Printed from Urbana-Champaign IMC : http://127.0.0.1/
UCIMC Independent Media 
Center
Media Centers

[topics]
biotech

[regions]
united states

oceania

germany

[projects]
video
satellite tv
radio
print

[process]
volunteer
tech
process & imc docs
mailing lists
indymedia faq
fbi/legal updates
discussion

west asia
palestine
israel
beirut

united states
worcester
western mass
virginia beach
vermont
utah
urbana-champaign
tennessee
tampa bay
tallahassee-red hills
seattle
santa cruz, ca
santa barbara
san francisco bay area
san francisco
san diego
saint louis
rogue valley
rochester
richmond
portland
pittsburgh
philadelphia
omaha
oklahoma
nyc
north texas
north carolina
new orleans
new mexico
new jersey
new hampshire
minneapolis/st. paul
milwaukee
michigan
miami
maine
madison
la
kansas city
ithaca
idaho
hudson mohawk
houston
hawaii
hampton roads, va
dc
danbury, ct
columbus
colorado
cleveland
chicago
charlottesville
buffalo
boston
binghamton
big muddy
baltimore
austin
atlanta
arkansas
arizona

south asia
mumbai
india

oceania
sydney
perth
melbourne
manila
jakarta
darwin
brisbane
aotearoa
adelaide

latin america
valparaiso
uruguay
tijuana
santiago
rosario
qollasuyu
puerto rico
peru
mexico
ecuador
colombia
chile sur
chile
chiapas
brasil
bolivia
argentina

europe
west vlaanderen
valencia
united kingdom
ukraine
toulouse
thessaloniki
switzerland
sverige
scotland
russia
romania
portugal
poland
paris/ãŽle-de-france
oost-vlaanderen
norway
nice
netherlands
nantes
marseille
malta
madrid
lille
liege
la plana
italy
istanbul
ireland
hungary
grenoble
galiza
euskal herria
estrecho / madiaq
cyprus
croatia
bulgaria
bristol
belgrade
belgium
belarus
barcelona
austria
athens
armenia
antwerpen
andorra
alacant

east asia
qc
japan
burma

canada
winnipeg
windsor
victoria
vancouver
thunder bay
quebec
ottawa
ontario
montreal
maritimes
london, ontario
hamilton

africa
south africa
nigeria
canarias
ambazonia

www.indymedia.org

This site
made manifest by
dadaIMC software
&
the friendly folks of
AcornActiveMedia.com

Comment on this article | View comments | Email this Feature
Commentary :: Media
Ted Koppel is the New Dixie Chick -- Sinclair's Power Play Current rating: 0
30 Apr 2004

Sinclair broadcasting owns local NBC affiliates WICD-TV channel 15 and WICS-TV channel 20. Both these stations will flip to ABC affiliation in 2005, along with a Sinclair station in Dayton, OH.

Tonight Sinclair will pull the Nightline program from its ABC affiliate stations over the program's plan to run a tribute of the American service people killed in Iraq, where host Ted Koppel will read their names as their pictures are shown on screen. Sinclair claims the program is intended to galvanize viewers against the war .

Listen to the mediageek radioshow tonight at 5:30 PM on WEFT 90.1 FM for more information and analysis.

Media concentration strikes again! This time it's Sinclair Broadcast Group, the Clear Channel of TV stations, which is pulling tonight's edition of Nightline from its ABC affiliates because the entire program will be dedicated to a tribute to fallen U.S. troops in Iraq, wherein anchor Ted Koppel will be reading aloud the names of hundreds of dead American servicemen and women as their photographs are shown.

Now Koppel gets to know what it's like to be a Dixie Chick, as Sinclair pulls a page from the Cumulus book -- that's the company that pulled all Dixie Chicks music from its stations last year after singer Natalie Maines criticized Bush on stage in London.

Although Sinclair's action will deprive seven cities of the program, the censorship, per se, is not the real point.

Just like the Dixie Chicks probably didn't lose any significant sales when their records were banned by radio stations, more people will be aware of this Nightline program and possibly tune in due to all the publicity, than who would otherwise.

Sinclair's -- and the Bush administration's -- objective is not to silence critics directly so much as to send the message that there will be swift retribution for crossing them. It may be that this is a test fire from Sinclair to see what kind of reaction comes against them for pulling Nightline, so they can see how much they can get away with in the future.

It's important to note in this tiff with ABC and Nighline that Sinclair will have 3 more ABC stations in 2005, when the company's Springfield, IL, Champaign, IL and Dayton, OH NBC stations switch affiliations. I reckon that Sinclair is eager to see how much leverage they can exert with ABC as it becomes one of the network's largest affiliate owners (if not the largest).

While Sinclair justifies its actions by claiming that Nightline's motive is to galvanize viewers against the war, those of us who have been paying attention to Sinclair know that the company is possibly more closely aligned with the Bush administration than even Clear Channel.

As the Daily Kos notes, the company or its directors have given over $200,000 to the RNC and Republican Candidates, and absolutely nothing to Democrats. Even Cheap Channel spreads the love around to both parties.

On top of that Sinclair Vice-President and on-air commentator Mark Hyman is a captain with an intelligence role in the U.S. Naval Reserves, who apparently sees no conflict of interest between his role as "journalist" and being on the payroll of Naval Intelligence. Hyman delights in his crusade to lambaste anyone who questions the war in Iraq, such as calling congresspeople who voted against a recent resolution of support for the war "just unpatriotic politicians who hate our military."

Sinclair's HQ is right in the backyard of the Baltimore Sun, which reports:

"After the September 2001 attacks, officials at Sinclair stations were directed to read on-air statements supporting the Bush administration's efforts against terrorism. The move prompted internal objections by journalists at WBFF-TV, Sinclair's flagship station in Baltimore, after anchors there were told to read similar statements on the air. "

We'll be talking about this extensively on this evening's mediageek radio show (5:30 PM WEFT 90.1 FM, archived on the website thereafter).

See also:
http://www.mediageek.org
Related stories on this site:
Our Old Friend Sinclair Is At It Again...

This work is in the public domain.
Add a quick comment
Title
Your name Your email

Comment

Text Format
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.

Comments

Re: Ted Koppel is the New Dixie Chick -- Sinclair's Power Play
Current rating: 13
30 Apr 2004
Harass Sinclair:

Corporate Headquarters
Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.
10706 Beaver Dam Road
Hunt Valley, Maryland 21030
410-568-1500 (Main Telephone)
410-568-1533 (Main Fax)

Investor Relations Contact
Lucy A. Rutishauser
VP Corporate Finance and
Corporate Treasurer
investor (at) sbgi.net
Re: Ted Koppel is the New Dixie Chick -- Sinclair's Power Play
Current rating: 7
01 May 2004
Nightling stated that there was only enough time to show the dead from combat in Iraq. There was not enought time to show those who died in accidents or soliders who have committed suicide.

Nightline shoed plenty of pro-war stories in the build-up to the war. The difference is that the rich elite are becomming concerned that the war will cost us too much money. As Chompsky (sp?) noted about Vietman, it wasn't untill the rich elite bacame concerned about how much the war was costing us did the popular support for the war start to fall.
Re: Ted Koppel is the New Dixie Chick -- Sinclair's Power Play
Current rating: 12
01 May 2004
So I went, for the first time ever, to http://www.newscentral.tv (note the Tuvalu web domain; funny, Mark Hyman doesn't look Tuvaluni...) and they have a web poll on the topic, which is currently running 4 to 1 in favor of "Nightline."

So Sinclair's taking it on the rhetorical chin on this one. Good.

Speaking of Sinclair, I also spotted this from Mark Hyman, who apparently went to the same finishing school as Richard Nixon. Here's a hint of where he's coming from: "I conducted anti-terrorism intelligence work back in the 1980s, the heyday in the Middle East and in Europe when airliners were hijacked, airports were attacked, kidnappings were rampant, and bombings were all too frequent. I worked in one special anti-terrorism program, the very existence of which was classified. And it may still be today."

@%<
Re: Reuters joins in
Current rating: 5
01 May 2004
May 1, 2004

Controversy Rages as TV Show Lists U.S. War Dead
By REUTERS

Filed at 7:21 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Veteran U.S. journalist Ted Koppel devoted his ``Nightline'' program Friday to broadcasting the names and photographs of 721 American soldiers killed in Iraq, sparking outrage from conservatives who called it anti-war propaganda.

But Koppel said the ABC show, extended to 40 minutes from its normal half-hour to accommodate all the names, was a politically neutral way of honoring those who had died.

``Our goal tonight was to elevate the fallen above the politics and the daily journalism,'' he said at the end of the program. ``The reading of those 721 names was neither intended to provoke opposition to the war nor as an endorsement.''

Koppel said he was not opposed to the war in Iraq, launched in March 2003 to oust Saddam Hussein.

``I am opposed to sustaining the illusion that war can be waged by the sacrifice of a few without burdening the rest of us in any way. I oppose the notion that to be at war is to forfeit the right to question, criticize or debate our leaders' policies,'' he said.

The show was broadcast on the eve of the anniversary of Bush's May 1, 2003, ``mission accomplished'' declaration from the deck of an aircraft carrier that major combat in Iraq was over.

Since then a guerrilla war waged by a range of anti-U.S. groups has intensified and 134 Americans were killed in April alone -- the bloodiest month for U.S. forces since the war began.

The program was inspired by a June 1969 edition of Life magazine that carried the names and pictures of all the American soldiers killed in a single week in the Vietnam War.

That issue of the magazine was credited with fueling public sentiment against the war in Vietnam and conservative commentators accused Koppel of trying to encourage similar opposition to the war in Iraq.

BARRED FROM THE AIRWAVES

A media company whose executives have been strong supporters of President Bush, Maryland-based Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc., barred its ABC-affiliated stations from airing the ``Nightline'' broadcast, calling it a political statement that failed to give all sides of the story.

Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican and Vietnam veteran, condemned Sinclair's decision ``to deny your viewers an opportunity to be reminded of war's terrible costs.'' He called it a ``gross disservice to the public'' and the U.S. armed forces.

``It is in short, sir, unpatriotic,'' McCain said.

Sinclair company president David Smith responded that ABC ``has adopted a strategy employed by numerous anti-war demonstrators who wish to focus attention solely on the cost of war.'' He said Sinclair stations would replace ``Nightline'' with ``a balanced report addressing both sides of this controversy.''

