street228

steve , you KEEP forgetting this ONE small point. There is a VERY POLAR division, amongst the TOTAL population with-in IRAQ, and THIS has been the case since BEFORE the war. 41% compared to approx 46%. The minority were happy beneath the BATHAST party government. ALL we did was give the 46% control over the 41%, as opposed to where it stood prior to the war. This indeed was no more than standing for the popular majority, in the form of a liberation. These are, but a fraction, of the factual situations, where discussion was sacrificed, in this administration's haste, to go to war. If we had done as you suggest, then they would ALL have been aware of their subserviant position, as well as an even stronger base( approx 78% of the population ) compassionate toward the insurgants. Then, one must assess, the actual benefit, of areal bonbardment, and it's overall affect toward deminishing a DISPERSED troop's access to weapons, along with the backing of a severely accousted population.....NOT a GOOD scenerio, for ground assult, with limited supply lines. [ 07-16-2004, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: street ]

quote: What!? Where in that article did you see any mention of BUSH! Her only thought was of the 9/11 event. Who hasn't flown since 9/11 without thinking is this going to happen to you some day. The terrorists are the fear mongers here not Bush. They alone are responsible for our current day fears not Bush, not Kerry not anyone else just the terrorist. answer:" the TIME LINE, by which the article is written, and the FACT, that bush has used this 9/11 fear crap throughout his ENTIRE administration, NOT WITH-STANDING, the WAR in IRAQ..... " maybe tunnel vision would have eliminated this perspective? There will come the day,when YOU will be the one screaming, while some publicly invasive anal probe is being administered.... then what will come ,but "ENLIGHTENMENT"?. Until then:

quote: What!? Where in that article did you see any mention of BUSH! Her only thought was of the 9/11 event. Who hasn't flown since 9/11 without thinking is this going to happen to you some day. The terrorists are the fear mongers here not Bush. They alone are responsible for our current day fears not Bush, not Kerry not anyone else just the terrorist. answer:" the TIME LINE, by which the article is written, and the FACT, that bush has used this 9/11 fear crap throughout his ENTIRE administration, NOT WITH-STANDING, the WAR in IRAQ..... " maybe tunnel vision would have eliminated this perspective? There will come the day,when YOU will be the one screaming, while some publicly invasive anal probe is being administered.... then what will come ,but "ENLIGHTENMENT"?. Until then:

It is a sad thing, about Americans, who are surrounded by ANY peoples, who are speaking in an unfamiliar lanquage.There is PARANOIA. Especially with, the cultural differences present. They feel they are on the outside, and their imagination runs wild. I have seen this happen, with American tourist, on buses in south america, when unfamiliar things, like an unscheduled bus stop happened, in remote location. I could hear the tourist mumbling, back and forth,(thinking, the bus was being hi-jacked, by an angry man in the back) their paranoia getting stronger, by the moment, as the bus driver continued telling a man in the rear of the bus(in an odd dialect of spanish), all about his nephew's up coming wedding, being postponed. And, as he explained to the man, in the rear, he was simply waiting for the radiator to cool down a bit, before moving along. If that lady could have understood the conversation; the EYE contact, and the NO, being said when the one man returned from the lavatory, would not have been so threatening. Those men's, so called co-ordinated effort, to stand, rather than stay seated, would have probably lost it's feeling of impending doom, as well. If she could have understood their conversation, as to how their ass probably hurt from all the sitting, or some such. I do not find this example, reason enough to doubt proper security, nor do I see this as an example which supports, need for further infringements upon individual rights. I see it, for what it REALLY is. A woman, who has been caught up in the BUSH FEAR campaign, and DUE to CULTURAL seperation, was likely suffering from ACUTE PARANOIA.

It is a sad thing, about Americans, who are surrounded by ANY peoples, who are speaking in an unfamiliar lanquage.There is PARANOIA. Especially with, the cultural differences present. They feel they are on the outside, and their imagination runs wild. I have seen this happen, with American tourist, on buses in south america, when unfamiliar things, like an unscheduled bus stop happened, in remote location. I could hear the tourist mumbling, back and forth,(thinking, the bus was being hi-jacked, by an angry man in the back) their paranoia getting stronger, by the moment, as the bus driver continued telling a man in the rear of the bus(in an odd dialect of spanish), all about his nephew's up coming wedding, being postponed. And, as he explained to the man, in the rear, he was simply waiting for the radiator to cool down a bit, before moving along. If that lady could have understood the conversation; the EYE contact, and the NO, being said when the one man returned from the lavatory, would not have been so threatening. Those men's, so called co-ordinated effort, to stand, rather than stay seated, would have probably lost it's feeling of impending doom, as well. If she could have understood their conversation, as to how their ass probably hurt from all the sitting, or some such. I do not find this example, reason enough to doubt proper security, nor do I see this as an example which supports, need for further infringements upon individual rights. I see it, for what it REALLY is. A woman, who has been caught up in the BUSH FEAR campaign, and DUE to CULTURAL seperation, was likely suffering from ACUTE PARANOIA.

