not working here so far...I'll try it one more time...
But I will put up a general thought for this weeks free for all..
I brought up the fact that it is always military might and war that ends up solving all the worlds biggest conflicts...I asked the Left to give me ANY example of peace talks saving the day...Jim came up with "The Cuban missile Crisis" which does not seem to have ended due to peace talks but military build-up.
So:
1. Does the left have any actual examples to post here?
not related but:
2. Myself and many other bloggers constantly bring up liberal media bias that is refuted with: "Your wrong..or...your stupid." Can anyone on the Left give examples of bias to the right? Or do others want to list some more liberal bias?
Sunday, October 23, 2005
Free for all
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
25 comments:
Military might does not "solve" conflicts, it merely ends active disagreement.
"War does not determine who is right - only who is left." -- -- Bertrand Russell
Opinionated Voice
that really is proving my point...
still waiting for the other sides facts..
The Cuban crisis was resolved because we looked them straight in the eye and they blinked - hard.
... and we removed obsolete missiles from Turkey. In either case, the real threat of WAR moved them to "reason" - not any polite discussion of peace talks.
But your premise is correct. Without the real treat of force peace talks are meaningless. Just ask North Korea and Libya. As ironic as it sounds, peace never solved anything.
The thing that liberals forget is that all our foes have been some the foulest creatures ever to darken this planet. I would ask them why should we use peace talks are a mechanism to move dictators? These thugs are responsible for the world's human misery. If we do not act to free a oppressed people, who will? The U.N.?
I found this in TownHall.com. Sorry it doesn't fit with the topic, but I really got a kick out of this. What a bunch of goofballs Democrat blacks are! There are so many things like this being supported by blacks, that white Democrats should really rethink their angst.
Exterminating Whitey
Oct 21, 2005
by Mike S. Adams ( bio | archive | contact )
Columnist Jon Sanders of the John Locke Foundation in Raleigh, NC has written a blog entry that reveals just how easy it is to get a job teaching Africana Studies at N.C. State University. It also demonstrates how the diversity movement is bringing people together in the great state of North Carolina.
Sanders’ recent blog directs readers to C-SPAN online, where they can click on the recent archives and scroll down until they find the "Black Media Forum on the Image of Black Americans in Mainstream Media." This was a program presented on October 14th at Howard University. Dr. Kamau Kambon makes his appearance about three hours into the four-hour event.
Dr. Kambon's closing remarks – given about twenty minutes before the program’s conclusion - are chilling:
And then finally I want to say that we need one idea, and we're not thinking about a solution to the problem. We're thinking about all these other things, but we're not dealing with a solution to the problem. And we have to start to think about a solution to the problem so that these young brothers and sisters who are here now, who are 15, 16 or 17, are not here 25 years later talking about these same problems.
Now how do I know that the white people know that we are going to come up with a solution to the problem? I know it because they have retina scans, they have what they call racial profiling, DNA banks, and they’re monitoring our people to try to prevent the one person from coming up with the one idea. And the one idea is, how we are going to exterminate white people because that in my estimation is the only conclusion I have come to. We have to exterminate white people off the face of the planet to solve this problem. Now I don’t care whether you clap or not, but I’m saying to you that we need to solve this problem because they are going to kill us. And I will leave on that. So we just have to just set up our own system and stop playing and get very serious and not be diverted from coming up with a solution to the problem and the problem on the planet is white people.
Dr. Kambon also said that "white people want to kill you … because that is part of their plan" and that “the only n**ger on the planet is the white man and the white woman, and our people are not n**gers, they are imitation n**gers.”
An official at N.C. State University claims that Dr. Kambon - once a visiting professor being paid by the taxpayers of North Carolina – is no longer affiliated with the university. But, if that is true, why is he still listed on the university’s Africana Studies faculty page?
After you visit that site, I bet you’ll have the same question. And, like me, I hope you’ll write the Africana Studies Department (afs@social.chass.ncsu.edu) demanding an answer. And, while you’re at it, ask them why they hired a genocidal racist in the first place.
Mike S. Adams will speak at the University of Florida School of Law on November 1st. For details, visit his website www.DrAdams.org.
PS: It is a "free for all" right?
you can list whatever you want...I will have to read it later though..have stuff to do for class right now
1) The press isnt biased, thats the problem with your synopsis. Its just another example of people running with some demagogue's talking points. Honestly, if you want to be taking seriously by someone other than your equally pigeoned readers, you need to express an individual opinion.
