The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!

"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
...
mikey4 wrote:

On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 09:26:21 +0100, Chris H wrote:

Yes I have watched Fox. Also I have seen the comments from CNN, BBC and
others on Fox and their handling of stores.

BFD, what does that prove? Every news outlet trailing in the ratings will

More petulant whining from the child.

--

What a lonely life you must lead. A sad little man who can only run down
everyone else, what a shame.

mikey4 wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
mikey4 wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote in message

Of course the political commentators on Fox News have a political
bias. That's why O'Reilly et al are aired. You don't have an
understanding of what a political commentator is.

Political commentators aren't supposed to lie in order to sow hatred.
That's supposed to be the jobs of propaganda ministers working for
corrupt dictatorships.

another rant from the sad little man

Quit whining, child. We all know that you blindly believe everything
lie you're fed, and we can see your petulance every time you're
cherish icons are shown to be wrong or corrupt.

LOL, you've never shown them to be wrong.

Show that Fox news bull****ters are wrong?!? That's not even hard.

In fact sad little man you don't
have the balls to do anything but run down other peoples thoughts and

LOL!

You're projecting again, child.

Come on; let's see what you've got. So far all you've been able to do
is post bull**** and whines.

--
Ray Fischer

"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...

"Chris H" wrote in message
...
In message , Neil
Harrington writes

"DRS" wrote in message
om.au...
"Chris H" wrote in message

In message , DRS
writes

[...]

And why the US is seen as a rouge stage by most of the world.

A rouge state? Only by the wingnuts in here.

It is not acceptable to merely
deem someone a terrorist or a criminal by fiat. It must be
established by evidence.

Afghanistan offered to give OBL to the US is the USA had any credible
evidence.... the USA could not produce any evidence and the Afghans
did not turn him over. SO the USA illegally invaded.

There is genuine dispute among international jurists about the
legitimacy
of the Taliban government given the state of armed resistance to it.

The "Taliban GOVERNMENT"?!

You seem to be saying that there is some question about whether the
Taliban
is or is not the legitimate government there

At the time of the invasion the Taliban were the legitimate government
of Afghanistan

I wasn't aware that Afghanistan had any such thing as a "legitimate
government of" then. And the one they have now seems only barely so, if
that. It does not seem to be a country that one associates easily with the
concept of legitimate government.


because the Afghan government
and army are showing "armed resistance to it." That certainly seems an
odd
view.

After the invasion "elections" were held at which some parties were not
permitted to run for office.... So it was hardly free and democratic.
This is why there is still a war going on.

I doubt that's the only reason and question whether it's an important one.
Afghanistan's political instability seems to be rooted largely in its
tribalism.


It is also why the US has now followed the UK's lead (and greater
experience) in saying any solution must now involve discussions with the
Taliban. An "organisation" that has run the US military into the ground
for the last 7 years, as it did the Russians.

And at least two earlier British efforts. But "discussions" with the
Taliban seem a naive and foolish idea, something like having a discussion
about future relationships with a rattlesnake. When you're dealing with a
group that believes cutting off people's hands, feet, arms or legs are
reasonable forms of corrective punishment for paying insufficient
attention to their view of proper Muslim rectitude, what common ground is
there for discussion?

Exactly. These people have carried religion to its most ridiculous extreme.
They believe that their god wants them to kill off every last person on
earth, just to get rid of all the non-Muslims. Why he can't do this all by
himself doesn't seem to occur to their miniscule minds. But in any case, its
them or us, and the sooner we realize this, the better off we will be.

In message , Bill Graham
writes

"Neil Harrington" wrote in message news:eOudnT2s
...

"Chris H" wrote in message news:Un0zfYCDz1xKFAb
...
In message , Neil
Harrington writes

"DRS" wrote in message
news:UNidnVWBibNWclnXnZ2dnUVZ_gCdnZ2d@westnet. com.au...
"Chris H" wrote in message

In message , DRS
It is also why the US has now followed the UK's lead (and greater
experience) in saying any solution must now involve discussions with the
Taliban. An "organisation" that has run the US military into the ground
for the last 7 years, as it did the Russians.