Koppel rejected Sinclair's criticism. ``We do context every day. Today was just one program when we decided we would honor the dead. Period,'' he told Reuters in a telephone interview.

ABC News said it would make a special feed of its tribute available to radio and television stations in markets where the program was preempted by the Sinclair Broadcast chain.

A poll by The New York Times and CBS News reported this week that American support for the war in Iraq had eroded substantially in recent weeks and Americans were increasingly critical of how Bush is handling the conflict.

A spokesman for the Veterans of Foreign Wars group, Jerry Newberry, told ABC News he approved of the ``Nightline'' broadcast.

``We need to memorize those faces, know their names. Americans should get down on their hands and knees and give thanks to them,'' he said.

Koppel quoted the Pentagon as putting the latest American death toll in Iraq at 737, including two Marines killed on Friday. He said the show had not been able to confirm 16 of the names.

@%<
Re: Ted Koppel is the New Dixie Chick -- Sinclair's Power Play
Current rating: 7
01 May 2004
im gonna side with the majority of the people on this site and say that sinclairs actions were shameful...

Since i am at home this weekend, i was able to view the show, it was not in my opinion, offensive.

Added to this, I am a supporter or our military, and i support the war to a certain degree, this was not a political event, until sinclair took it upon themselved to pull the show.
Jack Lies
Current rating: 37
01 May 2004
Jack Ryan wrote that "many who post on this site are secretly jubilant with each new death so you can advance your political agenda. "

Jack, that is a despicable lie, for which you have no proof, just like the vast majority of BS that dribbles from your lips. My girlfriend's father could have been killed on Sept. 11, if he had gone back into the office he had recently retired from at the Pentagon that day, as he frequently did. Everyone on duty that day who was there was killed.

It is likely that my cousin, who is a Lt. Col. in the Marines, has been in-theatre as various points in the last three years.

My niece in the National Guard is facing an assignment to Afghanistan.

The fact is that none of the people I know (as opposed to the trolls I don't) at IMC would ever be "secretly jubilant" over the death of anyone. We certainly take no joy in the deaths of Americans nor do we take any joy at those killed in our names by the lies perpetrated by our criminal government leaders.

While there are those among us who are opposed to all violence as a matter of principle, there are also many who would have had no problem going after the _guilty_ and taking them out. Starting an endless war on a noun, "terrorism," and killing mostly those totally unconnected to al Qaeda does not serve that purpose.

Rather, this political project, which you are a (blood-)lusty supporter of, only ensures an endless supply of enemies by its brutal and indiscriminate nature, one that is promoted by war criminals in our government whose views are more closely akin to the ideology of those who flew on the planes of death on Sept. 11 than they are to everyone else in the world.

The only ones on this site who have an endless thirst for blood, who are not-so-secretly jubilant over death, are people like Jack Ryan. The rest of us see no point in wasting more lives for an ill-conceived and obviously failed political project. The blood that has been spilled cries out for an end to violence, not for sending more people into harm's way as Bush and his criminal gang would do, wasting more lives to cover up the waste of life so far. Our military power does not make us safe against the political stupidity of our leaders. Cheerleaders for death like Jack Ryan are those who are out to shamelessly promote this political agenda of blood.
More of Jack's Lies
Current rating: 37
02 May 2004
Readers can decide for themselves about whether the article in question says anything that even remotely resembles rejoicing over Tillman's death:
http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/17051/index.php

I see nothing in the article that indicates any rejoicing over Tillman's death or the death of anyone else. I do see questioning about whether the post-mortem efforts of the right-wing media to elevate Tillman to a hero are legitimate.

Based on what I've read about Tillman, I think he would probably disagree with the author on much of what he said, but he would also disagree with vultures like Jack Ryan who are trying to do to him in death EXACTLY what he did not want done with his image in life. Tillman specifically rejected the idea that he was some sort of special case and went out of his way to avoid and reject the flogging of his image for propaganda purposes.

Those who are twisting his memory are those who are trying to elevate him into some sort of idol. The author shows no disrespect to Tillman by not joining in the propaganda frenzy by calling him a hero. The author legitimately questions the motivations of those who are unwilling in death to respect his position in life.

This includes Jack Ryan, who disrespects Tillman in death by digging up his bones in a gruesome public display of pseudo-patriotism.
Re: Ted Koppel is the New Dixie Chick -- Sinclair's Power Play
Current rating: 37
02 May 2004
How, _precisely_ would any of ML's rights have been curtailed if the US hadn't invaded Iraq? If you've got no answer, please don't say they're "fighting for his rights." To "fight for" a thing implies the loss of the thing without a fight. I'm not aware that even the Ba'athists have ever proposed to invade the US and tear up the Constitution. In fact, the only people who even seem remotely on the brink of eliminating any of ML's rights are the folks in the Bush Administration.
Re: Ted Koppel is the New Dixie Chick -- Sinclair's Power Play
Current rating: -2
02 May 2004
iraq is a tough issue for me... while i certainly think we did the world a bit of good by getting rid of sadaam, i don't personally know if it has been worth it.

Your right Risa... ML and everyone else probably were under no danger from the Baathists... no one in america was loosing freedoms by sadaam terrorizing his own population.
I personally wonder if it is worth us to go into other countries to try and fix things... good intentions only go so far, and although compared to wars past, 700 americans is an unbelievably low number, its still 700 people that lost thier lives, and it sucks...

however, Mr. Tillman is in afghanistan, and there is no question in my mind that the afghanistan war was one to protect american lives. We have disrupted and killed a large part of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and they no longer have the type of refuge they enjoyed under the rule of the taliban.

Were Mr. Tillman was serving is of no importance in my mind. He still died wearing an american flag on his shoulder. To me, all americans that died wearing the uniform are heroes, whether they died in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, or in a training accident stateside.
Re: Ted Koppel is the New Dixie Chick -- Sinclair's Power Play
Current rating: 28
02 May 2004
The Independent Media Network does not claim to be unbiased. It exists to provide a forum for news and opinions which are not given coverage by the mainstream media, which of course includes both ABC and Sinclair Broadcasting, Inc.

Users of this site have the option of viewing all posted comments, regardless of how they are rated. How does that compare with Sinclair's decision to preempt the Nightline broadcast, eliminating their audience's ability to decide for themselves whether or not to view the program?
Re: Ted Koppel is the New Dixie Chick -- Sinclair's Power Play
Current rating: 0
05 May 2004
As one of the system administrators I have turned off article ratings for the time-being at the request of one of our editors.
Re: Ted Koppel is the New Dixie Chick -- Sinclair's Power Play
Current rating: -2
05 May 2004
Wow, the rating system is gone. Gotta find a better way to censor messages here??? Not working for ya?

You post news articles up here, and then you ask for comment. But you wipe away any comments that are not liberal ones. You want no discussion, and no exchange of ideas at all. That must be a liberal minds idea of utopia, somewhere that everyone is forced to think just like they do and those who don't are banished from civilization. Are you people really SO afraid that your ideals cannot stand the test of opposing viewpoints? Are the arguments against the liberal thoughts SO compelling that they MUST NOT be heard?

What's it like to live in fear of what others might say about what you want to believe? Must be a pretty sad life. Not that there is anything wrong with believing different things, but that there really is something wrong when you are so afraid to discuss your beliefs with others who may not agree with them that you have to resort to clamping your hands over your ears. That doesn't say a whole lot for what you WANT to believe does it...
Re: Ted Koppel is the New Dixie Chick -- Sinclair's Power Play
Current rating: -2
05 May 2004
Isn't it AMAZING that liberal free thinkers...the SUPPOSED "keepers" of FREE SPEECH, have to have a way to censor messages on their web sites because they cannot tolerate FREE SPEECH!!! The irony is just too much, and if any of you took the time to think about the ramificationsof it...no, wait, if you did that you couldn't be liberals anymore!

Free Speech is a bitch, isn't it...
Re: Ted Koppel is the New Dixie Chick -- Sinclair's Power Play
Current rating: -2
05 May 2004
Hey, where is the article here on Kerry's lying claim that he flew a Israeli Military trainer aircraft upside down over Israel in 1991??? I'd like to comment on that, but I cannot find that NEWS STORY here. And I didn't hear it on any of the news channels this morning either...isn't THIS a web site devoted to news that the mainstream press doesn't want to tackle?

Has Kerry EVER had pilot training in a jet aircraft? Anyone here know? No? You all think that flying a real aircraft is the same as fiddling with the joystick on your computer don't ya...

Why IS Kerry a liar? Well, why was Clinton a liar too for that matter. Heck, are ALL liberals liars???
Knock Off the Trolling
Current rating: 10
05 May 2004
One last warning, NRA4/Jack Ryan/Whatever, etc, etc. That's three comments in a row in thsi thread alone and no one is answering because all you are doing is trolling. You have had numerous warnings in the past about your behaviors in violation of our website use policies. I suggest an immediate review of them and your future conformance with them or such posts will be shown the door to the Hidden Files.
Re: Ted Koppel is the New Dixie Chick -- Sinclair's Power Play
Current rating: -2
05 May 2004
ML,

Why on earth do you think that all messages from anyone that might not be as liberally minded as yourself is "trolling"? What the heck IS "trolling" anyway? Instead of compaining about non "enlightened" people posting messages, why not grab the opportunity to clearly explain your reasoning as to why they might be in error...who knows, you might actually either change some minds in the process of discourse. Isn't that what America is all about? Isn't that what "free speech" really means? I am capable of rational non inflammatory discourse...the policies here that make that almost impossible have unfortunately not allowed any of that to happen to date, but there is always hope.
Re: Trolls
Current rating: 5
05 May 2004
http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm
Re: Ted Koppel is the New Dixie Chick -- Sinclair's Power Play
Current rating: -2
05 May 2004
Guess there is no hope for you people, you are just plain scared apparently...
Re: Ted Koppel is the New Dixie Chick -- Sinclair's Power Play
Current rating: -2
05 May 2004
It would appear that all is not well in the peoples editorial tribunal of the ucimc. It is my hope that you people can settle your problems peacefully and not resort to armed conflict in order to solve your differences.

If one were to examine this posting stream, really all you see are your opinions and "Jack Lies" and that NRA4Freedom is a troll.

To answer your question " What is a troll anyway" NRA4, it is in most cases a person who expresses an opposing view that is so well written and argued that no comeback from the left is available.

It is at this point, that one of three things happens. 1. You are quickly called a troll and they ignore you. 2. The great and powerful ML censors your post. (See Hidden Articles) or 3. If you really get under their skin, they simply call you a liar and then censor your comments.