I find it AMUSING: EXPERTS continue to fail, in acknowledgement, of the most OBVIOUS results, of the actions this Administration has taken.

I find it AMUSING: EXPERTS continue to fail, in acknowledgement, of the most OBVIOUS results, of the actions this Administration has taken.

nothing quite like it...: "EXPERIENCE OF REAL LIFE PARANOIA"!!

nothing quite like it...: "EXPERIENCE OF REAL LIFE PARANOIA"!!

it is amazing what 4 or 5 hours in the brig, will do to a fighter's "obligation to duty" perspective. quote: Now I have the lot of them freaking out over highly dubious medical pratices... Threat, of constant and repetative death, has not been fully investigated. We should REQUEST, a briefing, as to the overall effect, this practise has on the pilots psyche...This, would probably be best, kept from the pilots. A NEED to KNOW scenerio...if you know what I mean.

Proving those of Intelligence:CAN admit mistakes. Here is an example, worthy to be followed: http://my.netscape.com/corewidgets/news/st...609110001441492 I always thought that: within all the laws of physics, there followed a required balance of philosophy and rule; which eliminated the possibility, of total anialation of the energy contained within the black hole, and there be no return.(in whatever form.)

quote: LOL street! oh yeah and 5 women for every man! I could,....uh... consider staying,...... but I would want to meet them first!... It would be a REAL PLUS, if they were totally oblivious, to AMERICAN ideologies... Maybe raised, in the ancient chinese culture, of servatude or some such....hummm... you know Like: being obediant, seen and not heard, kinda thing. (just kidding, but admittantly, I do have the occasional fantasy, that such women, yet exist, on this god-awful-planet.. ) [ 07-16-2004, 01:43 PM: Message edited by: street ]

you got my vote Underlord, but I'm buying my ticket out of here, first....shhhh, no I'm not telling. It is a secret.

it has GOT to be Resnig's fault!!! no other explaination,,,except EMP surges, coming through that solar reactor..... then, of course, it is just as likely, the product of shitty engineering work, by unlearned system engineers..

