I was misled

Luigi de Guzman said:

Quoted message said:

What is it that irritates you so about factual reporting.

Quoted message said:

I'm not irritated about factual reporting.

Quoted message said:

I am mildly irritated that rbm is going to be turned into yet
another front for the US Presidential election.

This like other topics we might choose not to read is each reader's
prerogative to skip or not. Off topic trouble arises when within a
thread someone takes advantage of folks who are following the subject
by introducing another agenda such as helmets under tire problems.
That is not what is happening here.

Quoted message said:

You've been around on the rec.bicycles.* hierarchy much longer than
I have, so I know you won't take kindly to a n00b like me
reproaching you for posting something so blatantly off-topic as
this. But perhaps there are regular NG readers who want to talk
about bicycles and wish not to have the ugliness of the present
electoral campaign intrude upon that discussion?

Those people who disagree with exposing the lies of this
administration failed to read Orwell's 1984 and do not recognize
Newspeak when the see it.

http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ns_frames.html

They believe the American way is so perfect that if our leader says
it, it must be the truth. Even Dan Quayle was saved by that axiom.

http://www.xmission.com/~mwalker/DQ/

Just remember that GWB had no comment when he was told Ronald Reagan
had died. It took him six hours to get a script from his mentors
before he could give an official statement at midnight from his trip in
Europe. All this stuff is scripted and filtered. Discussing this in
any and all newsgroups is an urgent matter for the survival of our
nation as a democracy as the hatchet man John Ashcroft hacks away at
civil liberties and international law. The ugly brutality of our
administration is a huge blot on the nation. If you follow foreign
news you could see haw bad we look in the eyes of the world. BBC news
is mild compared to other continental news sources. I don't know
what is being said in Asia.

Jobst Brandt
[email hidden]

Luigi de Guzman said:

Quoted message said:

What is it that irritates you so about factual reporting.

Quoted message said:

I'm not irritated about factual reporting.

Quoted message said:

I am mildly irritated that rbm is going to be turned into yet
another front for the US Presidential election.

This like other topics we might choose not to read is each reader's
prerogative to skip or not. Off topic trouble arises when within a
thread someone takes advantage of folks who are following the subject
by introducing another agenda such as helmets under tire problems.
That is not what is happening here.

Quoted message said:

You've been around on the rec.bicycles.* hierarchy much longer than
I have, so I know you won't take kindly to a n00b like me
reproaching you for posting something so blatantly off-topic as
this. But perhaps there are regular NG readers who want to talk
about bicycles and wish not to have the ugliness of the present
electoral campaign intrude upon that discussion?

Those people who disagree with exposing the lies of this
administration failed to read Orwell's 1984 and do not recognize
Newspeak when the see it.

http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ns_frames.html

They believe the American way is so perfect that if our leader says
it, it must be the truth. Even Dan Quayle was saved by that axiom.

http://www.xmission.com/~mwalker/DQ/

Just remember that GWB had no comment when he was told Ronald Reagan
had died. It took him six hours to get a script from his mentors
before he could give an official statement at midnight from his trip in
Europe. All this stuff is scripted and filtered. Discussing this in
any and all newsgroups is an urgent matter for the survival of our
nation as a democracy as the hatchet man John Ashcroft hacks away at
civil liberties and international law. The ugly brutality of our
administration is a huge blot on the nation. If you follow foreign
news you could see haw bad we look in the eyes of the world. BBC news
is mild compared to other continental news sources. I don't know
what is being said in Asia.

Jobst Brandt
[email hidden]

"Kevan Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 16:37:23 GMT, "Pete" <[email hidden]> from Road Runner

High

Quoted message said:

Speed Online urlhttp://www.rr.com/url said:

"Kevan Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

It's not like it matters. Both men are comitted to continuing the

illegal

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

occupation of Iraq, heaping more misery on a country which should by

rights be

Quoted message said:

getting reparations payments instead. Bush shouldn't be President; he

should

Quoted message said:

be in the dock for war crimes. This Iraq War is a great national shame.

