LMAO, you are the first person who is planing to get his own ass kicked.. I hope your mod wont be as useless as UN...
Considering I can write a chat bot in 20 min that has the same IQ as your fellow republican Gtech I think you are the ones who need to be worried.
I used your bot and I didn't thought I was speaking with Gtech. Gtech writes much more than that. I rather think his IQ is atleast 120. and that yours is somewhere around 100 or 90.
I was addressing limphorn, not you, Air Farce Dad! And anyone believing the propaganda of Fox News is honest would *tend* to null & void any further responses; if you believe they're honest that opens the floodgates for all manner of fantasy & bias. Let's see what you've been fed... Yes, there is no vested private interest, it is funded by the British public for the British public. Are you indicating that they sympathised with London 7th July bombers too and every other terrorist attack too? Your view appears to be unfortunately very skewed & incorrect. Disproportionate is not fancy, it is in the English dictionary. Look it up. I assume you have access to a dictionary? And dispropiortionate is the correct term when you consider there are terrorists with rockets & small arms on one side and tanks, artillery, helicopters, F-16s, laser-guided weaponry and a "professional" army on the other side. It IS disproportionate however you look at it, and it would be acceptable if the targets of Israeli operations were just terrorists, but the point is that this is NOT the case. Therefore the disproportionate amount of firepower has resulted in massive colateral damage of civilians and their civil infrastructure - the targetting of such is considered disproportionate. As for disproportionate being a "new term the left wing has come up with"... You appear to be so far to the right that any & every other opinion is from the left, even the centre or the centre-right. "The Left" is an aggressive & emotive term from the days of McCarthyism where fear was generated to swell the military coffers in order to justify a fight against the threat of communism. Those days are gone, let it go, GTech. No, GTech, not as usual. What do you think this is? A figment of someone's imagination? Look, GTech, the story is reporting the quote of the top U.N. humanitarian official and why he said so. That story is not anti-Israel and is only asking for input from those in Gaza, not more anti-Israel stories per se, but then if they happened to be then you wouldn't be surprised. People need a voice when the opposing power has a big, well-oiled political machine. You seem to be putting a lot of your own spin on this, GT boy - you should get into [right-wing] politics You doubt me? Are you saying I'm a liar? That's not a very nice thing to say. I based my previous post on 2 hours of viewing on Sunday afternoon here, to which it was morning EST stateside. It is not my "version", it is what I saw, and as an unbiased reporter of events myself I noted, in 2 hours, about 5 or 6 minutes where Gregg Burke reported from Beirut the statement of Jan Egeland that that the Hizbollah rockets must stop but so Israel's massive bombing should stop. The reporter himself mentioned foreign nationals & Lebanese fleeing, civillian appartment blocks being levelled by airstrikes and a alack of food & water. I repeat that I saw 5 or 6 minutes of reporting from the Lebanese side. Conversely there were three reporters on the Israeli side of the border and they dedicated at least 40 minutes to the Israeli side of the story; in itself a disproportionate (fancy term that ) amount of reporting bias. Whereas the Beirut correspondant only had time to skim over the surface facts, the Fox News reporters went into great and heart-rending detail, as I previously mentioned, putting in a lot of emotive terms like Israel being under "a rain of rockets" and "a barrage of rockets" - terms seemingly programmed into the anchors and each plugged numerous times. And what about Rick Leventhal being "under attack, literally UNDER ATTACK" - OMG that poor reporter himself is the target of Hizbollah? The anchor said that the rockets had been falling "all morning". And that's just some of the language they came out with in that 40+ minutes. If that sort of reporting isn't sensationalist then I don't know what is. Are we talking about how bad Fox News really is or are you attempting a personal attack on me, GTech? That CNN piece was interesting, thankyou. So what is that... 1 part Hizbollah propaganda to 10 parts Israeli? Any attempts to dumb down the nation will only serve to produce more proletariat incapable of refusing what they're spoon-fed; good news for the sensationalist low-brow bias. Again, thankyou for sharing, GTech, that's an interesting read. So, a question: what's wrong with liberal bias when one definition of liberal is "Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry." ? Is there a complaint with an unbiased bias? Sounds like people are making demons out of things that are not there. Anyway, for the record: I do not condone terrorist activity. I do think Israel should defend itself. So why are so many more Lebanese civilians and kids dying? Why are their ambulances being targeted? Why is a UN observer post bombed despite numerous calls to ask the Israelis not to? That is SOME laser-guided mistake! No hard feeligns huh, GTech? I'll have a beer & watch the news, ALL of it, with you sometime. If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will There's hope for you yet
