The Top 20 Stories of 2004 You Haven’t Heard Of

[whiskeytown]

The Top 20 Stories of 2004 You Haven’t Heard Of

1.) Bush officials advise companies on how to pay employees less
2.) Up to one-third of all terrestrial life on Earth could go extinct
3.) Texas terrorists try to build weapons of mass destruction
4.) GOP Senate staff hacked Democrats’ e-mails
5.) Bosses’ pay increased to 500 times employee pay
6.) Bush official calls teachers’ union ‘terrorist organization’
7.) Army Sent Mentally Ill Troops to Iraq
8.) Al Qaeda allies endorse Bush
9.) Bush campaign sold illegal merchandise
10.) Cult leader crowns self U.S. ruler as Congressmen look on
11.) Bill O'Reilly calls for ‘final solution’ in Iraq
12.) 60% of U.S. corporations paid no taxes in 1996 through 2003
13.) Fundamentalist reporter had history of fraud
14.) Children tortured at Abu Ghraib
15.) FOX broadcasts fictitious Kerry story
16.) Colorado voting director calls blacks ‘Sambo’
17.) 1.7 million veterans without health coverage
18.) 50,000 kids poisoned after EPA removes safeguards
19.) Corporation announces skin-searing weapon for crowd control
20.) Document indicates Bush personally ordered torture

Oh wait...I can hear the sound of Broken Glass Can wanting MORE then factual proof that his admin. is raping the country...

follow the link - every story has some great documentation behind it....

http://pulsetc.com/article.php?sid=1568

RB

[cardcounter0]

I can't believe Fox News hasn't picked up on any of these stories.
/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[whiskeytown]

they got number 8

they mentioned Islamic terrorists love GWB.... /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
The statement said Abu Hafs al-Masri needs what it called Bush's "idiocy and religious fanaticism" because they would "wake up" the Islamic world.

[/ QUOTE ]

RB

[PITTM]

man 2005 is gonna be a swwwweeeet year.

rj

[whiskeytown]

bump.....
seriously, guys...follow the link - this is some real crap going on...

RB

[Broken Glass Can]

What a stupid list (obviously from a leftist site), they radically distort the news.

#4 - The Democrats write a memo that they need to discriminate against Bush's hispanic appointees to keep him from gaining popularity with hispanics. When the GOP finds the memo lying around, the Democrats invent the hacking story to get the story off topic.

#8 - Report of part of the story... they fail to mention that most terrorists supported Kerry (if anybody at all).

#15 - What about the phony CBS story (with fake documents) and all the others by almost all the networks that we discussed this year? Convenient omission.

#20 - False, some guy uses twisted logic to come to a false conclusion and then reposts it. And you just swallow it whole?

These are just the 4 stories I know off the top of my head - I'm sure the rest are similarly slanted.

whiskey, this is right up there with your calling the NY Times "respectable" /images/graemlins/grin.gif (I assume you were just joking, right?)

[PhatTBoll]

I find it amusing that this organization has the gall to make fun of Fox News for being biased.

[cardcounter0]

Spinners calling Spin, eh?

[PhatTBoll]

[ QUOTE ]
Spinners calling Spin, eh?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup. "Partisans suck, unless they agree with me."

[Richard Tanner]

Here's a good start

1) Government is bad-"Government big enough to grant everything is big enough to take it away"-Thomas Jefferson

2) Both Dubya and Kerry would make bad presidents, neither one is a good choice.

3) The president is just the PR guy (This one is HUGE)- The pres. has an army of aids and an entire party in his ear, he is there to look pretty and be a figurehead. A few things
are his doing, but that's a very select few.

4) Republican social policies are ignorant- Gay marriage is not the downfall of society, nor are minority rights.

5) Democratic economic policies are ignorant- You can't have big government, sorry but raising minimum wage doesn't do anything, neither does redistribution of wealth.

There they are the big 5, enjoy.

Cody

[Il_Mostro]

6) Oil extraction rates are about to peak. With no alternatives to take up the slack.

[Cyrus]

Even if 1/20th of the message gets across, you've done a good deed. Let's see if the message can get across "advanced players'" minds.

[Cyrus]

Easily ranks as among your worst posts here, Glass Can.

While the evidence from the other side is carefully worded and substantiated (with admissions, moreoever, and not only the data), you rebutt with nothing but a shrug of the shoulders and a snarl.