quote: This contains some nice examples, with explanation, of how bias works in reporting. quote:When Fox News Channel was founded by Rupert Murdoch, the consensus was that no startup all-news cable channel could possibly compete with CNN, and if any startup had a chance, it was MSNBC, which had the combined clout of NBC's esteemed news division and Microsoft, which in those days was believed to own the future. Now, almost a decade later, Fox News Channel has left both CNN and MSNBC in the dust. There's no guarantee that this is permanent, of course. But it certainly has the left in a panic. They hated it that American conservatism had any voice at all, back when it was confined to a few radio talk shows--remember how everybody wanted to blame Rush Limbaugh and other conservative talk-radio hosts for the Oklahoma City bombing? Now, though, to have Fox News Channel be the source for the largest portion of America's TV news junkies just sticks in their craw. How could such a thing happen? Scott Collins, author of "Crazy Like a Fox: The Inside Story of How Fox News Beat CNN," thinks he has the answer. It's not what Fox claims--that the American news media have a pronounced and painful liberal bias, so that huge numbers of Americans had given up on TV news, only to return in droves when Fox News offered them a balanced, trustworthy source of information. No, it's that a large number of Americans believed that the news was biased. How they got this idea is that they were . . . hmmm . . . idiots? But no matter. Mr. Collins repeatedly states that the perception is what mattered, and by homing in on the audience dumb enough to think the media was biased, Fox News won the ratings race (but not, of course, the race for quality news coverage). I'm painting Mr. Collins's book far too negatively, and I'm doing it deliberately. In fact, you can finish "Crazy Like a Fox" and think you have received a balanced story. Nowhere does Mr. Collins actually say that Fox News viewers are idiots. But Mr. Collins is a product of the liberal American news media, which are deeply offended at any accusation of bias. They don't twist the news--they inform their readers of the truth. And when they see Fox News trumpeting slogans like "we report, you decide" and "fair and balanced," they see red. They take it for granted that those slogans are true of every news outlet except Fox News. So when Mr. Collins sets out to write a fair and balanced account of Fox News's triumph, he does not realize that his own reporting is biased, too. He scrupulously avoids demonizing the folks at Fox News. But the bias is there. It is simply taken for granted that Fox distorts the news, that Fox is unusual for taking sides, while all of the allegations about liberal bias are refuted so that one could close this book believing that liberal bias in the vast majority of the American news media is a delusion shared only by dimwitted conservatives who don't like it that the world has passed them by--and blame the messenger. So let's put it to the test. Is there a real leftist bias in the mainstream news? One recent morning--the Sunday before Memorial Day--I picked up the Asheville (N.C.) Citizen-Times and started looking through national news coverage. You know, the stuff that is filtered through the lens of liberal bias long before it even reaches local papers, which rarely revise what they get off the wire services. In a story on Donald Rumsfeld's remarks to the graduating class at West Point, here is the lead paragraph: "Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, making no mention of the prisoner abuse scandal that has led to calls for his ouster, told a cheering crowd of graduating cadets Saturday that they will help win the global fight against terror." Let's see, how could there be any bias in that? Every word is true, right? Except for this: The first thing mentioned, the lens through which we are forced to view the rest of the story, is something that did not happen and that only an idiot would expect might happen: Mr. Rumsfeld mentioning the prisoner-abuse scandal at a commencement address at West Point. The lead, in other words, is not the graduation that is supposedly being reported, but rather Mr. Rumsfeld's failure to resign in the face of events that happened weeks ago. How is Mr. Rumsfeld's not resigning news? It's mentioned in this story only because the reporter does not want to let go of it. This is bulldog journalism: Once you get hold of a story, you never loosen your grip until your victim dies--at least politically. Does it happen to everybody? Or just Republicans? Well, try this fictitious opening paragraph: "Senator Hillary Clinton, making no mention of the $100,000 she once made by trading cattle futures with astonishing perfection, told a cheering crowd of activists that President Bush's globalist economic policy is hurting poor people in other countries and costing American jobs." Nope. You've never seen it, and you never will. Because bulldog journalism only goes one way in our "unbiased" mainstream media. The only differences between Fox News and all the other news media are (1) they admit that on some issues they take sides, and (2) they allow the conservative side to be heard--without contempt. Fox News, for instance, made the decision after 9/11 that they would display the American flag. This has caused (and still causes) seething resentment from the rest of the news media. Why? First, it implies that the rest of the news media aren't patriotic. Well, duh. Come on, prior to 9/11--and even after it--they prided themselves on not being patriotic and spoke of people who were self-consciously patriotic with contempt. They thought of themselves as being above national borders. You can't have it both ways, kids. Second, it's pandering to the ignorant unwashed masses of Americans who want their news from people who are "on our side." Again, duh. When a nation is at war--which on 9/11 we finally realized that we are--we don't want to hear the news from neutral parties. We want the news to be accurate, yes--and Fox has had its share of painfully accurate scoops that nobody wanted to hear, but which we needed to know. But when a negative story comes out, we want the people telling us the news to say it with regret. And when America wins, we want our news media to tell us with excitement and happiness. In other words, we want to hear the truth from a friend. From someone who is one of us. And if it took an Australian-born mogul, Rupert Murdoch, to give us an American national news source, so be it. But let me go on. A story about terrorists murdering civilians and taking hostages in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, never actually uses the word terrorist. Instead, the killers are "gunmen" (in the headline), "suspected Islamic militants wearing military-style uniforms" and "attackers" (in the body of the story). Suspected Islamic militant--this pussyfooting appellation even though later in the story we learn that an Islamic group called "Al-Quds" and signing itself "al-Qaida in the Arab Peninsula" is claiming credit for the attack. But presumably they are only "suspected" of being Islamic militants because, after all, they might turn out to be long-hidden Nazis or perhaps holdouts from the Irish Republican Army or--who knows?--maybe Timothy McVeigh's buddies from the "red states" in America. That's what makes some Americans turn away from mainstream sources in disgust. Why in the world is there any need for the news writers to wrap themselves in impartiality when the story makes Islamic militants look bad, but when the story is about our own secretary of defense, he gets slapped around from the first paragraph on? This "neutral" approach to a terrorist attack on Americans and other westerners working for American companies in Saudi Arabia is one reason why Fox News is triumphing. Fox makes it clear that they're on America's side, that what happens to Americans abroad is happening to "us"--in short, they feel our pain because they are part of us. Let's go on to the coverage of Bill Cosby's remarks on the self-defeating actions of some segments of the American black community. In the Asheville Citizen-Times, it's hard to find what is newsworthy about the article at all. Mr. Cosby's remarks are reported as taking place "earlier this month," and there is no event since then to justify considering this new article as "news." In fact, the "story" is a thinly disguised editorial, in which Associated Press writer Deepti Hajela seems to be trying to draw the controversy to a "balanced" conclusion. Mr. Cosby's most heated remarks are quoted, but fairly, and in context, and his credentials are respected. Ms. Hajela is not out to "get" him. After summarizing Mr. Cosby's weeks-ago remarks, Ms. Hajela then gives one paragraph to Jimi Izrael's criticism of Cosby's remarks, who merely objected to Cosby's tone and privileged position. Then Ms. Hajela quotes the Rev. Conrad Tillard of Roxbury, Mass., at some length. Obviously, it was Mr. Tillard's statement that provided the trigger for this article. It's the reason that Mr. Cosby was "news" again--though Mr. Cosby gets the headline to himself because who would read an article headlined "Rev. Tillard answers Cosby"? Mr. Tillard is first quoted as saying that "Cosby 'could absolutely have' gone even further," and though slavery and Jim Crow had hurt African-Americans, "at the end of the day, we have got to turn the tide." But then Mr. Tillard is quoted as explaining that the real danger of Mr. Cosby's remarks is that white people (i.e., racists) will "seize upon that and try to castigate the African-American community. The conservatives and liberals are far too quick to seize upon a statement and say to the rest of us, 'See, see, it's not us, it's you.' What they have not wanted to acknowledge is that there are still legacies of slavery." How is this biased? In this editorial-masquerading-as-news, Ms. Hajela is providing us with a "clincher" that tells us what we are supposed to learn from all this: that it would be a bad thing for Americans to let the racists off the hook by telling blacks that they are causing some of their own problems. Harmless? Sure. In fact, I agree with Ms. Hajela's editorial. But it was in the news pages, and it was not news, and it was not impartial. It was shaped and designed solely to cause readers to reach a certain opinion. Nobody was quoted as saying, "Cosby was absolutely right, it's ridiculous to keep complaining about things that are completely under our own control. We can teach our children to learn standard English and get a good education. We can teach our children not to become criminals, and can hold them responsible for their actions when they do commit crimes, instead of blaming racism." Ultimately, both the "pro" and "con" quotes said the same thing: Mr. Cosby had a point, but he shouldn't say it openly because it gives aid and comfort to the enemy. Very PC. Don't we all feel better now? Then there's the half-page tie-in to the movie "The Day After Tomorrow," with the headline "Could It Really Happen?" The answer, buried deep in the story, is that of course it couldn't. Geochemist Wallace Broecker, who is the most-quoted source, is paraphrased only in the final paragraph as saying "Hollywood's idea of 'abrupt' is much swifter than nature's, however. Climate shifts unfold over years and decades--not in two reels, said Broecker." This is as vague a way of saying "What this movie actually shows is scientific nonsense" as you could possibly imagine. The bulk of the article--especially the crucial first paragraphs and the large-type inset, which are all that most people ever read--say quite a different thing. In answer to the question "could the climate really go bonkers, just like that?" the answer in the article was "Maybe. That was the consensus among researchers at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, a leading center for climate studies." The next paragraph includes a quote from the observatory's director, G. Michael Purdy: "This is not fantasy. It's happened before. It's well documented." Which quote will leave the clearest impression in the readers' minds? The fact is, what Mr. Purdy was saying was "not fantasy" and has "happened before" is Manhattan being covered in ice. That was during the Ice Age. It didn't happen in one big storm. And it wasn't caused by human greenhouse-gas emissions. Furthermore, any institution calling itself an "earth observatory" has a built-in bias. They want to wrap themselves in the much more fact-based science of astronomy, but this isn't an observatory as most of us understand it, it's a group of scientists who have gathered together specifically because they already are true believers in a certain set of viewpoints about the human impact on the environment. And the large-type inset absolutely treats global warming as a fact (it is still only a suspicion, by rational standards) and ends with this statement, attributed to no one: "Scientists believe this is probably due to man-made 'greenhouse gases' in the atmosphere." Which scientists? Are there scientists who disagree? These matters are not even addressed. The whole point of this article is to make sure that the people who read it take "The Day After Tomorrow" far more seriously than the film deserves. Why? Because global warming has become one of the weapons used in the political war to bring down Western civilization, and without necessarily realizing it, the left-biased news media are completely buying into that political agenda. Keep in mind that there is no way of knowing whether human greenhouse-gas emissions are causing or preventing disaster, mostly because we don't yet understand the causes of the natural cycles that lead to ice ages and warmer interglacial periods. So at this point, there is zero scientific basis for action. There is only the quasireligious premise that any human change to nature is dangerous and bad. Therefore, if human activities produce gases that might cause a disaster, then we can't afford to wait until the connection is actually proven. We must stop emitting those gases right now. What they don't tell you is that the only way they are proposing to stop emitting those gases is to have such a drastic change in the activities of Western civilization that it might well lead to devastating impoverishment, and probably to famine and a catastrophic drop in the human population. But the reporters covering science in America today are so wretchedly miseducated that they don't even know what questions to ask when interviewing biased sources. And they are perfectly willing to make ridiculous statements--which would include any sentence beginning with "scientists believe." This is the postreligious equivalent of a fundamentalist preacher starting a sentence with "The Bible says." It invokes authority without context, without understanding, and without admitting the possibility of error. (Most self-respecting fundamentalist preachers would at least tell you which book in the Bible they were quoting.) The fact is that Mr. Broecker is an important scientist, and his model of the "conveyor belt" of warm water in the Atlantic provides a plausible explanation for how ice-age climate changes might happen and why they seem to be restricted to the northern hemisphere, at least in the most recent ice-age events. But the article in the paper was not science or even respectable science reporting. It was designed as propaganda to convince readers that smart people all agree that global warming can cause an ice age like the one depicted in "The Day After Tomorrow," unless we make the radical changes required to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions to levels that true believers claim (but cannot prove) would prevent this disaster. If the evidence of global warming were a report of burglars operating in your neighborhood, there's enough of it to cause you to check that your doors and windows are locked--but the true believers want you to respond by boarding up your house and moving to another state. In every case of bias I just cited, the writers would almost certainly be outraged at my accusation that they were doing anything other than reporting the facts as clearly and fairly as possible. It doesn't occur to them that they are biased because they live in a box filled with people who share exactly the same bias. But that's how we human beings create our working definition of sanity--someone who shares the same worldview as his neighbors is "sane," and those who don't are crazy. The left-wing news media live in a tiny village of people who all think (or pretend to think) exactly alike. Therefore, to them any reporter or media outlet that rejects their premises must be insane or dishonest, and instead of seeking to refute them with actual evidence, they merely call them names and accuse them of venal motives. The fact remains that on Fox News, and only on Fox News, we get television reportage that gives us at least two sides of every important issue. On all the other TV news outlets--and "mainstream" newspapers--we mostly get coverage that is hopelessly biased. The madmen have taken over the asylum and now, dressed in white lab coats, they pronounce the rest of the world insane. Keep in mind that I found these egregious examples of bias in a single issue of a single newspaper, randomly chosen. I could do the same thing with any national news broadcast or with any paper in America except the occasional paper that still has a toehold on reality. I wrote this essay for a newspaper that is also biased. The only difference--and it's all the difference in the world--is that the Rhinoceros Times admits that it's a conservative paper and reports events through conservative eyes. Likewise for this Web site. Fox News Channel, on the other hand, claims to have only one bias--it is definitely pro-American--and it presents all the facts and every viewpoint and leaves the decision up to the viewer. Imagine if these news stories had been written from that perspective. They would be barely recognizable--and some of them would not have been written at all. What makes the liberal bias in the mainstream media so pernicious is that they deny that they're biased and insist that their twisted version of events is "reality," and anyone who disagrees with them is either mentally or morally suspect. In other words, they're fanatics. And, like all good fanatics, they're utterly convinced that they're in sole possession of virtue and truth. How's THAT, for a touch(just a little?) of fanaticism??