After all, I merely pointed out the ironic twist that in an article decrying the evils of censorship, virtually all of the articles that were censored were of a conservative viewpoint.

Perhaps the next time we are shut out of the process, we should occupy a building and practice civil disobedience in order to get our way.

Jack
Re: Ted Koppel is the New Dixie Chick -- Sinclair's Power Play
Current rating: -2
05 May 2004
Hey Jack,

SOme of the other links to other cities from the home page are better than here, and at least one is worse. On one of them, they don't even wait for a negative vote, they just ban any and all messages they don't happen to like. But the bigger city ones, they actually have a few liberals who want to discuss the articles, and some of them even talk like decent folks. They are still liberals, but they aren't scared, and they aren't afraid to admit when their position is a little shaky...gotta respect that.
Re: Ted Koppel is the New Dixie Chick -- Sinclair's Power Play
Current rating: -2
06 May 2004
Dear NRA4Freedom,

Thanks for the tip. I have actually had some pretty in depth post exchanges from other liberal sites. Hell, I have even brought a few over from the dark side.

However, I have not given up on the ucimc. I think that someone on the editorial staff is consistent in their beliefs and is ashamed of the recent upsurge in censorship.

So, whoever, you are thanks.

Jack
Re: Ted Koppel is the New Dixie Chick -- Sinclair's Power Play
Current rating: -2
06 May 2004
If that's true, how is it that your post has a -2 already and the voting thing is not even active? Has the voting thing been switched so that only certain people here are being given a vote?

You sound more optimistic than I am about it, but, time will tell.
FYI, Jack Ryan, et al
Current rating: 0
06 May 2004
Jack AKA NRA4 and numerous other nyms,

Aren't you getting tired of talking to yourself because no one else does?

The rating system has been turned off, except for those with editor access. I am currently using the rating system to make it easy to refer back to your postings for evidentiary purposes. It should also be a reminder to you that it is the IMC collective that makes the editorial policies here and has ultimate power to decide what to do about your violations of those policies.

You have been identified as the source of the vast amjority of recent abusive postings here on UC IMC. By _you_ I mean, beginning with Jack Ryan, whatever the real identity is of the person who hides behind a whole panoply of screen names (which will be presented to the membership tonight, but which will remain otherwise restricted to internal use by the editors.)

Yes, we have methods of discovering whether people like you engage in the use of multiple screen-names to disguise the fact that you are here for the sole purpose of abusing and disrupting our open-publishing forum. We have a great deal of experience in this regard and the evidence is clear-cut in this case. Just keep posting and you'll simply build the hard and fast case already existing about this.

There will be a presentation at this evening's Steering group meeting on the facts in your case. Future actions in your case will be decided upon then. If you have anything to say in your defense, you are welcome to attend, but based on your refusal of past requests to engage in face-to-face discussions on your abuses of our website use policy, we are not really expecting you to be here at the IMC at 8pm. Still, the invitation stands, as we always give people a chance to explain themselves in such cases. Anonymous defenses from behind your keyboard will be pointless, however, so don't waste your time whining about it if you do not avail yourself of this opportunity.

The consequences of your abuses go up to and include your banning from future use of our website.

Just for the record, the issue is not about your views, however excrementious we generally feel they are. It has to do with your behavior in expressing them, which is in most cases has been in clearcut violation of our policies that you have been repeatedly warned about over the past 18 months.

We have been very flexible, as I have told you before, about the way we apply these policies. You have exhausted the slack that is built into these policies at this point and, at best, can expect to be held precisely to the spirit in which they were promulgated to insure that this website remains a safe space for marginalized opinions and news.
Re: Ted Koppel is the New Dixie Chick -- Sinclair's Power Play
Current rating: -2
06 May 2004
NRA4Freedom,

They think we are the same person. ML, you know this is simply not the case. As for attending your little committee meeting this evening, First thanks for the timly notice but I have to decline. I am attending a "Black Tie" affair in Peoria this evening. A large majority of the attendees will be capitalists, you should come, you could learn something.

In any event, go ahead and do what you have to do at your meeting tonight. I am guessing you'll miss the last episode of "Friends".

Jack
Correction
Current rating: 0
06 May 2004
Jack/NRA4,
It's not "think." It's we KNOW you are the same person.

For a person who has the fatuous hubris of adopting as his pseudonym the moniker of a mythical CIA agent, you seem to be singularly ignorant of the possibilities of some rather basic sources and methods.
Re: Ted Koppel is the New Dixie Chick -- Sinclair's Power Play
Current rating: -2
06 May 2004
>"It's not "think." It's we KNOW you are the same person."

LOL!!! This just in...like all conceited liberal know nothings, who "KNOW" what is not even reality, what you say that you don't THINK you know but instead KNOW for certain proves you are not all that intelligent. If I was Jack, I'd certainly know that, and if Jack was me, then he might know that also!

But, since you have stated that you KNOW this for a fact, I'd suggest that you have someone who is way smarter than yourself check out your IP logs, for you will then find that what you THINK you know that you then equate into what is a supposed KNOWN "truth" by mistake just makes you look more confused. No WONDER you want to censor peoples messages here...you aren't actually dealing with reality very well.

You gotta admit Jack, it IS good for a laugh if nothing else!
Re: Ted Koppel is the New Dixie Chick -- Sinclair's Power Play
Current rating: -2
06 May 2004
>"For a person who has the fatuous hubris of adopting as his pseudonym the moniker of a mythical CIA agent, you seem to be singularly ignorant of the possibilities of some rather basic sources and methods."

Oh crap, I misseded this part. "Jack Ryan" is a mythical CIA agent? News to me Jack. But more important is this...

"rather basic sources and methods"

that these whiz bang liberal leaning misguided souls running this site have used to determine something that is actually not even close to being true!!! Their "sources and methods" must be SO "basic", that they return a 100% error rate! And what's worse, you are apparently "ignorant" of them!!! Now we KNOW why liberals are always liars...it's because they are using faulty "sources and methods" that produce erroneous results!

Conservatives must be employing some other methods that produce the truth then. Maybe the conservatives could sell their "sources and methods" to the liberals so that they could be let in on the truth...but then, they wouldn't be liberals anymore probably...such a problem. But, that's even MORE funny!

You just gotta feel real sorry for these people Jack, they are apparently not operating in the real world.
No IPs Used
Current rating: 0
06 May 2004
Jack/NRA4, et al,

At UC IMC, we do not generally have access to IP addresses, because we regularly dump our logs for security purposes. There are emergency provisions to access them temporarily, if needed. In your case, there has been no need to, although we will do so, if need be, to keep our site usable.

If you have been wasting your time using anonymizer services to cover your tracks, well...you've just been wasting your time. Just like others in the past who think their behavior online somehow is covered by the seeming anonymity of the internet and who have even taken extraordinary efforts to do so to cover their abuse of our site, your ignorance and posting behavior gives us enough rope to hang you with. You've stepped into several traps set for you already that further confirm the initial findings.

Scoff all you want. We have the goods on you and the more you post, the more it builds the case. Note that in contrast to your silly and trite generalizations about liberals (which by the way, we are NOT for the most part; we're radicals and revolutionaries, but you're too clueless to discern a difference), we are not so foolish as to claim that all conservatives are stupid just because of your example, just you (leaving aside, of course, that presidential imposter who is rooming temporarily at the White House.)

Have a good day.
Re: Ted Koppel is the New Dixie Chick -- Sinclair's Power Play
Current rating: -2
06 May 2004
M.L.,

You seem so sure of yourself here. I can assure that NRA4Freedom and I are two different people. We are conservatives and therefore act with impeccable honor.

Anyway, go ahead and vote you radical, revolutionary whatever, but at least tell the truth.

Jack
Re: Ted Koppel is the New Dixie Chick -- Sinclair's Power Play
Current rating: -2
06 May 2004
And, since the "collective" is going to have a meeting about all this, I'll address that also...

>"The rating system has been turned off..."

So for once, people free expressions of what they really believe can be posted without fear of censorship.


>"...except for those with editor access."

That's a shame.


>"I am currently using the rating system to make it easy to refer back to your postings for evidentiary purposes."

That explains it, so you are collecting "evidence" to present to your superior left leaners in the effort to curtail "free speech" on this board for a few people that you don't happen to like what they say.


>"It should also be a reminder to you that it is the IMC collective that makes the editorial policies here and has ultimate power to decide what to do about your violations of those policies."

I don't fear a "collective" of minds, I fear people who are given power to wield that use it to stop people from saying what they believe when they don't happen to agree with it. That's called censorship, and only people that are seriously afraid practice it. What are you seriously afraid of exactly? If your argument holds weight and the other persons doesn't, then it will be apparent and vise versa. No reason to fear free speech unless you are trying to control the thought processes of others. IS that what you are really attempting to do here?


>"You have been identified as the source of the vast amjority of recent abusive postings here on UC IMC. By _you_ I mean, beginning with Jack Ryan, whatever the real identity is of the person who hides behind a whole panoply of screen names (which will be presented to the membership tonight, but which will remain otherwise restricted to internal use by the editors.)"

You had better make certain of your "facts" before presenting them then, for you are sadly in error...which doesn't surprise me considering what I have seen on this board in the last few days.


>"Yes, we have methods of discovering..."

You may have these "methods", but they apparently don't work. better get some new ones.


>"...whether people like you..."

Not being here very long, I am unfamiliar with apparently most of what Jack has posted in the past. From most of the messages I have read though, he seems perfectly capable of reasonable and rational conversation and debate...save for a few quickies here and there. So "people like you" must mean something else...maybe like, people who have an opposing viewpoint on some of the issues?


>"...engage in the use of multiple screen-names..."

Again, you are dead wrong on that one, at least "I" am not jack anyway.


>"...to disguise the fact that you are here for the sole purpose of abusing and disrupting our open-publishing forum."

Again, probably a totally mistaken notion. I cannot speak for Jack, but I know that I am here to discuss issues with people. Some won't agree with my viewpoint, and others might, but I am not afraid to read and attempt to understand your viewpoints that oppose mine, so why are you so afraid to even read ones that oppose yours?


>"We have a great deal of experience in this regard..."

I don't truly believe that you have any "experience" to speak of at all, at least not from what I have seen by the handling of the present situation. I mean, spare me...the whole UCIMC comes to a screaching halt because 2 or 3 people post s few messages that don't agree with the leftist editors posting the stories here? I mean, it ASKS for "comments", but the whole place has to shut down till those "comments we don't happen to like" can be banished from the premises??? How silly is that, really?