And I was addressing you. But there is plenty of biased reporting: BBC Online Censured for Anti-Israel Bias BBC Told Not to Shun the Word 'Terrorism' BBC Uses Insurgents as Source to Accuse U.S. Troops of Another Massacre The BBC Adds Its Own Spin to the Cindy Sheehan/Iraq War News The BBC Plays Devil's Advocate Of course, with 11,900 results, I could make quite a few more arguments. Of course, one that states "After being spoiled with quality BBC news reporting for many many years" might not be too comfortable in hearing that their "quality BBC news" is strongly biased. Yes, they were sympathetic, as illustrated. Not the first time. I pointed out this one incident, not "every other," however, one might conclude that being sympathetic to terrorists by choosing not to use the word "terrorist" might mean a global policy for all. There is no disproportionate fantasy. One weapon for me, one weapon for thee. I do find it one of the more humorous things coming out of the left yet and it appears you've fallen for it by repeating this liberal fantasy. If hezbollah and hamas were not cowards and hiding behind women and children, there would be far fewer casualties. If the UN were not turning a blind eye and letting hezbollah fire rockets directly beside their outposts, they wouldn't have a problem either. So you admit the newly found term of preference, "disproportionate," is a left wing position to give sympathy to terrorists? Glad we could clear that up. Some headlines we won't see: Terrorists use Disproportionate Force in London Bombings! bin laden used Disproportionate Force in WTC Bombings! Hamas used Disproportionate Force in Blowing up Bus of Women and Children! Thank you for that link. I had been looking for a story about Israel from the BBC to see if they included a note at the bottom to ask for anti-Hezbollah/Hamas comments from Israelis. Apparently it doesn't exist, and you were kind enough to help point that out. My compliments! And we see the difference between the two, don't we? A voice for thee, but not for me. "Let's not call terrorists "terrorists," because it may be offensive to terrorists!" Yes, I did and still do doubt you. I think you have a pre-conceived bias. Thanks for clarifying that it was all of two hours you watched to come to such a biased opinion. I'd like to see the Israeli side of the story, but all this coverage I'm watching right now, live on Fox, of Lebanon keeps getting in the way. Unbiased reporter? I suppose not every reporter has access to terrorists the way CNN had. After all, they did an entire segment based on what hezbollah tightly controlled and gave them permission to report on. Do you hold Fox to a higher standard? Do you require every news source to give exactly 50% coverage to both, 24 hours per day? If so, how can watch the BBC? Or CNN? Or any other media outlet? All this in two hours? Yet I watched yesterday and saw hours of covering the Lebanon side. In fact I just turned it on, watching right now, they are covering the city of Tyre with Greg Palkot. Covering a bulding that "was absolutely leveled" where the commander of the regional hezbollah group was headquartered. Hiding among civilians again. Oh yes, that biased reporting in Lebanon! Uh oh, now they are covering the city of Haifa in Israel. Shame on them for covering the other side! Wait, now they are covering the UN and how hezbollah is using the UN to fire rockets directly next to UN positions. I guess hezbollah is running out of women and children to hide behind, now they are hiding behind the UN. ...more coverage from Lebanon again. I swear, this two sided coverage is so biased! Shame on them for reporting the other side, that hezbollah was firing rockets at civilians in Israel! Shame on hezbollah for firing on reporters! How shameful is that? That biased reporting trying to make hezbollah look bad! No, only you are talking about a two hour experience to come to a biased conclusion. Don't play the victim card here! You've levelled some personal attacks as well. Is that what you took away from it? If so, it gives a far better insight to your position on Fox. I don't think I could hope for anything better! I was thinking the exact same thing with your Fox coverage. What's wrong with a liberal bias? Nothing, I suppose, if all you want is liberal media biased coverage telling us how bad Israel is and how good hezbollah is for hiding behind women and children. Some people want that kind of reporting. And there's plenty out there to deliver it. I don't care whether you condone terrorist activity or not. It's a common disclaimer these days. One can only wonder why so many feel the need to make the disclaimer. Do you really need to ask why there are civilians dying? But not Israeli civilians, right? It's called cowards hiding behind women and children. In fact, Israel not only warns Israelis of incoming, they warn their enemies of incoming as well. Why was the UN position hit? Glad you asked. The UN is turning a blind eye and allowing hezbollah to fire off rockets directly next to it's base. So not only is hezbollah hiding behind women and children, but hiding behind the UN as well. No hard feelings at all. That was very thoughtful of you. I'd be happy to share a beer and watch some news with you. Perhaps there are some other news sources you feel are biased that we could discuss. The BBC, CNN and the NYT are tops on my list, but there are many others.
Woah, Gtech, great post. I'm um... after reading that long post, too lazy to read 4 pages of other posts, so I'll just jump in: I voted "YES", God is telling Bush to wage war. You make it sound bad, but really, I'm sure God is not pro-terrorist. Thus, he is against the terrorists. Thus, he wants the terrorists eliminted. But, he has things planned out I'm sure. Just time will tell what is to come.
