Seems like mainstream message boards always swing left. Ironically, the internet is also harming the left's ability to stranglehold the media. Your thoughts.

Ironically, the internet is also harming the left's ability to stranglehold the media.
Yes, the left control the "media", and that's why Bush has won two elections. As for this forum, we have an equal amount of Republicans and Democrats or Righties vs. Lefties.

Originally posted by silvero101
Ironically, the internet is also harming the left's ability to stranglehold the media.

Oh brother. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

"Liberal Media" my ass.

How you perceive the media is a function of where YOU are politically. In a recent Gallup poll 46% of the country feels the media is too liberal, and 16% feel it is too conservative.

Base how mainstream your opinions are on that.

http://www.villagesoup.com/commletters/letters.cfm?TopicID=5977

Originally posted by Brooks
How you perceive the media is a function of where YOU are politically. In a recent Gallup poll 46% of the country feels the media is too liberal, and 16% feel it is too conservative.

Base how mainstream your opinions are on that.
Maybe it just proves that 62% of the country are idiots?

I will say this until the day I die, and I doubt anyone will ever listen to me: The media's only bias is in favor of the Almighty Dollar, for better or worse.

Liberals use the internet as their source of news and information where conservatives still use the newspaper, FOX, CNN and talk radio shows for their information.

Secondly, liberals are more likely to have higher educations, more computer skills and a better understanding of cyberspace than a conservative.

It only stands to reason that given those conditions, boards would appear to be lefties.

Originally posted by Borg
I will say this until the day I die, and I doubt anyone will ever listen to me: The media's only bias is in favor of the Almighty Dollar, for better or worse.

Amen. And why not? While we're talking....what's the general view on anti-abortionist (former Education Secretary) William Bennett's crime rate solutions that were broadcast on his radio talkshow "Morning in America"?

On Edit -- Nvmd...I found that thread. LOL!

Originally posted by Brooks

Base how mainstream your opinions are on that.



I fully realize that to say the media is not liberal is "not a mainstream opinion".

That however has everything to do with the fact that there has been a (VERY successful) concerted effort, ongoing for many, many years, to brainwash the masses into believing that the media is "liberal" so that the Corporations who OWN the Media can move it ever further to the right ---IOW so they can move it ever further toward a PRO-CORPORATE perspective instead of a populist, pro-human perspective.

Yes.

Originally posted by Overdose
As for this forum, we have an equal amount of Republicans and Democrats or Righties vs. Lefties.
You've gotta be kidding me.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Secondly, liberals are more likely to have higher educations, more computer skills and a better understanding of cyberspace than a conservative.
Yeah, and they're also more likely to believe in extraterrestrials, use hard drugs on a regular basis, and habitually masturbate to Star Trek Deep Space Nine episodes. Oh, and lest I forget, you've also got the pointy-headed, inner city, welfare collecting, union workers in your camp, and we all know how extremely educated those folks are. Come to think of it, we shouldn't ignore the fact that most 12 year-olds have Internet perusal skills that are only rivaled by their ability to post a wealth of information on "news" blogs.

Now let me ask you: does that make them more informed than the people who get material from CNN and Fox?

I thought so...

Originally posted by Freethinker
I fully realize that to say the media is not liberal is "not a mainstream opinion".

That however has everything to do with the fact that there has been a (VERY successful) concerted effort, ongoing for many, many years, to brainwash the masses into believing that the media is "liberal" so that the Corporations who OWN the Media can move it ever further to the right ---IOW so they can move it ever further toward a PRO-CORPORATE perspective instead of a populist, pro-human perspective.
I agree.

The mainstream media is always corporate.

All that poll proves is that the reichwing echo chamber works. If you just keep saying liberal media over and over and over again its bound to stick in peoples heads.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla

All that poll proves is that the reichwing echo chamber works. If you just keep saying liberal media over and over and over again its bound to stick in peoples heads.

True.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Political Propaganda Is Cult Brainwashing

By James Hall

"A successful induction by a destructive cult displaces a person's former identity and replaces it with a new one. That new identity may not be one that the person would have freely chosen under her own volition." - Steven Hassan

Nothing is unusual about office holders, political parties and agency bureaucracies taking liberties with facts, when they frame their case and sell their policies and programs. But how many people look upon this process as one designed, not to persuade you; but to indoctrinate you into accepting causes that are not in your own self interest. The techniques of agenda shaping and peer pressure guiding is sophisticated and Sub-Rosa in intent. According to Margaret Thaler Singer, “Thought Reform is not a mysterious process. It is the systematic application of psychological and social influence techniques in an organized programmatic way within a constructed and managed environments. The goal is to produce specific attitudinal and behavioral changes. The changes occur incrementally without its being patently visible to those undergoing the process that their attitudes and behavior are being changed a step at a time according to the plan of those directing the program.”

