sound like you were completely "blaming" Cwilli? because others deserve "blame too.

"About the NYT... they are a joke. Anyone who thinks they speak for the U.S. is about as clueless as anyone who thinks the BBC speaks for all the Brittish."

YEP! That about covers it.

Cwilli:

"During the 90’s if Bill Clinton would have stopped fast enough the NYT’s would have went right up his ass."

LM*A*O!!! What do you do? Stay up at nights thinking of new ways to describe how you think then jot them down in a notebook for future use? :-D

I can't see the point.
NYT is saying the plain truth when saying GWB defied the UNO, lied about WMD ... Truth is not leftwing or right wing. It is.
WMD is just like santa claus ... When you never see it for real it's time to realise it does not exist. Time to realise some people lied to you purposefully.
Some things relate to left and right. Some do not.
And the things I have seen in the article do not relate to left and right ... But to right or wrong.

DF:

"NYT is saying the plain truth"

That statement right there just shows how much information *you* lack. Incase you haven't heard, this past year, NYT has been caught in telling lies of their own through some of the articles (and reporters) it has written. Some one would be an idiot for taking ANYTHING they say at face value and NOT checking it with at least a dozen other sources (that have NOTHING to do with the NYT) first.

I for one will not read them as they have proven to me they cannot be trusted.

"WMD is just like santa claus ... When you never see it for real it's time to realise it does not exist."

That explains alot. No wonder you don't believe in God.

We know Sadaam has had them in the past....he USED them before. Not to mention the fact he's an absolute liar.
Just because you can't find something does NOT mean it doesn't exit. Maybe he DID destroy them....but I would NEVER be stupid enough to take Saddam's word for it because he's already proven he can not be trusted to even tell the proper time.

If a loved one turns up missing...does that mean they do not exist anymore? If someone steals your car and it's missing...does that mean it's not out there somewhere? If a scientist has their lab raided and all of their chemicals are taken....does that mean THEY do not exist anymore? Because according to YOUR definition....that's exactly what your saying. You don't see it, you don't find it as of yet....it doesn't exist.

The fact is, you HATE our administration (not that Bush is my favorite either) and anything they do is going to be wrong. Personally, and no offense, but I was actually a bit surprised when you congratulated us on the capture of Saddam. I know you think he's an evil "man" but in all honesty, I thought you would accuse us of treating him inhumanly.

Oh, and just as a little side note. Just as some have stated on this website (as I *think* I have as well but will indeed reiterate)....Even if there were *never* such a thing as WMD's I would have agreed to the U.S attacking and removing him anyway just because of all horible things he was doing to his people already. But I'm sure you already figured *that* one out for yourself.

Try this.
Iraq buried its entire air force in the sand. All of the chemicals Iraq had could fit in 1 tanker truck when in liquid form. 12 brief cases in powder form. They used missiles during the war that were banned. They had defied UN resolutions for 12 years. They broke the cease-fire agreement more times than I can count. They fired on allied aircraft (including French aircraft BTW.) Saddam raped, and murdered his citizened. If that's not case enough, then there is no case for a war ever and you should also be angry over the US and British liberation of Europe.

DF, Not suprised you would believe te NYT's. They fall right in line with your idiology (or idiotology, perhaps)

Oh and Mrs Muddy you forgot one:
If DF lost his common sense does that mean it never existed?

Oh wait. It never did.....

Here is a fast fact that I have told DF many times. France was in Saddams back pocket. He was like the rich uncle when you were a kid who would always give you a dollar. Year after year those dollars added up and bought blind loyalty. DF has been mislead by his own media to believe otherwise. Now that Saddam is gone France has decided to chase the dollar again. This time they decided to get in bed with China. They feel that China will be an economic powerhouse in the future. They are possibly right but its sad how they are licking China's boots now. That just shows what kind of nation France really is.

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=41026

I wonder how your wine will taste with the bitter flavor of communism and censorship? I have a feeling they will add it so slowly that you wont notice.

"WMD is just like santa claus ... When you never see it for real it's time to realise it does not exist."

You mean Santa does not exist???

Look here. You sent one guy with thousands of men under his command to look for WMDs. That man came back and said I've not found any, I doubt any could be found, because frankly I don't think there ever were any...