Not good, not good.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I find it amusing that this organization has the gall to make fun of Fox News for being biased.

[/ QUOTE ]

We are all biased.

The question is always, How much?

I submit that "this organisation" is much less biased than the Rupert "The Cancer" Murdoch's news channel.

But, like most things in politics, I guess this too (even if I was to produce a ton of evidence to that effect) will be judged on the basis of every one's political affiliations rather than through observation.

[zaxx19]

[ QUOTE ]
4) Republican social policies are ignorant- Gay marriage is not the downfall of society, nor are minority rights.



[/ QUOTE ]


Of course the GOP platform is neither against Homosexuality or minority rights...but dont let that stop you keep rolling your way to electoral disaster...its like a trainwreck with this liberals I just cant look away. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[PhatTBoll]

[ QUOTE ]
I submit that "this organisation" is much less biased than the Rupert "The Cancer" Murdoch's news channel.

[/ QUOTE ]

How many of the items in this article are supported solely by Atrios and other far-left vehicles? I read some good weblogs, but I would never rely solely on one for news.

People express left-leaning views on Fox News all the time. Please show me one item on this website that espouses a right-leaning or conservative viewpoint.

[Felix_Nietsche]

I heard Bill O'Reily say that if the terrorists succeed in exploding a nuke in the US, that the US should retaliate against certain countries with Nukes...... I see NOTHING wrong with this opinion...

This assumes we have a *MAN* in the white house (ie a Republican).

We know which countries who are primarily supplying the money and personel for terrorism. This scenario falls under the right of self-preservation and self defense....

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I read some good weblogs, but I would never rely solely on one for news.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely agree.

[ QUOTE ]
People express left-leaning views on Fox News all the time. Please show me one item on this website that espouses a right-leaning or conservative viewpoint.

[/ QUOTE ]

A medium that allows opposite views to be expressed through it (opposite to what the medium itself supports) is already being less biased than is usual/expected. The jury is still out, though, about FoxNews' airing of "leftist" views. I have not been an avid Fox watcher, admittedly, but from the amount of time I have watched "debates" on it, those "lefties" are either pathetic or stooges for the left. And the format encourages the bullies from the right-wing pit to insult and browbeat them into undignified silence -- which passes for "defeat" on TV.

But allowing the opposition to speak out is not a stronger indicator of less bias than the diligence one pays to the facts! This is why I submit that Fox News (and O'Reilly is one prime example of the practice) plays fast and loose with facts and figures, in order to serve its neo-con agenda. The sensationalism, the bluster and the arrogance come with the package but the carelessness with the facts and Truth in the prime characteristic of the right wing-biased media and the neo-conservative faction itself.

In so many words, bias.

[Utah]

um.....you dont really think this is news do you? In is commentary that uses twisted logic to lead readers to a predetermined conclusion. It doesnt matter if some of the facts are correct because those facts get distorted for a specific agenda.

That doesnt mean, on the face of it, that those facts arent important. It only means that this list and the accompanying article are b.s. and they are not worth reading by anyone looking for accurate information.

A few facts sprinkled in an article does not make that article factually accurate. You know that.

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
Easily ranks as among your worst posts here, Glass Can.

While the evidence from the other side is carefully worded......

[/ QUOTE ]

I see you are in on the joke. "Carefully worded" indeed. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

I think whiskeytown actually believes this stuff though. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Cyrus]

Amusing to see the neo-con faction flailing about helplessly and emitting hot air when faced again with the stone cold facts of life.

I notice a lot of words and mucho bravado -- but not one single refutation of those news stories, nor their substantiation.

All your posts accomplish is keeping the thread alive. Muchas gracias.

The Top 2004 Stories You Haven't Heard About (http://pulsetc.com/article.php?sid=1568)

[Cyrus]

Amusing to see the neo-con faction flailing about helplessly and emitting hot air when faced again with the stone cold facts of life!

I notice a lot of words and mucho bravado -- but not one single refutation of those news stories, nor their substantiation.

All your posts accomplish is keeping the thread alive. Muchas gracias.

The Top 2004 Stories You Haven't Heard About (http://pulsetc.com/article.php?sid=1568)

[PhatTBoll]

[ QUOTE ]
But allowing the opposition to speak out is not a stronger indicator of less bias than the diligence one pays to the facts! This is why I submit that Fox News (and O'Reilly is one prime example of the practice) plays fast and loose with facts and figures, in order to serve its neo-con agenda.