2) Israel/Egypt, 30 years and counting
Canada/Denmark within the last year
Poland/West Germany, 15 years and counting
Several instances of conflict solving nothing, and talking finally getting the issue resolved
You are right on, Jamal
what the hell happened between Canada and Denmark???
great example...
and there is no more west germany...and I didn't know there was a major conflict with them either after the war...
egypt/Israel might have a bit of validity...not sure...might have something to do with the fact that Egypt knows Israel can nuke them to kingdom come.
HMMMM....I just have two things, as of now, to say about the below article:
1) The reason the crime rate is falling is because of stricter sentencing. This "Justice Policy" group's reports on the little correlation between the two, are biased. They have a Democrat motive.
2) Fee Fi Fo Fum... I smell the stench of Democrats in this article.
You have to read the entire article, to get at the main motive which appears near the end of the article to understand what the real message of the article is about. The headline is deceiving...meant to lure more readers.
Study Shows Upswing in Arrests of Women
By REBECCA CARROLL, AP
WASHINGTON (Oct. 23) - Women made up 7 percent of all inmates in state and federal prisons last year and accounted for nearly one in four arrests, the government reported Sunday.
AP
The number of women incarcerated in state and federal prisons in 2004 was up 4 percent compared to 2003, nearly double the 1.8 percent increase among men.
Talk About It: Post Thoughts
A co-author of a Bureau of Justice Statistics report, Paige Harrison, linked an upswing in the rate of arrest for women to their increased participation in drug crimes, violent crimes and fraud.
The number of women incarcerated in state and federal prisons in 2004 was up 4 percent compared to 2003, nearly double the 1.8 percent increase among men, the study said. In 1995, women made up 6.1 percent of all inmates in those facilities.
"The number of incarcerated women has been growing at a rate nearly double that of men, due in large part to sentencing policies in the war in drugs," The Sentencing Project, a group promoting alternatives to prison, said in a statement.
The group said the number of drug offenders in prisons and jails has risen from 40,000 in 1980 to more than 450,000 today. According to FBI figures, law officers in 2004 made more arrests for drug violations than for any other offense - about 1.7 million arrests, or 12.5 percent of all arrests.
Those sentenced for drug offenses made up 55 percent of federal inmates in 2003, the report said.
The total number of people incarcerated grew 1.9 percent in 2004 to 2,267,787 people. That figure includes federal and state prisoners, as well as 713,990 inmates held in local jails, 15,757 prisoners in U.S. territorial prisons, 9,788 in immigration and customs facilities, 2,177 in military facilities, 1,826 in Indian Country jails and 102,338 in juvenile facilities.
The country's state and federal prison population - 1,421,911 - grew 2.6 percent in 2004, compared to an average growth of 3.4 percent a year since 1995.
Growth last year in federal prison populations was 5.5 percent, outpacing overall prisoner growth but slipping from the 7.4 average annual growth in federal prison populations since 1995. The number of inmates in state prisons rose 1.8 percent, with about half that growth in Georgia, Florida and California.
Harrison attributed some of the prison population rise to tougher sentencing policies implemented in the late 1990s. She said the average time served by prisoners today is seven months longer than it was in 1995.
"You bring more people in, you keep them longer - inevitably you're going to have growth," she said.
The Sentencing Project said the continued rise in prisoners despite falling crime rates raises questions about the country's imprisonment system. The group said the incarceration rate - 724 per 100,000 - is 25 percent higher than that of any other nation.
"Policy-makers would be wise to reconsider the wisdom of current sentencing and drug policies, both to avoid expensive incarceration costs and to invest in more productive prevention and treatment approaches to crime," Marc Mauer, the group's executive director, said in a statement.
Another group, The Justice Policy Institute in Washington, said the statistics show little relationship between prison population growth and the crime rate, which has been falling in recent years.
"The nation does not have to lock more people up to have safer communities," said Jason Ziedenberg, the institute's executive director.
About 8.4 percent of the country's black males between the ages of 25 and 29 were in state or federal prison, compared to 2.5 percent of Hispanic males and 1.2 percent of white males in the same age group, the report said.
Blacks made up an estimated 41 percent of inmates with a sentence of more than one year, the report said.
See how the media manipulation works, Game?
Here's a clue for the more naive among us:
In the 'More Women Arrested/Imprisoned article....the headline lures lots of women to read the article....women have traditionally been more sympathetic to lots of Democrat causes...because women in general, especially those at home raising small children have more time to watch/read the media, and thus be manipulated by the media. So the media starts out with a headline topic that lures women voters in.....then, when they have the women feeling sympathetic toward other women, they pull out the race topic, (totally unrelated to the main topic of the article), so while naive women everywhere are feeling sympathetic....and maybe a bit 'upset' (vulnerable) about other women getting arrested/imprisoned all the time...sneak in the good old race card. Then the women, already angry about more women arrested/imprisoned are much more suggestible to be angry and believe that more blacks are being arrested and imprisoned for no good reason...see what I mean?!