You ought to believe him.

Apart from that I'm not believing anything the NYT says ... I just said some of the thing they said were obvious.

I'm ashamed of my country licking china's leaders feet...
And i'm not the kind that would support "my" troops if the leaders of my country would send them based on a wrong decision...

Anyway...

AS said before... truth will come out anyhow.

As far as the WMD's....ok, fine.....we'll just have to agree to disagree.

"And i'm not the kind that would support "my" troops if the leaders of my country would send them based on a wrong decision..."

So would you blame and hate your troops for obeying their orders or would you just "stay out of it" and stay "neutral" so to speak.

There were some indeed. We know that because Saddam told us there was.

I'm not sure we'll ever find them as I'm sure they were moved before we attacked. Not hard to move something like that especially when you spend a year saying "we're coming."

"We know that because Saddam told us there was."

skywalker: You are one of the last people who I would expect to take Saddam's "word" as the gospel truth. He was after all trying to scare us into not conquering and occupying his land.

Hans Blix is the one person on earth most qualified to answer the question.

"Hans Blix is the one person on earth most qualified to answer the question."

Hans Blix also works (or at lest *worked*) for the UN - which automatically makes *me* question even him.

benny: i take his word for a grain of salt except that one year (1991) he's agreeing to disarm. Another year he's refusing to disarm (1998) and another year he's saying he didn't have them (2003.)

Either or that's not how I meant that phrase. How I meant it was he told us by using them. So at some point he had them. The question is when/how he got rid of them, you side basically says he disposed of them after spending 7 years not doing so and then telling the people who are supposed to make sure he did to piss off. My side says he either gave em away or buried them.

Oh and hans blix is also a from Germany is it? Either or he was froma c ountry which staunchly opposed any action on Iraq, which leads me to believe a large bias. That's not mentioning that there is the issue of Hans Blix not going in there until 4 years after Saddam told the UN to take a hike. There is no telling what happened in those 4 years. Hans Blix went in there knowing nothing and came out assuming that they must have done what they were supposed to after they proved that the rest of the world would back down when they were demanded to do so.

If there's anyone qualified on the question it is david Kay he is american, appointed by bush, spent one year there, with 1000 people under his order, he's the one saying there was nothing.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/01/25/sprj.nirq.kay/
(liberal media probably...)
Blix is from Sweden if I remember right. Neutral country as far as I know.

My surprise here is : how can you guys care about gay marriage and pledge of allegiance and kerry opposing vietnam ... When we're on the brink of deflation by debt... I mean.

How come no body s talking about that big economic crisis coming ? I mean it is there written in big letters and all the signs are there ... and i still hear here and there how growth will come back through low interest rates ...

Question :
you are the biggest consumer in the world and have a big gun, you can not pay your debt any more :
do you tighten your belt ?
Do you invade some countries or just forget about some of your debt ?
Do you hand over your gun to the government in exchange for some cash so as to be able to pay your debt ?

Hey muddy : why not make a poll in here :
What is your debt to revenue ratio ? How has it moved in the last 5 years ?
You'd be surprised I bet.

Incorrect. David Kay was appointed by Bush 41, not Bush 43. Also, David Kay has flip flopped. A few years ago he was disgusted with the Iraq's non-compliance. In fact he resigned in disgust over it. That was when Clinton was in office. When Bush 43 came around all of a sudden he claimed that he resigned because there was nothing there for him to find. Big shift from 1998 when he resigned and went on CNN saying he was disgusted with Iraq's non-compliance and that Iraq had weapons and wasn't allowing him to do his job.

5 years ago I could not legally hold debt. So mine has gotten poorer from 5 years ago. But, I've also had to get student loans to pay for school (since my parent's 80k a year makes us far to rich to get me any scholarships). I bought a car on credit for the first time ever also (my prior cars I'd paid with cash cause they were cheap enough to do so, this one is actually a nice car.) However, in the 3 years since I've had a credit card, the first year the ratio sucked, however my income to credit card debt ratio has vastly improved in the past year and a half.

5 years ago I was paid 5.15 an hour. I now can easily refuse any job that pays less than 10 and hour.