[/ QUOTE ]

But I never said Fox News wasn't biased. I just said that it was silly for this site to bash Fox for being biased when they are clearly as beholden to the far left as they believe Fox is to the far right. People on the right yell "Communist" at CNN, ABC, CBS, NYT etc, while people on the left yell "Fascist" at Fox, WSJ, and others. As you said, bias is everywhere.

One more point: I have probably watched about 5 minutes of O'Reilly's show in my life, but I do know that it is meant as an opinion show rather than a news show. Bringing up his work as an example of how Fox reports the news is pretty disingenuous. Commenting on the news and reporting the news are two very different things.

[Utah]

Wow. I see someone is not taking their medication again. Lets see if we can explain to the logically challenged by way of example.

Here is a list of facts.

1) Corporate 500 CEOs drove more value for shareholders in 2004 versus any other year in history
2) There have been no terrorist attacks on US soil since Bush attacked Iraq.
3) There have less deaths in Iraq versus any other war in US history. In fact, the deaths are a tiny fraction of any other war.
4) Democrat memos reveal that democrats discussed illegally manipulating the judiciary in Michigan
5) The unemployment rate of Bush's first term was extremely low versus historical standards
6) Bill OReilly angerly attacked the Bush administration for not protecting the southern border
7) Democrats and the Kerry campaign were involved with the Dan Rather story
8) As a result of the Bush war, Iraq is a sovereign country for the first time in modern histroy
9) Kerry Advisor illegally took national security documents that reflected poorly on the clinton administration
10) Large group of Vietnam veterans call Kerry a huge liar and say he is unfit for command.

I could list fact after fact that may be accurate. However, it doesnt mean that the facts are intellectually honest.

My main point is that one should not even waste their time discussing hatchet pieces even if there is some truth. The cry of, "ha! See! No refutation!" is the cry of the intellectually lazy.

[zaxx19]

Hey Utah stop posting reality you will scare the liberal any-Bushites who regularly post here.....

And how can we trust those stories when none of them were broke by 27 yr old bloggers who are working on their 4th masters at Berkeley and never plan on working in their lives...but are all to happy to borrow daddies Saab for 3 yrs while they continue their "studies"...you know the guys who tell the real "truth" about American life and international politics.

[Cyrus]

Thanks again for keeping the thread alive!

Like I said, you have no refutation to the stories reported by Whiskeytown's original post. All you can offer are insults ("someone is not taking their medication again") or irrelevancies. I'll deal briefly with the most laughable of your irrelevancies and then I'll head for the loo. (One crap at a time!)


[ QUOTE ]
1) Corporate 500 CEOs drove more value for shareholders in 2004 versus any other year in history
2) There have been no terrorist attacks on US soil since Bush attacked Iraq.
3) There have less deaths in Iraq versus any other war in US history. In fact, the deaths are a tiny fraction of any other war.
4) Democrat memos reveal that democrats discussed illegally manipulating the judiciary in Michigan
5) The unemployment rate of Bush's first term was extremely low versus historical standards
6) Bill O'Reilly angerly attacked the Bush administration for not protecting the southern border
7) Democrats and the Kerry campaign were involved with the Dan Rather story
8) As a result of the Bush war, Iraq is a sovereign country for the first time in modern history
9) Kerry Advisor illegally took national security documents that reflected poorly on the Clinton administration
10) Large group of Vietnam veterans call Kerry a huge liar and say he is unfit for command.


[/ QUOTE ] 1) Irrespective of your inaccurate Wall Street data, the fact remains that CEO salaries are getting obscenely high. (Even Wall Street has started to worry. Do some research, man.)

2) About terrorist attacks on US soil, I will once again refer you to "Imperial Hubris" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1574888498/qid=1105271744/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/002-4210808-3600021) (written by a man whose job description was not "peace" but killing America's enemies). You just might disabuse yourself of such erroneous yardsticks. (As to Iraq, it never had anything to do with anti-American terrorism. It would have been equally relevant if the US had attacked Albania and then claimed that it no longer suffered any attacks on its soil!)

3) If you want to believe that the war against Iraq was well planned and executed, then you do not know what war is about. And, you don't agree with a significant number of pro-war, hawkish military persons and analysts who have spoken out already. Persist in your folly. (Even the American people no longer believe the war is being won.)

