Printable View
I don't care how conservative you are, just please tell me you don't get your news from the network that staged a race between an elephant and a team of midgets.Quote:
Originally posted by Stone
Nah, man, Fox News is neoconservative, like Bush's cabinet (all those evil warmongering Jews) and me.
Fox News is like the NY Post - in general, it's good for a laugh, but I haven't quite moved to the point where I really trust the network any more than I do CNN or MSNBC.
However, and this is a big however, Fox has Jennifer Eccleston, who I could watch report on just about anything. Attractive as all hell, great voice:
http://www.cameroncole.net/cgi-bin/i...ifer_Eccleston
Reason enough to deal with graphics of F15s morphing into eagles that shoot missiles out of their claws and other shit like that.
The same network that brought you the uber-sleazy Temptation Island and THE CHAMBER. :wtf:Quote:
Originally posted by StriderKyo
I don't care how conservative you are, just please tell me you don't get your news from the network that staged a race between an elephant and a team of midgets.
Chamber was obviously meant to compete with ABC's "The Chair". While The Chair was pretty decent (the heartstoppers were meant merely to spook contestants and possibly raise their pulse a bit... it was cool to see a contestant survive one of these without "redlining"), The Chamber was too far gone.
Sitting in a 110-170 degree (or subzero if the computer selected "cold") temperature box while answering the questions? That was sadistic. And the top winner on there who made it through the entire 7 level course got a paltry $20,000 for his trouble.
Ouch.Quote:
Originally posted by Stone
Fox News is like the NY Post
:lol: No way! I can't beleive I haven't seen that.Quote:
Reason enough to deal with graphics of F15s morphing into eagles that shoot missiles out of their claws and other shit like that.
Yeah, man, it comes up when they do that little "America At War" clip with the pounding music at the end of a batch of segments.
Eccleston reminds us all what we're fighting for, I think.
Over time I believe Fox News will morph into something a bit more overtly respectable - somewhere in between "The Weekly Spectator" and a conservative tabloid. Just needs time.
I had an interesting conversation with a coworker today - can you support the war and still be called a liberal? He didn't think so because, supposedly, supporting the war means supporting the President, and turning a blind eye to civilian casualties.
I think that you can still be called a liberal if you support the war. I think that this military action against Iraq is necessary, especially since we're basically responsible for Hussein. That, however, tends to be where my agreement with conservatives ends. I think Hussein is a greater threat to his own people than outside countries, but I still think he should be taken out of power. I don't think he's this great evil threat to the world, but the people of Iraq, whether they want to be freed or not, deserve to be rid of him. I wholeheartedly disagree with sending only American companies in to rebuild Iraq after the war is over (not that we shouldn't send any of our companies in, but to be exclusive is a silly idea to me). I think that the overall loss of life if Hussein continues to stay in power is enough to override my want to avoid war casualties.
I would never vote for a candidate who supports the death penalty. I would never vote for someone who wants to reduce Affirmative Action programs. Nor would I ever vote for someone who actively seeks to ban abortions. Therefore, I will not be voting for Bush in 2004. I don't know what it really means to support the President, but if it means believing that he means what he says (or that he understands it), then no, I don't support him. I support his decision to go to war. That's about it.
So am I still a liberal or do I qualify as a conservative?
We're not excluding other countries from the rebuilding process. "Liberalism" doesn't necessitate much of anything, much less not supporting war.
Turning a blind eye to civilian casualties is exactly what most liberals are doing when they simplemindedly protest against the war - they're ignoring the thousands of casualties Saddam inflicts on his own people every year.
Define "reduce" when it comes to Affirmative Action, Mike - and why are you so committed to it? As far as the death penalty goes, you can expect that every Democrat and Republican that will come up for the Presidential vote in the near future will support the availabliity of the death penalty. You ought to still choose between the available, viable candidates; work inside the system to try to move your chosen party away from the death penalty, but don't turn yourself into a non-actor (by not choosing at all) because you're against it.
Yes you do US companies are vying for longterm contracts right now and the US government is deciding who should do what.Quote:
Originally posted by Stone
We're not excluding other countries from the rebuilding process.
A US subsidiary of Haliburton gets chosen to deliver so called humanitarian aid(wich no doubt will be recovered trough future oil deliveries) over non governmental institutions who do the same thing without seeking a profit.
the US is deciding right now wich US companies will get what from the initial pie instead of the people of the future LIBERATED Iraq.
The UK thinks Iraqi´s should decide for them selves and wants a big UN involvement with rebuilding Iraq while the US wants to keep all strings in their own hands.
All will unveil pretty soon and we will see who is right and wrong.
ZING!Quote:
Originally posted by Tracer
Stone: I'll just wager that if a hard-line Facist-like politician actually ran in the USA and weilded that language well enough he'd get such a precentage as Le Pen. I think Pat Buchanan should run again and prove this right.
ºTracer
Yeah, didn't Dubya tell Tony Blair that the UN could stick it where the sun doesn't shine as far as rebuilding Iraq goes?