[quote=“Rascal”]
Else I can only reply with what I said before: join the Army yourself at the front line, then come back and talk about how just a war can be and if it’s worth all the lives lost (on either side).[/quote]
Jeez. You just ignore everything, don’t you? I HAVE joined the ARMY, I HAVE been on the FRONT LINE. I HAVE seen COMBAT.
What part do you not understand???
But Blueface, if you’ve never been in the army, what makes you think you’re qualified to answer?
(Ducks and covers) 
[quote=“sandman”]But Blueface, if you’ve never been in the army, what makes you think you’re qualified to answer?
(Ducks and covers) [/quote]
I think I’ll call in an airstrike…I love the smell of napalm in the afternoon.
Blueface, you do have the wickedest sense of humor. Good on you.
[quote=“Richardm”][quote=“blueface666”][quote=“Alleycat”]
A more apt headline would be: Man of Christ comforts families of Crusaders.[/quote]
Why don’t you just go ahead and say “Jewish-Crusader Alliance”?
[quote=“Alleycat”]
Knocking America is not even a sport anymore; it’s like getting laid at Vibe.[/quote]
You can only get laid by drunk sluts at Vibe? No wonder you’re so bitter.
Your mama. And the horse you rode in on.[/quote]
I must find this Vibe.[/quote]
@ Richardm
ok, as you were.
CNN, where are you? or headline of the future: Dirty Radioactive Bomb Detonated Among US troops Guarding Oilfields in Iraq!
Joe Conason – The New York Observer, 5/7/03:
According to The Washington Post, a newspaper that fervently supported the war, the Pentagon utterly failed to secure Iraq
[quote]Jeez. You just ignore everything, don’t you? I HAVE joined the ARMY, I HAVE been on the FRONT LINE. I HAVE seen COMBAT.
What part do you not understand???[/quote]
I guess I have difficulties to figure what is fact and what is BS in your posts … 
Oh yes, napalm - how jolly amusing.
Juba, if you did not follow our tete-a-tete, then don’t comment.
If you did and still choose to make such a remark, then you are by far the most sanctimonious prick on this here board.
There’s no disputing bias perpetrates the media, but hypothetically at least, the BBC should be far more even-handed because it is a corporation funded by tax payers with no corporate sponsorship or political affiliations.[/quote]
Soddom, the fact that the beeb is funded via taxes doesn’t at all shield it from bias. The beeb is run by and edited by a group of people who share a similar perception on many matters, and the fact is, many people with alternative perceptions have rightly noted bias at the BBC. Many of those people are enraged that they are forced to support the BBC with their taxes.
“Enraged” might be too strong a word, but I exaggerate to make a point.
Hey Gavin… didn’t you post elsewhere that among the argumentative techniques used by those who hold different opinions than yourself was “ad hominem attack”?
Hypocrit. You’re too much, man. 
There’s no disputing bias perpetrates the media, but hypothetically at least, the BBC should be far more even-handed because it is a corporation funded by tax payers with no corporate sponsorship or political affiliations.[/quote]
Soddom, the fact that the beeb is funded via taxes doesn’t at all shield it from bias. The beeb is run by and edited by a group of people who share a similar perception on many matters, and the fact is, many people with alternative perceptions have rightly noted bias at the BBC. Many of those people are enraged that they are forced to support the BBC with their taxes.
“Enraged” might be too strong a word, but I exaggerate to make a point.[/quote]
Accepted, but I did say hypothetically. My suggestion was that, unlike say CNN or one of Murdoch
There’s no disputing bias perpetrates the media, but hypothetically at least, the BBC should be far more even-handed because it is a corporation funded by tax payers with no corporate sponsorship or political affiliations.[/quote]
Soddom, the fact that the beeb is funded via taxes doesn’t at all shield it from bias. The beeb is run by and edited by a group of people who share a similar perception on many matters, and the fact is, many people with alternative perceptions have rightly noted bias at the BBC. Many of those people are enraged that they are forced to support the BBC with their taxes.
“Enraged” might be too strong a word, but I exaggerate to make a point.[/quote]
Accepted, but I did say hypothetically. My suggestion was that, unlike say CNN or one of Murdoch?s mouthpieces, the BEEB is no political or corporate lackey by virtue of its independence.
I’ve never objected to funding the BEEB, and I wonder how widespread your funding criticism is.[/quote]
Yes, I know that you stated “hypothetically”. I was just commenting that even though supported by taxes rather than commercial adverts, the BBC is quite biased, in reality.
I don’t know how widely the taxation for BBC support is objected. I read Andrew Sullivan frequently, and have seen him and many letters written to him complaining of the forced support of such a biased news source. At least with commercially sponsored mediums such as CNN, et al, some form of objection can be brought to the attention of the corporate sponsors. Perhaps with a public station (funded by taxes rather than by private and voluntary donations) there is less realization that complaints can be made. I’m not saying this (any pressure brought to bear on a medium) is good or bad… merely an observation regarding “publicly” as opposed to “privately” owned mediums, from where I stand.
[quote=“tigerman”] Many of those people are enraged that they are forced to support the BBC with their taxes.
“Enraged” might be too strong a word, but I exaggerate to make a point.[/quote]
Its not too strong a word at all. At least not for most people living north of the border. But I don’t think the BBC is funded by the taxpayer – its funded by the TV licence fees, which isn’t really the same as a tax. I don’t know any of my peers who EVER paid for a TV licence – why should we pay for a fucking English TV channel? Oh, but there’s BBC Scotland, isn’t there? Yeah, riiiiight!
vwam.com/vets/turningpoint.html
Complete transcript:
richmond.edu/~ebolt/history3 … _1968.html
Regarded as a watershed, too, was press icon Walter Cronkite’s Feb. 27, 1968, broadcast saying the war was “mired in stalemate” and the "only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as honorable people . . . "
Cronkite’s shift into the opposition camp - followed in short order by the editors and opinion-makers at Time and Life magazines - made it acceptable and almost fashionable for journalists to oppose the war.
“For the first time in modern history,” wrote Robert Elegant of the Los Angeles Times, “the outcome of a war was determined not on the battlefield but on the printed page and, above all, on the television screen.”