HAHA! Valves Chris Bokitch on Fragmaster

[OCybrManO]

If you think Fox News is unbiased... you are sadly mistaken.

I find it rather humorous that they trademarked "Fair and Balanced" in 1998... because they are quite obviously conservative.

I have read a lot of books from both sides of the political continuum... and I have to say that I find Al Franken's books to be a very good read.
Partially because they are hilarious... but mostly because when I take the time to research things that are said in his book, they turn out to be true.

Sure, the titles are a bit hostile but it's just to get conservatives angry at him.

Though, to be honest, the title (no, I haven't said the title yet... be patient) in this case isn't much of an exaggeration.

Frankly, most of the "arguments" I have heard from conservatives were based on misquotes, taking quotes out of context, manipulated statistics, personal attacks that have no place in the discussion, or blatant lies.

I recommend you grab a copy of his book "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right" (FOX sued him because the title had "Fair and Balanced" in it, but the the judge said it was an "easy" decision and threw out the case).

Bill O'Reilly in the New York Daily News:
The accusation that Fox is a conservative network is pure propaganda. Poll after poll has demonstrated that Fox's audience is across the board, ideologically and demographically. The latest survey taken by Mediamark Research finds that more ultraconservative viewers watch CNN than Fox.

Notice how he doesn't mention the content of the shows at all... he avoids that completely and only mention that Fox has viewers from both sides... and that CNN has more conservative viewers. He goes on to say that Fox has "shattered the stranglehold the left had on TV news for decades" and that the "liberal-leaning newspapers and publishing houses" have defamed its "fair and balanced" reporting... even though most unbiased studies show that television and newspapers are primarily conservative and have been for many years (due in part to the fact that the people in charge of the media are wealthy conservatives).

More O'Reilly Crap:
Fox News has become the highest-rated news network on cable because we feature lively debate and all honest voices are welcome. We don't do drive-by character assassinations, and we don't denigrate opposing points of view by launching gratuitous personal attacks. Fox's presentation is in the tradition of the raucous town meeting where passion and conviction are on display. We challenge people of all political persuasions.

I'll believe that when I see it.
Let's take a look at two major shows they push in Prime Time:

The O'Reilly Factor:
He has fits of infantile rage whenever someone disagrees with him.
He cuts off their mic if they don't stop talking.
He is misinformed on many issues... but when people try to prove him wrong he does the aforementioned stuff.
He frequently lies about winning two Peabody awards for journalism (they won one Polk award before he joined).
He threatened physical violence on one of the people working on the cover for Franken's latest book (the one I mentioned) because his face looked too blotchy.
... almost as fair and balanced as the next show I'm going to mention.

Hannity and Colmes:
"The #1 nightly debate program on cable news"... yeah... and I'll be the next elected President.
It's rigged... Hannity (outspoken conservative) comes out and does all the talking... Colmes (the "liberal" of the "debates") says something unimportant, agrees, or says nothing at all... and Hannity wins the debate. Same thing every time.
Outside of the show, Franken gave Colmes proof that some things Hannity says repeatedly are false and told him that he should speak up about them... and Colmes said something to the effect of "That's not the format of our show." (The liberal isn't allowed to win a debate? Fair and Balanced reporting at its best.)

On political issues FOX News is about as reliable as George W. Bush.
Interpret that however you like...

I'm not going to discuss him and his administration because this is getting too long as it is... if you want me to go into more detail or discuss other topics I will.

EDIT: Basic spelling and formatting changes.

 

[PvtRyan]

Originally posted by Mr*Pink
excuse me while i LMAO at u PHL hating c0ck whores.

the only reason you dont like fragmaster is because he was right about the delay and made all of you look like fools.

Fragmaster WAS NOT right about the delay, he said it wouldn't make 30 september, like a f*cking million others. His reasons why it wouldn't make it were wrong, he just guessed right.
And even if he was completely right, he behaved like an imature ass, he acted anything but objective.

 

[JavaGuy]

Originally posted by OCybrManO
I have read a lot of books from both sides of the political continuum... and I have to say that I find Al Franken's books to be a very good read.
Partially because they are hilarious... but mostly because when I take the time to research things that are said in his book, they turn out to be true.

Funny... I've also read quite a few books from both sides of the aisle, and while I don't always agree with the conservative point of view, I do find that they use far less mudslinging and exaggerations to get their point across. My views probably fall dead-center... but as a general rule, I wouldn't trust a liberal with a toothpick. No, the conservatives don't have a squeeky clean past... but it sure looks like one when compared to the Clintons, Gore, Davis, Sharpton, Jackson, Condit, etc.

By the way - did you remember to send your Thank You note to China for funding Clinton's second election campaign?

Originally posted by OCybrManO
Frankly, most of the "arguments" I have heard from conservatives were based on misquotes, taking quotes out of context, manipulated statistics, personal attacks that have no place in the discussion, or blatant lies.