I pity the foolish women everywhere that fall prey to these sorts of scams. I have a very high reading comprehension ability, for which I am thankful (my mother was a teacher)...but I truly pity those less fortunate.
I really hope you don't discontinue this "free for all", Game.
two things get me mad about this
1. liberals deny bias
2. most people are not smart enought to see it
I've got an example of peaceful conflic resolution for you Triple H: Remember back in the 30's when the Euro's gave the farm to Hitler.
I think I recall the British PM proclaiming "Peace in our Time".
I could be wrong though.......But it rarely happens.
---------------------
The purpose of all war is ultimately peace. - St. Augustine
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it." - George Orwell
"Politics is war without bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed." - Mao Tse-Tung
"War is the continuation of Politics by othe means" - Clauswitz
"Politics is the continuation of War by other means" - Pero
"SOMETIMES WAR IS THE ANSWER" - Prager
Pero-
You are an evil war monger....why do you love war so much?
Why can't you just sing and hug your enemy?
-brought to you by all liberals
anyway,
I was just trying to show that the yet another one of the Lefts core beliefs is wrong and causes us to be a weaker country
Once again, you are wrong. Delusional paranoia is not a good start to intellectual debate. You sit and state that we are too dumb to see these things, and yet you dont even realize that there are conflicts going on. Why? Cuz nobody went to war over it. There is the closest thing to bias you are going to get. The press will always sensationalize violence and excess, but never peaceful reconciliation. And no, Egypt did not sign for peace because Israel could nuke the crap out of them. If that was the case, Syria, Libya, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, etc. would all have wanted peace, too. Remember, Iran had Egypt leader assassinated for daring to have peace.
rhyno...point taken...and good ones at that..
but to bring it back to my original point...when you are dealing with evil people who don't want to "talk," the only thing they understand is strength and force.
Helen Thomas, Dan Rather, The New York Times, Bill Maher (Ok, he really doesn't count as media, does he?) The Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC,....and on and on and on....Naw, there's no bias in media.
the bill cosby model is all I got...
Mark,
How is this for an unverifiable talking point like yours? None of the media you mentioned is liberal. None of the people you note, except Bill Maher, is liberal. They aren't. They just aren't. Every example that you can give that "demonstrates" a liberal bias, can be easily countered with an example showing that they have a conservative bias.
Jim, I agree completely. To say all of..or any are consistantly liberal in any extreme way is delusional. There is REAL liberal media out there but he missed em all.
Pero-
You are an evil war monger....why do you love war so much?
Why can't you just sing and hug your enemy?
-brought to you by all liberals
Wow pero lots of famous people. I was wondering, what would Jesus do?
Boortz does hav a way with words when it comes to pointing out media bias.
BIAS IN THE POLLS
Ever wonder where the media gets their ideas for polling? The answer, of course, is that they make them up. Yesterday there were two new ones, two of the most meaningless and partisan polls ever conducted. They come to us courtesy of CNN/USA Today and Gallup.
The first one asked if they would vote for George Bush if he were again running for the presidency this year. This is an idiotic question because Bush has already been elected twice and can't run again. But that's not stopping the leftist Bush-bashers at CNN/USA Today and Gallup from pushing their agenda. So they manufacture news by taking a poll. By the way, the poll said 55% would vote for a Democrat over 39% for Bush. The only reason for taking such a poll is to embarrass the president and continue to push their biased, liberal reporting on the American people.
Poll number two involved the Valerie Plame non-affair. It said that only 1 in 10 Americans believe Bush administration officials did nothing illegal or unethical. Once again, the CNN/USA Today and Gallup organizations come together to create a poll that bashes George Bush, so they can report it as news. If you were to walk down the street in any city in America, you probably couldn't find 1 in 10 people who even knew who Valerie Plame was. Yet now we have a poll. Riiiight.
The media and the anti-war left continue to do everything they can to bash the Bush administration. All they have to do to justify their efforts is take a poll.
Gee, I wonder where the SCLM gets all of its Bush bashing fodder. From an incompetent administration?
The questions in your two examples are perfectly valid.
1) Would you vote for Bush if he was running for president TODAY? Legitimate question.
2) Do you think members of the administration did something illegal or unethical? Legitimate question.
It's only Bush bashing to you because the results are unfavorable to your side. The facts are that Bush is less popular today than he was at the time of the election and probably wouldn't get elected today. And that 90% of the people are informed enough to know that it is likely that members of the Bush administration did something illegal or unethical. Seems straightforward to me.
You are hopeless Jim.
Jim, you should know by now that anything that doesn't lean firmly to the right is "media bias".
Post a Comment