>"...and the evidence is clear-cut in this case."

It must SO "clear cut" that you are missing it then! I know, the answer is...CENSORSHIP!!! Yea, THAT'S the ticket...NOT! At least not if you honestly believe in what you CLAIM to. I'd bet you'd be one of the first people in a protest line carrying a sign and demanding "free speech" if YOUR viewpoint was being censored. The truth is though, that while YOU would demand YOUR "freedom of speech", you would at the very same time censor others who have just as much right to speak in this Country as you do...that makes you something, any idea what that is?


>"Just keep posting and you'll simply build the hard and fast case already existing about this."

That statement contradicts itself...did you mean to do that or are you just so anticipating censoring opposing comments that you are not thinking clearly?


>"There will be a presentation at this evening's Steering group meeting on the facts in your case."

Darn, and Jack can't make it there either. To bad, it would probably be an argument revolving around the question of why the liberals in the room, the supposed "keepers" of free speech for all, want to censor other people. It would divide itself into two distinct groups of people on the left side of the room...those who are honest and truly know what they believe and why they believe it even if it does lean towards the left(normal people that can be respected), and those other people who are in reality dishonest "little dictators", whose real goal in life is gain power to use over others to force them to bend to their will(most loud mouthed visious liberals).


>"Future actions in your case will be decided upon then. If you have anything to say in your defense, you are welcome to attend, but based on your refusal of past requests to engage in face-to-face discussions on your abuses of our website use policy, we are not really expecting you to be here at the IMC at 8pm. Still, the invitation stands, as we always give people a chance to explain themselves in such cases. Anonymous defenses from behind your keyboard will be pointless, however, so don't waste your time whining about it if you do not avail yourself of this opportunity."

I am not speaking for Jack, but I believe your active efforts to censor opposing viewpoints here may well speak louder to any honest left leaners there than him being there personnally.


>"The consequences of your abuses go up to and include your banning from future use of our website."

Just a convenient form of censorship...ban the people that you don't happen to "like" what their viewpoint is. Rather than discuss why you believe otherwise, and see what common ground exists, better to force them to be quite so that they are unable to speak. You simply demonstrate the epitomy of everything that a true Democrat would stand up for...which is "I might not agree with what you have to say, but I'll not let anyone stop you from saying it". That just proves that there is a HUGE difference between "liberals", and Democrats, and that the modern "liberal" is little more than a Nazi that leans to the left instead of the right. A spinless little tyrant trying to force their will on others and making all who oppose their thinking disappear. Pretty sad excuse for a person that lives in a Nation that is based on Freedom. But then, you have no idea what Freedom really is, do you...


>"Just for the record, the issue is not about your views..."

That's a nice little white lie isn't it. Keep telling it long enough and maybe you will convince your own mind, and a few of the mindless here, to believe it. I have not been here long, but I already know you are lying about that.


>"...however excrementious we generally feel they are. It has to do with your behavior in expressing them, which is in most cases has been in clearcut violation of our policies that you have been repeatedly warned about over the past 18 months."

Wow, Jack has been here a year and a half? I must have REALLY missed out on some posts. I'll have to go to the hidden area and see how far back it goes.


>"We have been very flexible, as I have told you before, about the way we apply these policies. You have exhausted the slack that is built into these policies at this point and, at best, can expect to be held precisely to the spirit in which they were promulgated to insure that this website remains a safe space for marginalized opinions and news."

A "safe place" for "opinions and views"??? Not for conservative leaning ones apparently from what I have seen so far. Just looks like your typical liberal "free speech is only free if it is what I say" board to me. Virtually ALL the stories presented are dripping with leftist insinuation and inuendo, and all the peoples views that don't happen to agree go bye bye...you just like to THINK you are running a web site that is a safe place for others opinions...it's not the case.
Au Contraire
Current rating: 0
06 May 2004
Jack, et al,
No, you are an inveterate lier, so you haven't a shred of honor. I don't have time to dig for it right now, but perhaps 5 could repost the excellent synopsis of all the times we've already caught you lying, just for reference purposes.
Re: Ted Koppel is the New Dixie Chick -- Sinclair's Power Play
Current rating: -2
06 May 2004
Wow, I am getting some much needed typing practice today.

>"At UC IMC, we do not generally have access to IP addresses, because we regularly dump our logs for security purposes. There are emergency provisions to access them temporarily, if needed. In your case, there has been no need to, although we will do so, if need be, to keep our site usable."

That's a darned shame. So you really don't know a darned thing, but you SAY you do. That's sad.


>"If you have been wasting your time using anonymizer services to cover your tracks, well...you've just been wasting your time."

Like Jack said, Conservatives are not like you ultra liberals. No need to lie or make stuff up.


>"Just like others in the past who think their behavior online somehow is covered by the seeming anonymity of the internet and who have even taken extraordinary efforts to do so to cover their abuse of our site, your ignorance and posting behavior gives us enough rope to hang you with."

Apparently "just like others" only in your sadly mistaken mind! MAN, you ARE seriously conceited!


>"You've stepped into several traps set for you already that further confirm the initial findings."

Ah, must be some of the "sources and methods" you were talking about before. You maybe need to change your "sources and methods" so you can ascertain truth instead of wild fabrications.


>"Scoff all you want."

"Scoffing" would be me not believing you...the laughter you hear is me knowing how stupid what you claim that you KNOW really is. You wouldn't be one of those conspiracy theorists would you? You think the government REALLY killed off JFK and that they are HIDING UFO information?


>"We have the goods on you and the more you post, the more it builds the case."

You may have "goods" on Jack, I don't know what he may or may not have posted in the past, but I have seen nothing...except both of us lashing out a few times due to the censorship thing...that could be considered "goods" in the way you intend to use them.


>"Note that in contrast to your silly and trite generalizations about liberals (which by the way, we are NOT for the most part..."

That explains a lot then...liberals maybe cherish free speech perhaps?


>"...we're radicals and revolutionaries..."

LOL!


>"...but you're too clueless to discern a difference)..."

There is no real difference from this vantage point. Just a bunch of people who want to gripe and complain and blame everyone and everything else for the worlds woes.


>"...we are not so foolish as to claim that all conservatives are stupid just because of your example, just you (leaving aside, of course, that presidential imposter who is rooming temporarily at the White House.)"

You are again showing your ignorance by that statement. No, I didn't like it when Bill Clinton got elected to represent me to the world, but as an American, I had to suffer though it. You may not like Bush, but IF you are an American, he no represents you by election. But then, if you really are a "radical revolutionary", then you are boardering on being a traitor to your Country. In Russia not long ago, you'd have been shipped off someplace never to be heard from again...et, you hate America? Maybe you need your head screwed down a little tighter...it sounds like it is coming a little loose.
Re: Ted Koppel is the New Dixie Chick -- Sinclair's Power Play
Current rating: -2
06 May 2004
Thinking on this some more...all this argument is really a waste of time and it has just made the whole thing too personal when it should not be that way. I have posted some "flames" that I would not have normally posted were it not for the threat that censorship brought with it, and Jack probably would admit the same.

What is wrong with authors posting their articles, and people commenting on them...whether the comment agrees or disagrees shouldn't matter? Then, if the comments are just flames on someone else or a real personal attack on someone, just delete those as infringment of BB policy and move on. That way, decent discussion can still take place and no one need be offended. As long as people's posts are not being removed because they disagree with the conclusions of the authors...it should not be a problem...right? Or, maybe just continue the way it is and place a link to files that fail do to a "failing score" on the front page so they can be readily accessed...but those probably should not include the ones truly removed for policy violations.

Either way, I will admit that I do find some of the articles here interesting, and will probably continue to read them anyway.
Re: Ted Koppel is the New Dixie Chick -- Sinclair's Power Play
Current rating: -2
06 May 2004
Radicals and revolutionaries...that is the first good laugh I have had all day, thanks.
Re: Jack Ryan
Current rating: 5
06 May 2004
I have posted this before, and unfortunately, I will probably post it again. This listing does not include any posts from the recent flodding. I may update it this weekend.

------------

You can call it "thought police" if you like, however in Jack's case, most of his posts are hidden because readers tire of his antics.
His comments are still visible in the "Hidden" bin.

As for Jack, I tire of him because:

1. He claimed to be shipping off to Iraq---a lie:

http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display_any/10369

2. He "claimed" to be a marine:

http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display_any/9861

"I submit to you, that as a Marine, I have seen brave and I have seen courageous,stuff that would make your head spin to be honest. "

3. Then he incorrectly refers to something a Marine should know:

http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display_any/10463

"Semper Phi, my brothers" when, if he were a Marine, he would know it is Semper Fi....

4. He threatens those he disagrees with:

http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/14587/index.php

5. Arabs are usually referred to with slurs:

http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display_any/15008

6. Posts erroneous comments, like we "found WMD in Iraq":

http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display_any/11036

7. Posts generally disgusting material that contributes nothing to this site:

http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display_any/10186

8. Women are also usually denigrated:

http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display_any/9443

http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display_any/15748

9. Other he disagrees with similarly meet with insults:

http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display_any/10904

http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display_any/11103

http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display_any/11431

http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display_any/11049

http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display_any/11943

http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display_any/11875

http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display_any/11030

If you search for "Jack Ryan" on this site, you will come up with innumerable posts of his, most of which are not hidden. What I have supplied here is merely a sampling of the first 500 posts out 1500 that came up in the search.

People with various viewpoints are members of the IMC and people with various viewpoints are welcome to post articles and comments here, just as you and I have posted to this article. But to think that Jack is some poor victim is ridiculous...as any good Republican will tell you, all actions have consequences---and Jack is reaping the consequences of his behavior. People who use this site have tired of him.
Re: Ted Koppel is the New Dixie Chick -- Sinclair's Power Play
Current rating: -2
06 May 2004
That is tough to choose the funniest post. I'm going with either 9c or 9d, equally hilarious in my world. Thanks for reposting those 5, I had forgotten how much I enjoyed them the first time I saw them.
Re: Ted Koppel is the New Dixie Chick -- Sinclair's Power Play
Current rating: -2
06 May 2004
Just a couple observations...not meant as defending but rather as a critique of the "evidence".

>"He claimed to be shipping off to Iraq---a lie"

Don't know one way or the other. I know a couple reservist people who thought they would be leaving soon too...a long time ago now, but they are still here. So, no way to really tell if that's true or not.