All these observations, most likely, have merit, but to deceive one's self, to believe this "YELLOW JOURNALISTIC" pactice, is present: ONLY within the radical left's presentations, and NOT to be equally contained, within the radical right presentation, is nothing more than SELF DECEPTION. Personally, I SEE it, in BOTH presentations, throughout the media, as a whole. AND speaking of FANATICAL, just an observation, but I see plenty of FANATICISM coming from BOTH, as well. [ 07-14-2004, 03:43 PM: Message edited by: street ]

quote: evidence? I hardly call a link from CNN 'evidence' You, are obviously suffering from EXTREME prejudice, toward the source of the particular article, rather, than looking at the INTENT , in which the article was presented. and what the post was referring to, when the article was presented. I would assure you, that CNN is NOT the ONLY place which refers to this battle over the black and especially the hispanic vote.(a REPUBLICAN slanted viewpoint concerning THIS battle for votes, would have served EQUAL purpose)WHEW!! IT was the SUBJECT matter, which was being referred to, and NOT any politically biased slants, (percieved by you) in regard to YOUR politically biased views. You need to lighten up, and reread the ACTUAL meaning of the post, in relation to the article, along with verifiable FACTS, which were presented within the article. THERE is more to this WHOLE electorial process, than pure PARTINSEN biased viewpoints.

