Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Terrorism

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post   Closed: New threads not accepted on this page

Author Message   Mark & Bev Preston (Markp) Posted on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 01:09 pm:    Found this excellent article on how we arrived at today's geopolitical mess in the Middle East. It's a long read but well worth it. Don't remember which thread someone asked why we don't confront Saudi Arabia with respect to terrorism. This article answers that question. The article is a perspective you won't find in the mainstream press because they are part of the problem. How the Saudis betrayed Islam (Book Review) Globebooks.com ^ | 1/25/03 | PAUL WILLIAM ROBERTS http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/833321/posts While oil is an issue, radical Wahhabism is the real source of the issue. Removing our dependance on oil would defuse the current situation, but it would just shift the problem to our children. BinLaden wants us out of the region so that Wahhabism can continue to grow. That is not what the world needs. The article mentions the Bush tie to the oil industry but I'm not so sure he is as close as the article says. Bush has proposed a hydrogen/petroleum based economy. One could say that is definitely not friendly to the oil companies. On the other hand I'm not so sure about hydrogen and it's real potential. Petro is not just fuel, it's also used for just about everything. - Mark   carter simcoe (Karter) Posted on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 01:25 pm:    What the hell is with all this political talk it doesn't help with four wheel driving. You yuppie wannabe politicians get up from your cubicle, turn off Discoweb tell your boss to take a hike and hit the trails for the rest of the day   Peter Matusov (Pmatusov) Posted on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 01:26 pm:    Awesome read, Mark. Makes me wonder even more about our foreign policy in the middle East. peter   Peter Matusov (Pmatusov) Posted on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 01:28 pm:    Carter, ths question in the air is how much are we going to wheel if the gas prices hit, say, $7 per gallon. peter   Greg Davis (Gregdavis) Posted on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 01:57 pm:    I'd wheel just as much, it just wouldn't be my daily driver anymore.   Paul Grant (Paulgrant) Posted on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 02:01 pm:    Mark, I have to say I was a bit wary given the source but it was an insightful read. Thanks.   Eric N (Grnrvr) Posted on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 02:09 pm:    Carter, I'm right there with ya man. You might want to go over to the other thread that's running and say the same thing. Got some real crazy people over there   Mark & Bev Preston (Markp) Posted on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 02:36 pm:    Carter - actually same here. I'd rather be wheelin. In fact the western drought has given us some great weather. Somehow don't think my boss would want me out playing right now. Too much work. Paul - which source were you wary of? FreeRepublic or GlobeBooks.com? I'll take a stab and say FreeRepublic. I find this conservative web site much more free in discussions than any liberal or leftist web site. The opinions following an article may be from a conservative perspective, but I have yet to find another site so rich in sources of articles, news and information. Over the years I have developed this opinion that the left is not so free as they want you to believe. They are the ones that want to restrict information and discussion in the pursuit of power. Forums like FreeRepublic and yes DiscoWeb have been the undoing of the media giants which are controlled by the left.   Mark & Bev Preston (Markp) Posted on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 06:33 pm:    More fuel for the fire. Some have wondered about Saudi Arabia. Well I think we are about to witness some interesting developments in Saudi Arabia. U.S. Travel Warning Heralds Trouble in Saudi Arabia STRATFOR ^ | Jan 31, 2003 | Staff http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/833619/posts "It's also possible that U.S. Special Forces and CIA operatives will use the war in Iraq as a cover to conduct covert operations in Saudi Arabia -- especially in the northern regions. ...." Taliban, Clinton, Saudi Involvement - All laid out in a book published in 2000 (from USMC.MIL site) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/833617/posts click on the link to the .mil web site below the title. Conclusion:  The Future of Afghanistan ·        It will take at least 15 years before there will be a functioning central authority. ·        ...... ·        Today, the US by picking up single issues and creating entire policies around them, whether it be oil pipelines, the treatment of women, or terrorism, is only demonstrated that it has learnt little. ·        The Saudi export of Wahabbism has now boomeranged back home and is increasingly undermining the authority of the Royal Family. This ties in with the first article.   