Why do people on the left only discuss bad news

[HomerJS]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: HomerJS
If we aren't in the middle of a giant mind fvck, why do almost 50% of people think Saddam had something to do with 9/11? It's called propaganda.

Why are there people who, despite the great preponderance of evidence to the contrary, still insist the earth is flat, that we didn't travel to the moon, or that a jet really didn't crash into the Pentagon on 9/11?

It's because people want to fool themselves or belive the stupid sh!t they want to believe. It has nothing to do whatsoever with propaganda.

Here's how it works, latest example. White House PS says Newsweek prints discredited story and then 17 people killed. Later it's proved the killings had nothing to do with the story and PS tries to say he didn't link the two.

Almost every person in the administration used 9/11 and Saddam in the same sentance untill people believed they were linked. Then they used that as another reason to invade Iraq. When the WMDs are not found the denials start.

As far as jets flying into buildings, that's why we went into AFGANISTAN. We did not have a good reason to invade Iraq.

 

[BBond]

I can't find the original story I remember reading but I found this:

Dead recruit's father wages campaign against 'green card Marines'

And from Daily KOS:

UPDATE -- Note the question mark--9000 Dead GIs In Iraq?

Not what I'm looking for but along the same lines:

15,000 or more US casualties not counted

And this site has links to stories claiming non-citizen troop deaths are not counted:

Getting your green card the hard way...


I'm still looking for the original story I remember reading last year sometime. It's clear that the U.S. military is using anyone and everyone they can get to sign up to fill in the gap in recruiting that Bush's invasion of Iraq has created.

 

[BBond]

Here's the Aztlan article.

Another Big Bush Lie: The Number of Casualties in Iraq

 

[dahunan]

Anyone who does not have something nice to say about the rape of Iraq should just STFU or be fired from their jobs by US senators and possilby thrown in jail

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

sarcasm?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: BBond
I can't find the original story I remember reading but I found this:

Dead recruit's father wages campaign against 'green card Marines'

And from Daily KOS:

UPDATE -- Note the question mark--9000 Dead GIs In Iraq?

Not what I'm looking for but along the same lines:

15,000 or more US casualties not counted

And this site has links to stories claiming non-citizen troop deaths are not counted:

Getting your green card the hard way...


I'm still looking for the original story I remember reading last year sometime. It's clear that the U.S. military is using anyone and everyone they can get to sign up to fill in the gap in recruiting that Bush's invasion of Iraq has created.

I don't believe there are several thousand dead.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/19/13126/2340

 

[piasabird]

Becaust the Democratic party has no solutions, only problems.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Because the Republican party creates only problems.

I agree.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: HomerJS

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: HomerJS
If we aren't in the middle of a giant mind fvck, why do almost 50% of people think Saddam had something to do with 9/11? It's called propaganda.

Why are there people who, despite the great preponderance of evidence to the contrary, still insist the earth is flat, that we didn't travel to the moon, or that a jet really didn't crash into the Pentagon on 9/11?

It's because people want to fool themselves or belive the stupid sh!t they want to believe. It has nothing to do whatsoever with propaganda.

Here's how it works, latest example. White House PS says Newsweek prints discredited story and then 17 people killed. Later it's proved the killings had nothing to do with the story and PS tries to say he didn't link the two.

Almost every person in the administration used 9/11 and Saddam in the same sentance untill people believed they were linked. Then they used that as another reason to invade Iraq. When the WMDs are not found the denials start.

As far as jets flying into buildings, that's why we went into AFGANISTAN. We did not have a good reason to invade Iraq.

Bush himself stated plainly and publicly one more than one occasion that there was no evidence of a link between Saddam and 9/11. But somehow those same people susceptible to Bush's Jedi mind control tricksiness and who hang on his every word missed that? Er, right. :roll:

In Afghanistan we went after bin Laden's power structure.

Iraq is about about making changes in the ME to quell terroism in the long run, as well as plop our a$$ right down in the middle of Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran, -three countries that are primary purveyors of Islamic fundamnealism and the root of terrorism. If you want to be one of those who insist Iraq was all about WMDs, or oil, or profits for Haliburton, keep on fooling yourself.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Because the Democratic party has no solutions, only problems created by the Republicans.

Finished for you

 

[HomerJS]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: HomerJS

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: HomerJS
If we aren't in the middle of a giant mind fvck, why do almost 50% of people think Saddam had something to do with 9/11? It's called propaganda.

Why are there people who, despite the great preponderance of evidence to the contrary, still insist the earth is flat, that we didn't travel to the moon, or that a jet really didn't crash into the Pentagon on 9/11?

It's because people want to fool themselves or belive the stupid sh!t they want to believe. It has nothing to do whatsoever with propaganda.

Here's how it works, latest example. White House PS says Newsweek prints discredited story and then 17 people killed. Later it's proved the killings had nothing to do with the story and PS tries to say he didn't link the two.

Almost every person in the administration used 9/11 and Saddam in the same sentance untill people believed they were linked. Then they used that as another reason to invade Iraq. When the WMDs are not found the denials start.

As far as jets flying into buildings, that's why we went into AFGANISTAN. We did not have a good reason to invade Iraq.

Bush himself stated plainly and publicly one more than one occasion that there was no evidence of a link between Saddam and 9/11. But somehow those same people susceptible to Bush's Jedi mind control tricksiness and who hang on his every word missed that? Er, right. :roll:

In Afghanistan we went after bin Laden's power structure.

Iraq is about about making changes in the ME to quell terroism in the long run, as well as plop our a$$ right down in the middle of Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran, -three countries that are primary purveyors of Islamic fundamnealism and the root of terrorism. If you want to be one of those who insist Iraq was all about WMDs, or oil, or profits for Haliburton, keep on fooling yourself.

Either I'm giving you too much credit or you don't really know how the game is played.

First, Bush did not admit "no link bwtween 9/11 and Saddam" until after we inavded.

Second after Bush finally admitted no link Cheney on down were still making the link. That's about 100 to 1.

Third, the WMDs were the administrations primary reason for invading, not mine.

 

[conjur]

?Uncovering the Rationales for the War on Iraq:
The Words of the Bush Administration, Congress, and the Media
from September 12, 2001 to October 11, 2002?

Devon M. Largio
Senior Honors Thesis
Department of Political Science
University of Illinois



Abstract and Table of Contents
88.5 KB

Executive Summary
75 KB

Thesis
634 KB

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: HomerJS
Either I'm giving you too much credit or you don't really know how the game is played.

Really? Hmmm. If you're so smart, please explain why so many people STILL hold on to the belief long after the fact, as evidenced by the infamous PIPA study? The Jedi mind control theory doesn't seem to account for that fact.

First, Bush did not admit "no link bwtween 9/11 and Saddam" until after we inavded.

Which, according to the PIPA study, wouldn't have mattered if he had made the admission earlier. People still believed there was a link and continue to believe so.

Second after Bush finally admitted no link Cheney on down were still making the link. That's about 100 to 1.

Wrong.

Third, the WMDs were the administrations primary reason for invading, not mine.

Well then maybe you should listen to yourself instead of the administration, like I do?

I really don't care about WMDs being any sort of reason for going into Iraq. That whole debacle is BS anyway because if there were no WMDs, that should have been an issue long, long before Bush came into office (supposedly Saddam destroyed them all in the very early 90s) and should have been addressed properly by Clinton and the UN. Neither apparently had any interest in doing so though for a number of reasons that are becoming clear only now.

 

[HomerJS]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: HomerJS
Either I'm giving you too much credit or you don't really know how the game is played.

Really? Hmmm. If you're so smart, please explain why so many people STILL hold on to the belief long after the fact, as evidenced by the infamous PIPA study? The Jedi mind control theory doesn't seem to account for that fact.
(The country being split between Dems and Repubs you have a pool of 50% willing to believe anything the Bush administration says. Bush isn't smart enough for a Jedi mind trick, Cheney is.)

First, Bush did not admit "no link bwtween 9/11 and Saddam" until after we inavded.

Which, according to the PIPA study, wouldn't have mattered if he had made the admission earlier. People still believed there was a link and continue to believe so. (Because of the constant barriage of administration flunkies making the link.)

Second after Bush finally admitted no link Cheney on down were still making the link. That's about 100 to 1.

Wrong. (Not wrong. Cheney said this on Meet the Press. I saw the show. If I have time I will get the transcripts)

Third, the WMDs were the administrations primary reason for invading, not mine.

Well then maybe you should listen to yourself instead of the administration, like I do?

I don't disagree arguments could be made to invade for stabilizing the ME. My only problem is Bush should have had the balls to be upfont about the reason instead of using the fear of 9/11 and WMDs. If you are saying its ok for Bush to mislead people for and end, admit it and move on.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: HomerJS

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: HomerJS
Either I'm giving you too much credit or you don't really know how the game is played.

Really? Hmmm. If you're so smart, please explain why so many people STILL hold on to the belief long after the fact, as evidenced by the infamous PIPA study? The Jedi mind control theory doesn't seem to account for that fact.
(The country being split between Dems and Repubs you have a pool of 50% willing to believe anything the Bush administration says. Bush isn't smart enough for a Jedi mind trick, Cheney is.)

First, Bush did not admit "no link bwtween 9/11 and Saddam" until after we inavded.

Which, according to the PIPA study, wouldn't have mattered if he had made the admission earlier. People still believed there was a link and continue to believe so. (Because of the constant barriage of administration flunkies making the link.)

Second after Bush finally admitted no link Cheney on down were still making the link. That's about 100 to 1.

Wrong. (Not wrong. Cheney said this on Meet the Press. I saw the show. If I have time I will get the transcripts)

Third, the WMDs were the administrations primary reason for invading, not mine.