You mean the UN sanctioned "illegal occupation" put in place after GW I?

Do not mislead people. The war was never "UN Sanctioned," and there wasn't

an

Quoted message said:

occupation until after the war. Pete, I'm ashamed for you. I know you know
better than to lie like that to cover for Bush.

The comment was on the 'continuing the illegal occupation' part.

Which 'occupation' are we talking about continuing?

Pete

"Pete" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Kevan Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 16:37:23 GMT, "Pete" <[email hidden]> from Road Runner

High

Quoted message said:

Speed Online urlhttp://www.rr.com/url said:

"Kevan Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote

>
> It's not like it matters. Both men are comitted to continuing the

illegal

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> occupation of Iraq, heaping more misery on a country which should by
rights be
> getting reparations payments instead. Bush shouldn't be President; he
should
> be in the dock for war crimes. This Iraq War is a great national

shame.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You mean the UN sanctioned "illegal occupation" put in place after GW

I?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Do not mislead people. The war was never "UN Sanctioned," and there

wasn't

Quoted message said:

an

Quoted message said:

occupation until after the war. Pete, I'm ashamed for you. I know you

know

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

better than to lie like that to cover for Bush.

The comment was on the 'continuing the illegal occupation' part.

Which 'occupation' are we talking about continuing?

Pete

When I read the original posts, it seemed that the 'continuing the illegal
occupation' comment related to starting the current action to continue some
previous illegal occupation.

Maybe I skimmed through it too fast, maybe I misread it. If, in fact, it
only refers to continuing the *current* armed action, then I fully retract
my "UN sanctioned" statement, and let's move on.

Pete
one of the hazards of text only communication from afar.

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 20:51:46 GMT, "Pete" <[email hidden]> from Road Runner High

Speed Online urlhttp://www.rr.com/url said:

Which 'occupation' are we talking about continuing?

OK, Clinton, Jr. I guess next you'll start parsing what thge meaning of "is"
is.

--
Kevan Smith
[email hidden]

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 21:25:54 GMT, "Pete" <[email hidden]> from Road Runner High

Speed Online urlhttp://www.rr.com/url said:

Maybe I skimmed through it too fast, maybe I misread it. If, in fact, it
only refers to continuing the *current* armed action, then I fully retract
my "UN sanctioned" statement, and let's move on.

Call it a war, and call for its end.

--
Kevan Smith
[email hidden]

"Kevan Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Easy solutions? No, you are right. There are none. Hard, but moral and

fair

Quoted message said:

solutions? Well, the following steps would be a good start:

1) The immediate withdrawal of all occupation troops from Iraq and from a
buffer zone around its borders.

There seems to be two major factions in Iraq. One that only wants peace, and
to be left alone to rebuild and maybe start a democracy of some sort. The
other apparently wants to incite a civil war, hoping they come out on top.

If all non-Iraqi troops pull out, can the Iraqi Prime Minister protect his
own ass, much less the rest of the country?

Quoted message said:

2) The immediate resignation of Bush and his top administration officials,
particularly Cheney Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell and Wolfowitz. They should

turn

Quoted message said:

themselves in to the Hague for eventual trial as war criminals. (Blair and
other top Brits shoudl join them.) The constitutional crisis this would

cause

Quoted message said:

is no greater than the current one of a sitting President waging an

illegal

Quoted message said:

war based on cooked evidence. In some ways, it is less, because we have
procedures for replacing office holders.

No comment.

Quoted message said:

3) The suspension of all activities of non-Iraqi corporations in Iraq,

with

Quoted message said:

special attention paid to energy companies. The goal here is to return to

the

Quoted message said:

Iraqi people what rightfully belongs to them -- their treasure.

They can't have their rightful treasure if the insurgents are left alone to
blow it up.

Quoted message said:

4) The immediate start of unconditional reparations payments. Iraq starts
fixing things themselves, they give us a bill, we pay it. No questions.