The Six Conditions for Thought Reform are:

1) Keep the person unaware of what is going on and how she or he is being changed a step at a time.

2) Control the person’s social and/or physical environment; especially control the person’s time.

3) Systematically create a sense of powerlessness in the person.

4) Manipulate a system of rewards, punishments and experiences in such a way as to inhibit behavior that reflects the person’s former social identity.

5) Manipulate a system of rewards, punishments, and experiences in order to promote learning the group’s ideology or belief system and group-approved behaviors.

6) Put forth a closed system of logic and an authoritarian structure that permits no feedback and refuses to be modified except by leadership approval or executive order.

Since Singer claims that techniques to achieve power through mind control are readily comprehended, the key inquiry is to understand the reason why the general public is so unaware of the assault upon their thought process? The factual historic record leads one to conclude that the limited and select group of participants that seek and attain positions of influence, share one crucial trait. Namely, a desire to preach their adherence to the “Will of the People”; while they exhort democratic rule, their actions conform to governance by the privileged few. Citing the significance of 1984 we find the answer: "Orwell reasoned that if a government could control all media and communication, meanwhile forcing citizens to speak in a politically- controlled jargon, this would blunt independent thinking. If thought could be controlled, then rebellious actions against a regime could be prevented.” Because of the nature of lust for power, moral means to achieve political objectives becomes irrelevant; thus, the motive to conceal real intentions from the citizens. The Sub-Rosa character of the elites is not who they are, but the actual hidden goals they achieve with their policies and control of the State.

Singer concludes: “Orwell’s genius centered on seeing how language, not physical force would be used to manipulate minds. In fact the growing evidence in the behavioral sciences is that a smiling Big Brother has greater power to influence thought and decision-making that a visibly threatening person.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.hermes-press.com/blinders.jpg

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Liberals use the internet as their source of news and information where conservatives still use the newspaper, FOX, CNN and talk radio shows for their information.

Secondly, liberals are more likely to have higher educations, more computer skills and a better understanding of cyberspace than a conservative.

I would gladly submit to having a random sampling of my posts compared to a random sampling of your posts or Echo's or Guerilla's.

PS - In paragraph one, you probably meant to say "whereas". Right Professor?

"Secondly, liberals are more likely to have higher educations, more computer skills and a better understanding of cyberspace than a conservative. "

The poor, overwhelmingly, vote Democrat. That's a fact. The poor usually don't have a higher education. And they often wouldn't own a computer on which to work on computer skills. And without that computer, and without that skill, tough to see how they'd have a better understanding of cyberspace.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
1. Maybe it just proves that 62% of the country are idiots?

2. I will say this until the day I die, and I doubt anyone will ever listen to me: The media's only bias is in favor of the Almighty Dollar, for better or worse.

1. Are you saying that the media is perfectly balanced? If not, then 62% have a valid opinion.

2. That doesn't preclude the existence a political bias .

Originally posted by silvero101
"Secondly, liberals are more likely to have higher educations, more computer skills and a better understanding of cyberspace than a conservative. "

The poor, overwhelmingly, vote Democrat. That's a fact. The poor usually don't have a higher education. And they often wouldn't own a computer on which to work on computer skills. And without that computer, and without that skill, tough to see how they'd have a better understanding of cyberspace.

Excellent Point!

Originally posted by BorgHunter
2. I will say this until the day I die, and I doubt anyone will ever listen to me: The media's only bias is in favor of the Almighty Dollar, for better or worse.

Originally posted by Brooks
2. That doesn't preclude the existence a political bias.

Not only does it NOT preclude there being a political bias, it virtually guarantees that there WILL BE a political bias.

A bias solidly in favor of the Corporate State, Big Business and wealthy people.

Originally posted by silvero101
"Secondly, liberals are more likely to have higher educations, more computer skills and a better understanding of cyberspace than a conservative. "

The poor, overwhelmingly, vote Democrat. That's a fact. The poor usually don't have a higher education. And they often wouldn't own a computer on which to work on computer skills. And without that computer, and without that skill, tough to see how they'd have a better understanding of cyberspace.