Was referring to the number of reports in Google's results rather than GTech's post. I take it English isn't your first language?
Ynow Gtech I took you off my Ignore just to see what post 66 really was all about. Time for a response. 25,000 shells Targeting UN peacekeepers. and they have even started using Cluster bombs. in fact they only seem to be using lazer guided missiles when targeting clearly marked UN outposts, painted white and marked with big letters stating UN on ALL sides and on the roof. Exactly how Precise is a Cluster Bomb Gtech? You must have dropped a few yourself in your time? Should I wait for a response. Nah, Back on Ignore
You didn't want to post any specific "biased" reports? I mean, after all, you have 39,000 to choose from. By all means, post a few! Here's a good one: Fear and Loathing of Fox News Let me know if you find anything.
And somehow you thought I cared? I'm flattered when someone puts me on ignore. It tells me they can't handle opposing view points.
Newsbusters huh? That's a great source, GTech; Newsbusters is the blog of the Media Research Center (MRC), a multi-million funded conservative organisation and using it as a resource is a bit like asking "Uncle Adolf" and his cronies who the untermensch are! Firstly your source is inadmissible evidence and secondly I'm not here to argue; if you are, then do it with somebody else, I'd prefer a sensible discussion please. No, I'm comfortable, GTech, don't try and get cute with me. Your biased source says the BBC is biased therefore your evidence is, as I stated, inadmissable. It is more likely that other parties here are uncomfortable knowing that their sources have been justifiably dismissed. Inadmissible. Who's your next witness, Heinrich Himmler? Might. But then, might not. Remember, GTech, that Dr Wernher von Braun was not dubbed a terrorist and yet his own very deliberately intentioned weapons of mass destruction were dropped on London during WWII. OK it was war but he was still a terrorist, no? Better that he was dealt with as such, but no... a job & citizenship? Great! Exactly. It's a disproportionate reality. That's theoretical not actual. Nice sentiment though. I haven't fallen for anything, GTech, no right-wing or other extreme-view sponsored organization pretending to be otherwise will sucker me, but I know some that are gullible enough to be so inclined... But again, you seem to sneer at the term liberal... what's wrong, do you disagree with the definition I gave you? Would you prefer bigotry, dogma and authoritariansim? No, don't answer that... That is a good point to which I to some extent agree, yes, but to what degree can we gauge this? This still does not explain or excuse why ambulances & totally innocent people have been targetted. Again, that may be partly true - but that's another alleged right-wing source you're using there which just happens to have The News Corporation as a parent company, the same as Fox News! How about that? No, I do not admit anything of the sort, you're making that up, so enjoy your self-delusion because your fantasy is an incorrect assumption. There is no "sympathy to terrorists" only kindness for an innocent Lebanese populace. True, we all know this already. But the key here is that the majority of people who condemn terrorists, the individuals & groups and their tactics, use the same judgement in condemning what is a sovereign state, using its regular army with a $9.45 billion "defence" budget. I'll repeat this again incase you didn't understand - why, if Hizbollah is the target, is there so much colateral damage and so many innocents dead? Why, when these katyusha rockets have hit Israel before, was there not an evacuation form Israel, hundreds of foreign nationals fleeing? It's because the amount of force & used by Israel is overwhelmingly greater than that of the terrorists. Again, this amount of weaponry would be fine in order to crush a terrorist organisation, but the point is that it is NOT JUST Hizbollah who are dying and that is not right. Like I said, incase you either missed or willfully ignored it, there is a much more professional media machine in the nation state of Israel - Palestine doesn't actually exist as a country nor state and Lebanon is a fledgling democracy, or rather, was - neither have the political nor media clout afforded by Israel. But, that aside, the article you pointed out asks for experiences from people in Gaza affected by violence in the region. In your slant you're obviously upset that there's no demand of experiences of, specifically, anti-Hizbollah/Hamas sentiment. Your desires are skewed - your wish to counter experience with negative comment is well out of balance. I neither said nor implied anything of the sort so don't try and (mis)quote me out of context just to suit your own ends. Then may whichever god you pray to help you, GTech; that is incredibly rude and just plain wrong. For that I would normally be inclined to tell you where to go, so I will say nothing of the sort lest I offend you - I am not here to offend, only to impart a centrist view. I have previously been made aware of Fox News' bias but recently watched with an open mind and free of prior opinion as I always do. Unfortunately the reporting did nothing to satisfy with its willful bias. Do I detect hints of discomfort & primal retaliation? I came to an open opinion that, during that period, Fox is biased, as I have made clear. I will continue to monitor their efforts, as they can't get away with being so blatantly emotive for so long. How do we know that the US diplomatic efforts since Sunday haven't affected