4) Irrelevant - Michigan judiciary ?!

5) What's unemployment got to do with the points being brought up?? Only you, Utah, can do those tricks.

6) "Bill O’Reilly angerly attacked the Bush administration for not protecting the southern border." Yeah, well, how does that fit with your claim Number 2 above? Of course it's true that the Bush administration has insanely focused on Iraq and neglected terrorism. The fact is that America has been left unprotected (e.g. no commercial harbor in the continental US is ably protected, according to Foreign Affairs). So the EV is bad, although for the moment you are catching. Nice...

7) Irrelevant -- Dan Rather ?!

8) What you wrote is historically and linguistically nonsensical : "Iraq is a sovereign country for the first time in modern history". /images/graemlins/grin.gif Either you wrote this when flying in turbulence or I don't know what.

9) Irrelevant - Kerry badmouthing Clinton?! What imagination.

..Meanwhile, back to reality, for those just tuning in :

The Top 2004 Stories You have Not Heard About (http://pulsetc.com/article.php?sid=1568)

<font color="white">. </font>

[Utah]

Boy, you really missed the point on this one. It is not a question of facts my dear Cyrus. Political hack pieces are not a basis for meaningful debate. Are you suggesting that one side can throw out a political hack piece filled with half truths and the other side must scramble to do all the leg work the original author failed to do?

My list was not a list of meaningful facts to refute anything. My list was as dishonest as the original list and it belongs in the trash as well. It was used merely to make a point.

Lets look at CEO salaries. I personally think they might be out of hand, but I am not sure. However, I am simply not going to respond to an out of context inflamatory comment. Now, if you want to point to an intellectually honest article about CEO salaries then we can discuss. For example, what are the reasons for CEO salary levels? Why is this a bad thing? What are some alternatives? Is there harm to prosperity by reigning in salaries? Were the salary increases a long term trend or a short term anomoly based on market performance? etc. etc. btw - I happen to know a lot about CEO salaries as one of my first jobs was doing executive compensation calculations based on performance.

Let me give you one more example in the form you are quite familiar with.

[ QUOTE ]
About terrorist attacks on US soil, I will once again refer you to "Imperial Hubris" (written by a man whose job description was not "peace" but killing America's enemies). You just might disabuse yourself of such erroneous yardsticks. (As to Iraq, it never had anything to do with anti-American terrorism. It would have been equally relevant if the US had attacked Albania and then claimed that it no longer suffered any attacks on its soil!)

[/ QUOTE ]

Ha! I see a lot of bluster but you fail to refute my super intellectually honest statement about terrorism in the U.S. I dont want to hear reason. Simply answer my statement of fact. Has there been a terrorist attack in the U.S. since Bush attacked Iraq? Of course, we know the answer. [again, I am not making a real statement about Bush and terrorism. I am merely showing how a fact can be used way out of context by leading a reader to a conclusion without telling the whole story]

[The Bear]

[ QUOTE ]
I heard Bill O'Reily say that if the terrorists succeed in exploding a nuke in the US, that the US should retaliate against certain countries with Nukes...... I see NOTHING wrong with this opinion...

This assumes we have a *MAN* in the white house (ie a Republican).

We know which countries who are primarily supplying the money and personel for terrorism. This scenario falls under the right of self-preservation and self defense....

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not familiar with your posts, so I have to ask. You're joking, right? And did O'Reilly actually say this?

[MMMMMM]

Actually there is something to be said, in the game theory sense, for making it a known policy that if terrorists succeed in nuking the US, the US will retaliate with nukes against certain known countries and locations which support Islamic terrorism. In other words, they can't get away with it by proxy or passing the buck. And they'd better start cracking down on terrorists instead of supporting them if they don't want to take that chance.

Now I'm not saying it is necessarily a good, moral or wise choice to make that policy and announce it. But it would be beneficial in the game theory sense, and it might be a good deterrent/big stick type policy remotely in the sense that MAD worked as a deterrent against the Soviet Union. But in order for it to work, it would have to include ALL cities and countries which support Islamic terrorism as well as possibly Mecca itself (Mecca included in order that bin-Laden would feel he would be causing irreparable harm to Islam itself should he succeed in nuking the USA).

