:rofl:

First of all where is that base?

Secondly, Ill paraphrase one of my favorite editors here in Bean Town. When someone attacks the militery, its not terrorism. The Militery is there for war, its there for protection from attacks. Thats like saying they desecrated a sheild with a sword. Thats its purpose.

Joe Kehone used these words when they bombed the USS Coal. He went on to smartassily mock people who misuse the word Terrorism to mean anything that is undersierable and violent (I almost got hit by a terrorist bus, and a group of terrorist teenages leered at me).

I figured I would pass on a statement that I thoguht was true and humerous.

That's where it came from.

Also, where I can see the USS Cole being a naval ship out on patrol in a region of the world where we were at war/preparing for war being misused as a word for terrorism, I disagree with the Norfolk Naval Shipyard arguement.

I guess you could make the argument of it as an "act of war", but isn't terrorism an act of war as well. You could make the statement that all people are potential recruits for the military, so that when they flew the plane into the buildings they were simply trying to kill potential recruits.

Again, see where you're/the author is coming from, but can't say I agree with it.

Also, I used the Naval base argument as an example since I live right by it. There are multiple areas that could be used for terrorism, i.e. Atlanta, Nuclear Power Plants, etc.

I voted for Kerry, the lesser of the two evils. He screwed himself with all of the flip floping he did on issues.

Would you consider the bombing of pearl harbor terrorism or the first strike in war? Must countries always declare war before they engage in it?

And by the way, like the man or not, its irrefutible that when John Kerry said "The president has left nuclear power plants unguarded and unprotected" that he wasn't lying.

The bottom line is, regardless of whether or not there are area for attacks in the US. Bush didn't do a ****ing thing about it, and so I'd reitterate, no one in the red states cares about Terrorism to the degree of facts. If they listened they'd be aware that Bush (for them) was terrible on defence and if they really cared about terrorism they'd have voted on it.

I'd also like to throw in here that my views are moderate and im none to pleased with the current mind set that being republican means your anti *** marrige/abortion.

Thats how this administration gets votes. Where has your fiscal responsibility gone Elephant. Republicans would do very well not to elect Bill Frist...the mans a moron.

Supporting War
 

Why would anybody support war ? Anywhere in the world ?

Even though I live in Ireland, NO

Thank you, this is what I am talking about.
In my opinion nothing is solved by wars. Besides that the reasons given by the media to us are not the real reasons and are only that - propaganda. The real reasons are always money and an adventage for a few people......

apparently Korea did, cos they collected some bombs.

So the media is telling us. The media which is controlled by those in power, which are following their own agenda.
Fear and suspicion amongst people is the greatest tool to control the masses.
What I meant with my question, which might was not very clear was: Who would support a war (ask the man and woman on the street). Who of you and me would want a war - either for ourselves or for another human being.
Who wants to have their son, father, man, brother fight and die for the profit of others.
Who would want to hide from bombs - once again for other peoples profits.

Just a thought.

Cheers
K-Gi

It doesn't matter who you support, and who you're against. All politicians are, are crooks stealing from thieves, and all of them lying about it.

Anyway, that's my two cents. There's bad karma in this thread. I'm outta here.

I can only agree with your first comment.

as for your second, you have a right to your opinion. Mine is - sharing information and teaching is a way of re-uniting the human race and hopefully make people think for themselves again. Just my 2 cents.

American News is done by private organizations, not one's which are run by the government. I'm not sitting here and blindly say that I don't know that the government hides things from the media, to say that the Government runs the media is untrue, at least in the American point of view.

but aren't some of the most importaint and the most watched tv stations ( fox) and newspapers in america owned by republicans? which definetly influenced news and information put on those stations ( so i've seen in a documentary on the last presidential elections in america )

I don't know what makes Fox "important", and Im assuming the doc you watched was "outfoxed"

its constantly pointed out the Fox news is as biased as Al Jezeria (sp) and that they edit, eschew, and insert their own opinion well over 50% of the time. I forget who did that report (before the Coporate Ghost team gang ****s me) but I had a class on news media and political power and it was documented over the course of a 6 month period.