Paul Grant (Paulgrant) Posted on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 07:18 pm:    Mark, don't take this the wrong way because I do intend to spend more time looking at the site but I haven't had much luck unearthing anything that I would qualify as "balanced" on this site. I looked at a few articles and their discussion threads (The New Republc Review of "High and Mighty" by Bradsher, the US requiring passports for reentry from Canada and the piece on Hollywood directors and their attempts to prevent their movies from being censored) and I didn't see a very wide range in opinions at all. Please don't take this to mean that I am not going to continue visiting Free Republic, there's plenty left to explore and I intend to do so. I enjoyed your first link regarding the Saudi's and look forward to reading the others you just posted. I hope that you don't feel that I am being dismissive in any way. I'm more than happy to listen to a coherent argument that runs counter to my opinion. Cheers, Paul   Al Oliveira (Offroaddisco) Posted on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 08:53 pm:    "Bush has proposed a hydrogen/petroleum based economy. One could say that is definitely not friendly to the oil companies." Actually it is. Someone has to produce the hydrogen. I think it was shell that has already invested large sums into this. What's more interesting is that there is a company trying to push Hydrogen and is ready to go to production but not in the whimpy way everyone else is doing it. They are going after internal combustion hydrogen vehicles that can be made today and have been in use for about 10 years now in testing. Fuel cells are nice for a battery replacement but I personally don't think it's the way to go for vehicles today. The cars they're trying to sell are dual fuel so you can run either hydrogen or gasoline. Check out... http://www.bmw.com/bmwe/pulse/enterprise/cleanenergy3/   Al Oliveira (Offroaddisco) Posted on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 09:21 pm:    er... let me correct myself... they've been running and testing a dual fuel Hydrogen vehicle for 20 years not 10.   Christopher Dynak (Adtoolco) Posted on Saturday, February 01, 2003 - 12:20 am:    Thats right...energy companies are evil because they produce a product that we need. For God's Sake... I wish some earthy crunchy person would lead by example instead of constantly complaining about "EVIL" corporations. The last time I checked we had a free market. You don't have to buy energy if you don't want to. In fact you don't have to buy anything because we have RIGHTS in this country. I can choose to live in Wyoming and produce for myself...I can reap what I sow. No one has put a gun to my head and said "Buy gas or else" I choose to live in Massachusetts, although that probably won't be for long because Massachusetts is the most corrupt, tax burdened, gluttonous, piece of shit of a state that exists in all of the U.S. But again I can Choose to stay and keep that tight grip I currrently have on my ankles or I can move to an oasis like Colorado. Nice wheeling, a group of people who generaly agree with most of my opinions. A government that won't repeal a voter mandated tax cut. If you hate energy companies so much start one up yourself and compete, if you hate a corporation instead of complaining about it, how about competeing with them. You have the RIGHT to do so because Americans have DIED to let you live out that God given right. So all anti-american, anti-free market, anti-capitalist can either put up or shut up. Freeking greenie commies bitch and whine about a postage stamp plot of land in ANWR and then bitch about no blood for oil. We can't have offshore drilling because greenie commies say an oil spill is too much of a risk. Greenie commies won't let us cut down trees cause of some bullshit commie propaganda called global warming. If we are warming bring it on, I really hate the winter! Please people choose, choose, choose to not listen to these people. Remember money is power, vote with your wallet. Its your RIGHT.   Mark & Bev Preston (Markp) Posted on Saturday, February 01, 2003 - 01:47 am:    Paul, Not taken wrong. As I stated the articles are from around the world, but the opinions and perspectives are mostly conservative. Notice that I say most, not all. You will find some interesting opinions on this site that include liberal, left, center, right and libertarian. So while the mainstream media cries about the new sources of info being right wing, they are in fact losing control and the new sources of news and articles are actually fairly balanced. When your so far to the left, as the media is, even moderate ideas seem right wing. Just like Discoweb, come arguments are coherent, some are not :-) (not refering to yours) Continue to explore and join in if you like. That's what it's all about. Have a good weekend! Mark   Tom Rowe Posted on Monday, February 03, 2003 - 08:16 am:    Chirstopher, I'm confused. Exactly why are comunists behind the global warming plot? I mean, what is their gain? If I can get the money together I would love to lead by example. Convert my Disco to 300TDi and burn biodiesel. I can do that now in my diesel airportable, but unfortuantely, the way people drive in the Atlanta area, I don't feel safe hauling my kids in it. Hell, I don't feel safe hauling *me* in it.   adtoolco Posted on Monday, February 03, 2003 - 09:37 am:    If you didn't know the new color for communism is green not red. The end game for the enviromentalist is to put up a fit to eventually overregulate private industry and natural resources(the U.S. greatest strength) into oblivan eventually leaving them open to government takeover. Its not an overnight stradegy, its incrimental and slow so its not noticed by most of the public. The California power crisis, the hubbub about ANWR and Kyoto, its all for control. Most fall into the trap because they are too busy(because were over taxed- but thats a different subject) who doesn't want clean air and