And at least two earlier British efforts. But "discussions" with the
Taliban seem a naive and foolish idea, something like having a
discussion about future relationships with a rattlesnake.

Worked before all over the world. Including with the US supported PIAR

When you're dealing with a group that believes cutting off people's
hands, feet, arms or legs are reasonable forms of corrective
punishment for paying insufficient attention to their view of proper
Muslim rectitude, what common ground is there for discussion?

The USA executes people too.... believes in torture and has no problem
wit killing civilians.

Exactly. These people have carried religion to its most ridiculous
extreme.

And of course the Christian right in the US don't?

They believe that their god wants them to kill off every last person on
earth, just to get rid of all the non-Muslims. Why he can't do this all
by himself doesn't seem to occur to their miniscule minds. But in any
case, its them or us, and the sooner we realize this, the better off we
will be.


The religious right in the US is no different to the religious fanatics
anywhere else.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 13:14:07 +0100, Chris H wrote:

In message , tony cooper
writes
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 11:46:46 +0100, Chris H wrote:

In message , mikey4
writes


On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 09:26:21 +0100, Chris H wrote:

Yes I have watched Fox. Also I have seen the comments from CNN, BBC and
others on Fox and their handling of stores.

I don't believe this. I think you are flat-out making it up.

You may have seen or heard negative comments about Fox News
programming, but were they about Fox News news segments or Fox News
political commentary host's programs?

Either.

The latter are not news programming. That's why it is necessary to
understand what a political commentator's role is. Something you
clearly don't understand.

I do understand but having seem FOX news and many others the same
pictures with slightly different words can portray a very different
scene.

I recall during the floods in New Orleans there was a comment that there
were gangs of black criminals looting and white vigilantes trying to
keep the peace and get supplies for people.

I don't believe this either. The meaning of the word "vigilantes"
would be understood by any professional journalist, and not used to
describe "keeping the peace". A description using "vigilantes" would
be as negative as a description using "looters".

In other words gang warfare but the very subtle differences in the words
portrayed one group as criminals and the other as upholding the law

The word "vigilantes" does not mean upholding the law. Vigilantes
operate outside of the law and contrary to the law. Any use of
"vigilante" has negative meaning and negative connotation.

when
in fact there was on the whole no difference between the two groups.
However that is what the audience wanted to believe.

If something like what you report was said, the point would have been
that there is no difference between the groups. It is your lack of
understanding of the meaning of the word that creates the problem.


I don't suppose you have a link to one of those comments. You never
do. You just hand-wave.

"Those comments" are usually on a live broadcast not a web site. The
problem is you only believe things on web sites.

That's not necessarily true. Yes, I want cites for what you claim
because I don't find you to be credible. You make things up, you tend
to generalizations and hyperbole, you rely on anecdotal information,
you offer opinion as fact, and you are quite often completely wrong.
You may present some valid information, but it's difficult to know
what is valid and what is just hand-waving. So, I ask for cites from
you.

You don't see me asking, say, Savageduck for cites. He is credible.
There are others that post here that I consider credible.

You say you use your own name like that is some sort of validation.
So does Bill Graham, and I see you in the same light as I see Bill
Graham. Both of you are people with a strong personal bias and agenda
who are often wrong, never seem to be willing to admit that they have
been wrong, and slither away when asked to produce some other source
as a back-up of their claims.





--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 13:14:07 +0100, Chris H wrote:

In message , tony cooper
writes
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 11:46:46 +0100, Chris H wrote:

In message , mikey4
writes


On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 09:26:21 +0100, Chris H
wrote:

Yes I have watched Fox. Also I have seen the comments from CNN, BBC
and
others on Fox and their handling of stores.

I don't believe this. I think you are flat-out making it up.

You may have seen or heard negative comments about Fox News
programming, but were they about Fox News news segments or Fox News
political commentary host's programs?

Either.

The latter are not news programming. That's why it is necessary to
understand what a political commentator's role is. Something you
clearly don't understand.