the reporting? Is it past being conceivable that an internal memorandum was handed out asking the station to calm things down and maybe toe the line because its bias was getting a little embarrassing? You seem to misunderstand the term balanced reporting - OK the fundamentals of the term balance itself are simply 50/50, but considering the amount of newsworthy reporting in Lebanon on Sunday morning it is way out of context to have had an 8:1 representation of the Israeli side that AM. Now picture this - what if during the period I watched Fox News someone, for instance, unaware of the what was going on in the world, watched that programme? The chances are highly likely that they'd have seen the more emotive terms favouring the southern side of that border and hence influenced them with an unrealistic & incorrect bias. Damage done. You know what, GTech? TFFT. Maybe somebody did get a rap on the knuckles for unfairly reporting the situation. Or maybe that Sunday slot is pre-progammed, like a lot of advertising for instance, to appeal to a particular audience? But, that morning, there was 40+ minutes of reports from Israel, where, really, there was not as much going on as there was in Lebanon. I have a well-earned reputation for being fair, just and honest so please don't try and shout me out like you do to others, I won't tolerate nor be cowed by any attempts at bullying. Calm down, man, you'll do your blood pressure no good. Yes, the rockets are hitting Israel. That should be dealt with. Reported and the terrorists neutralized, but not by hitting innocent civilians. Again, calm down; I can imagine you incredulous, red-faced and up-in-arms, I'd rather you were a little more chilled; hot heads can't discuss with any clarity, remember that. Since Sunday it seems Fox News have received a change in tactic from their Kommandant. You'd do well to accept that the right-wing bias is there in that news station and that it suits you and yours' idealogical needs, only now they need to reign themselves in once again lest they be rumbled for the bigots that they really are. Or so it apppears. Often. No, a two hour experience toi which I have come to a conclusion of bias. They've changed their tune haven't they? I expect that there will be some flux - even Bush, of late, has calmed down a bit - are there voices of reason reminding him that he may be the most hated President ever? Who knows? If he has to adjust then Fox will adjust. I'm no victim, GTech, and I don't play cards No, honestly, that was great, thankyou. I still think Fox News is biased, despite ONLY having spent 2 hours watching it - I'm hardly likely to condemn CNN for just 5 minutes worth But no, I sincerely appreciate that - looks like somebody got well and truly suckered; and at gunpoint too! Didn't the same thing happen over GWB's service record? NO, not at gunpoint. I'm happy to record bias on both "sides" though balanced processing may be too logicalk & honest to simply report equilibrium in outcome... GTech, my friend, to dismiss dogma and refrain from bigotry means to occupy the middle ground - I think we'll need to agree to disagree that you're on the right and I'm in the middle. From your viewpoint you seem to see no evil in what Israel does. From where I stand I can see their good points AND their bad points. Unfortunately they seem to be getting a bit too big for their boots and rather than containing the terrorist threat they are opening pandora's box... Well you should care... I live near Aldershot, the home of the British Army, have friends & relatives in the services, both in the US and the UK, and am a naturalised Englishman... Go check out the IRA targets before the organisation became only political & (allegedly) criminal and then ponder whether you think they may have affected me or not. I have set foot in all the places in England that have been bombed, back then and recently by new threats... If the UK had not joined the "War on Terror" then it would not have been the target of recent terror attacks. Ditto Spain. It created its own destiny and could have forged a different one. To kill all the exisiting terrorists that are here in the world now does not solve the problem. No, do not assume I forget Israeli deaths - it is not acceptable and needs to be dealt with, but not in the manner with which it is being dealt with now. Not in all cases. That is a sweeping generalisation which is incorrect. Hence the refugee situation... Do you think Hizbollah stay and the innocent leave? That would be too simple... some Lebanese stay because their homes are all they have. In the same sitauation what would you do, GTech? That still doesn't explain why the UN position received a direct hit and not the terrorists x amount of feet/yards away. You'd think, with all the hi-tech airborne laser-guided munitions sold to Israel, that they would be able to pinpoint a rocket launcher position and not a white building with big letters U and N on it? Or was it a) a deliberate attack b) there was a really bad mistake or c) is the weaponry not as good as its makers claim? Patriot missiles were crap. Maybe these things are too... d) e) and f) haven't been thought of/exposed yet. Keep your mind open... LMAO A beer it is then... British... flat... warm! And I will drink some of that cold fizzy stuff in suffrage, though I am partial to a drop or two of Sam Adams... And as for TV - a liberal bias is no bias at all, that's the middle ground, you should know that by now... It's late here, so remember... Anger, fear, aggression. The dark side are they. Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny.