TheBigHurt35

Newsweek has retracted its story. Too bad they won't be held accountable for all of those deaths. :headshake

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ May 16, 2005 -> 02:44 PM) What part are they admitting wasn't correct? They don't really know what was correct. This part... ... which suggests that most or all of it is incorrect. Unfortunately, that didn't stop Newsweek from making false allegations in the first place. Yeah, it's all the White House's fault that Newsweek couldn't prove their accusation. It's not like the liberal media hasn't made false allegations against the Bush administration before. :rolly Your can thank your never-ending stream of anti-American remarks for that. :finger

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ May 16, 2005 -> 01:41 PM) I also don't believe the hippies had the muscle to oust Nixon anyway. 4 years after promising to end the war Nixon was still in Vietnam and he won 49 states in his re-election. Agreed, but bringing up Fonda on treason charges may have swayed a lot of moderates to the other side. She's damn lucky, as her actions were clearly treasonous.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ May 16, 2005 -> 01:47 PM) Not only creating news but more to the point, creating news which is detrimental to the Bush Administration. But the "liberal media" is just a myth!

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ May 16, 2005 -> 01:38 PM) You would think that an experienced news editor would have the common sense to ensure his story was accurate before running it, especially something as inflammatory as that. Especially after what happened to Dan Rather. Unfortunately, the media is about creating news these days, rather than reporting what actually happened.

QUOTE(ChiSoxyGirl @ May 16, 2005 -> 01:31 PM) Nope, Kip's right. Wow, that's interesting. They ADMIT that parts of their story are completely incorrect, yet won't formally retract it. They're admitting that they're wrong, but not formally. Sounds like the same thing to me. What a bunch of clowns. :headshake

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ May 16, 2005 -> 01:36 PM) However, that article had more than enough juicy stuff on that traitor to convict her of treason several times over. Its really a shame that she wasn't thrown in jail for what she did. She clearly crossed the line between free speech and treason. If the popularity of the anti-war movement wasn't so strong as to protentially cost Nixon a ton of votes, he most likely would've impeached her.

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ May 16, 2005 -> 12:15 PM) They didn't retract it. Um, so what do you call it when a news magazine releases a story and then admits that the source of the information is flawed? Back to your anti-American bulls***...

QUOTE(kapkomet @ May 16, 2005 -> 08:12 AM) Now it's all a lie by Newsweek. The apology, that is. The government cracked down on them and that's why they apologized. :rolly :rolly :rolly No matter what anyone does, us Americans are a bunch of f***tards. Some Muslims will always hate America, no matter what we do. f*** 'em.

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ May 16, 2005 -> 01:05 AM) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4549933.stm Yah I'm not sold that this actually didn't happen. So, why would they retract it? All that would do is undermine their credibility.

Not surprsing at all (if indeed the documents are authentic), given that Saddam repeatedly violated UN resolutions throughout the previous decade. It's a shame that the used the WMD excuse to try to win popular support, though. That said, I'm sure that the Iraqi people are glad that he's gone.

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 13, 2005 -> 07:18 PM) I expect any President to pick candidates that shade to their political views, but not so much as to be objectionable to the other party. Unfortunately, one party will always find something "objectionable" about the other's nominees. More often than not, it has more to do with partisan politics than whether or not the nominee would be a good fit for the position.

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Apr 27, 2005 -> 10:16 AM) Wow Republican supporters laughing off the issue. I'm flabbergasted Likeability of Moore aside Farenheit was generally viewed as a good movie. According to imdb 66% rated the movie as a 7/10 or better and according to rottentomatoes.com 84% positively reviewed the movie. But I guess they're all stupid liberals right? I'd be interested in hearing documentary favorites from Republicans. You obviously have no idea how a meaningful, unbiased poll is conducted. QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Apr 27, 2005 -> 01:44 PM) I'm just saying there is a definite plausibility to government harming its own people to justify an advancement of its own agenda -- its been done by governments all over the globe and has been done incrementally even here in the US. Not disagreeing with your general statement, but only an idiot would suggest that our government was responsible for flying planes into the WTC and the Pentagon.

Very nice. Thanks...

Something tells me that kids in the suburb adjacent to Skokie know a few things about the Holocaust. And, yes, Rush is a moron. I'll take Sean Hannity over him any day.

:headshake

Sounds good to me, as long as they don't charge an arm and a leg for it.

QUOTE(winodj @ May 13, 2005 -> 05:42 AM) The South Africa thing threw me too. I think it might be a fake. No kidding. That's exactly what I'm thinking.

QUOTE(YASNY @ May 11, 2005 -> 10:49 AM) We are talking national security here. That's EXACTLY what they should do if the believe there is a credible threat ... moron pilot or not. Agreed. Stupidity doesn't excuse a serious threat to the White House or Capitol Building, inadvertent or not.

30 - Eastern Texas by way of Central Indiana, Eastern Iowa, and the South Suburbs.

Might that have something to do with KWF's posts?

Apparently there is a law against co-habitation in North Carolina (I had no idea that we were still living in the 1800s). Although it's rarely enforced, the ACLU is suing the state to overturn it after a woman was fired because she refused to marry her boyfriend of three years. (Link) It's nice to know that the ACLU still takes cases that are actually worth defending.

QUOTE(CrimsonWeltall @ May 9, 2005 -> 03:16 PM) How about if you're in a rock band that isn't politically vocal and you released a new album and want to do an international tour and don't feel like waiting until an potentially endless war ends. Not playing in Cuba, Iran, or North Korea would be a good place to start.

QUOTE(CrimsonWeltall @ May 9, 2005 -> 03:00 PM) Why is that relevant to PLAYING MUSIC? Because these factors... ...strongly suggest that it may be just as much about politics. I could be wrong, but I don't believe that I am. If I'm in a rock band that's had a history of being very vocally political and very politically left and want to play a show that's "only about music", I don't play a concert in Cuba on the Anti-Imperialist stage during the Iraqi War. And if doing so raises some eyebrows, I shouldn't be surprised.

QUOTE(CrimsonWeltall @ May 9, 2005 -> 02:55 PM) After Cuba, Audioslave is playing in Mexico, the US, Portugal, Spain, Italy, UK, Austria, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Finland, Denmark, Belgium, Switzlerland, Norway, and Ireland. In which of these countries can one play potentially political music without being labeled a coward? None of the aforementioned nations are lead by a rogue government or under an American embargo. What's your point?