This is my favorite part.

I just received a letter from James Carville the other day (assumingly and arrogantly addressing me as 'Fellow Democrat'). In this letter were around 50 lies, exaggerations, etc. I'll cite one as an example:

- The democrats created 80 million jobs, but the Bush Administration killed the economy.

Oh really? And what exactly did the Democrats do to create these 80 million jobs? I don't suppose they were created as a result of an enormous technology boom that began while REAGAN was in office. Nope... we're suppose to believe that it was the glorious work of Democrats and their tax hikes. And Bush killed the economy? Funny how quickly the Democrats forget (or choose not to talk about) that the economical slump began about 8 months before Bush took office. Nation-wide layoffs were abound while Clinton was still running the show. The NASDAQ was already dropping substantially, and the Dow was showing severe signs of weakness. Bush walked into the storm - he didn't create it. I'm not saying Clinton created it, either... but to credit the late 90's economy to the Democrats is an absolute assault on the intelligence of every American. The slump we're in now is the result of an over-inflated economy that was in the midst of the largest technology boom it had ever seen... a bubble that was bound to burst, because that's the nature of the beast.

Now, admittedly, he (Bush) hasn't fixed it (completely)... but it's on a good upswing as we speak, and there are economical indicators that show it. No one knows the magic solution to brininging the Dow back to 11,000 overnight... or how to convince corporate America that they should revert back to their book-cooking of the 90's so the economy appears inflated and healthier than it truly is. And no, Bush's last tax cut isn't agreeable with me... but no president (especially in times like these) are going to make decisions that we all agree with. The last tax cut, in my opinion, was a mistake. If Gore was in office, he'd be trying his own methods and going through his own trial and error, and we'd be bitching about him, instead.


On to the news...

I don't recall other news networks (ABC, NBC, etc) reporting how Bill Clinton spent more time vacationing on Air Force One than any other two presidents COMBINED... but I remember the Associated Press harping on Bush for two weeks because he used an Airforce Fighter and an Aircraft Carrier for a national rally.

I don't recall the AP reporting how Hillary Clinton "helped the struggling citizens of New York" by renting her tax-paid office space for 1.3 million per year (30% more than the next most expensive space used by a Senator).

Is Fox News biased? I certainly believe they are... but not nearly to the extent of the alternatives.

As for "puke politics", exaggerations, and lies go, we need to look no further than the California recall for a counter-example. Arnold S. was smeared from one end of the state to the other by his opponents as well as the local and national news organizations (the LA Times and CNN were the worst offenders)... but hardly a shred of time was spent discussing how Gray Davis got himself into such a rediculous spot in the first place. Interesting.

 

[JavaGuy]

Originally posted by PvtRyan
Fragmaster WAS NOT right about the delay, he said it wouldn't make 30 september, like a f*cking million others. His reasons why it wouldn't make it were wrong, he just guessed right.
And even if he was completely right, he behaved like an imature ass, he acted anything but objective.

I don't recall Fragmaster giving reasons for the delay; he just said it would be delayed. He WAS right. And no, he wasn't just "guessing". He put his money where is mouth was on more than one occassion.

Was he objective? No. He didn't need to be. When you know the sky is blue, you don't need to be objective toward someone who's trying to tell you it's purple.

Did he behave like an immature ass? Only in response to all of us who were acting like immature asses toward him for challenging Valve's release statements.

If anyone needs to take an objective point of view here, I believe it's you.

 

[PvtRyan]

Originally posted by JavaGuy
I don't recall Fragmaster giving reasons for the delay; he just said it would be delayed. He WAS right. And no, he wasn't just "guessing". He put his money where is mouth was on more than one occassion.

Was he objective? No. He didn't need to be. When you know the sky is blue, you don't need to be objective toward someone who's trying to tell you it's purple.

Did he behave like an immature ass? Only in response to all of us who were acting like immature asses toward him for challenging Valve's release statements.

If anyone needs to take an objective point of view here, I believe it's you.

First of all, I never took a real side, I remained fairly neutral about the release date. Altough 30th september after the ECTS looked better and realistic, you never saw me flaming the delay believers, unlike Fragmaster who flamed the 30th september people. The reasons for that were his 'secret sources' which he never revealed. To be credible he will have to do so, otherwise he's just one of all the flaming idiots out there who happened to be right about the delay. But not because of his so called 'evidence'.

 

[JavaGuy]

Originally posted by PvtRyan
you never saw me flaming the delay believers, unlike Fragmaster who flamed the 30th september people.

Just because YOU didn't flame him doesn't mean that half a gillion other people didn't. Does Fragmaster have to wait until you personally address him before he speaks?

Originally posted by PvtRyan
The reasons for that were his 'secret sources' which he never revealed.

If they were never revealed, then how can you say he was wrong about them?

GOTCHYA!

Originally posted by PvtRyan
To be credible he will have to do so

In your eyes, maybe... but not everyone is as stubborn as you. I was one of the many people who thought he was out of his mind. But, he offered up his post at PHL... to many people, that's evidence enough that he knew what he was talking about. You don't bet the farm unless you're right.

 

[OCybrManO]

The crime rates lowered every year while Clinton was in office, he doubled the funding of the FBI and CIA to prevent terrorism (they successfully prevented a 747 from crashing into the CIA and a WTC attack as well as smaller terrorist acts), built up the military, the economy was rising, Clinton actually got involved in many foreign affairs in an attempt to peacefully resolve conflicts, Hillary pushed for better health insurance, blah blah blah...

... and you say he was a bad President?
... because he spent more time outside of the White House?
... and you claim that he had nothing to do with the economy?

Bush spent more vacation time (not in Air Force One doing important things involving international affairs... on his ranch, playing golf) in the first several months than any president including Clinton did in their entire terms, he ignored direct reports from the FBI & CIA about impending terrorist attacks (including a memo from one of them being as specific as saying that the terrorists were planning on hijacking planes and flying them into the World Trade Center) and significantly cut the funding of anti-terrorist programs or removed them completely, while the economy was heading south he made several multi-billion dollar tax cuts (of which approximately 86% goes to the upper 40%... contrary to his repeated "by far the vast majority of the tax cut will go to the lower half" statements), his administration lowered environmental regulations significantly, he attacked Iraq (for oil? deny it all you want, but many people in his administration, and his family, are directly involved in the oil industry and would profit a great deal from their involvement in Iraq) without any evidence and without backing from the UN, and his election itself was a farce.

To say Bush hasn't fixed the economy (completely) is true... but it is underestimating the damage he has done.

Yet, you talk about how bad Clinton was? Why?
He lied about getting a blow job?
If I had Hillary for a wife I wouldn't want her to find out.

Gore, on the other hand, never said "I invented the Internet" like was attributed to him. He said "I took the initiative in creating the Internet" which is true because he was one of the handful of leaders that tirelessly fought to get the funding needed to turn what was ARPANet (the emergency military network) into what is now the Internet. If the people like him had not pushed so hard, there would have been no government funding of the Internet and we would not be talking right now. He also said that a character in a book was based on him (which was later confirmed by the author, but the damage was done and most people would never hear about this) and the media jumped on him about it.

He was from then on labeled the "Exaggerator" by the mildly-conservative media and the "Liar" by the ultra-conservatives... when what he had said was true.

Then, when the antiquated Electoral College screwed him out of the presidency and he kept asking for recounts the conservative media outlets called him "pathetic."

I have seen quite a bit of bitching and moaning on various news channels about the reason Gray Davis was being recalled... and obviously he wouldn't have been recalled if the press hadn't told the public about it in the first place.

... but, is Arnold a better candidate? Not in my opinion. He had quite a few sexual-related charges brought against him, all I saw him do during the political debates was personal attacks against his opponents, and when he does make his own statements his "speech writers" have to come in and write apologies/retractions for them.

EDIT: Fixed a typo.

 

[JavaGuy]

Ahh... your true colors shine through.

You slam Republicans for lying, but when someone brings up how Clinton lied to a FEDERAL GRAND JURY, you excuse it because it was about a "blow job". It's good to see that you're capable of excusing lies, exaggerations, etc, as long as their "for good or insignificant reasons".

Originally posted by OCybrManO
The crime rates lowered every year while Clinton was in office,

That tends to happen when times are good. But, that's not to say that times were good because of Clinton.

Originally posted by OCybrManO
he doubled the funding of the FBI and CIA to prevent terrorism

So when they fired that one missle at Osama bin Laden (and missed), you'd call that "preventing terrorism"? The fact of the matter is, if Clinton had taken terror threats seriously (the ones you say Bush ignored), we might not be where we are right now.

Oh yeah... and Somalia was a RAGING success! GOOD WORK BILL!

To say that Clinton has been successful at preventing terror is a joke. He wasn't any more successful than anyone else, and in many cases, he was a total and utter failure. There's a reason the military refused to salute him.

Speaking of terror, you obviously aren't aware of the convicted Cuban terrorists that Bill Clinton pardoned (and they didn't even go throught he pardon process via the Justice Department), who then subsequently contributed substantial donations to Hillary's campaign. Yeah, Clinton was "Mr. Anti-Terror" alright. Please.

Originally posted by OCybrManO
... because he spent more time outside of the White House?

I didn't say he was a bad president because he spent time out of the White House. I said the media ignored the fact that he blew who-knows-how-many unecessary dollars parading ON VACATION around the globe in an aircraft that you and I pay for, but when Bush uses an aircraft carrier for a national rally, he's pounced on for 14 days. I'm sorry I didn't make that clear enough (not sure where I was unclear, but oh well) in my original post.

Originally posted by OCybrManO
ignored direct reports from the FBI & CIA about impending terrorist attacks

I don't know where you're getting your information from, but it's pretty widely known that part of the reason the FBI was under such scrutiny after 9/11 is because he DIDN'T get much of that information. It was filtered out before it ever reached his desk... of course, if you were watching your liberal news channels, I can understand how you didn't get access to this information .

Originally posted by OCybrManO
Then, when the antiquated Electoral College screwed him out of the presidency and he kept asking for recounts the conservative media outlets called him "pathetic."

You obviously didn't follow the 2000 election very closely. Bush won (albeit by a very small margin) in every recount they had, and the EC voted in accordance with Florida's population. Are you saying Gore got screwed because the EC didn't further disenfranchise Florida's voters?

Originally posted by OCybrManO
I have seen quite a bit of bitching and moaning on various news channels about the reason Gray Davis was being recalled... and obviously he wouldn't have been recalled if the press hadn't told the public about it in the first place.

Or maybe they decided to recall him when he ****ed their economy in the ass for the last time by raising the vehicle tax by 300%.

I really don't feel like discussing this further. I've made my points above, and I'm sure you'll reply with more of yours. Honestly, you've taken a very narrow-minded point of view with regard to your initial accusations. You accused the Republic Party of spin-doctoring, lying, etc... but when those same weaknesses are pointed out in your own party, you have nothing but excuses for why "it was okay that time" or it "didn't count that time".

With regard to foreign affairs, you failed to address what I said about Bill Clinton receiving the majority of his campaign funding from China (illegal, mind you). And since you seem so concerned about our nation's women (judging by your Arnold S. remarks), I'm surprised you haven't mentioned Bill's numerous harrassment suits (don't worry - I'm sure they were just some of many right-winged conspiracies).

And when you summate Clinton as a champion of anti-terrorism... well... let's just say we're too far apart to nurture this discussion any further.

 

[Korgoth]

[q]By the way - did you remember to send your Thank You note to China for funding Clinton's second election campaign?[/q]
By the way did you send your money to china for the G W Bush action figure with the kung fu grip wearing his flightsuite? Yeah the left is all about mudslinging but the right loves to keep quiet all the while they spy cheat and steal their way into office.. this really isn't the point, i thought everyone hated fragmaster so i thought this thread would be interesting not another flame war jesus people, everyone, BREATHE

 

[JavaGuy]

Originally posted by Innervision961
By the way did you send your money to china for the G W Bush action figure with the kung fu grip wearing his flightsuite? Yeah the left is all about mudslinging but the right loves to keep quiet all the while they spy cheat and steal their way into office..

Shh... the adults are speaking right now.

You don't think that obtaining campaign donations for terrorist pardons or from communist countries counts as "cheating and stealing" their way into the White House (or the Senate, in Hillary's case)???

Holy shit man. What planet are you from?

When Bush used the aircraft carrier for a national address and when he used a picture of himself in the Oval Office in a donation mailing, and was mauled and marred by the press for abusing his power. However, those acts PAIL in comparison to Clinton's Pardon-For-Dollars program, or Hillary's obstruction of justice during several federal investigations, because, in her words, "they can't do this -- we're the PRESIDENT!", or Bill using AF1 as if he owned and paid for it by himself.

I've never said the Republicans are clean - they aren't. But when I break the hypocricy down point by point, I take most issue with the Democratic Party. From an issues standpoint, you'd probably find that I don't lean either way. It's just that Republicans engage less in puke politics than Democrats do. Sorry - that's just the way it is.

My Views

-Anti-Abortion (Conservative)

-Anti-Capitol Punishment (Liberal)

-Campaign Finance Reform (Conservative)

-Environmental Protection (Liberal, but I don't take it to the nth degree like some lunies do)

-Military Stength (Conservative, because I feel that as the worlds only Superpower, we have a duty to assist countries who request our help or are committing crimes against humanity)

-Regulated Utilities (to an extend) (Liberal, because a few bad apples in corporate America have demonstrated that such responsibility should only be left to the government, and subsequently, the voters)

-Small Government, with some exceptions (Conservative, because I'm not a fan of an abysmal welfare program that offers little incentive for getting off your dead ass and getting a job. The concept of welfare isn't bad, but the way it's employed in our nation is a joke.)

-Gun Control to an extent (Liberal, because the Republican Party has completely misinterpreted our gun rights... last I checked, I wasn't part of an organized militia)

That's the jist.

 

[MaddMexican]

"Gun Control to an extent (Liberal, because the Republican Party has completely misinterpreted our gun rights... last I checked, I wasn't part of an organized militia)"

Legal Definition of "The Militia"


The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States.

 

[JavaGuy]

Originally posted by MaddMexican
[BLegal Definition of "The Militia"


The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States. [/B]

Militia

1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

The only one that remotely applies to the average American male is #3... HOWEVER, we're not ORGANIZED, which is what our Constitution declares as a necessary term. The RTBA pertains to an "organized militia", which the average Joe (or Jane) is not.


Now, let's use your definition: once a male reaches the age of 46, he no longer has the RTBA .

[EDIT]

Here it is from the horse's mouth:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This text does not afford you nor I the right to bear arms.

1. We are not 'well-regulated'.
2. We are not, as civilians in the current state of our State or Country, necessary to the security of a free State.

Therefore, we should not be permitted to own, carry, or otherwise handle a firearm.

 

[Hyped]

I'll bet all you wannabe commies watch CNN and consider that "real news." I'm not defending fox news, just pointing it out.

 

[liminal]

I’m no Clinton fanboy but how can you compare a president flying around the world on diplomatic missions to a photo-op on a multi-billion dollar military aircraft carrier?

 

[ValVed RaY]

Originally posted by slapdragon
nice to see Valve employees are spending time flaming fan site webmasters instead of providing information about what is going on, they're just mad because he doesnt suck up to them like some of the other sites

couldn't have said it any better

=]

 

[JavaGuy]

Originally posted by liminal
I’m no Clinton fanboy but how can you compare a president flying around the world on diplomatic missions to a photo-op on a multi-billion dollar military aircraft carrier?

1. Clinton wasn't just flying around on "diplomatic missions". Did you not read the VACATION part? Yes, he used it for official purposes, but he also used it (a LOT) for personal use... far more than any other two Presidents combined.


2. Just because the "multi-billion dollar" aircraft cost several billion dollars, doesn't mean that's how much it cost for Bush to land there. The aircraft carrier was already scheduled to be there. The story that was made of this was nothing more than a few desperate Democrats trying to CREATE news (much like CNN does on a regular basis) out of NOTHING.

The main difference here is that the Bush landing had a PURPOSE... it was a national rally to boost morale. Were there political motivations, too? Probabably... but not NEARLY to the extent of the stories it was blown into. You could make the argument that every Presidential appearance is politically motivated. Accusing Bush of abusing his power because of the aircraft carrier landing is absolutely IDIOTIC. You could come up with a laundry list of abuses of power (the Mondale memorial, for starters) that make that landing look like just another day... and that's really all it was.

 

[MaddMexican]

"Therefore, we should not be permitted to own, carry, or otherwise handle a firearm."

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispenable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." -- George Washington, Commanding General of the Continental Army, Father of Our Country and First President of the United States in a speech to Congress, January 7, 1790

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government." -- Thomas Jefferson, Author of The Declaration of Independence, and Third President of the United States

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...(T)he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." (Freeman's Journal, 20 Feb 1778)

 

[Homer]

There is no need to post anything political on here, the majority of the people on this forum are young liberals, and thus all your gunna get is angry misinformation from every direction if you post anything conservative/moderate.
These people will debate the meaning of the word 'is' at the drop of a hat, so just keep your political debates outa here. All your gunna get is pissed off if you defend fox news(which I am watching now btw).

 

[liminal]

Accusing Bush of abusing his power because of the aircraft carrier landing is absolutely IDIOTIC. [/B]

Have you any idea at all about the operational costs of an Aircraft Carrier?

Also, don't call me idiotic for stating an opinon. It diminishes your points and makes you sound less than “moderate”.

 

[MaddMexican]

"Have you any idea at all about the operational costs of an Aircraft Carrier?"

The carrier was 30 miles from the port in San Diego. It was already on it's way home.

 

[JavaGuy]

Originally posted by liminal
Have you any idea at all about the operational costs of an Aircraft Carrier?

Also, don't call me idiotic for stating an opinon. It diminishes your points and makes you sound less than “moderate”.

Even though I've stated it twice, you're still obviously unaware that the aircraft carrier was already scheduled to be at that location on that date at that time. I don't know if I can be more clear than that.

I may sound "less than moderate", but you sound as if you're reading the first 3 words of my posts and then responding.

 

[liminal]

I read all the posts. I'm glad that we can at least agree that you are not being moderate.

 

[Korgoth]

Originally posted by JavaGuy
Shh... the adults are speaking right now.

Oh the adults are speaking huh? then you better shut up and listen... Not only was the air craft carrier a farce (considering bush flew out of date plains during his military stint, just so he wouldn't have to go over seas during vietnam, and you wanna no something more outrageous? Well get this the republican party has actually decided to use the world trade center remains as its hosting ground and relection campaign kick off for 2004 and if thats not propaganda and manipulation then i don't know what is.... And just read this if you think bush's shit don't stink:

"The Bin Ladens are one of the wealthiest families in Saudi Arabia. Their huge construction firm virtually built the country, from the roads and power plants to the skyscrapers and government buildings. They built some of the airstrips America used in your Bush seniors Gulf war. Billionaires many times over, they soon began investing in other ventures around the world, including the US. They have extensive business dealings with Citigroup, General Electric, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, and the Fremont Group.