>"He "claimed" to be a marine"

So, how do you know for certain he isn't, or wasn't?


>"Then he incorrectly refers to something a Marine should know..."Semper Phi, my brothers" when, if he were a Marine, he would know it is Semper Fi...."

A quick net search turns up any number of people who spell that incorrectly, including the fellow that posted this message...

"Sgt Rex C McBee USMC - 12/04/98 11:49:48
My URL:http://members.aol.com/RexTheScot/index.html
My Email:Rex . McBee (at) gte.net
Branch of service: USMC
Over seas duty: April 68 to May 71
Years in service: 3 years 7 months
Years over seas duty: 3 years 4 months

Comments:
3 Tours in Nam served on the DMZ with India 3/3 same battalion as Oliver North and Current Commandant General Charles Krulak. We also had 3 Medal of Honor winners in our battalion in 65 and two in 69. Was there when William Prom was Killed and I heard he as awarded the Medal of Honor. The next 3/3 reunion will be in Hawaii, home base of 3/3, it will be in 2000. Semper Phi"


So, maybe it was just a spelling error like the above, how can you tell one way or the other?


>"He threatens those he disagrees with."

Maybe it was tongue in cheek?


>"Arabs are usually referred to with slurs"

And that means what exactly? You don't think the vast majority of Americans referred that way to "Japs" or even Blacks for decades? Could be he is just a little less worried about insulting people with stuff like that than some others?


>"Posts erroneous comments, like we "found WMD in Iraq."

That's a little funny there because we know Saddam had them because he used them on his own people. Where he hid them, is anyones guess. There was a story about it this week though with some facts you may not be aware of...

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/larryelder/le20040506.shtml


>"Posts generally disgusting material that contributes nothing to this site."

Looks like more levity, probably relating to some other post or the story commented on.


>"Women are also usually denigrated"

Poor form, but everyone says stupid things on occasion.


>"Other he disagrees with similarly meet with insults"

Ditto.


>"People who use this site have tired of him"

Maybe this is the real cause of concern, I don't know because I have not read everything here. But, there are a number of messages here also that cut the other way against him too...so he isn't the only one with some dirt on their hands. Looks like I came in on the tale end of something going on here that I was unaware of, and got mixed into it before knowing all the circumstances. People tend to respond "in kind", so response to a perceived attack on ones beliefs usually comes off as an attack back as well. So, here is where I say,

I apologize to anyone here that I have offended personally to date, and will certainly attempt to not do so in future comments.

Bad ideas and faulty reasoning should be attacked, not people...sorry.
Re: Ted Koppel is the New Dixie Chick -- Sinclair's Power Play
Current rating: 5
06 May 2004
Dear NRA,

In the spirit of debate, I would offer the following:

http://www.ucimc.org/mod/info/display/policy/index.php

It's the editorial policy of the website. Jack has been pointed to it many times. Basically, it points out that posts which are:

Duplicates
Threats or Intimidation
Flooding or spamming
Off-topic
Commercial solicitation

are all candidates for the "hidden posts" bin. Jack knows this. He's been warned of it many, many, many, many times.

Further,

Illegal speech
Direct threats
Libel

are all candidates for deletion. If you check the hidden posts bin, you will find that posts are rarely deleted.

Whether Jack's insults and threats are an attempt at levity or not, they violate the website editorial policy. And after repeated reminders of this, he continues. That's his right. But it is also the right and responsibility of the collective to dish out the consequences if he continues to violate the policy. It's his choice, really.

Like I said previously, he can scream censorship all he wants. But a true conservative would see that actions reap consequences. These are his consequences. No one wants to engage him. No one wants to debate him. No one wants him---period.
Re: Ted Koppel is the New Dixie Chick -- Sinclair's Power Play
Current rating: -2
06 May 2004
No question about it, I am capable and culpable of attacting people on occasion rather than ideas and attitudes. It's all to easy to do in this medium, especially where politics or religion play their part. But, we are at war with a bunch of people who would think nothing of killing any or all of us given half the chance. I feel that had we not taken the war to them, they would have continued to kill innocent people here indefinately any and every chance they got. I am sure that others feel that if we had left it alone, it might have gone away, but at what cost down the road...wait for them to actually get a nuke somehow? That could be very ugly, and a serious threat to our children down the road.

Heck, it still might...

I am just grateful for the men and women who have paid the ultimate price with their life to stand up and be counted for this Country, regardless of the politics involved, period.
Re: Ted Koppel is the New Dixie Chick -- Sinclair's Power Play
Current rating: 0
06 May 2004
Out of curiosity, can you cite any book, manifesto, letter, speech, article, or audio or video recording by any person or group of people in Iraq that indicates a concrete intention, desire, or plan to "kill all of us given half the chance"? Incidentally, like many of your fellows, you insist that "we" are at war. If "you" are "at war," please indicate the day and time on which you, personally, were most recently attacked by the armed forces of another country. Please also indicate the date and time you were inducted into the armed forces of this country. If you are too sick or too old to serve, please indicate the last time you participated in a scrap drive, bought a war bond, or contributed to the USO. When is the last time you rationed gasoline or any other strategic commodity? What other voluntary sacrifices have you personally made to defeat those who want to "kill all of us given half the chance"? Also, remind us of the date of formal Congressional declaration of war with Iraq according the the Constitution. If you can't provide us with any of this information, please stop saying that "we" are at war.
Re: Ted Koppel is the New Dixie Chick -- Sinclair's Power Play
Current rating: 0
06 May 2004
My feeling on it is this,

If you don't think we are a Nation at war, then you have not been paying attention to the nightly news. If you want to personally ignore the terrorist threat, then that's your prerogative but I do not choose to do so. If you don't think these people mean you harm, then you have never read the Koran. If you think we should just sit by and wait for more Muslim fanatics to attack us and murder thousands of innocent people so we can then sit around and argue over why they hate us and what we might be able to do to make them like us, then you and I share seriously different philosophy about it. I don't think that "War" is some gentlemans game where we all get to sit around and try to make a consensus on whether we are having it or not. In fact, "war" in it's simplist form happens sporadically on the playgrounds of our schools every day between bullies and the other children. But in that case, it is seldom, if ever, about life and death. In this case, it is life and death...ours...because Muslim fanatics want to kill you and me and everyone else who lives here. The government of Iraq was merely one of a number of Nations who more than willingly have helped "enable" these people to attain their evil goals. So, we answered that action of theirs with action of our own and they got what they asked for, and what they should have gotten a number of years ago to begin with. It's a perfect example of why, when a Nation attacks you(or in that case, an ally), you don't "stop" once you have beaten them back...you take them out for good. Bush 1 made that mistake, and now we are rectifying it. Israel made the same mistake in the late 60's, and they are still paying for it with innocent lives. You are talking "legalism", I am talking good and evil, right and wrong.

But, I am willing to listen to what your proposal for solving the worlds ill's is as it relates to fanatical Muslims murdering innocent people world wide...forget the "legalist" mumbo jumbo, what would you have purposed we should have done differently, and why?
Re: Ted Koppel is the New Dixie Chick -- Sinclair's Power Play
Current rating: 0
06 May 2004
So, this is your attempt at reasoned dialog? Your answer was pure Bushspeak: evasions, tautologies, and circular arguments. Again, if "you" are "at war," describe for us the conditions of combat you are currently experiencing. What voluntary sacrifices have you personally made to defeat the bullies? Surely, if the situation is that dire, you're planning on enlisting right away. Once again, please cite any evidence you have (a document, a link, anything) that "we" (you and I personally) are in a fight for our lives. If you make a claim, either back it up or admit you're wrong. If you think a demand for evidence is some recondite "legalism," then you've only demonstrated that you aren't interested in or capable of logical discourse
Words of Wisdom in the Face of Hate
Current rating: 0
06 May 2004
Martin Luther King Jr. said early in the spring of 1968: "The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just. A true revolution of values will lay hands on the world order and say of war: 'This way of settling differences is not just.'"

For the rest of the story:
http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/17455/index.php
Words of Wisdom in the Face of Hate
Current rating: 0
06 May 2004
Words of wisdom to be sure. These words should apply equaly to the religous fanatics who's hatred of America is so deep that they feel the need to lay down thier lives for the cause. I do not see religion in the world as a major problem, but I do see religious fanaticism as one. I just don't understand where this kind of thinking comes from. "You don't believe the same things I do, therefore I must kill you".
Re: Ted Koppel is the New Dixie Chick -- Sinclair's Power Play
Current rating: 0
06 May 2004
>"So, this is your attempt at reasoned dialog?"

See, personal attack already. Probably the kind of think that Jack reacts to and types what he types.


>"Your answer was pure Bushspeak"

No, my answer was I told you me feelings towards what was happening over there. If you see it as "Bushspeak", that's fine...just like I see yours as "legalism" that is not relevant in the real world.


>"...evasions, tautologies, and circular arguments."

Guess you better spell each of these out exactly. You are generalizing and then accusing without proving what you have stated.


>"Again, if "you" are "at war," describe for us the conditions of combat..."

Kill the bad guys...that's "conditions" enough.


>"What voluntary sacrifices have you personally made to defeat the bullies?"

LOL! Just talking to you here is a sacrifice! Otherwise, it's really none of your business what I do, or do not do.


>"Surely, if the situation is that dire, you're planning on enlisting right away."

Again, none of your business. But since I know you really don't care and it's just a method of attack for you, let's just say I help keep the supplies moving. The same question to you might be, if it were one of your loved ones that died in one of the towers, would you have enlisted and helped hunt down those who made their death possible, or would you still be protesting everything America does to protect the people that live here?


>"Once again, please cite any evidence you have (a document, a link, anything) that "we" (you and I personally) are in a fight for our lives."

Go and read the Koran, or at least the parts of it that pertain to you, then imagine yourself as someone who takes those words as "god" speaking directly to them and write down what you feel the need to "do" in order to work for the advancement of Islam. Till you understand their religion, and why they are motivated to act, and your relationship to them through their eyes, I don't think you can ever know the true danger that awaits a "sleepy" America.


>"If you make a claim, either back it up or admit you're wrong."

I'd say the same to you. I have no problem admitting when I am wrong, yet I have seen nothing in your posts yet to make me think that.


>"If you think a demand for evidence is some recondite "legalism," then you've only demonstrated that you aren't interested in or capable of logical discourse ."