My parents income to debt ratio has gotten alot better too. Credit cards paid off. Cars close to paid off, refianced the house with an interest rate 1/3 of the old rate about 2 years ago (A rate that was attained from the Jimmy Carter years.) That last part alone has reduced their debt more than paying off all of their credit cards combined would have. Their net income has risen sharply also (mostly due to tax cuts cause both of my parents are ineligible for anything other than a cost of living raise, as their pay rates are maxed at where they work.)

Glad for you that you are out of debt. Same for me.
In case of deflation though ... Risk is wages could go down.

Who is Bush 42 ? (assuming 41 is G, and 43 GW)

I'm not talking about kay resigning in 1998, might have been because he was appaled by the lack of compliance.
I'm talking of his resigning in 2003, officialy for personal reasons. But he's been saying ever since that there were no WMD's to find.

There's also the story of that man from counter terrorism blaming bush for linking Irak with 9/11 and alquaida, when there were no links at all.

Kay didn't resign in 2003. He wasn't on the team in 2003.

there is not Bush 42. Clinton was 42. the 41 and 43 is the number president they are. Like George Washington was the first, John Adams the second, Lincoln the 16th, Andrew Johnson the 17th, Reagan was the 40th et cetera.

You're last item is talking about Richard Clarke. A man who is incredibly uncredible. Clarke had for YEARS been preaching to presidents Reagan, Clinton and both Bushes that the future of terrorism was cyber-terrorism. That was all he ever talked about. In mid-2001 he was removed from his post as one of the top counter-terrorism people to a counter-cyberterrorism task force. Mainly because the Bush administration thought he was a bit of a loon. In 2002 he resigned, in his resignation letter he said nothing but wonderful things and simply saying he had decided to move on to different things and held no grudges et cetera. When interviewed byt he press he again said glowing remarks. Then he writes a "tell all" book and suddenly he was outcasted and ignored. Not to mention that his testimony to the 9/11 commission was fairly contradictory, with itself and with others.

what do you mean Kay was not in charge of inspecting WMD in IRAq ? Who was on the team then in 2003 ?

I ve heard about some doubts about clark ... Yet one of his point remains. Bush 43 from the start wanted to make a link between 9/11 and Iraq when there were none. People have testimonied in his favor, saying that he told the truth when relating how bush 43 pushed him to look in that precise direction.
Being a coward and wrong on several occasions does not prevent someone to say the truth on others.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/28/kay.transcript/
You'd better read this.
Kay was of course in charge in Irak of the survey group, up till january 2004.
His comments do not blame any one. They just state that intelligence was wrong. THere were no WMD. And that intelligence must progress.

He still says Irak did not comply with the resolution 1441 and I don't think there's ever been a doubt on this ... It's just that there was no real immediate threat. Intelligence was wrong.
In some cases the US and british government purposedly lied to the world (chemical laboratories, drone, or aluminium tubes or worst of all the supposed purchase of uranium by Irak)

So DF, you yourself have crawled over every square meter of Iraqi soil and have discovered NO wmd??

Very impressive.

Last I heard the coalition was still looking. You can hide plenty of deadly chemicals in the space a Citroen C3 takes up. Iraq is no small space to be looking either. Now I have no idea if there are or are not wmd there, I will not give up hope that we and not Al Qaeda will find them.

HI, I'm a website spammer, please hack me @ ip addy 66.90.104.167 or you could call and prank my company @ 1-888-738-3822.

I can't see why you still hold to that belief ...
David Kay was sent there. He looked with 1000 guys for them everywher and came back convinced that there was nothing to be found. Read his words.
Why can't you admit that ? It's as if you were in front of a red light saying it's green, it's green ... It does not work.
Move on. There are other subject of concern. This one is closed.
Next can be :
Will it be possible to build democracy in Iraq and how ?
And IMHO, how can the world escape a major deflation crisis...
I'm amazed no one here came up with a comment on the links I posted.

and here some post with colin powell's statements ..
He's the one saying there are no WMD :

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/latest/story/0,4390,243965,00.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A4337-2004Feb1?language=printer

So do you know better than your secretary of state ? :-)

cheap download mp3 sites

cheap download mp3 sites