Well then maybe you should listen to yourself instead of the administration, like I do?

I don't disagree arguments could be made to invade for stabilizing the ME. My only problem is Bush should have had the balls to be upfont about the reason instead of using the fear of 9/11 and WMDs. If you are saying its ok for Bush to mislead people for and end, admit it and move on.

Yes, yes. Politicians misleading people. It should never happen. And it's such a rare incident when it does. /sarcasm

And let's be honest. Bush couldn't have given the reason I believe we're in Iraq and have gotten much support at all. so he had to go another avenue, one that could garner at least limited support and credibility. And he did what the UN and its contingent of paper tigers never would have collectively had the nads to do itself, but should have done long ago anyway.

 

[sandorski]

2008 can't come soon enough.

 

[HomerJS]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: HomerJS

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: HomerJS
Either I'm giving you too much credit or you don't really know how the game is played.

Really? Hmmm. If you're so smart, please explain why so many people STILL hold on to the belief long after the fact, as evidenced by the infamous PIPA study? The Jedi mind control theory doesn't seem to account for that fact.
(The country being split between Dems and Repubs you have a pool of 50% willing to believe anything the Bush administration says. Bush isn't smart enough for a Jedi mind trick, Cheney is.)

First, Bush did not admit "no link bwtween 9/11 and Saddam" until after we inavded.

Which, according to the PIPA study, wouldn't have mattered if he had made the admission earlier. People still believed there was a link and continue to believe so. (Because of the constant barriage of administration flunkies making the link.)

Second after Bush finally admitted no link Cheney on down were still making the link. That's about 100 to 1.

Wrong. (Not wrong. Cheney said this on Meet the Press. I saw the show. If I have time I will get the transcripts)

Third, the WMDs were the administrations primary reason for invading, not mine.

Well then maybe you should listen to yourself instead of the administration, like I do?

I don't disagree arguments could be made to invade for stabilizing the ME. My only problem is Bush should have had the balls to be upfont about the reason instead of using the fear of 9/11 and WMDs. If you are saying its ok for Bush to mislead people for and end, admit it and move on.

Yes, yes. Politicians misleading people. It should never happen. And it's such a rare incident when it does. /sarcasm

And let's be honest. Bush couldn't have given the reason I believe we're in Iraq and have gotten much support at all. so he had to go another avenue, one that could garner at least limited support and credibility. And he did what the UN and its contingent of paper tigers never would have collectively had the nads to do itself, but should have done long ago anyway.

Hey. a straight answer.

Not going to even bring up the embryonic stem cell thing..Later

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: HomerJS
Why don?t you people on the left ever talk about good news on the war in Iraq?? Recently a new tennis court was constructed in the green zone. It is un-American to discuss anything negative about the war. As Britney Spears said ?We must trust the President in everything that he does?

If 90% of what goes on is negative, shouldn't 90% of the news and discussions focus on that?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Cerb

Originally posted by: HomerJS
Why don?t you people on the left ever talk about good news on the war in Iraq?? Recently a new tennis court was constructed in the green zone. It is un-American to discuss anything negative about the war. As Britney Spears said ?We must trust the President in everything that he does?

If 90% of what goes on is negative, shouldn't 90% of the news and discussions focus on that?

No. Neither should the 8.9% of Netral events be shown. Only the 1.1% of wholesome goodish news.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: sandorski
2008 can't come soon enough.

and the Republicans will still be blaming the debacles of the last 8 years on Clinton :roll:

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: sandorski
2008 can't come soon enough.

and the Republicans will still be blaming the debacles of the last 8 years on Clinton :roll:

And the democrats will still blame their losses on not "getting their message out".

CsG

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: sandorski
2008 can't come soon enough.

and the Republicans will still be blaming the debacles of the last 8 years on Clinton :roll:

And the democrats will still blame their losses on not "getting their message out".

True, pretty tough to do when the lies from the other side works so well on the sheeple.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: sandorski
2008 can't come soon enough.

and the Republicans will still be blaming the debacles of the last 8 years on Clinton :roll:

And the democrats will still blame their losses on not "getting their message out".

True, pretty tough to do when the lies from the other side works so well on the sheeple.

Or what you meant to say was it's tough for the democrats to get their message out when they don't have a coherent plan or message...

CsG

 

[ECUHITMAN]

Seriously, is there any good news about Iraq? Leaving everying about WMD's, Bush, Chaney, Clinton, The UN, Haliburton, etc... out, I ask again what good has been reported about Iraq?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: sandorski
2008 can't come soon enough.

and the Republicans will still be blaming the debacles of the last 8 years on Clinton :roll:

And the democrats will still blame their losses on not "getting their message out".

True, pretty tough to do when the lies from the other side works so well on the sheeple.

Or what you meant to say was it's tough for the democrats to get their message out when they don't have a coherent plan or message...

CsG

That's the problem with people who think for themselves. The right has a much easier job. They fabricate their talking points, then dutifully parrot them in perfect unison.