I think your "demand for evidence" is legalism because you attempt to place yourself in a position to "judge" events and decisions when you cannot possibly have even the remotest access to intelligence and information that the people making the real decisions have. You doing nothing more than armchair quarterbacking while knowing nothing close to what the coach knows...and making accusations based on that incomplete knowledge. Do you REALLY think the news media reporters know anything close to what the people in power in our government know? We live in America, we vote for people whose jobs it then becomes to take in vital information and act on it accordingly to protect us. And since it is history that judges leaders, and not armchair quarterbacks who are not playing with all the play diagrams, time will tell us the truth.

But again, what would you have done exactly that would have been better in your mind than what the current elected leaders of this Nation are doing? Maybe if you outline your possibly "better" ideas, we can determine if they would really have really been better or not?
This is the New Gulag
Current rating: 0
06 May 2004
Bush has Created a Global Network of Extra-legal and Secret US Prisons with Thousands of Inmates

It was "unacceptable" and "un-American", but was it torture? "My impression is that what has been charged thus far is abuse, which I believe technically is different from torture," said Donald Rumsfeld, the secretary of defense on Tuesday. "I don't know if it is correct to say what you just said, that torture has taken place, or that there's been a conviction for torture. And therefore I'm not going to address the torture word."

He confessed he had still not read the March 9 report by Major General Antonio Taguba on "abuse" at the Abu Ghraib prison. Some highlights: " ... pouring cold water on naked detainees; beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair; threatening male detainees with rape ... sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick ... "

The same day that Rumsfeld added his contribution to the history of Orwellian statements by high officials, the Senate armed services committee was briefed behind closed doors for the first time not only about Abu Ghraib, but about military and CIA prisons in Afghanistan. It learned of the deaths of 25 prisoners and two murders in Iraq; that private contractors were at the center of these lethal incidents; and that no one had been charged. The senators were given no details about the private contractors. They might as well have been fitted with hoods.

Many of them, Democratic and Republican, were infuriated that there was no accountability and no punishment and demanded a special investigation, but the Republican leadership quashed it. The senators want Rumsfeld to testify in a public hearing, but he is resisting and the Republican leaders are blocking it.

The Bush administration was well aware of the Taguba report, but more concerned about its exposure than its contents. General Richard Myers, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, was dispatched on a mission to CBS news to tell it to suppress its story and the horrifying pictures. For two weeks, CBS's 60 Minutes II show complied, until it became known that the New Yorker magazine would publish excerpts of the report. Myers was then sent on to the Sunday morning news programs to explain, but under questioning acknowledged that he had still not read the report he had tried to censor from the public for weeks.

President Bush, Condoleezza Rice and other officials, unable to contain the controversy any longer, engaged in profuse apologies and scheduled appearances on Arab television. There were still no firings. One of their chief talking points was that the "abuse" was an aberration. But Abu Ghraib was a predictable consequence of the Bush administration imperatives and policies.

Bush has created what is in effect a gulag. It stretches from prisons in Afghanistan to Iraq, from Guantánamo to secret CIA prisons around the world. There are perhaps 10,000 people being held in Iraq, 1,000 in Afghanistan and almost 700 in Guantánamo, but no one knows the exact numbers. The law as it applies to them is whatever the executive deems necessary. There has been nothing like this system since the fall of the Soviet Union. The US military embraced the Geneva conventions after the second world war, because applying them to prisoners of war protects American soldiers. But the Bush administration, in an internal fight, trumped its argument by designating those at Guantánamo "enemy combatants". Rumsfeld extended this system - "a legal black hole", according to Human Rights Watch - to Afghanistan and then Iraq, openly rejecting the conventions.

Private contractors, according to the Toguba report, gave orders to US soldiers to torture prisoners. Their presence in Iraq is a result of the Bush military strategy of invading with a relatively light force. The gap has been filled by private contractors, who are not subject to Iraqi law or the US military code of justice. Now, there are an estimated 20,000 of them on the ground in Iraq, a larger force than the British army.

It is not surprising that recent events in Iraq center on these contractors: the four killed in Falluja, and Abu Ghraib's interrogators. Under the Bush legal doctrine, we create a system beyond law to defend the rule of law against terrorism; we defend democracy by inhibiting democracy. Law is there to constrain "evildoers". Who doubts our love of freedom?

But the arrogance of virtuous certainty masks the egotism of power. It is the opposite of American pragmatism, which always under stands that knowledge is contingent, tentative and imperfect. This is a conflict in the American mind between two claims on democracy, one with a sense of paradox, limits and debate, the other purporting to be omniscient, even messianic, requiring no checks because of its purity, and contemptuous of accountability.

"This is the only one where they took pictures," Tom Malinowski, Washington advocate of Human Rights Watch, and a former staff member of the National Security Council, told me. "This was not considered a debatable topic until people had to stare at the pictures."


· Sidney Blumenthal is former senior adviser to President Clinton and Washington bureau chief of Salon.com

© Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
Re: Ted Koppel is the New Dixie Chick -- Sinclair's Power Play
Current rating: 0
07 May 2004
My comment...

>"Bush has Created a Global Network of Extra-legal and Secret US Prisons with Thousands of Inmates"

Hyperbole.


>"Sidney Blumenthal is former senior adviser to President Clinton and Washington bureau chief of Salon.com"

And that, says it all.
Re: Ted Koppel is the New Dixie Chick -- Sinclair's Power Play
Current rating: 0
07 May 2004
>"If you think a demand for evidence is some recondite "legalism," then you've only demonstrated that you aren't interested in or capable of logical discourse ."

I think your "demand for evidence" is legalism because you attempt to place yourself in a position to "judge" events and decisions when you cannot possibly have even the remotest access to intelligence and information that the people making the real decisions have. You doing nothing more than armchair quarterbacking while knowing nothing close to what the coach knows...and making accusations based on that incomplete knowledge. Do you REALLY think the news media reporters know anything close to what the people in power in our government know? We live in America, we vote for people whose jobs it then becomes to take in vital information and act on it accordingly to protect us. And since it is history that judges leaders, and not armchair quarterbacks who are not playing with all the play diagrams, time will tell us the truth."

Gee, isn't it funny what a double standard you reveal yourself to be using here? If you aren't Jack Ryan, you certainly are a jack ass. Or maybe you're Dick Cheney or Dudya to know what all those people in positions of responsibility know and so judge someone to be an "armchair quarterback." Certainly you don't know much about what's going on any more than Bush if you don't recall that Bush found out about the the Iraqi prisoner abuse when 60 minutes two broadcast the pictures that Rummy know about and didn't tell the Dudya about. And hey, how about those weapons of mass destruction? No?
You sure as hell don't know much about America or being an American if you can't realize that it was precisely because you can't trust leaders to always do what's right or best that America revolted against the hereditary rule of kings and instituted a republican form of government. Try reading Thomas Paine's Common Sense to gain a little, if you can read that is. You might be a conservative. But if you are, you surely aren't a very smart one.
Re: Ted Koppel is the New Dixie Chick -- Sinclair's Power Play
Current rating: 0
07 May 2004
>"Gee, isn't it funny what a double standard you reveal yourself to be using here?"

Point it out. I said my piece, and if it is a double standard as you say, then point out how.


>"If you aren't Jack Ryan, you certainly are a jack ass."

And here I thought attacking people personally was going against the rules. That's why I made the attempt to stop doing it, but you have not...how come?


>"Or maybe you're Dick Cheney or Dudya to know what all those people in positions of responsibility know and so judge someone to be an "armchair quarterback."

That was the point, we don't have access to what they know. If we did, we might do the same things, or what even might seem worse, from our very limited perspective here.


>"Certainly you don't know much about what's going on any more than Bush if you don't recall that Bush found out about the the Iraqi prisoner abuse when 60 minutes two broadcast the pictures that Rummy know about and didn't tell the Dudya about."

That's what the news media says, I trust what they say less than you probably trust what the government says most of the time!


>"And hey, how about those weapons of mass destruction? No?"

You keep hearing that there are no WMD's, and it makes for good leftist press because it appeals to those who are looking for more resons to hate Bush, but the truth is that we know he had them because he used them on his own people. We have found scores of caches wwhere we know they had been stored before they disappeared, we just have yet to track down where they went. But, that will happen eventually.


>"You sure as hell don't know much about America or being an American if you can't realize that it was precisely because you can't trust leaders to always do what's right or best that America revolted against the hereditary rule of kings and instituted a republican form of government."

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. That goes for here now as well as it did back then. So tell me, if you truly believe that, then why are you all for liberal programs and policies that will do nothing but grow the "already corrupt" government even larger and larger all the time?


>"Try reading Thomas Paine's Common Sense to gain a little..."

I tend to lean more towards the writings of Adams, Hamilton, Jefferson, or maybe Madison, than I do Paine for interesting reading, but that's just me. I think Adams might be ashamed of our present America and the cities and peoples within it...

"Our Bradfords, Winslows & Winthrops would have revolted at the Idea of opening Scenes of Dissipation & Folly; knowing them to be inconsistent with their great Design, in transplanting themselves into what they called this "Outside of the World." But I fear I shall say too much. I love the People of Boston. I once thought, that City would be the Christian Sparta. But Alas! Will men never be free! They will be free no longer than while they remain virtuous. Sidney tells us, there are times when People are not worth saving. Meaning, when they have lost their Virtue. I pray God, this may never be truly said of my beloved Town."


>"..., if you can read that is."

Whoops, personal attack again. Is this the kind of stuff that was written to Jack that maybe made him "react" and post some of the messages you now try to hang him on?


>"You might be a conservative. But if you are, you surely aren't a very smart one."

Ditto.
Re: Ted Koppel is the New Dixie Chick -- Sinclair's Power Play
Current rating: 0
07 May 2004
"we don't have access to what they know"...

Well, then, what right do you have to call people "armchair quarterbacks"? Those were your words right? So rather than engaging in the name calling that you claim to have given up, why not try responding substantially? Good for you that you know who some of the Founders were. But your quote is a total non sequitur. You protest people's use of their right to free speech by demanding that they exercise blind obedience in their leaders. Or do I interpret your accusation that "You doing nothing more than armchair quarterbacking while knowing nothing close to what the coach knows...and making accusations based on that incomplete knowledge" incorrectly? That you claim some sort of perverse patriotic mantle while yet asserting such a ridiculous position is proof enough of your ignorance of American history. Once again, what information do you possess, besides a blind obedience, that enables you to make such judgments as to proclaim another's knowledge incomplete? If you don't have it then you are using a double standard. And let me offer you a bit more relevant quote from the annals of American history "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." That seems supremely more relevant to me than some obscure quote of Adams. Or maybe the Declaration of Independence is just some rag to you? Given you ignorance I wouldn't be surprised.
Re: Ted Koppel is the New Dixie Chick -- Sinclair's Power Play
Current rating: 0
07 May 2004
>"Well, then, what right do you have to call people "armchair quarterbacks". Those were your words right?"