Not all Americans get their news from Fox, honestly, anyone who gets only their news from one source isn't fit to speak on the subject.

well i mentioned fox because i have a cousin in america and he said that fox is actually becoming more and more popular and is considered to be one of the most credible news sources ( especially since cnn's credibility was ruined by certain cases i can't remember..well that's according to him anyway )
and hey look, i'm in your sig...i feel so importaint!:)

Hey there,

as I said, the media is controlled (not run) by those in power (not government). Governments (for me) are the puppets put into the public Eye, by the ones in power. And if the puppets don't dance to the right tune, we have seen what happens to them (Kennedy) just to name one.
Media is about selling more magazines and newspapers and getting more viewers than others. Therefore so called "news" have to be more dramatic, with more pictures - and foremost there needs to be constant repetition.
Since this is a music site, why not look at the well known payola.

Did you (or anyone else of course) not wonder at times, how some songs made it to number 1 hits, to be played on mainstream radio over and over again?
Is anyone here a musician, songwriter trying to get his/her music played on mainstream radio ?
Well I guess in order to get the exposure your music deserves (and it most likely is better than the one you hear on radio and tv) you need to put down some serious money to programmers in order to get your songs played, as the latest out of court Sony settlement shows.
And how come people go out and buy the music ? Because they hear nothing else, all day. From Restaurants to Supermarkets, from TV to Radio. If often enough heard, there is a recognition factor - and we find ourselves humming a melody, which in the first place - we did not even like.

Just my take on the matter, and like it was pointed out that trying to get information from only one source is not a good idea, if one wants to find the truth (or at least get close to it)

There are a lot of questions which arise at times, once we sit down and quietly analyse the "news" we just heard. If we imagine that what we just heard, was told to us by an individual we personally know (and it was not on national tv) I guess we are much more critical on this information.
We would question this person to the core, and throw in contra-arguments.
I do the same thing with news delivered to me from the media - try to find other views on the matter and then build my opinion on it.

For example it is very interesting to watch CNN USA and CNN Europe and compare the views. Paints a pretty different pictures at times.

Just my thoughts on that,
wishing you all a good day

It's the exact opposite. Of the major news organizations, Fox is the only one run by republicans often giving a republican form of news. ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC are not.

I'm in a rush and will read the rest later. But just looking at that first paragraph makes me think you might be too much of a conspiracist.

i hate the war but mostly i hate bush..

Bit off topic but figured I would just chime in. I've supported a lot of the things Bush has done in the past, but his nomination for the new Supreme Court justice is completely retarded.

That is all.

why? i hear she's really smart ,was a good lawyer and has extensive knowledge of the law....if that's what you're talking about....granted she was never a judge, but maybe that won't matter...

She's his personal lawyer.

Therefore, not being a judge, the Senate has no recollection of her views on important issues and how she would work as a Supreme Court Justice. Being a Supreme Court Justice isn't a lot about knowledge of the law, but interpreting the law since our Constitution was written so blandly. The Supreme Court is supposed to be able to grill this out of the possible justice in a 4 day hearing where they ask them questions, but nowadays, the people just get asked questions by the Senate and say "I don't feel it's appropriate to address that issue at this time.", or other complete bs answers. The guy who just got put on the Supreme Court did the exact same thing with Senate, but he was a judge and they could use his past decisions as a factor in how he viewed issues.

That said, it's going to be very interesting to see if Senate will pass her. I don't see how they could, but the Republican party in Congress has always been fairly strong in following Bush.

:laughing:

Ginny, you're sadly mistaken, and don't you dare strut your pompous ass around here like you have a political agenda on your shoulders when your doing exactly what your told.

I want you, in plan english, to explain to me how being pro-life in anyway helps this country? More people equates to a better life. First of all, no child conceived between loving and accepting parents is aborted. Most abortions are the result of peple who are not ready, either maturity wise or finacially to raise a child. Im much happier that they chose to not poorly raise a child that stands a high chance of being undereducated, under loved, and largly ignored, to grow up on television and in the dregs of society.

In what way does Bush know more about the Iraq war, Im pretty sure Kerry's on the foerign relations committee, and even if he's not, hes been in the senete since the 1970's, im surre he's on the up and up. Also, Kerry's been in the depths of war, where in the name of God has Bush been? No where near a war?

