""George W. Bush campaigned as a noninterventionalist. He was anything but."
That was the plan, but 9/11 changed all of that."
19 guys frum a fringical rebel group did 9/11. 11 of them were Saudis. NONE of them were Iraqi. And there was never any evidence whatsoever that Suddam Hussein had anything to DO with it.
Yet Bush used 9/11 as an excuse to invade a completely uninvolved country. Don't tell me that was done by a noninterventionalist. Bush just ran as a nonterventionalist to get elected and then desperately looked for an excuse to reveal his true nature.
And he got away with it because MUSLIMS were being developed as the new Commies, someone we were taught to hate to keep the war complex humming. And frankly most Americans just wanted to kill SOMEONE, and didn't know the difference between Iraq and saudi Arabia anyway.
"This black man hates WHITE Americans because they defeated the Japanese - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hPR5jnjtLo"
There will be various reasons stated why people hate people. None of it is true because haters just look to hate. The real reason is within themselves and not in others.
Upset? No, I am just a judgmental person, though I have been working on it. But in cases of bigoted people I have no tolerance so it sets me off. Its a flaw but its my flaw.
blu crazy:
Ah yes you are upset. That is quite a temper you have got there, you need to control it.
You got upset when I posted that you tube link and the web site links. You are desperately trying to defend the events that took place in that youtube video and the newsom link.
Well here it is again just to annoy you : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hPR5jnjtLo and http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/newsom.asp
Have you ever noticed that when people in this forum (or any other forum) post a link to a negative video - they inexplicably expect that everyone who reads the post is going to watch the video?
"Any time I want to see a video display of ignorance, falsehood, bigotry, and brazen propaganda -- I simply tune into Fox News for a few minutes!"
I do not believe that statement. I have heard bad things about Fox News. That is the worst. As with many who puts labels on people, and in this case a TV network, I only see the labels and not the examples of such. I only have the bare minimum in cable TV, so I don't get Fox News. I do watch some of their excerpts online. I have not seen anything close to that.
They are not racist or ignorant, simply a hard leaning Conservative new network, as MSNBC is a hard leaning Liberal news network and while CNN tries to claim they are neutral they are quite liberal to, since FOX news is conservative everyone assumes to stereotype them. I don't watch none of them because I would rather get my news from a truly neutral new outlet which I can only find online, even United States politicians like Hilary Clinton recognizes this news agency as the most nuetral,..Al Jazeera, they just report it how it is and leave opinions out of it, they don't take sides on any issue, and don't debate anything. But you have to go online to read the news but well worth avoiding getting subjective news from the Big 3.
When debating the issues on social media, some instead of sticking to the issues, have given me a few of those labels. A couple of people even accused me of being Glenn Beck in disguise. I had to look up who Glenn Beck was.
I would argue that Al Jazeera isn't particularly unbiased - it is heavily influenced by the government of Quatar - which happens to be hand in hand with the US is any Middle East conficts (that's why Hillary claims its unbiased of course).
Al Jazeera was heavily criticised in the Arab world for supporting the toppling of Gaddafi. While their was a fair division in the Arab world suggesting it was his time to go, Al Jazzera really didn't cover adequately all of the OTHER people killed by the NATO led coalition in taking him out.
Al Jazeera is FAR from unbiased in Syria right now and is being condemned by the Arab owrld for that. Both Assad's forces and those of the rebels are commiting huge numbers of attrocities, yet only Assad's killing are fairly covered, those of the rebels are being glossed over.
A very important reporter with Al Jazeera resigned just six days ago because he could no longer abide with the political pressure of Quatar (I can't recall the guys name off hand - but you can Google it).
I look to RT.com as a fairly unbiased news source. And when it IS biased - it is at least biased in a different direction than in favor of the US government's propaganda, unlike any of the other biased news sources.
Al Jazeera made a big deal when Gadaffi was murdered at the hands of Libyan people - to support the fact that he was unpopular with some.
But they barely mentioned that Gadaffi's killer was HIMSELF killed by ANOTHER rebel group, loyal to Gadaffi, very quickly - because that would show just how bad the post NATO chaos in Libya really is and that Gadaffi WASN'T universally hated at all.
Al Jazeera made a big deal when Gadaffi was murdered at the hands of Libyan people - to support the fact that he was unpopular with some.
But they barely mentioned that Gadaffi's killer was HIMSELF killed by ANOTHER rebel group, loyal to Gadaffi, very quickly - because that would show just how bad the post NATO chaos in Libya really is and that Gadaffi WASN'T universally hated at all.
By the way, Jetmba, I answered your post about GWBush up there, but the moderators deleted it. I don't want to be debating politics here anyway. It is not the right venue.