According to the New Yorker, the bin Laden family also owns a part of Microsoft and the airline and defence giant Boeing. They have donated $2m to your alma mater, Harvard University, and tens of thousands to the Middle East Policy Council, a think-tank headed by a former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Charles Freeman. In addition to the property they own in Texas, they also have real estate in Florida and Massachusetts. In short, they have their hands deep in our pants.

Unfortunately, as you know, Mr Bush, Salem bin Laden died in a plane crash in Texas in 1988. Salem's brothers - there are around 50 of them, including Osama - continued to run the family companies and investments.

After leaving office, your father became a highly paid consultant for a company known as the Carlyle Group - one of the nation's largest defence contractors. One of the investors in the Carlyle Group - to the tune of at least $2m - was none other than the Bin Laden family. Until 1994, you headed a company called CaterAir, which was owned by the Carlyle Group.

After September 11, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal both ran stories pointing out this connection. Your first response, Mr Bush, was to ignore it. Then your army of pundits went into spin control. They said, we can't paint these Bin Ladens with the same brush we use for Osama. They have disowned Osama! They have nothing to do with him! These are the good Bin Ladens.

And then the video footage came out. It showed a number of these "good" Bin Ladens - including Osama's mother, a sister and two brothers - with Osama at his son's wedding just six and a half months before September 11. It was no secret to the CIA that Osama bin Laden had access to his family fortune (his share is estimated to be at least $30m), and the Bin Ladens, as well as other Saudis, kept Osama and his group, al-Qaida, well funded.

You've gotten a free ride from the media, though they know everything I have just written to be the truth. They seem unwilling or afraid to ask you a simple question, Mr Bush: WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?

In case you don't understand just how bizarre the media's silence is regarding the Bush-Bin Laden connections, let me draw an analogy to how the press or Congress might have handled something like this if the same shoe had been on the Clinton foot. If, after the terrorist attack on the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, it had been revealed that President Bill Clinton and his family had financial dealings with Timothy McVeigh's family, what do you think your Republican party and the media would have done with that one?"

Kinda funny all you saw before we went to iraq was looped footage of saddam firing his rifle, and chirac and saddam shaking hands... You never once saw the video footage of donald rumsfield shaking hands with saddam during iran/iraq conflict in the 80's when bush senior was in office, nor did you ever see video footage of saddam accepting the key to the city of detroit for his wealthy donations to the catholic church there so don't tell me bush is a better man than clinton, at least with clinton we had a 400 million dollar surplace and the unemployment rate was at all time lows, what do we got now? A never ending war on terror, a war in iraq, bruised international relations, a deficiet that runs in the billions and arnold schwartzenneger is going to fix california? HA!
Edit: lots of typos im to lazy to fix them, get over it

 

[JavaGuy]

Originally posted by liminal
I read all the posts. I'm glad that we can at least agree that you are not being moderate.

WOW! Way to side-step the issue! Nice job!

Do you care to address my POINT, or are you hoping it will fade away since you were so mistaken (or do you still actually believe that it 'cost billions of dollars for Bush to land there')?

And at the Pentagon, several Navy officials said there was no delay or cost overrun due to Bush's trip to the carrier.

- The Associated Press

Next.

 

[silent]

This is a halflife2 forum you ****ing idiots. duh. Go speak somewhere else and stop wasting forum space.

 

[Homer]

Originally posted by liminal
Have you any idea at all about the operational costs of an Aircraft Carrier?

Also, don't call me idiotic for stating an opinon. It diminishes your points and makes you sound less than “moderate”.

It actually costed about the same ammount for bush to pull that stunt as it would have for him to have taken marine one. I can not imagine why anyone gives a damn about him flying out there, its not like hes the only presedent who ever gave a speach somewhere he couldnt walk to.

What everyone should be worried about is the fact that despite a decent tax policy, bush's domestic spending is through the roof. hes spending like a democrat, and taxing like a republican. that DOES NOT WORK. well, atleast hes doing the right thing in iraq. :-/

 

[liminal]

lol. I think JavaGuy wants to "step outside with me and do the dukes".

We could drag this out but the fact is I agree with some of what you say and I don't agree with some other points. But while debating a point never bring things down to name-calling.

This goes for every post on this site. Keep it civil. Act grown-up.

Back to HL-2 talk....

 

[Korgoth]

ah damnit i wasted all that time writing up there and no snappy comments! grrrr yes back to hl-2

 

[JavaGuy]

Originally posted by Innervision961
shut up and listen

**** you in the ass (sideways).

I can be a dickhead, too.

Originally posted by Innervision961
Not only was the air craft carrier a farce

Why? Because it makes him "look good"?

The soldiers interviewed on that carrier expressed to the media how grateful they were when they were welcomed home by their President. I'm sorry you and your liberal fanatics find that to be a negative thing.