water? Remember the crying indian? Propaganda at work. Now that being said I am all for prosecution of pollutors, but any further restrictions, regulations, and excesive litigation will eventually cause the price of goods to exceed the possibility of profit. Then industry gets taken over by the government because the people will be screaming. Then they get to set their own set of rules and buerocracy. And we as tax payers end up footing the bill and pay more for goods that would have been cheaper with freemarket competetion. -Chris   Mark & Bev Preston (Markp) Posted on Monday, February 03, 2003 - 10:13 am:    Chris does have a point. The Leftist parties are using Green agendas to gain support, whether they actually support Green agendas or not. These organizations helped organize the anti-war rallies in Washington D.C. Don't forget that Rep. Nancy Pelosi is a card carrying socialist. List of Communist Organizations Operating in US. A Commie search site (Broadleft.org) ^ | 1/23/03 | Sparta http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/828445/posts The Green party is listed. To go to this site click on the link to Broadleft.org. Scroll to the bottom. The page is hosted by Marxists Internet Archive. - Mark   Paul Grant (Paulgrant) Posted on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 06:50 am:    Boy Mark, what a thread! And to think my wife thought I was paranoid.   Mark & Bev Preston (Markp) Posted on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 10:51 am:    Paul, It is interesting, both the comments in the thread and the Broadleft.org site. Spans the range of far right to far left. Can make your head spin. I do think the Green party is being manipulated. I also don't think communisim is dead. While socialism has proven to be a complete failure, there are still many that think it can work. As someone said, the left is driven by emotions while the right is driven by thought. Socialism appeals to one emotions, but you can't run a society on emotion. As for me, I'm not paranoid, just a realist. There are lots of political forces out there vying for power. Land Rover and the British empire have been part of all of them at some time. See, I brought this back to Rovers   KJ Posted on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 11:01 am:    Mark, Broaden your mind. Read something other than freerepublic. Karen   Mark & Bev Preston (Markp) Posted on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 05:16 pm:    Karen, Like what? NY Times? AP? CNN? What a joke. Any suggestions? If you haven't noticed the FreeRepublic articles are from around the world. I find more diversity of ideas at FreeRepublic than I do in the mainstream media. FreeRepublic was started by a techie who was frustrated with the agenda and lack of news of the mainstream media. Keep in mind that I realize there are some very convervative views at FreeRepublic, but at least they are not censored. I'm able to filter out the views that are not mine, not have someone else who thinks they know what I should be told. Mark   Al Oliveira (Offroaddisco) Posted on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 06:10 pm:    What happened to news that was based on fact and not opinion? I want news not stories or editorials. Maybe I'm just an idealist.   Mark & Bev Preston (Markp) Posted on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 06:28 pm:    Me too. Must be because I'm an engineer and want facts, not agenda based news. Facts are not welcome in todays College of Liberal Arts Journalism programs, only how well a budding journalist can "interpret" the needs of today's society. Keep in mind that the students views should be in-line with the professor, that is if you want to get a good grade and a recommendation.   Garth Posted on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 09:20 pm:    Mark, If you want facts, fair enough, but remember, any report on facts is expressed through the world view of the reporter. Anybody with any insight into the human psyche understands this... just listen critically to two different people describing a Land Rover tackling a difficult trail I took a bit of a shot at you a week or so ago using a reference to an article printed in the "Herald Sun". This paper is a tabloid, with a reading comprehension target of a 9 year old. It's not going to go into close analysis of any issue. To cite that article without knowing this is not presenting an honest description of both the content and the slant of the reporter. Unless you can provide an insight into the world view of the reporter (which the "quality" newspapers tend to do) you're just feeding us propaganda, because you are not providing the information which allows us to make a personal analysis of "facts" presented. The best way to really do this is to access as many diverse news sources as possible. Garth PS: At least get your facts right in your posts...communism and socialism are not the same and the terms are not interchangeable...unless, of course, you don't know the facts   Peter Matusov (Pmatusov) Posted on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 09:33 pm:    Garth, I found Herald Sun quoted in many other mass media. Didn't know it was a tabloid - OTOH, it may well be, for no official confirmation was seen elsewhere to the Saddam's bodyguard story. BTW, socialism was generally regarded as an intermediate stage of communism.In an overly simplified way, capitalism: all mine's mine, all yours is yours socialism: we take away some of yours and split it among others communism: we take away all you've got, and split it among everyone don't