Maybe it's time for a new MAD policy for deterrence. Or maybe not.

[Il_Mostro]

He's not joking. At least this is consistent with what he usually writes. You see why the rest of the world doesn't like the US at all times, right.

[Felix_Nietsche]

Having the world like the US is not a priority for me....
Self-Defense and self preservation is a prioriy...

If those crazy Arabs expode a nuke in the US, then we Americans need to retaliate 100 fold so it will never happen again....

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
Having the world like the US is not a priority for me....
Self-Defense and self preservation is a prioriy...

[/ QUOTE ]
And of course, those two does not have anything to do with each other [/end sarcasm]

[ QUOTE ]
If those crazy Arabs expode a nuke in the US, then we Americans need to retaliate 100 fold so it will never happen again....

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course, if some people kill americans, you need to kill a few million other people, that'll teach 'em.

[natedogg]

#10, Reverend Sun Young Moon crowned King of America by members of congress in a meeting held AT the capitol building.

Damn that's some funny stuff. I expect no less from the vaunted members of our congress. Ha.

natedogg

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I see a lot of bluster but you fail to refute my super intellectually honest statement about terrorism in the U.S. I dont want to hear reason. Simply answer my statement of fact. Has there been a terrorist attack in the U.S. since Bush attacked Iraq?

[/ QUOTE ] No, there has not been a terrorist attack in the U.S. since Bush attacked Iraq.

There has not been a terrorist attack in the U.S. since the the Baltimore Ravens won the Super Bowl, either.

The two are equally irrelevant.

[ QUOTE ]
My list was not a list of meaningful facts. My list was as dishonest as the original list and ...was used merely to make a point.

[/ QUOTE ] I have no idea what "point" you were trying to make. The "point", however, of the article Whiskeytown linked to was to inform us about a bunch of stories that were buried by most of mainstream media but were worthy of our attention nonetheless. Especially since those stories were totally honest, in that they were fully substantiated and have not been disputed --merely ignored.

And each of those stories carries its own political messages! Read' em again and see :

The Top 2004 Stories You Have Not Heard About (http://pulsetc.com/article.php?sid=1568)


[ QUOTE ]
Lets look at CEO salaries.

[/ QUOTE ] I'm starting a new thread.


[ QUOTE ]
It is not a question of facts, my dear Cyrus.

[/ QUOTE ] It never is with you. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Utah]

Here is the publication in its entirety - "No attacks on U.S. soil since Bush attacks Iraq".

The article is 100% accurate and it cannot be refuted. However, it is completely disingenuous and it doesnt paint an ounce of truth. That is exactly my point about the original list. Even if article has its facts right the article is as "erroneous" as the Utah Institute Study.

Pleae tell me you understand the point I am trying to make (even if you might not agree with my assertion). This is crazier than the time that you didnt know what a lie was /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Utah Institute Publishes New Article On War in Iraq. Here is the publication in its entirety - "No attacks on U.S. soil since Bush attacks Iraq".
The article is 100% accurate and it cannot be refuted. However, it is completely disingenuous and it doesnt paint an ounce of truth. That is exactly my point about the original list.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are indeed trying to make a point but it is not coming across clearly. What is it?

Are you trying to say that the attack on Iraq had as much impact on the war on terror (=none) as had the stories reported in the link (http://pulsetc.com/article.php?sid=1568) ? Well, I agree with half your claim /images/graemlins/cool.gif I already believe that the war on Iraq had no effect (actually, the opposite effect!) on the anti-terror effort of the West.

But the stories, those under-reported stories presented in the link (http://pulsetc.com/article.php?sid=1568), are not making one single "point" -- about Iraq or anything else. They are about many things. I don't think that even one of them deals with Iraq, as a matter of fact. Please check the link (http://pulsetc.com/article.php?sid=1568) for me, and verify if that's correct. Thanks. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[ QUOTE ]
This is crazier than the time that you didnt know what a lie was.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't know what a lie was? You confuse me for Karl Rove.

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

Oh, and here's that link (http://pulsetc.com/article.php?sid=1568) again!...

[zaxx19]

Of course, if some people kill americans, you need to kill a few million other people, that'll teach 'em.


Actually while I wouldnt say the killing oif MILLIONS would be necessary, overwhelming respnse is a very plausible and possibly very effective option in combating terrorism. Ossama doesnt want a world with NO Muslims....he wants one of only Muslims.