Mississippi is the poorest state in the country and she votes red . In fact, all the poorest states, bar none, vote republican.

My point stands and you're starting to sound a bit like bill bennett.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Mississippi is the poorest state in the country and she votes red . In fact, all the poorest states, bar none, vote republican.
So only geniuses vote blue, ay? Of course I'm referring to the latest discharge of witless verbiage above; in which, you have proven, once again, that there is no such thing as unspeakable nonsense. You maybe right about poor states voting red, but you've obviously given no thought to the poor cities that overwhelmingly vote blue. Two words, Dop: population density. Do these people strike you a bright?

To be honest, if there's an idea in your head, it has to be in solitary confinement...
Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
My point stands and you're starting to sound a bit like bill bennett.
There you go connecting dots like Russell Crowe in A Beautiful Mind prior to treatment. Just what are we to do with you, Dop???

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
My point stands and you're starting to sound a bit like bill bennett.

If you can't tell the difference between a discussion point and a heartfelt bigotry then....actually I'm not surprised.

His discussion contextual comments about black people aren't in the same league with your unsolicited comments about Jews.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Mississippi is the poorest state in the country and she votes red . In fact, all the poorest states, bar none, vote republican.

My point stands and you're starting to sound a bit like bill bennett.

Meanwhile... all the inner city homeless vote blue... you ever see maps of voting trends? Around the cities its ALL blue... and as you move farther out its red. Your point is trumped by the fact that poor folk in the cities vote blue... it's a fact.

Originally posted by Brooks
His discussion contextual comments about black people aren't in the same league with your unsolicited comments about Jews.

I'm still waiting for an explanation of why the phrase super jew is a racist statement and where is it written.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
I'm still waiting for an explanation of why the phrase super jew is a racist statement and where is it written.

ARe you kidding? Someone actually thinks that is a racist statement? I supose superman is a sexist name also. Just where will these PC police draw the line? When they have watered down language to the point of being completely non discriptive?

Echo -- excellent point.

I often hear that certain problems can't be solved because there isn't any dialogue.

Well, how can you have dialogue when one side is always accusing the other side of being racist/sexist when they use terms that are dead nuts on like super jew which nicely describes one that promotes the jewish causes above and beyond the average person.

And I've noticed the jewish people use the anti-semitic leverage everytime they get a chance. Some people fall for it, others don't.

Great another stupid "lib stereotype" v "con stereotype". All of you assholes need to get out of the "us v them" mentality.

2. That doesn't preclude the existence a political bias . No but it dictates that the bias is far more likely to favor who ever will enable the money making.

I meant to post this its about some freelance reporter giving a talk.
+++++++++++++++++=
Bloomington native reports the news
...
He went on to recount his six-year tenure at Fox. "At the time I started at Fox, I thought, this is a great news organization to let me be very aggressive with a sitting president of the United States (Bill Clinton)," Shuster said. "I started having issues when others in the organization would take my carefully scripted and nuanced reporting and pull out bits and pieces to support their agenda on their shows.

"With the change of administration in Washington, I wanted to do the same kind of reporting, holding the (Bush) administration accountable, and that was not something that Fox was interested in doing," he said.

"Editorially, I had issues with story selection," Shuster went on. "But the bigger issue was that there wasn't a tradition or track record of honoring journalistic integrity. I found some reporters at Fox would cut corners or steal information from other sources or in some cases, just make things up. Management would either look the other way or just wouldn't care to take a closer look. I had serious issues with that."...

http://www.heraldtimesonline.com/stories/2005/10/02/column.1002-SH-A3_CMK35541.sto

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
I'm still waiting for an explanation of why the phrase super jew is a racist statement and where is it written.
Yeah, I can't think how anyone of the Jewish faith would be offended by the term "super Jew", or for that matter, why anyone would find it offensive to attach the super prefix to anything. For example: super black, super Hindu, super Mexican, and yes.......super Jew. Personally, I agree, Dop. I think it's hilarious, and not offensive in the slightest.

We might as well rename our country to the United States of Israel

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/us-will-hit-syria-with-sanctions-says-israel/2005/10/05/1128191786315.html

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
We might as well rename our country to the United States of Israel

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/us-will-hit-syria-with-sanctions-says-israel/2005/10/05/1128191786315.html
Based on a prediction? You've gotta be kidding me.

Israel spies on the United States.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1128478900053

Next question -- what did they know about 9/11 and when did they know it?