know about the others, Russia made about 70% towards the final stop. and it wasn't pretty A favorite Russian joke on the topic: An old lady, hearing noise outside in 1917, asked her maid: - What's going there, dear? - Oh madam, those are common people misbehavin'. - What is that they want? - They want to eliminate the rich. - Oh, see... when my grandfather stood against tsar in 1825, they wanted to eliminate the poor! peter   Mark & Bev Preston (Markp) Posted on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 10:07 pm:    Garth, I didn't say communism was socialism. I said Pelosi was a socialist and the link was to a list of communist organizations operating in the US. The list is provided by Marxist Internet Archives. The point I was making was that the Green party is far left and listed on the web site. While some in the Green party joined for idealistic reasons, I would suspect some are not aware of other activities. Communism: system of political and economic organization in which property is owned by the state or community and all citizens share in the common wealth, more or less according to their need. Socialism: system of social organization in which property and the distribution of income are subject to social control rather than individual determination or market forces. The crossover happens when the state assumes that it is responsible for social control, takes control and redistributes in the name of some social cause. There are usually downsides to social engineering by any political organization. Take the US tax system. Close to 50% don't pay any taxes in the name of social justice, tax the rich or whatever. When elections roll around many don't vote. Why should they? They don't feel any sense of financial ownership. Now, make everyone pay their taxes out of their gross income each month vs automatic deduction and watch the new found interest in government. Make everyone pay some taxes and the percent voting would jump to 90%. As for the Herald, I'll draw an analogy - the NY Post. Many consider it a tabloid but the NY Times has become so left wing that it makes the Post look less like a tabloid and more like news. The Post picked up on this and has increased the quality of its news. There have been several good articles in the Post that you will not find in the NY Times because of their overt agenda. I agree in diversity of news sources. I just don't find it in the mainstream media. I do read with a critical eye. Go ahead and take shots. :-) Mark   Paul Grant (Paulgrant) Posted on Wednesday, February 05, 2003 - 10:25 am:    Hi guys, I just wanted to add a few things to the mix. First, Mark, I'm always happy to see The Guardian quoted anywhere. It is probably my favorite source for news from outside the US. Boy, do they ever have a 'liberal' slant to reporting the news. Now, regarding communism vs. socialism. It's been twenty years or more since my last Pol. Sci. courses but I seem to remember the fundamental premise of Marxist Communism being the uprising of the proletariat followed by the withering away of the state. No central government, no central planning, in fact something far closer to an anarcho-social existence. A post-industrial utopia. It reminds me of an old saying I heard in college. The two C's, Christianity and Communism two systems based on compassion and caring, sadly, both never capable of existing in the real world. What with all these WWJD questions, if we took the time to return to the New Testament and really look at what Jesus DID we'd find an awful lot of anarcho-communist thought in his actions. Remember what he did to the money changers in the temple. How about casting the first stone and turning the other cheek? On the other hand, socialism and state government are inseparable. Witness social democratic states all throughout the world competing in the global market comfortably with democratic capitalist states as well as totalitarian socialist regimes. Socialism is a system of political and economic thought that has a certain chameleon quality to it in that it can be used under a variety of guises. In the arena of voter participation, Mark, it is always in the best interest of the ruling class to suppress voter turnout. By keeping the public ill informed and most importantly, poorly educated, it provides the powers that be almost unchecked ability to act in its own interest and disregard those of the general population who ultimately feel alienated and powerless. There has been much talk about the history breaking mandate that the Bush Administration received in the last election. In reality, it was no mandate. Less than 42% of the voting population exercised their right to vote. It was the worst turn out since 1942, another election cycle coming on the coat tails of a national tragedy of immense proportions. Now, if we look further into the makeup of the 42% that did vote you will see an inordinate number from the right and particularly the extreme right who were motivated to vote. This turnout can be attributed to an extraordinary grass roots organization that I only wish the other party would learn from. So everytime I hear, in the 'liberal media' about the Bush mandate I, frankly, cringe. It was not a Bush mandate but a sad illustration of the successful allienation of large segments of the population from the election process only exacerbated by the debacle that was Election 2000. Of course the last paragraph leads me to my final point, the 'liberal media.' Think what you like about liberal and conservative political beliefs but to think that the media necessarily falls solely along these