And that equates to being called a "jack ass" exactly how?


>"So rather than engaging in the name calling that you claim to have given up, why not try responding substantially?"

Armchair quarterbaking is something people do, not what they are or are not. Don't be trying to spin what I said as being name calling, because it isn't.


>"Good for you that you know who some of the Founders were."

We all have been to school I assume.


>"But your quote is a total non sequitur."

Agreed. It was just a quote that came to mind because it addressed mans morality as it applies, or doesn't. I also like it because it calls on the name of God.


>"You protest people's use of their right to free speech by demanding that they exercise blind obedience in their leaders."

Not exactly. I see nothing wrong with someone disagreeing on what their elected leaders do or do not do, but I do not believe that they should transfer that into hatred, since from there it can become the driving force behind a denunciation of Country...which can and often does truly border on treason. As an example, I certainly did not like much of anything that Bill Clinton did in office. But, I didn't stop being proud to be an American because of it. And when he lobbed a few shells onto some tents and camels, I didn't jump up and down and call our Nation a dirty bunch of camel murders and walk around with a sign with photos of some children on it that may have been killed or orphaned by it. In fact, where were you when that took place? Did you protest that, and denouce Bill as some murderous evil killer of camels and tents and whatever might have been in or around the tents? Probably not.


>"Or do I interpret your accusation that "You doing nothing more than armchair quarterbacking while knowing nothing close to what the coach knows...and making accusations based on that incomplete knowledge" incorrectly?"

That wasn't an accusation, it is simply a known fact. You and I don't get a security briefing every morning concerning the threat level to our Nation. Nor do we get daily briefings on intelligence from the field. So any accusations or second guessing we make about it is always going to be based on non existant or at least on even more incomplete evidence than that which their decisions are based upon. That's what I meant.


>"That you claim some sort of perverse patriotic mantle while yet asserting such a ridiculous position is proof enough of your ignorance of American history."

Ok, so now I am ignorant of American history too. In the first place, that "ridiculous position" as explained above is not "ridiculous" at all, just plain old simple facts. We just don't know everything they know, period. Second, it has little to do with patriotism, that is something that comes from ones heart. One either loves their Country, or they don't. If one only loves their Country when it happens to be doing what THEY "perceive" it should be doing themselves, then it is conditional love, and is totally worthless. The last time you did something your parents didn't approve of, they didn't stop loving you while it happened...and I didn't stop loving my Country when Bill was committing adultery in the White House either.


>"Once again, what information do you possess, besides a blind obedience, that enables you to make such judgments as to proclaim another's knowledge incomplete?"

It is obvious that your and my knowledge is incomplete. It isn't a judgement, it is just a normal fact.


>"If you don't have it then you are using a double standard."

Facts are facts...still no double standard.


>"And let me offer you a bit more relevant quote from the annals of American history "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The DoI...I love it. Tell me, do you really believe that there are "self evident truths", or are you not really considering the ramifications of that statement? How about "all men are created equal(in their mothers womb) and are endowed by their Creator(God) with inalienable rights"...do you really believe in inalienable rights? Like, the right TO "life"? How does that fit into your views on abortion? How about "liberty"? If you really believe in everyone's right to "liberty", then why do you object so to the liberation of those oppressed in Iraq, or elsewhere in the world?


>"—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Exactly! And in this Nation, we are "governed" by an election system whereby once a person is elected to office, they represent the entire Nation, not just those who voted for them. I know you may not like that, but it is the truth.


>"—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

So, you are basically saying here that when you personally, or when you and a few friends, believe that the duly elected government is treading on your "pursuit of happiness", then it is your right to attempt to abolish it and set up a different one? Ok, let's play that out...you have abolished the United States government, and Anon is now in charge of the newly created one. Please outline exactly what will you change or do different to make it substantially different from the one you just abolished that will emancipate humanity? Are you going to stick with the statements you quoted above, and if so, what happens when someone else that doesn't agree with you or what you are doing decides to abolish YOUR new government in favor of theirs? Are you going to allow that? What will you have, Dictatorship, Democracy, Republic, what?


>"That seems supremely more relevant to me than some obscure quote of Adams. Or maybe the Declaration of Independence is just some rag to you?"

Oh no, I agree, and await to hear all about the new Anon government and how it will save mankind from himself.


>"Given you ignorance I wouldn't be surprised."

In the words of someone I know you liked, There you go again. See, someone can be ignorant of a truth, and then be mistaken because they do not know that truth. Your statement is instead meant as a condescending jab, something one does in order to feel themselves superior to they which they have insulted that way...for shame, for shame.
Re: Ted Koppel is the New Dixie Chick -- Sinclair's Power Play
Current rating: 0
07 May 2004
I would like to take this opportunity to personally thank 5 for again posting some of my greatest hits. Although I do think there are some better ones than the ones you selected.

As for readers who would like to know the truth about each accusation, please read the entire stream of posts. On most occasions, you will see that I was attacked first.

Otherwise, I have addressed all other accusations one at a time. 5 knows this as does ML.

Anyway, As I indicated earlier, I was out of town last night. How was the meeting? Do I still have a voice or did the radical revolutionaires kick me off in order to preserve free speech?

If this is my last post, keep after them NRA4Freedom, you have done well.

Jack
Re: Ted Koppel is the New Dixie Chick -- Sinclair's Power Play
Current rating: 0
08 May 2004
Well, NRA4Freedom, I will say this, you did get it right in thinking it a condescending jab; I really do think you are a jackass. You make this really naive appeal to facts as if they were self-evident, "just plain old simple facts," and yet in the same breath declare some facts to be different than others in that "We just don't know everything they know, period." Despite the appearance try to give of logic and reason, all your argument, if such a painfully thin tissue can be said to be such, rests on is an appeal to the emotions. Thus "patriotism, that is something that comes from ones heart" becomes exactly that sort of "legalism" you were condemning others for. You start accusing other of treading close to treason, of practicing a conditional kind of love for their country, for not being as blind as you to the real facts of the situation, to the lies that have sent our young men and women to fight and die half a world away, taken them from their families and loved one's, and stained our country's honor for generations to come. It's people like you that turn this country into a target because the only liberty you can understand is your liberty and anybody who doesn't agree is a traitor. You try and act civil and reasonable and there's nothing civil or reasonable about the emotional fascism that really is moving you. So go back to your bunker and hide in the darkness so you can continue to see the world in black and white terms. I don't oppose liberty, only idiots like you who think it can only come at the point of a gun. People like you are a bigger threat to freedom and liberty than all the "terrorists" in the world put together.
Re: Ted Koppel is the New Dixie Chick -- Sinclair's Power Play
Current rating: 0
08 May 2004
Now, see how easy it would be here just to flame you back? Here I am, trying to have some sort of conversation and all you can do is toss flames? Here is an opportunity to share your knowledge and thoughts, that in some ways could even alter my viewpoints, and instead you choose to attack me personally.

So far, I have conversed with one person who demands "legalism" as it applies to the all too obvious current war, yet whom I would bet money would not be the LEAST bit concerned about the "legalities" involved if it was some other issue which they didn't "like" whatever laws actually applied. And now all I get from you is character jabs.


>"Well, NRA4Freedom, I will say this, you did get it right in thinking it a condescending jab; I really do think you are a jackass."

It's certainly your right to think that, but I do not believe, according to the rules here, that it is your right to say it on these boards. If it is your right to do so though, why would you have a problem with Jack doing it?


>"You make this really naive appeal to facts as if they were self-evident, "just plain old simple facts," and yet in the same breath declare some facts to be different than others in that "We just don't know everything they know, period."

That makes no sense. It is painfully obvious that you and I know nothing close to what the elected leaders of this Nation know about terrorism. They make decisions based on their knowledge, knowledge that we don't have, so when we mistakenly suppose that we are in a position to criticize what they happen to be doing all the time, we only become fools in the process. History will judge this current war. And just like WW II, more truth will emerge as time goes on that will help us judge. But, for now, we, as Americans, must trust that the decisions made by our elected leaders...even if we don't agree with them based on OUR limited knowledge...it MAY be for the best. Now, it may also turn out they weren't all for the best, but History will be the judge that, not us. Again, nothing at all wrong with saying you don't agree with what is going on, as long as you uderstand that the information you are basing your judgement on is woefully incomplete. So, you may be dead wrong when you find out the whole story, if you ever do.


>"Despite the appearance try to give of logic and reason, all your argument, if such a painfully thin tissue can be said to be such, rests on is an appeal to the emotions."

If any argument rests on emotions, it is usually those from the left...hence the term coined as "feelgoodism". But again, I not only asked for you to expand on your argument, I even asked a number of questions that you could expound upon that would drive to the heart of the argument that you seemed to be presenting. I'd love to hear about the NEW government of Anon! You purpose revolution...using the Declaration of all things as a supposed valid stubstantiation of your beliefs...yet when asked specifically to outline your vision and plan, you resorted back to name calling.


>"Thus "patriotism, that is something that comes from ones heart" becomes exactly that sort of "legalism" you were condemning others for."

Not at all. What you purposed was a conditional love for your Country based upon YOUR personal reasonings of a specific action taking place. You have formulated an opinion using incomplete information and then judged the actions of others who have far more information than yourself to be doing what you do not happen to like. Therefore, you purpose revolution to rectify the situation. But when I asked you to outline what your revolution would produce so we could examine it you cannot apparently answer the question?


>"You start accusing other of treading close to treason, of practicing a conditional kind of love for their country, for not being as blind as you to the real facts of the situation, to the lies..."