Originally posted by Innervision961
"The Bin Ladens are one of the wealthiest families in Saudi Arabia. Their huge construction firm virtually built the country, from the roads and power plants to the skyscrapers and government buildings. They built some of the airstrips America used in your Bush seniors Gulf war. Billionaires many times over, they soon began investing in other ventures around the world, including the US. They have extensive business dealings with Citigroup, General Electric, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, and the Fremont Group.

According to the New Yorker, the bin Laden family also owns a part of Microsoft and the airline and defence giant Boeing. They have donated $2m to your alma mater, Harvard University, and tens of thousands to the Middle East Policy Council, a think-tank headed by a former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Charles Freeman. In addition to the property they own in Texas, they also have real estate in Florida and Massachusetts. In short, they have their hands deep in our pants.

Unfortunately, as you know, Mr Bush, Salem bin Laden died in a plane crash in Texas in 1988. Salem's brothers - there are around 50 of them, including Osama - continued to run the family companies and investments.

After leaving office, your father became a highly paid consultant for a company known as the Carlyle Group - one of the nation's largest defence contractors. One of the investors in the Carlyle Group - to the tune of at least $2m - was none other than the Bin Laden family. Until 1994, you headed a company called CaterAir, which was owned by the Carlyle Group.

After September 11, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal both ran stories pointing out this connection. Your first response, Mr Bush, was to ignore it. Then your army of pundits went into spin control. They said, we can't paint these Bin Ladens with the same brush we use for Osama. They have disowned Osama! They have nothing to do with him! These are the good Bin Ladens.

And then the video footage came out. It showed a number of these "good" Bin Ladens - including Osama's mother, a sister and two brothers - with Osama at his son's wedding just six and a half months before September 11. It was no secret to the CIA that Osama bin Laden had access to his family fortune (his share is estimated to be at least $30m), and the Bin Ladens, as well as other Saudis, kept Osama and his group, al-Qaida, well funded.

You've gotten a free ride from the media, though they know everything I have just written to be the truth. They seem unwilling or afraid to ask you a simple question, Mr Bush: WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?

In case you don't understand just how bizarre the media's silence is regarding the Bush-Bin Laden connections, let me draw an analogy to how the press or Congress might have handled something like this if the same shoe had been on the Clinton foot. If, after the terrorist attack on the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, it had been revealed that President Bill Clinton and his family had financial dealings with Timothy McVeigh's family, what do you think your Republican party and the media would have done with that one?"

Kinda funny all you saw before we went to iraq was looped footage of saddam firing his rifle, and chirac and saddam shaking hands... You never once saw the video footage of donald rumsfield shaking hands with saddam during iran/iraq conflict in the 80's when bush senior was in office, nor did you ever see video footage of saddam accepting the key to the city of detroit for his wealthy donations to the catholic church there so don't tell me bush is a better man than clinton, at least with clinton we had a 400 million dollar surplace and the unemployment rate was at all time lows, what do we got now? A never ending war on terror, a war in iraq, bruised international relations, a deficiet that runs in the billions and arnold schwartzenneger is going to fix california? HA!

This is borderline hysterical.

NEWSFLASH: The Bin Laden family has DISOWNED Osama. The rest of them have been found to be upstanding individuals in their own right.

Now, that's beside the point. According to you, Bush is a bad bad boy because:

- Went to a school that the BL family made a donation to
- The BL family has ties to a bunch of different corporations
- The BL family built airstrips for a war we led
- The BL family has visited Texas

OMG! You're right! Bush is BAD!

ANYWHO....

 

[Homer]

Originally posted by Innervision961

Kinda funny all you saw before we went to iraq was looped footage of saddam firing his rifle, and chirac and saddam shaking hands... You never once saw the video footage of donald rumsfield shaking hands with saddam during iran/iraq conflict in the 80's when bush senior was in office, nor did you ever see video footage of saddam accepting the key to the city of detroit for his wealthy donations to the catholic church there so don't tell me bush is a better man than clinton, at least with clinton we had a 400 million dollar surplace and the unemployment rate was at all time lows, what do we got now? A never ending war on terror, a war in iraq, bruised international relations, a deficiet that runs in the billions and arnold schwartzenneger is going to fix california? HA!
Edit: lots of typos im to lazy to fix them, get over it

first off, regan was the one in office(bush was only vp) durring the iraq iran war(80-88), and at the time iraq was the lesser of two evils. we work with a lot of evil nations in the intrest of peace, and that cant be helped in the world we live in. If we were to stand up to all the antions who do evil things people like you would be crying about our war-mongering.

Bush is a MUCH better man than clinton if you hold a man to ANY moral standards. You can not put a price on demoralizing a nation.

What would you have us do about terrorism? just sit here and take it because the french are going to cry if we kill murderers? this war was thrust upon us, and we would be fools of the highest magnitude if we just let things stand as they are.

 

[JavaGuy]

Originally posted by liminal
lol. I think JavaGuy wants to "step outside with me and do the dukes".