ideological lines in a gross oversimplification of the reality the market brings to bare on 'news.' Rather than label various sources as liberal or conservative, I think it is safer to label them first and foremost 'corporate' because as fewer and fewer hands control mainstream media and the spread of the competition gets narrower it ultimately boils down to one thing, money. When I say money I mean the revenues generated from ad copy...sponsorships...ect. I know that NPR's All Things Considered is often cited as a classic example of extremely liberal radio but it has not escaped market forces. With the shrinking of federal funding for public radio various stations and the network itself have found the need to seek out strange bedfellows. Many of the principle funders for the show are more to the center of political thought in America than you would think. Archer Daniels Midland ("Supermarket to the world") is a major funder as are many others (The Pew Foundation, The McArthur Fund). Their financial support, while necessary for the survival of NPR's "All Things Considered," has not been without its affect of toning down much of the 'liberal' slant that public radio was known for. I'll give you an example of how beholden even WNYC the NPR station in "radical" NYC has become to ad dollars. Last year they were preparing to air a review of the book "Martha Inc." which painted an unflattering picture of home improvement diva Martha Stewart. Her representatives contacted the station and threatened to withdraw all financial support from the radio station if they aired the review. The review was pulled and with it went a certaiin amount of free speech and all of WNYC's credibility. I could go on and cite other examples that would tend to leave most people left of center believing the media to be anything but 'liberal.' I'm certain that similar examples can be shown from the right or 'conservative' camp. Again, my point is that mainstream media is far less ideologically driven today than it is cash driven. If it's sensational enough to sell copies or draw in viewers then mainstream media is not above going with it no matter how prurient it may be. Mark, Peter, Garth and the rest of you, it's always a pleasure. I think these threads have been fun, interesting and above all informative. I think we'd have a ball in a bar carry on with this stuff over a few pints. If you're ever in CT... Cheers, Paul   Mark & Bev Preston (Markp) Posted on Wednesday, February 05, 2003 - 11:15 am:    A couple of quick items - got to get back to work. Paul - enjoy the thread and the discussions. My Mom is from New London. I have many relatives in CT so make it up there every once in a while. My company has a office in Boston. Sometimes fly into Boston and drive on down. I'd like to raise a few pints with you. So Garth - ever in CT? Powell is submitting some compelling evidence. I'm sure everyone can find it. A little more unsettling. The source is somewhat suspect, but the closer the issue gets to the Middle East, the more accurate it is: Mega-Terror Menaces on Three Continents Combined DEBKAfile-DEBKA-Net-Weekly Special Report February 4, 2003, 8:20 PM (GMT+02:00) http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=255 - Mark   KJ Posted on Wednesday, February 05, 2003 - 01:28 pm:    Mark, You said, "I find more diversity of ideas at FreeRepublic than I do in the mainstream media. FreeRepublic was started by a techie who was frustrated with the agenda and lack of news of the mainstream media." I tried to read that site, and was put off immediately by the blatant slant of the place. That's fine and dandy, anyone can put up just about anything they want on the web as long as they pay for their bandwidth. Cleary, this "techie" (who among other things is trying to raise money to fight the Clintons) has a distinct point of view, and seems to post articles that support his point of view. Again, lovely, his right. BUT, time and again you seem to imply this site is a more fair representation of the news. I don't think so. I think it's a collation of one person's selection of what HE thinks is "news". If I wanted to put up a site that supported the view that Bigfoot, Elvis and George Washington were waiting for us all on the Mothership, I could probably find something to upload to support that. I trust you get my point. You went on to say, "Keep in mind that I realize there are some very convervative views at FreeRepublic, but at least they are not censored. I'm able to filter out the views that are not mine, not have someone else who thinks they know what I should be told." I can't speak to the censorship issue, I'd just remind you that these articles are apparently hand-picked to bolster this site-owner's view of the world. Reread the second sentence of your quote above. You do what we all do I'd venture, "filter out the views that are not", our own. We all tend to gravitate toward agreement, it's human nature. There are some who are genuinely able to have discourse with those with views that are at the opposite end of their own opinion spectrum. Again, good for them, oftimes I lack that sort of ability. BUT, once more, don't try to represent a VERY slanted site such as freerepublic as some sort of "truth" zone. Also, remember that as I've said before, study after study will tell you that as many that feel the main-stream media are biased one way, there are as many that say it's equally biased another way. Personally, all this railing against the "mainstrean, liberal media" doesn't sound open-minded to me, when what you do over and over is tout one source, be it ever so collated. I