Again, you seem totally oblivious to the fact that what you claim are "lies" may only be that in the context of the limited and perhaps faulty information you have at your disposal at this time. You and I only know so much. The rest might well be information that for security reasons we are just not privy too. It is actually your hatred towards Bush, that leads you down this path...you CAN see that can't you? I mean, were you on this BB, or some other one, or marching in the streets with a sign bad mouthing Bill Clinton calling him a murderer and a liar when he was lobbing shells over there??? I'd wager money you weren't. In fact, I'd wager that you were proud of him for taking action. And giess what, I wasn't bad mouthing him either for it, because I realized that he was doing what he thought he had to do given the information that he had that I did not. He was duly elected to represent, and that's what he was doing...just like Bush is doing now. Now, if you don't agree, then you are welcomed to make your disagreement heard at the polls...but to do what you are doing instead borders on treason because it gives aid and comfort to the enemy. America's enemies learned long ago thatthe way to beat the U.S isn't in the battle that wages on the battlefield, it is won by turning the hearts and minds of some of its people against America itself, causing strife from within, ruining its resolve to stand firm in the face of evil intent. A "house divided" as it were. You then fall into their trap, and use your "freedom"...the very freedom you ONLY have because you are fortunate enough to live here....to do their evil bidding here at home, which undermines our brave men and women in combat's ability to stand firm and do what needs to be done.


>"that have sent our young men and women to fight and die half a world away, taken them from their families and loved one's..."

That's how war works. Make no mistake, there has always been war, and there will always BE war. God even reveals this basic truth to to us in the Bible where He points out "when they shall say peace and safety, then sudden destruction cometh upon them". Now, we can either wait for the world to boil to the point of war, and fight that war here in America, or, we can take that war early on to those who are doing the "boiling" and fight it on their soil instead. Either way, wherever it is fought, there will be death and destruction...that's what wars are. The only real question is, where will it be fought. Where would you like to fight it...here, or somewhere else?


>"and stained our country's honor for generations to come."

Our Country's honor lies in the hearts of the brave men and women ready and willing to die for freedom. In this case, it was freedom for the people of Iraq who were living in bondage, and freedom for America to be more free of the threat of terrorist actions taking place on our soil. I will agree that the abuse of prisoners and the photos of that are devistating to our cause. But, you know as well as I do that those actions were not sanctioned or ordered by Bush or Rumsfeld, and were instead the actions of people whom I am ashamed to admit are Americans.


>"It's people like you that turn this country into a target because the only liberty you can understand is your liberty"

We are a target because we exist. Why does the Muslim world hate us? They hate us because we, more than any entity on the face of this earth, stand in opposition to their plan to rule the world on a global scale by use of the religion of Islam. If you cannot see that fact, then you are doomed. Look at history...what has the Muslim world every done to further humanity? Not one single thing. They do much, even in this age, to drag humanity down though...we can go into that if you like, but just focus on their attitudes and treatment of women, and you will see the point. And despite your feelgoodism thoughts to the contrary, they are NOT going to change what they believe...ever. What they will do is place you under their rule, or murder you...and it matters nothing to them which way it is. Don't be blind to the real facts, which are that this small battle is actually just a portion of the real battle that will eventually take place. As Islam spreads across the world, and a small percentage of those who try to follow it take it truly to heart, death and destruction of everything you know WILL follow incrementally.


>"and anybody who doesn't agree is a traitor."

Again, you CAN disagree with current events and not be a "traitor". But much of what takes place...such as the open assault in the press and especially in your heart...towards the duly elected leaders of this Nation often border on it. You CLAIM to believe in the Declaration and I assume the Constitution...but do you really? Are you really honoring this Nation and its duly elected leaders, or are you falling into the enemies trap and doing their bidding for them on our own soil instead...


>"You try and act civil and reasonable and there's nothing civil or reasonable about the emotional fascism that really is moving you."

What you call "emotional fascism", I call being an American. And I will not attempt to second guess the duly elected leaders of this Country and their actions in times of actual war. The time to make that disagreement heard was before the bullets started flying. Now, it is time to suck it up and support our Nation and hope for the best possible outcome for the innocnet people in Iraq. But for those people in Iraq that hate us and the real FREEDOM that America stands for, I hope they feel the full wrath of the American Army, unto their destruction.


>"So go back to your bunker and hide in the darkness..."

You may really need a bunker if and when the actual battle finds its way to our soil. In fact, people like you will be probably be hiding behind people like me when the bullets fly. If you ask nice, I might even offer you a weapon that you can use to protect yourself with, unless you think that protest sign is a better one. What will you write on it then, "PLEASE DON'T SHOOT ME, I'M ON YOUR SIDE" or something similar? Or, will you at that point well up some new found patriotism and courage in time, belly up to the bar, and stand and fight?


>"...so you can continue to see the world in black and white terms."

You are somewhat correct there, I see the world as good verses evil. Sometimes it is a little hard to tell the difference, but one thing I do know is that America is not the evil player in the world.


>"I don't oppose liberty,..."

Tell that to the poor souls murdered and butchered and killed and oppressed under Saddam's regime. I am certain that they will believe you after reading the sign you are carrying. Don't be a hypocrite...if you are "for liberty", then you believe in it with all your heart, for EVERYONE oppressed. Brave Marines and other service personel have really been dying for their belief in the liberation for those oppressed for decades, not paying lip service to it, but giving up their lives for it. You dishonor their deaths by saying it if you don't truly believe it.

>"only idiots like you who think it can only come at the point of a gun."

Please, name one single liberation of anyone oppressed by an evil entity in our present world that has been freed by anything other that a weapon wielded by their liberator. Do you REALLY think Saddam would "let his people go" because of your sign? Oh wait, that's not what your sign said anyway...it didn't say "Saddam, stop killing your people"...it said "DOWN WITH AMERICA" didn't it. Pretty sad.


>"People like you are a bigger threat to freedom and liberty than all the "terrorists" in the world put together."

Well, that 's a might large statement coming from someone who says they cherish Liberty but whose words and actions defy what they say. So, you had better spell out exactly how what yu claim is the case, rather than just making some veiled statement of untruth...please, explain yourself.
Re: Ted Koppel is the New Dixie Chick -- Sinclair's Power Play
Current rating: 0
08 May 2004
Hey, you might try using spell check next time grandpa.
Re: Ted Koppel is the New Dixie Chick -- Sinclair's Power Play
Current rating: 0
09 May 2004
Anon said, >"Hey, you might try using spell check next time grandpa."

So, if I had not misspelled something, you would have been unable to muster any reply at all. All too typical, and so very sad...if I was your "grandpa", you'd have a date with the woodshed.

NEXT.
Re: Ted Koppel is the New Dixie Chick -- Sinclair's Power Play
Current rating: 0
09 May 2004
Yeah, well, so sorry to disappoint you grandpa. I got to much to do waiting for the rapture when all will be revealed and we'll finally come to know the fullness of all things. Heaven's to betsy, you've shown me the error of my ways! Lawdy, I CAN SEE! The words I quoted weren't actually yours, they were mine! THank you fer puttin' yer words in my mouth! I's ignoranrt no's more! Dem's muslisms gonna take over de world and make me wear to towel on my head! Aw Lawdy!
Re: Ted Koppel is the New Dixie Chick -- Sinclair's Power Play
Current rating: 0
09 May 2004
You know Anon, I have spent much of the morning reading various messages posted by the author "Anon" throughout the IMC network. And I have concluded that you are either having WAY too much "fun" with these people, or, that you have some sort of multiple personality disorder.

Which is it?
Re: Ted Koppel is the New Dixie Chick -- Sinclair's Power Play
Current rating: 0
09 May 2004
Well, I don't know Jack. I might have multiple personalities but no more than you. And seriously, I do enjoy watching you and NRA4Freedom and the rest of your merry band of cracker scum flail at the keyboard and furrow your brows in desperate attempts to understand the world around you. It's always a good laugh. It's always a funny to see patriots like you and this other jackass claim to love freedom and liberty and then make blatantly rascist comments like "Why does the Muslim world hate us? They hate us because we, more than any entity on the face of this earth, stand in opposition to their plan to rule the world on a global scale by use of the religion of Islam. If you cannot see that fact, then you are doomed. Look at history...what has the Muslim world every done to further humanity? Not one single thing. They do much, even in this age, to drag humanity down though." What rock did you find this guy under? The one right next to yours I bet. Seriously though, you chuckleheads just make it too easy.
Re: Ted Koppel is the New Dixie Chick -- Sinclair's Power Play
Current rating: 0
09 May 2004
SEE A CRIME?, HAVE INFORMATION ON AN UNSOLVED CRIME?

Citizen's can receive a cash reward of up to $1000 for information leading to the arrest of a suspect or information that solves an unsolved crime.

E-mail Crime Alert: wanted (at) crimealert.org
Re: Ted Koppel is the New Dixie Chick -- Sinclair's Power Play
Current rating: 0
10 May 2004
Gosh! How could I have been so wrong? You know Jack, until you made the metaphorical comparison between freedom and Mexican food, I had never thought about what I was fighting for (Really vivd there that comparison. I bet you write poetry). Suddenly, your ahistorical and racist views on mid-east culture and you blind assertions of American moral superiority make sense. Suddenly I do question what I am fighting for AND I KNOW I'M RIGHT! Thanks Jack/NRA4Freedom!

HAHAHAHAHAHA! ROTF/LMAO
Re: Ted Koppel is the New Dixie Chick -- Sinclair's Power Play
Current rating: 0
12 May 2004
Come on Jack/NRA4Freedom/Whatever your name is today. Spellcheck is so easy. But as you seem to have difficulty pointing and clicking, it's portray, not "protray." And it would be intel op., not "opp." Let me guess, you're a fan of Naughty By Nature right? Why is it that all you wanna be Uber-Americans always have so much trouble with english? I mean geez, you'd think you'd be all over the proper usage of the "proper" language. I tell you, the quality of conservatives these days is really slipping. What ever is this world coming to?
Re: Ted Koppel is the New Dixie Chick -- Sinclair's Power Play
Current rating: 0
18 May 2004
Well now, look-ee here. Looks like it's been 5 days since yer last post Jack, and it hasn't gone away like most of your non-sensical ramblings. Guess it is just yet another example of how disconnected you are from the world.

And yeah, there were tears last time...OF JOY! I mean really, the stuff that comes out of your keyboard, like that of NRA4Freedom (or maybe it's the same keyboard...only your doctor or pharmacist would know for sure), is just so damn funny I can't help but cry.

But seriously, it would be funny if there weren't so many fighting and dying for worthless examples of humanity like you. So why don't you go and do the patriotic thing and join up so you can serve? Oh, wait, I forgot you already did serve...IN YOUR IMAGINATION!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Re: Officer Anon - code BLUE!!!
Current rating: 0
19 May 2004
code BLUE!

blog 2174-6547-3924