[Il_Mostro]

Do you have any references or proof or even coherent thoughts on why "overwhelming respnse (sic!)" would be effective in any way? I certainly can't think of any.

[zaxx19]

Do I have any proof??

Im sorry this isnt a science class...while I may be able to provide evidence that this terrrorist behavior might be curbed by a large scale punitive action, proof would be impossible to get as this is a discussion of politics and Geo-political behavior.

For the record: One example of large scale punitive action that seemed to work quite well IN THE REGION AND AGAINST THE SAME POLITICALLY ORIENTED PERSONS is the destruction of Hama. Syria hasnt had problems with the Islamic brotherhood since it demolished half a city and killed thosands of residents indiscriminantly. This isnt Canada or Sweden its a tough neighborhood were guns talk and carrots are gobbled up with very little effect.

[Il_Mostro]

You need to read more on international economics and international trade.
And energy.

[zaxx19]

Ahh no comments on Hama...the usual liberal tactic when confronted with evidence contrary to their liberal ethos ...ignore it and pretend like it doesnt exist

[lastchance]

He is trying to say that the articles represented in the original article are intellectually dishonest while even though they might be true taken at face value, they lack context and are therefore misleading and irrelevant.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
[Utah] is trying to say that the articles represented in the original article are intellectually dishonest while [because?] even though they might be true taken at face value, they lack context and are therefore misleading and irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the translation.

Assuming that this is the point Utah is trying to make, I have to say that it is unfortunately dead in the water! This is a collection of unrelated news stories. The only common thread running among them is that they were ignored by most mainstream media.

Each news item in the link stands on its own merit. They are all substantiated and worthy of our attention. When read collectively, those news items do not create any kind of "context" except for this profoundly political message: We will not get a significant number of important news items from the mainstream media. Especially when those news disagree with the accepted wisdom.

That's the context.

But what else is new?

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
The Top 20 Stories of 2004 You Haven’t Heard Of

1.) Bush officials advise companies on how to pay employees less
2.) Up to one-third of all terrestrial life on Earth could go extinct
3.) Texas terrorists try to build weapons of mass destruction
4.) GOP Senate staff hacked Democrats’ e-mails
5.) Bosses’ pay increased to 500 times employee pay
6.) Bush official calls teachers’ union ‘terrorist organization’
7.) Army Sent Mentally Ill Troops to Iraq
8.) Al Qaeda allies endorse Bush
9.) Bush campaign sold illegal merchandise
10.) Cult leader crowns self U.S. ruler as Congressmen look on
11.) Bill O'Reilly calls for ‘final solution’ in Iraq
12.) 60% of U.S. corporations paid no taxes in 1996 through 2003
13.) Fundamentalist reporter had history of fraud
14.) Children tortured at Abu Ghraib
15.) FOX broadcasts fictitious Kerry story
16.) Colorado voting director calls blacks ‘Sambo’
17.) 1.7 million veterans without health coverage
18.) 50,000 kids poisoned after EPA removes safeguards
19.) Corporation announces skin-searing weapon for crowd control
20.) Document indicates Bush personally ordered torture

Oh wait...I can hear the sound of Broken Glass Can wanting MORE then factual proof that his admin. is raping the country...

follow the link - every story has some great documentation behind it....

http://pulsetc.com/article.php?sid=1568

RB

[/ QUOTE ]

1) True story. I dont particularly see the big deal about this since. It isnt "cheating the workers" but helping employees keep labor costs comparable. The other alternative is to fire some employees. A non story. Not true that it wasnt reported on since it is cited from MSNBC and was an AP story.

2) A wildly exaggerated claim to say the least. To put it succinctly, this article extrapolates a computer model that only covers about 1000 species, of which approximately 200 are from a south african evergreen plant species. Again, this story was widely reported, the Washington Post being one example.

3) True story. Reported in the LA times and Seattle Times, two widely read newspapers in two of the biggest cities in the USA.

4) The computer system was not "hacked" and the article doesnt even make this claim. Also, there is yet to be a determination on whether or not this was illegal, since the documents may not even fall under nondisclosure rules. Furthermore, of course the posted link fails to point out the content of some of those memos, which point to highly inappropriate behavior by the Democratic party. Reported on by the Boston Globe, which is owned by the New York Times company. Pretty sure it got wide circulation.