think it's more accurate to say you have found a place that supports your POV, not that you have found a place that is the font of truth. For myself, I'll collate my own news. Karen   Paul Grant (Paulgrant) Posted on Wednesday, February 05, 2003 - 02:48 pm:    KJ, The more time I spend on the Free Republic site the more my feelings fall in line with yours. EVERYONE, including me, has a slant, a bias, an agenda and without a doubt, the articles culled from the media at large by the Free Republic are done so to support theirs. While there is not a thing in the world wrong with this fact, to believe that they are the only arbiters of truth in the media is woefully shortsighted. I don't own a television set and can truthfully say that I haven't watch network programming in almost seven years. I read the NYTs, the WSJ, and our local paper which is a product of Gannet News. I am also fortunate enought to be able to spend time on-line with international sources like the Guardian and the BBC as well as domestic sources such as Google News, MSN, Yahoo ect. I also take time to visit a wide array of independent sources both 'liberal' and 'conservative' but I think you know which way tend to lean. I guess all I'm trying to say is that I agree with you and Peter when you both state that one needs to get their information from as many sources as possible while relying on your own built in bullshit detector as a compass for what's right and wrong. Cheers Paul   Mark & Bev Preston (Markp) Posted on Wednesday, February 05, 2003 - 03:31 pm:    Karen, I think you have glossed over one significant item. This is a grass-roots site where anyone can contribute articles to the forums, articles and news. The references I have posted have been from the AP, UPI, Guardian, NYTimes, Stratfor, Debka, Toronto Sun, National Port, ... The articles are not handpicked and the participation is not censored (unless you become vulgar and completely obnoxious). They are a representation of the grass-roots of this country. To characterize FreeRepublic as what HE picks is incorrect. FreeRepublic is a relatively young site. Participants are from around the world and from the news and media community. You would be surprised at who shows up from time to time. As stated on the front page: "Free Republic is not a for profit commercial enterprise in the sense of a traditional business selling a product or service at a profit for its shareholders. We sell no product or service. We have no clients, customers or employees. We do not accept paid advertising. Free Republic is not affiliated with any political party, group, news source, government agency or anyone else. Free Republic is not a business, we are a political discussion forum supported by donations from our readers and participants. When and if our readers decide we are no longer needed or viable, we will close down shop and go away." It is sites like FreeRepublic that are challanging the mainstream media. The mainstream wonders why people are looking elsewhere, but fail to look in the mirror. CNN is no longer number 1 and falling fast. ABC is on life support. They may pull the plug on MSNBC. CBS, NBC who? They rail on FoxNews for being conservative, but in reality they are more middle. As I said before, when your far left, everything looks like the vast right wing conspiracy. Like Paul, I haven't watched network news for many years. When I do, their bias is obvious and blatant. I look for other sources of news. As for the Clintons, I have disliked them from the early 90/91 timeframe. They are slime and more power to anyone who brings them down. I'm independant, vote both Republican, Democrat and Libertarian, but the Clintons made my skin crawl. They proved my feeling correct. - Mark   Mark & Bev Preston (Markp) Posted on Wednesday, February 05, 2003 - 03:51 pm:    For a visual perspective of web sites and links Go to: TouchGraph LLC http://www.touchgraph.com/TGGoogleBrowser.html Enter www.FreeRepublic.com "TouchGraph provides a hands-on way to visualize networks of interrelated information. Networks are rendered as interactive graphs, which lend themselves to a variety of transformations. By engaging their visual image, a user is able to navigate through large networks, and to explore different ways of arranging the network's components on screen."   KJ Posted on Wednesday, February 05, 2003 - 10:59 pm:    Mark, I'm not a big fan of our current President, but I wouldn't send money to anyone trying to do something bad to him, and I probably wouldn't frequent their web site, either. We evidently differ on a lot of things (ABC on life support? And the stuff that spews from many of the badly-informed on Fox "News" is hilarious....my god, have you EVER seen their morning show????? I PRAY this is not representative of the "middle"!) As for many contributors to freerepublic, I'd go back to my earlier supposition, that being that "birds of a feather flock together". Like-minded people are posting articles that are prone to get agreement from the group. Nothing necessary wrong with that, but I object to your constant characterization of that site as being somehow more fair, or truthful or complete or whatever else you have been espousing. In my view, it's just another web site that has a slant. Read, enjoy, post links if you like, but don't try to say it ain't slanted. Karen   Mark & Bev Preston (Markp) Posted on Wednesday, February 05, 2003 - 11:46 pm:    Karen, ABC: ABC asked to reduce prime time Electronic Media ^ | December 2, 2002 | Doug Halonen http://www.emonline.com/topstorys/120202hearst.html AOL,Disney In Talks To Merge CNN, ABC