Ok, so the mainstream media is geared toward the left. The AM talk shows and Fox news coverage is geared toward the right. Everyone can find a voice. Whether you are right winged or left winged, would it not be beneficial to make an attempt to understand your opposition's point of view?

Or is it more important to surround yourself with people that think just like you, and media that reports about the things that you consider relevant? Leave the agendas aside.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
I'm still waiting for an explanation of why the phrase super jew is a racist statement and where is it written.

When I quoted Mark Levin, your response was something to the affect of: "Oh Mark Levin. The Jew? The Likudist? The conservative?" Where does Jew fit into the other criticisms in your world?

I'm not critical of jews or likudists or conservatives. As individuals, as groups and as religious or political beliefs, they are all fine with me.

OTOH -- when they (or anyone) coerce the United States to do their dirty work, to risk the lives of of our sons and daughters in the name of their religion and beliefs, they are no longer representative of the body-philosophy they claim to represent. At that point, they are no more than users that hide behind their religion and the politically correct laws of the united states to further their agenda, whatever that may be ... and in this case it's to use the United States Military to kill arabs/muslims so they can someday control the middle east and all it's riches.

Again I ask ... what did Israel know about 9/11 and when did she know it? After all ... Israel is the only country that has gained anything from the illegal invasion of the soverign country of Iraq and if the united states is truly worried about WMD proliferation ... we might start by disarming Israel.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Again I ask ... what did Israel know about 9/11 and when did she know it?

Are you brave enough to answer your own question? Let's hear what you think.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
.... if the united states is truly worried about WMD proliferation ... we might start by disarming Israel.

Excellent point!!!

Originally posted by Brooks
Are you brave enough to answer your own question? Let's hear what you think.

I'm not quite sure why you think it takes bravery to answer a question but to answer your question -- I've stated my opinion on the forums several times. You know where I stand.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Again I ask ... what did Israel know about 9/11 and when did she know it?


I love that Israel is referred to as a she!

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
I'm not quite sure why you think it takes bravery to answer a question but to answer your question -- I've stated my opinion on the forums several times. You know where I stand.

Don't flatter yourself, most of us haven't memorized your worldview. Now for the second time - it's your question so it should be easy enough to answer. What did Israel know prior to 9/11?

She knew enough to tell the World Trade Center employees not to be at work on 9/11.

Originally posted by Divalatina
Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Again I ask ... what did Israel know about 9/11 and when did she know it?


I love that Israel is referred to as a she!

I believe it's correct to use feminine gender for countries ... now, why I believe that is beyond me. :confused:

The vast majority of news broadcastes self identify as liberals or left of center. How anyone could interpret that as leading to a conservative news organization is beyond belief.

Despite the denials of the liberals that the major news outlets are liberal one has only to count the number of negative vs positive referals to conservatives and liberals in the media. The term arch conservative is used quite freely in the media while the mirror term, arch liberal is never heard or read.

FOX News is held up as the poster child, or more often the punching bag of liberals. It is cited as a cesspit of conservative news broadcasting. If the media were as conservative as people like Freethinker would have us believe, FOX would be just another in a series of conservative broadcasts and not stick out like a sore thumb.

The media are decidely liberal no matter what the liberals try to say or how they try to hide the fact.

Originally posted by Frogger
The media are decidely liberal no matter what the liberals try to say or how they try to hide the fact.

"I see" said the blind man.

Originally posted by Frogger
The term arch conservative is used quite freely in the media while the mirror term, arch liberal is never heard or read.
This is a good point, and it's been brought up before, however, people seem to disregard it based on the fact that certain networks are partially owned by "defense contractors" such as GE, Westinghouse, and, of course.......Drum roll please.........Disney. In uber-liberal circles, they're referred to as the trine of evil, right FT? That aside, Viacom (the chemical weapons concern) owns 12 networks, as does the evil, rocket building, AOL-Time-Warner. Just where will all this madness stop? Who knows, but we all know ONE thing.......THE MEDIA IS RIGHTWING, DAMNIT!
:rant:

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
She knew enough to tell the World Trade Center employees not to be at work on 9/11.

"Israel" made a lot of phone calls, huh. How did "she" tell these people? Are you saying the selected people didn't go to work that day?

Please give me a credible, or any, link.

Based on a prediction? You've gotta be kidding me. well...

US consults Israel over Syria regime change: report
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051003/pl_afp/mideastisraelussyria_051003203114

Funny all the talk against occupation and WMD in teh middle east but one coutry gets away with it all in plain view...