I do understand but having seem FOX news and many others the same
pictures with slightly different words can portray a very different
scene.

I recall during the floods in New Orleans there was a comment that there
were gangs of black criminals looting and white vigilantes trying to
keep the peace and get supplies for people.

I don't believe this either. The meaning of the word "vigilantes"
would be understood by any professional journalist, and not used to
describe "keeping the peace". A description using "vigilantes" would
be as negative as a description using "looters".

In other words gang warfare but the very subtle differences in the words
portrayed one group as criminals and the other as upholding the law

The word "vigilantes" does not mean upholding the law. Vigilantes
operate outside of the law and contrary to the law. Any use of
"vigilante" has negative meaning and negative connotation.

when
in fact there was on the whole no difference between the two groups.
However that is what the audience wanted to believe.

If something like what you report was said, the point would have been
that there is no difference between the groups. It is your lack of
understanding of the meaning of the word that creates the problem.


I don't suppose you have a link to one of those comments. You never
do. You just hand-wave.

"Those comments" are usually on a live broadcast not a web site. The
problem is you only believe things on web sites.

That's not necessarily true. Yes, I want cites for what you claim
because I don't find you to be credible. You make things up, you tend
to generalizations and hyperbole, you rely on anecdotal information,
you offer opinion as fact, and you are quite often completely wrong.
You may present some valid information, but it's difficult to know
what is valid and what is just hand-waving. So, I ask for cites from
you.

You don't see me asking, say, Savageduck for cites. He is credible.
There are others that post here that I consider credible.

You say you use your own name like that is some sort of validation.
So does Bill Graham, and I see you in the same light as I see Bill
Graham. Both of you are people with a strong personal bias and agenda
who are often wrong, never seem to be willing to admit that they have
been wrong, and slither away when asked to produce some other source
as a back-up of their claims.

I am only wrong in your eyes, Tony. I find that you will seek out some minor
discrepancy in what I say, and seize on it to make your point....Savageduck
does this frequently too. I do think in generalities, rather than specifics,
and I don't argue when you correct my specifics. But I can see the
difference between minor specifics and my general logic. Please point out
where my general logic has been wrong, and I will change my thinking
instantly.

On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 17:11:41 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

I am only wrong in your eyes, Tony. I find that you will seek out some minor
discrepancy in what I say, and seize on it to make your point....Savageduck
does this frequently too. I do think in generalities, rather than specifics,

The devil is in the details. Although, claiming that US unemployment
is at 20% or thinking that "vigilante" is an antonym for "looter" is
hardly a petty detail. You and Bill Graham share a propensity for
bungling the specifics.

and I don't argue when you correct my specifics. But I can see the
difference between minor specifics and my general logic.

Oddly enough, this could very well be the defense that one of those
political commentators like Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh,
or Sean Hannity would use when caught out. They might completely
twist and spin the truth, but would claim that their general logic is
correct even if their specifics are not.

Please point out
where my general logic has been wrong, and I will change my thinking
instantly.

I would not expect you to. You have a strong bias against the US and
a disdain for the US military. You have deep-seated misconceptions
about the American public.

Pointing out your errors or misapprehensions isn't going to change
your thinking. And, frankly, attempting to enlighten you isn't a game
worth the candle.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 13:14:07 +0100, Chris H wrote:




I do understand but having seem FOX news and many others the same
pictures with slightly different words can portray a very different
scene.

I recall during the floods in New Orleans there was a comment that there
were gangs of black criminals looting and white vigilantes trying to
keep the peace and get supplies for people.

I don't believe this either. The meaning of the word "vigilantes"
would be understood by any professional journalist, and not used to
describe "keeping the peace". A description using "vigilantes" would
be as negative as a description using "looters".

Not necessarily. "Vigilantes" implies a group of citizens that "take the law
into their own hands," to use the common phrase. Sometimes that is the
necessary and proper thing to do.

Do you know where and when the term got started?