News Divisions Yahoo ^ | 9/24/02 | Martin Peers http://sg.biz.yahoo.com/020924/72/333jz.html And we all know where CNN and AOL Time Warner are headed - down. Like it or not - FOX is winning big. And like it or not, they do represent the middle. FOX wins because shows like Chris Mathews Hardball. They should call that softball. His show has dropped because his audience realized he wouldn't challange the guest. There has been talk of shutting the MSNBC doors. I don't watch morning shows. I agree - they all try and be funny but are pretty lame. Again - never said that the additional post are not slanted. I specifically said they were. The articles themselves are from many sources. So again - what would you suggest for a wide range of news at a single source, that is discussed real time so that the articles are challanged and discussed? You know that if you don't agree with someones views on FreeRepublic, join and challange them! It is a grass-roots forum that will effect future elections. People will get together and discuss issues and the importance of news media will diminish. Think about applying the FreeRepublic concept to local politics. It would be a significant impact. Sure our views may differ, but it would sure be boring if everyone agreed with each other. Have a good evening. - Mark   KJ Posted on Thursday, February 06, 2003 - 12:19 am:    Mark, I read both of the articles you provided links for and I draw different conclusions. The first article is about one affiliate owner, albeit the owner of the largest group of affiliate stations, that wishes to change his contract with ABC and NBC. It's about money, nothing more, and he intends to replace the network programming with more local news programming. 20/20 vs. local news? Doesn't sound like "life-support" to me. It's a revenue shill game, nothing more. The second article is even MORE about money. The debacle that is the AOL/Time Warner merger is in scramble mode since they are hemmoraging money. Yes, it mentions the Fox News Channel as posing strong competition, and I quote: "AOL wants to merge CNN, which has suffered over the past couple of years from strong competition from News Corp.'s (NWS) Fox News Channel, so it can compete more effectively. The broadcast networks such as ABC and CBS want to have a cable news arm to help spread the costs of their news-gathering operations. General Electric Co.'s (GE) NBC already has such a sibling operation in MSNBC and CNBC. " Sounds like MORE news programming to me, not less. News programming has historically provided higher revenues for lower overheads, so I imagine we'll see even more in the future. As for Fox, to me they represent the Jerry Springer aspect of news programming. Sometimes people watch just because it's so silly, like waiting for a fight to develop on Springer. I sometimes watch Fox simply because they don't stand on ceremony about fact-checking before they run off at the mouth. Sometimes you CAN get the news there first, simply because they don't let that pesky fact-checking slow them down. Kind of like the National Enquirer. There's usually a grain of truth there, though the "facts" are often errant. This, of course, results in folklore and urban legends growing up around the edges, because by the time the facts are checked, and any corrections enemically made, the populace thinks they "know" something. Kind of like the Al Gore inventing the internet business. He didn't say it, but loads of people think he did. Karen   adtoolco Posted on Thursday, February 06, 2003 - 08:48 am:    Do I have to keep bringing up the free market...I really don't care what belief system one employes to derive ones opinion. What I do care about is the freedom of an individual to make choices. If you don't like Free Republic, you have have the right not to log on. If you don't like ABC, CNN, Fox, NYT, etc. You don't have to tune in. You can even choose to not listen or read all together. Arguing over minute details accomplishes nothing. The only thing I care about is my freedom to tune out your free speech. -Chris   Mark & Bev Preston (Markp) Posted on Thursday, February 06, 2003 - 10:53 am:    Your right Chris, it's all about freedom and the free market. I'll draw another analogy here that has been discussed in another thread - the music industry. The music 'mainstream media' is loosing control of their business model. It is the grass-roots Napsters and Kazaa's that have aggravated the downward spiral, but at it's core it's the ability of people to obtain music from other sources and also the quality of the mainstream music. The same thing is happening to the networks. Sites like FreeRepublic are growing and challanging the mainstream media, who refuse to understand why they are failing. As to merging ABC (Disney) and CNN (AOL Time Warner), at first glance it may seem like more news but it will be less employees and lots more leveraging of news - effectively less news. So now we have ABC/CNN like NBC/MSNBC. Guess where MSNBC is headed. Flatlined - dead. XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX THU DEC 05, 2002 15:25:07 ET XXXXX MSNBC RATINGS HIT BOTTOM; NETWORK FLATLINING http://www.drudgereport.com/msnbc.htm Is this the future of CNN? Maybe. More programing, I don't think so. As for FOX, I have to say I have more respect for them and what they have accomplished, than ABC/NBC/CBS. They don't shy away from controversy. They challange their guest. Like Hannity and Colmes, they have both sides, not just one side. Watching mainstream media is, as you said Karen, just finding someone with your POV. So I'll take us back to the top of