quote: evidence? I hardly call a link from CNN 'evidence' You, are obviously suffering from EXTREME prejudice, toward the source of the particular article, rather, than looking at the INTENT , in which the article was presented. and what the post was referring to, when the article was presented. I would assure you, that CNN is NOT the ONLY place which refers to this battle over the black and especially the hispanic vote.(a REPUBLICAN slanted viewpoint concerning THIS battle for votes, would have served EQUAL purpose)WHEW!! IT was the SUBJECT matter, which was being referred to, and NOT any politically biased slants, (percieved by you) in regard to YOUR politically biased views. You need to lighten up, and reread the ACTUAL meaning of the post, in relation to the article, along with verifiable FACTS, which were presented within the article. THERE is more to this WHOLE electorial process, than pure PARTINSEN biased viewpoints.

quote:one NOT from the Communist News Network I suppose, the statement above, is one of those "NON biased referances? REGARDLESS, of its propaghanda value, and to what party, it is intended to promote....the evidence of, and idea which; was being referred too, is relevant: to the subject, which the post was referring.

quote:one NOT from the Communist News Network I suppose, the statement above, is one of those "NON biased referances? REGARDLESS, of its propaghanda value, and to what party, it is intended to promote....the evidence of, and idea which; was being referred too, is relevant: to the subject, which the post was referring.

quote: Bush is a genious. There are many men, in history, depicted as such, and several were just as devious, and dangerous to common principle, as well; Thus, I will agree Bush, to be well versed in the political arena.

quote: Bush is a genious. There are many men, in history, depicted as such, and several were just as devious, and dangerous to common principle, as well; Thus, I will agree Bush, to be well versed in the political arena.

NOT suppose to have RE on the cruisers!.

quote: On November 1st, the terrorists strike a U.S city and wipe out 10,000 citizens. But we just point at them and laugh, "Ha Ha, the jokes on you. The elections aren't until NEXT month....." LOL,!!! I seriously, would NOT put it past this administration,though: to try and USE their fear campaign to instigate some sort of INDEFINATE postponement. It (MEDIA GENERATED MASS HYSTERIA) has worked so WELL, for them thus far!! A postponement, would do WHAT, to the voter turnout?;and ,Of what societial class will it affect the most? ARE the questions, one should ask themselves! edit: and here is a link to help identify the DECIDERS(..the ELECTION's.. deciding vote): http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/13/...s.ap/index.html [ 07-13-2004, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: street ]

quote: On November 1st, the terrorists strike a U.S city and wipe out 10,000 citizens. But we just point at them and laugh, "Ha Ha, the jokes on you. The elections aren't until NEXT month....." LOL,!!! I seriously, would NOT put it past this administration,though: to try and USE their fear campaign to instigate some sort of INDEFINATE postponement. It (MEDIA GENERATED MASS HYSTERIA) has worked so WELL, for them thus far!! A postponement, would do WHAT, to the voter turnout?;and ,Of what societial class will it affect the most? ARE the questions, one should ask themselves! edit: and here is a link to help identify the DECIDERS(..the ELECTION's.. deciding vote): http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/13/...s.ap/index.html [ 07-13-2004, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: street ]