You remember, though, that this current action is the final actions in a
conflict that started in 1990. Bush/Blair/Clinton/Major/Chirac shouldn't be
held responsible for what Saddam caused. After Mar 19, 2003, all bets are
off. That IS the responsibility of Bush & Blair.

Prior to that, talk to Saddam.

Pete

(JP) said:

My guess is that if Putin did tell Bush
something, the *whole* story is actually embarassing so Bush can't use
it- maybe something like, Putin told Bush that Iraq was making plans
to attack the US with terrorists if we invaded Iraq.

Heh... I can always count on you to brew up new and increasingly
fanciful conspiracy theories...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you'd rather form an opinion unencumbered by the facts, by all
means follow the links to the propaganda that Jobst posted.

You wouldn't know a fact if it smacked you in the face. Jobst's post
references the St. Petersburg Times and San Francisco Chronicle, and
they reference a response by Tampa International Airport to the 9/11
Commission. Jobst's article is thoroughly footnoted. There are no
holes in it. The flight happened.

So stop lying and trying to say it didn't.

So you're saying the St. Pete Times and the SF Chronical maintain the
"daily.misleader.org" website. LOL.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you'd rather actually know what's going on, I'd suggest starting
with an unbiased compilation like the Drudge Report (recently
determined to be by far less biased than any other news source that
was analyzed). That becomes pretty obvious when you see it...

www.drudgereport.com

Amazing. Drudge is a rumor-monger. Some times he is right, often he is
wrong.

Thing is, you get the whole story - both sides. For some reason, that
approach seems to be total anathema to many liberals. I suppose it's
easier to go through life not hearing anything that contradicts your
preconceived notions - but personally I would hate to appear that
naive when discussing the issues in public.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Quoted message said:

Bill Sorni said:

Quoted message said:

http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1310344&l=42227

Quoted message said:

"So we have an obligation of enormous consequence, an obligation to
guarantee that Saddam Hussein cannot ignore the United Nations. He
cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his
horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass
destruction. This is not a matter about which there should be any
debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly, in this
Nation."

Quoted message said:

John Kerry on Senate floor, 11/9/97.

Yes??? And this was in respect to what? This was not a call to
invade Iraq as you can see from the text. It was a call for the UN
intervention and inspections.

Exactly. Kerry states that there should be "no debate" about the
existence of a "stockpile of weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq.

However, he would wait for the UN to take action (which as we now know
would NEVER happen since they were on Saddam's payroll), or you have a
president who will do what needs to be done, regardless of the
political posturing of France and Germany.

I know which I prefer. Come November, we'll find out if I'm in the
minority or majority.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Quoted message said:

Scott Johnson said:

Quoted message said:

http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1310344&l=42227

Quoted message said:

Wow, maybe I should start posting press releases from the RNC.

What is it that irritates you so about factual reporting. Maybe you
could point out where there are errors in this report. Facts contrary
to ones beliefs are often so disconcerting that they are suppressed.

Heh. Jobst probably believes Michael Moore's film is a "documentary"
too... LOL. Why not, so does the Democrat Party. LOL again.

If a the son of a Saudi prince (there are a LOT of Saudi princes, BTW)
flew out of Tampa or not on 9/13 is hardly a question that's going to
cause me to lose any sleep, no matter what that bastion of
journalistic integrity (the New York Times) says. I read the
articles, and there's no link to the White House other than some
blatant speculation on the part of those who don't really know. I
don't think the Tampa Police Department has one of those cool red
phones connected directly to GWB's desk. Just a guess.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1310344&l=42227

Jobst Brandt
[email hidden]

You're are still misled

"Top Sirloin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1310344&l=42227

Wow, maybe I should start posting press releases
from the RNC.

Please, no.
I get both the Democratic and Republican party press released sent to an
e-mail address set up for that purpose. It's pretty funny to read them, one
party right after each other.