5) Looks true, was reported by Reuters, not exactly a podunk news source. Not sure what the point of this one is. Most CEOs make money from their stock options. If they do well, the stock goes up and they benefit along with the shareholders who the CEO is working for. Welcome to capitalism folks.

6) True story. A public official chose his words poorly, which happens all the time. Hardly a top 20 story. Reported on CNN.com

7) Another non-story. The liberal site would have you think the Army is pulling people out of mental wards and putting a rifle in their hands. None of the date presented is grossly deviant from the norm, especially given the realities of the stress of combat operations. Reported on UPI.

8) One terrorist group makes a statement about Bush. Big deal. Note this group is not the most credible around, having made false claims in the past and its ties to al-Qaeda are tenuous. Reported on Fox News. A non story once again.

9) This story is so pathetic I had to laugh. So the company that handles the Bush campaign merchandise was the recipient of some clothes made in Burma due to a supplier error. They only had one other one made in Burma out of an inventory of about 60. Give me a break. Reported in the Baltimore Sun.

10) ACcording to the article cited, most of the people there though they were there for an awards ceremony. Again, hardly a top 20 story. Reported by Salon and the Washington Times.

I'll tackle the second 10 when I can stop laughing so hard. So far I havent seen anything in these articles that prove how "Bush is raping America". Thanks for the comedic relief.

[Utah]

Yes. That is exactly the point I was trying to make.

Obviously, we disagree on the value of the content. However, just arguing about the point I was trying to make has done tuckered me out. So, I will let this rest.

Til next time Mr. Cyrus!

[cardcounter0]

Just say "NO" to Kool-Aid.

I'm sure at some time Felix was capable of some type of rational thought. Now I think there has been far too much damage for him to ever recover.

[Felix_Nietsche]

[ QUOTE ]
"Of course, if some people kill americans, you need to kill a few million other people, that'll teach 'em."

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, the US has the right to self defense. If terrorists are dumb enough to use a nuke on the US, then the terrorists and their sponsors forfeit their right to live...

And I promise you if a nuke expodes in New York City, the US will not be going to the UN to ask for permission. And the middle east will become the world's largest supplier of glass...

[cardcounter0]

And if the nuke came from North Korea, would that change any of your deluded Mid-East plans?

[Felix_Nietsche]

Surely someone as SMART as you, could EASILY out wit me with your SUPERIOR LOGIC and trounce me with well reasoned arguments with out having resort to insults and name calling.....Right?

Or are you going to revert to your usual tactic of,
'I can't give you my reasons because you are not smart enough to understand them."

&lt;Yawn&gt;.....

[cardcounter0]

ding! ding! ding!
We have a winner!

Did you happen to notice that a infrequent poster read one of your posts, and thought you had to be joking?

But once again, you fail to answer the question:

"If the United States was hit by a nuke .... Turn the Middle East into Glass."

So if the nuke came from North Korea, does this knee jerk response still stand? Or do we just randomly nuke an Asian country, since one dead Gook is as good as another dead Gook, just like the Arabic people?

[Felix_Nietsche]

Yes, it does change things....North Korea will be gone as well......

Why do you think the US is developing "bunker busting" nukes. These nukes are designed to destroy harden underground facilities. North Korea has extensive underground facilties built into the mountains. Entire towns with schools and military factories exist in these facilities. It is believed that these underground facilities is where most of the WMD and ICBM work occurs.

Traditional nukes could still to the job but they would cause greater civilian casualties. These next generation nukes will minimize civilian casualties and minimize the dangers to neighboring countries....while taking out these facilities.....

The day that North Korea sells a nuke to a terrorist group is the day North Korea ceases in the history books....

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, it does change things....North Korea will be gone as well......

[/ QUOTE ]
Seems reasonable... NK nukes the US, so the US bombs NK and the ME. And destroys itself in the process.

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
Ahh no comments on Hama...the usual liberal tactic when confronted with evidence contrary to their liberal ethos ...ignore it and pretend like it doesnt exist

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe you are right. But so far I have not seen any evidence from you. I have seen you say that Syria has had no problem, not the same as evidence, in my book. Pleace give me references and comentaries by reputable sources.

And it still does not change the basic fact, that if the US bombs ME as much as you seems to want it will destroy itself in the process. Or how do you propose that the US will get the oil and energy it needs when the ME can't export?