We could drag this out but the fact is I agree with some of what you say and I don't agree with some other points. But while debating a point never bring things down to name-calling.

This goes for every post on this site. Keep it civil. Act grown-up.

Back to HL-2 talk....

Yes... pardon me for getting frustrated when you kept ignoring a pretty crucial point that completely negated what you said.

 

[MaddMexican]

The only reason we have not gone into Saudi arabia is the fact that the Saudis have over one trillion dollars invested in our economy. If they were to pull out our stock market would crash.

 

[JavaGuy]

Originally posted by Homer
first off, regan was the one in office(bush was only vp) durring the iraq iran war(80-88), and at the time iraq was the lesser of two evils. we work with a lot of evil nations in the intrest of peace, and that cant be helped in the world we live in. If we were to stand up to all the antions who do evil things people like you would be crying about our war-mongering.

Bush is a MUCH better man than clinton if you hold a man to ANY moral standards. You can not put a price on demoralizing a nation.

What would you have us do about terrorism? just sit here and take it because the french are going to cry if we kill murderers? this war was thrust upon us, and we would be fools of the highest magnitude if we just let things stand as they are.

Good post :cheers:

 

[Korgoth]

What would i do about terrorism? No i wouldn't just sit here and take it cuz the french would cry I would attack the right ****ing country and not lie to everyone to make them think someone else did it! And you say clinton demoralized this country? What for a blowjob? You moron if it weren't for the republicans jumping all over it and making it a bigger deal than it really was not many people would even know! So who does the blame go to and woopity dooooo i got my dates mixed up so what bush senior was vp, no president he was still there and so was rummy, but i guess its ok to sell the WMD then use that as an excuse to attack them only to find out they weren't lying and they really did destroy the weapons in the 90's show me the proof otherwise, and if you want my proof look at the UN weapons inspection reports, reports that never were fully complete only because someone didn't want to think up another excuse to spend billions and murder thousands

 

[JavaGuy]

Originally posted by MaddMexican
The only reason we have not gone into Saudi arabia is the fact that the Saudis have over one trillion dollars invested in our economy. If they were to pull out our stock market would crash.

Which, in turn, creates quite the catch-22. On the one hand, if nothing is done about it, Bush is accused of supporting terrorism. If he DOES do something about it, then he's accused of wrecking our economy and starting a war.

I've said it many times, and I'll say it again: I'm not Bush's biggest fan. In fact, I pretty much just view him as the least of many evils with regard to the current crop of Presidential hopefuls. BUT, to say that he hasn't done enough to combat terrorism is... well... you know where I'm going.

 

[MaddMexican]

I agree.

 

[JavaGuy]

Originally posted by Innervision961
What would i do about terrorism? No i wouldn't just sit here and take it cuz the french would cry I would attack the right ****ing country and not lie to everyone to make them think someone else did it!

Yeah, you're right... we probably just should have continued to let Saddam Hussein rape the women Iraq, torture political dissidents and under-performing athletes, and gas any group of people that pose any sort of political threat.

Good plan. Bush sucks for not doing it your way.

 

[Korgoth]

well were are the hugs kisses and flowers we were promised before we went to iraq huh? We liberated them only so that we could rape their women break into their houses at night with our hi tech weapons and terrify the sh*t out of innocent people day in and day out, i guess land mines and RPGs are a good bomb substitute, call me crazy huhuhuhuh but thats not my idea of liberation or freedom

Edit: oooops almost forgot, one good thing is going on there, the oil ministry is secure, screw the schools hospitals and museums as long as the oil ministry is safe thats all that matters, just a coincidence we secured it first huh? yeah who needs water and electricity anyway

 

[JavaGuy]

Originally posted by Innervision961
What would i do about terrorism? No i wouldn't just sit here and take it cuz the french would cry I would attack the right ****ing country and not lie to everyone to make them think someone else did it! And you say clinton demoralized this country? What for a blowjob? You moron if it weren't for the republicans jumping all over it and making it a bigger deal than it really was not many people would even know! So who does the blame go to and woopity dooooo i got my dates mixed up so what bush senior was vp, no president he was still there and so was rummy, but i guess its ok to sell the WMD then use that as an excuse to attack them only to find out they weren't lying and they really did destroy the weapons in the 90's show me the proof otherwise, and if you want my proof look at the UN weapons inspection reports, reports that never were fully complete only because someone didn't want to think up another excuse to spend billions and murder thousands

It wasn't the fact that Clinton had an affair with an intern that's at the core of the problem. It's the fact that:

a) he lied to a FGJ
b) he ran on a platform of ethics and high standards

He broke the law AND his own campaign promises. Routinely. There's nothing respectable about Clinton other than he managed to put himself in the White House at a good time; when the country was reaping the rewards of a technology boom and an economy that Reagan laid the groundwork for.

PS: You need a new keyboard. The one you have has a broken (.) key.

 

[MaddMexican]

Don’t forget his record as governor of Arkansas.