One virtue is that I realize the party I more often agree with is probably
spinning just as hard as the party I generally disagree with. I just can't
see it as well, because it looks like truth to me and I don't mentally
counter-argue against it.

Mark Hickey said:

Thing is, you get the whole story - both sides. For some reason,
that approach seems to be total anathema to many liberals. I
suppose it's easier to go through life not hearing anything that
contradicts your preconceived notions - but personally I would hate
to appear that naive when discussing the issues in public.

Wait a minute! You are describing GWB who does not listen to any
advisor who conflicts with his perception of what is going on. That's
how he got us into the war and can't and won't get out even though the
rest of civilized nations urge that course. This is the main thread
of the current administration, to not accept information that goes
against their vision... Iraqis will welcome us with open arms, etc.

Jobst Brandt
[email hidden]

it is just as misleading to suggest that one should get ALL of his "facts"
and news from Drudge as it is from any other source. We should all be
reading everything we can so that tunnel vision doesn't ensue. For example,
you might want to add this site to your reading:

www.factcheck.org

pat in TX

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 21:43:11 GMT, "Pete" <[email hidden]> from Road Runner High

Speed Online urlhttp://www.rr.com/url said:

"Kevan Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Easy solutions? No, you are right. There are none. Hard, but moral and

fair

Quoted message said:

solutions? Well, the following steps would be a good start:

1) The immediate withdrawal of all occupation troops from Iraq and from a
buffer zone around its borders.

There seems to be two major factions in Iraq. One that only wants peace, and
to be left alone to rebuild and maybe start a democracy of some sort. The
other apparently wants to incite a civil war, hoping they come out on top.

If all non-Iraqi troops pull out, can the Iraqi Prime Minister protect his
own ass, much less the rest of the country?

The Iraqi Prime Minister was chosen by occupation authorities and has no
legitimate democratic basis for holding power. I would hope he would step down
rather than inflame civil war and/or becoming another Iraqi tyrant by
stubornly holding on to illegitimate power.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

3) The suspension of all activities of non-Iraqi corporations in Iraq,

with

Quoted message said:

special attention paid to energy companies. The goal here is to return to

the

Quoted message said:

Iraqi people what rightfully belongs to them -- their treasure.

They can't have their rightful treasure if the insurgents are left alone to
blow it up.

They won't blow it up if it belongs to the Iraqi people instead of
profiteering foreigners.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

4) The immediate start of unconditional reparations payments. Iraq starts
fixing things themselves, they give us a bill, we pay it. No questions.

You remember, though, that this current action is the final actions in a
conflict that started in 1990. Bush/Blair/Clinton/Major/Chirac shouldn't be
held responsible for what Saddam caused. After Mar 19, 2003, all bets are
off. That IS the responsibility of Bush & Blair.

OK, you have a point. And an opening for the lawyers.

--
Kevan Smith
[email hidden]

"Kevan Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

The Iraqi Prime Minister was chosen by occupation authorities and has no
legitimate democratic basis for holding power. I would hope he would step

down

Quoted message said:

rather than inflame civil war and/or becoming another Iraqi tyrant by
stubornly holding on to illegitimate power.

Not quite...he is merely an interim guy. There only to help stabilize
things, and hopefully see through the process of holding valid elections.

But whomever it might be, whether supported by Bush/Blair or not, would be a
target. Now that the overall controlling figure, Saddam, is gone, that
country is ripe for an all out civil war. The only thing holding it back
(partially) is the presence of foreign troops. Even that may not be enough.

How do you conduct a 'fair' election when police stations are being blown
up? Or the government offices in Bagdad? How safe do you think a polling
place would be? Would you go vote?

Quoted message said:

They won't blow it up if it belongs to the Iraqi people instead of
profiteering foreigners.

Bull. A lot of those people doing the blowing up are there *only* to blow
stuff up. They are not Iraqi, nor do they care about 'the Iraqi people'.

They are looking to shame us into leaving (see Spain), and carving out a
piece of what is left. To the detriment of 'the Iraqi people'.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

4) The immediate start of unconditional reparations payments. Iraq

starts

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

fixing things themselves, they give us a bill, we pay it. No questions.