In the mid-19th century, San Francisco, then a relatively small town, was
much troubled by crime and violence. Honest men and women were attacked and
robbed, businesses were too, streets and homes were unsafe, and the local
judges and peace officers were worse than useless -- basically the local law
was in cahoots with the criminals.

Eventually the local citizens got fed up with this and formed what they
called a "vigilance committee." (This of course is where "vigilante" comes
from.) One day the committee rounded up a number of the most notorious
crooks, including some of the local "law" I believe, gave them a speedy
trial and hanged them.

The effect on San Francisco was salutory. Criminals and corrupt law officers
alike fled the city post haste, and it became (for a while) a peaceful,
law-abiding and orderly town.

As I recollect, the citizens of San Francisco had to do that twice, and on
one occasion federal troops were called in to protect the corrupt local law,
with mixed results.

These very interesting and even instructive events are extensively covered
in the book "The Barbary Coast," by Herbert Asbury, published in 1933 --
about five years after his better known book, "Gangs of New York." The
latter of course was what the silly movie of that title with Leonardo
DiCaprio was supposedly based on -- though to even suggest that there's any
similarity between the book and the movie should be made a criminal offense.
Both books are an excellent read and may still be available -- I have
facsimile reprints of both, haven't read them for many years but must do so
again soon.


In other words gang warfare but the very subtle differences in the words
portrayed one group as criminals and the other as upholding the law

The word "vigilantes" does not mean upholding the law. Vigilantes
operate outside of the law and contrary to the law. Any use of
"vigilante" has negative meaning and negative connotation.

It has that meaning and connotation for you, because of the way it is
generally used and because you presumably don't know how the term
originated.. But when there is no law organization doing the job the law is
supposed to do, and peaceful, honest citizens are being attacked, robbed and
worse -- as obviously was the case in New Orleans -- then the vigilante in
one form or another becomes necessary. What else can people do to protect
themselves? Remember that in New Orleans during Katrina, many of the police
fled the city (two of them stole a police cruiser and were arrested in
Texas) and the mayor fled also. Whatever police remained seem to have been
absolutely useless.

"Chris H" wrote in message
...
In message , Bill Graham
writes

"Neil Harrington" wrote in message news:eOudnT2s
...

"Chris H" wrote in message news:Un0zfYCDz1xKFAb
...
In message , Neil
Harrington writes

"DRS" wrote in message
news:UNidnVWBibNWclnXnZ2dnUVZ_gCdnZ2d@westnet .com.au...
"Chris H" wrote in message

In message , DRS
It is also why the US has now followed the UK's lead (and greater
experience) in saying any solution must now involve discussions with
the
Taliban. An "organisation" that has run the US military into the ground
for the last 7 years, as it did the Russians.

And at least two earlier British efforts. But "discussions" with the
Taliban seem a naive and foolish idea, something like having a
discussion about future relationships with a rattlesnake.

Worked before all over the world. Including with the US supported PIAR

When you're dealing with a group that believes cutting off people's
hands, feet, arms or legs are reasonable forms of corrective
punishment for paying insufficient attention to their view of proper
Muslim rectitude, what common ground is there for discussion?

The USA executes people too.... believes in torture and has no problem
wit killing civilians.

Exactly. These people have carried religion to its most ridiculous
extreme.

And of course the Christian right in the US don't?

They believe that their god wants them to kill off every last person on
earth, just to get rid of all the non-Muslims. Why he can't do this all
by himself doesn't seem to occur to their miniscule minds. But in any
case, its them or us, and the sooner we realize this, the better off we
will be.


The religious right in the US is no different to the religious fanatics
anywhere else.

Where in the U.S. do you see religious fanatics cutting people's hands and
feet off for not properly following religious law?

Where in the U.S. do you see religious fanatics stoning a girl to death on
suspicion of her having had illicit sex with someone?

Where in the U.S. do you see religious fanatics gang-raping a girl to punish
her family for some alleged breach of religious or tribal rules?

Do you ever *think* before you write all this rubbish?

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 18:47:20 +0100, Chris H wrote:


And why the US is seen as a rouge stage by most of the world.

Our face must be red.

guffaw!