this discussion. Do you think I would have gained the perspective of "How the Saudis betrayed Islam" from the mainstream media? I think not. And that is my issue. That is why ABC/CNN will continue their downward spiral, while FreeRepublic and FOX will continue to rise. Mark   KJ Posted on Thursday, February 06, 2003 - 12:16 pm:    Ah, Matt Drudge again. The same Matt Drudge who was fired from Fox for "fudging" the truth to further his personal agenda? http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m0DGC/12_24/59450738/p1/article.jhtml And just for a little fun: http://www.drudge.com/cadenhead.shtml For me, it's gotta be : http://www.theonion.com/onion3904/index.html Karen   adtoolco Posted on Thursday, February 06, 2003 - 12:23 pm:    I agree Mark, the free market is forcing the old newsies out. Fox, Free Republic, and Drudge are all gaining eyeballs. And yes eyeballs=$$$$. - "It's about money, nothing more..." - Since when has making money become an unacceptable motivator? -Chris   Rob Davison (Pokerob) Posted on Thursday, February 06, 2003 - 12:33 pm:    you ever see those marine corps shirts or stickers that say "kill 'em all let god sort 'em out" i wonder if the iraqi guys have shirts that say "kill 'em all and let allah sort 'em out" just a thought. rob   KJ Posted on Thursday, February 06, 2003 - 12:35 pm:    Chris, Don't quote me out of context to take things in a different direction, just take things in a different direction if you like. My quote about money was regarding the affiliate owner's desired program changes. He wants to change his contract with the network to regain control of his 10:00-11:00 p.m. slot so as to create more revenue for his locals. He'd like to drop the likes of 20/20 and Primetime Live and replace them with local news to enhance his bottom line. Karen   Mark & Bev Preston (Markp) Posted on Thursday, February 06, 2003 - 01:24 pm:    Ah yes - The Onion. A very entertaining web site. I've enjoyed it for years. As for Drudge and FOX. They disagreed on relating fetus surgery to abortion. Not sure how you draw the conclusion about fudging the truth. I beleive I have heard that Drudge will be returning to FOX. Implying that Drudge fudges facts with respect to MSNBCs flatline won't change their fate. As for money - FreeRepublic is not about money. That sure throws the media a curve ball. Rob - good one. I'm sure they do. It's just that the Iraq military will be asking allah what happen to those 70 virgins. - Mark   adtoolco Posted on Thursday, February 06, 2003 - 02:40 pm:    Karen, Thanks for the explanation, I WAS reading your post in the wrong context. I thought you were begrudging their decision because it was made for a monetary reason. My mistake. -Chris   KJ Posted on Thursday, February 06, 2003 - 10:14 pm:    Mark, IMO, Matt Drudge deals in many things, and often fact and truth get disregarded in his process. Getting canned by Fox is akin to getting canned by The Weekly World News for fast and loose journalism. To each their own, but quoting a guy like Drudge makes me chuckle, though not in the "Onion" spirit of chuckling. Chris, no problem. I appreciate your note. Karen   Tom Rowe Posted on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 12:21 pm:    At the next MAR, I'd like to invite everyone who has posted to this thread, and any other's here I've debated in, to my camp site on Friday night for a beer, and a toast to Amendment One of the Bill of Rights :-) Cheers   Tom Rowe Posted on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 12:32 pm:    The "point of view" thread reminds me of something I noticed on the radio when the first Harry Potter movie came out. I listen to Neal Bortz here when I can, which sin't often since I'm usually at work before he comes on. For those who don't know, he is a Libertarian, but leans heavily Republican, ie, heaps alot more scorn on Dems that Repubs. Anyway, he's always railing against "government schools" and also religous extremism. On this particular day, he was mocking the people protesting the Harry Potter movie as pronoting Satan, and all that, when they hadn't even seen the movie. An 11 year old kid called in, saying how Harry Potter was evil and all (even though he hadn't seen or read it either), but was using a good vocabulary, which Bortz picked up on. Turns out the kid was home schooled and Bortz just loved that. Started fawning all over him, and how great home schooling is and how much better it is than the evil government schools. I thought it very amusing that Neal completely missed the fact that even home schooling can be flawed, since this kid had obvioudly not been taught to think for himself, but just repeat what was drilled into him. Seems often times even people who claim to think critically only hear what they want to hear.   Greg Davis (Gregdavis) Posted on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 12:41 pm:    Tom, I'll take you up on that offer. MAR '03 it is.   adtoolco Posted on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 02:33 pm:    Calm intelligent debate, beer, and LR's! I'm there...Throw in some friendly blonde babes who dig calm intelligent debate, beer, and LR's and I'm in Heaven -Chris   Tom Rowe Posted on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 03:20 pm:    Well..there are lot more important things to worry about than hair colour. ;-)   KJ Posted on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 05:39 pm:    Yeah, like who's bringing the chocolate???? Karen   Tom Rowe Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 08:47 am:    And is it white chocolate or semisweet dark? :-)