Bush said he didn'think "anyone anticipated the breach of the levee's" do you think he knows whats going on in Iraq? Somewhere he's been maybe 3 times? That isn't even in the country he lives in.

You think Kerry ran out of curiosity? WTF kind of statement is that? Do you have an idea of what your talking about, this out of anything you've written warrents explination. Curiosity? You think he said "boy I wonder what this whole executive branch is"? How you live and breath honestly amazes me.

Would Kerry's staff have leaked a CIA opritive, would Kerry have ignored the damage of a third-world rendering hurricane? How could you possibly make those accusations?

The MusicBanter people demand answers sir, at the very least I want them.

Did you mean Conspirator - a plotter ?
please explain further, before I make any comments.

today i saw a bumpersticker that said


"I'M ALREADY AGAINST THE NEXT WAR!"



:rofl:

thats just how stupid America is.

;)

You seem to be too much into the idea that our entire government is run by aliens.

aka. You believe too much in conspiracies.

Wait, why is being against war something to be considered sheep following? If your universally opposed to war I don't really see how thats makes you a sheep.

Everyone is too quick to politicize thigns today.

But that's brilliant. "Doesn't matter about the context, its war, I'm against it." Why shouldn't anti-war people be just as stubborn as pro-war, 'support our boys at all costs' types?

Interesting how you put this. Since I have not mentioned aliens, it shows me that you must have or are reading certain literature which suggests this. (Which I have read as well - yet I have problems really believing in aliens)
Ye I am trying to get information fro different sources and listen to everybody who has to say something, and try to filter out to get to something what hopefully is closest to the truth.
The half-truth is what we mainly made to believe. This is how all works as most of us can relate to. If you are running a business and one of your employees complains about another - with so heavy accusations, that (if true) this other employee should be fired, I think it is only fair to look at all angles of the issue and talk to all people involved in order to come to a fair conclusion and as close to the truth as possible.

Please also understand that I am not talking about your government in particular. I'll talk about all of them - not excluding any.

I was in the US, during the time when satellite pictures where shown to the public, that in these bunkers are weapons of mass distructions, a truck arrived, the weapons where taken away - but they did not know where the truck went to.....(so we were told)
This to me is very strange. There are so many satellites up there, watching us every day (and believe me - they can see what time it is from your watch you are wearing on your wrist), that this statement made absolutely no sense to me.
Yet it was propaganda to get he public nervous and into fear. And once someone fears another, you gain control.

Here is a part of an article I like to share with you:

As Dr. Joseph Goebbels, German Minister of Propaganda (1933-1945) noted at the time: "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it". He added; "The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State".

I can only agree with the man - and he has proven his point, since his propaganda was exceptionally. (I am not saying I agree with anything which happened in germany at this time - I am looking at how he did what he did and wanted to achieve - and that he achieved it)

I just look for more information than what is delivered to me for "free" and repeated constantly.
As I mentioned payola - constant repetition and as soon as it is on main stream media - for most people it must be good.
How did the music get there ?
Someone paid for it.

Like I said earlier - just my 2 cents.

^From what I've learned by watching movies, I gather that Aliens only ever visit and/or attack America. As I live in the UK it seems I have no immediate reason to worry or care about the existence or non-existence of aliens. Would you say this was a foolhardy way to view the situation?

Well in general I would suggest you base your information regarding anything not on movies to begin with.

Well to say that you would be running my dull life completely into the ground. Why would I not want to base my knowledge of the world on movies? They are ever so informative (who knew that Tom Cruise was a historical war hero who could speak japanese!) and the flashing lights and big faces on the theatre screen really help to maintain my flimsy attention span.

But I never said if you`re against war you`re a liberal sheep follower.

Try reading it in the context of what the sticker said.

buck fush. like kanye west said, "bush doesn't like black people" and no i do not support the war.why will he try to help another country when his own country has problems. i'm not just talking about hurricane problems, i'm talking about gang violence, better school system, homeless, health plans, gas prices, and more

Are we talking about 'Bush', the dull British rock band who were popular in the US, or 'Bush' as in female pubic hair?

Or shrubberies?