You remember, though, that this current action is the final actions in a
conflict that started in 1990. Bush/Blair/Clinton/Major/Chirac shouldn't

be

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

held responsible for what Saddam caused. After Mar 19, 2003, all bets are
off. That IS the responsibility of Bush & Blair.

OK, you have a point. And an opening for the lawyers.

[unsnip]
And Saddam being responsible for any- and everything pre-March 2003

Pete
anyway...I'm out a for a couple of weeks. Being Mr. Mom, Grandad, and Mr.
Construction Guy, with self-limited net access.
Riding every day, and hauling the grandkids around in a trailer.

jobst.brandt said:

This like other topics we might choose not to read is each reader's
prerogative to skip or not. Off topic trouble arises when within a thread
someone takes advantage of folks who are following the subject by
introducing another agenda such as helmets under tire problems. That is
not what is happening here.

Interesting argument. So, if we take this to its logical conclusion, we
only need one newsgroup in all of usenet - we can just skip the topics
which don't interest us. Could make for some sizeable unread counts.

I was misled into believing that newsgroup names had some relationship to
their content.

I propose that the usenet newsgroup which contains all articles be called "."

[email hidden] wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

The ugly brutality of our
administration is a huge blot on the nation. If you follow foreign
news you could see haw bad we look in the eyes of the world. BBC news
is mild compared to other continental news sources. I don't know
what is being said in Asia.

Here in mild-mannered conservative Japan, the press is generally
pretty tame, but nevertheless I hear that Bush's approval rating
amongst the public has soared to the heady heights of 7%. That is not
a typo. Bush supporters will no doubt argue that it is irrelevant what
the rest of the world thinks, and it is their right to elect a
dangerous moron if they choose, but they should at least be aware that
this really is how the rest of the world views him (and by extension,
those who elect him).

James

James Annan said:

[email hidden] wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

The ugly brutality of our
administration is a huge blot on the nation. If you follow foreign
news you could see haw bad we look in the eyes of the world. BBC news
is mild compared to other continental news sources. I don't know
what is being said in Asia.

Here in mild-mannered conservative Japan, the press is generally
pretty tame, but nevertheless I hear that Bush's approval rating
amongst the public has soared to the heady heights of 7%. That is not
a typo. Bush supporters will no doubt argue that it is irrelevant what
the rest of the world thinks, and it is their right to elect a
dangerous moron if they choose, but they should at least be aware that
this really is how the rest of the world views him (and by extension,
those who elect him).

My whole take on this thread is that our administration is pretty F'IN
scary if it's got Jobst making offtopic posts.

Greg
--
Destroy your safe and happy lives
Before it is too late
The battles we fought were long and hard
Just not to be consumed by rock'n'roll

Greg T? said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The ugly brutality of our administration is a huge blot on the
nation. If you follow foreign news you could see haw bad we look
in the eyes of the world. BBC news is mild compared to other
continental news sources. I don't know what is being said in
Asia.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Here in mild-mannered conservative Japan, the press is generally
pretty tame, but nevertheless I hear that Bush's approval rating
amongst the public has soared to the heady heights of 7%. That is
not a typo. Bush supporters will no doubt argue that it is
irrelevant what the rest of the world thinks, and it is their right
to elect a dangerous moron if they choose, but they should at least
be aware that this really is how the rest of the world views him
(and by extension, those who elect him).

Quoted message said:

My whole take on this thread is that our administration is pretty
F'IN scary if it's got Jobst making off topic posts.

This is NOT off topic. The topic is "Misled" and is more pertinent to
our well being than to acquiesce in an organized dismantling of our
democratic government and our nation's standing in world affairs.
Talking about bicycles is appropriate, but it loses significance in
the shadow of the deep moral depression into which our country is
sinking to dictatorship in spite of the guise of representative
government.

Jobst Brandt
[email hidden]