The vast majority of news broadcastes self identify as liberals or left of center. How anyone could interpret that as leading to a conservative news organization is beyond belief. As I have already said the media is always corporate. However you need to be informed. You seem to be forgetting all the owners, advertizers and editors of stations tend to be conservative.

Originally posted by silvero101
Seems like mainstream message boards always swing left. Ironically, the internet is also harming the left's ability to stranglehold the media. Your thoughts.

There's a good book about this subject: historically most Americans were left wing on issues such as economics ("bread and butter" issues). In regards to "cultural issues" America is more like a third world country - religious and scared of change.

So the right has used this to portray themselves as the "populists" and the left as "out-of-touch". They can say "look, these crazy liberals want to destroy religion" to get votes while shafting their own voters economically.

I think the book was something about Kansas.

Prea - Actually Mossad agents posing as art students were tailing the 9-11 highjackers the entire time they were in the US. Mossad only decided to say something to the government 2 weeks before 9-11. The government did nothing in response.

Not sure how this fits in but it sure is weird.
++++++++++++++++

“There is no better way for Jews to express their gratitude to America than to place a Torah in the Pentagon, which has preserved our freedom,” said Hank Sopher, a prominent New York real estate magnate and owner of Quik Park garages.

Sopher sponsored the writing of the Pentagon Torah, a first for the home of the U.S. military establishment.

Sholom Lipskar, a Lubavitch rabbi from Bal Harbour, Fla., and founding chairman of the Aleph Institute, presided over Monday’s Torah dedication in the Pentagon chapel. The scroll was placed in an ornate Israeli-built ark whose steel door is secured by a safe lock.

The ark rests in the spot where the 9-11 terrorists crashed the plane.

http://chabad.info/index.php?url=article_en&id=5692

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Prea - Actually Mossad agents posing as art students were tailing the 9-11 highjackers the entire time they were in the US. Mossad only decided to say something to the government 2 weeks before 9-11. The government did nothing in response.

Very much like Able/Danger.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
She knew enough to tell the World Trade Center employees not to be at work on 9/11.

Dop, is there not one bizarre conspiracy theory that has been completely debunked that you don't believe in?

Try this link.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/israel.htm

Conspiracy theories tend to be pretty unlikely. The chances of pulling them off aren't that great. Aside from that, the simple explanation is most likely true. I don't think there was a conspiracy by Mossad to create 9/11.

Related Link: The Tinfoil Hat Brigade (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1095784638&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Dop, is there not one bizarre conspiracy theory that has been completely debunked that you don't believe in?

Try this link.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/israel.htm

Snopes??? yer kiddin' me

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Snopes??? yer kiddin' me

Yeah, everyone knows Snopes is run by the Likud party in conjunction with the large oil companies and the Bilderburgers.

Stop, stop. If trilateral commission is mentioned i may vomit in bewilderment and rage. ;)

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Yeah, everyone knows Snopes is run by the Likud party in conjunction with the large oil companies and the Bilderburgers.

OK Lionel -- what's your problem with me not trusting Snopes?

Like that site has debunked everything that's even remotely negative towards the right wing party. That's just a little too convenient.

I can listen to Rush and get the same thing and there's no reading required.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
OK Lionel -- what's your problem with me not trusting Snopes?

Like that site has debunked everything that's even remotely negative towards the right wing party. That's just a little too convenient.

I can listen to Rush and get the same thing and there's no reading required.



Here's Snopes debunking of:
John Kerry rumors - http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/kerry.asp

Clinton rumors -
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/clintons.asp

I'm just glad to see that there is a forum out there that has Republicans on it ! I don't feel quite so much of an outsider and hope that the Democrats that are here aren't as mean as some other boards I've been on.....

Originally posted by dav6344
...and hope that the Democrats that are here aren't as mean as some other boards I've been on.....

Uh...yeah, um, well......

Welcome kindred spirit.

Originally posted by dav6344
I'm just glad to see that there is a forum out there that has Republicans on it ! I don't feel quite so much of an outsider and hope that the Democrats that are here aren't as mean as some other boards I've been on.....

Welcome to allforums Dav, we have some left-of-center types who can be a bit unpleasant at times, but we toss 'em some raw meat every once in awhile and that keeps them happy. :D

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
OK Lionel -- what's your problem with me not trusting Snopes?

Like that site has debunked everything that's even remotely negative towards the right wing party. That's just a little too convenient.

I can listen to Rush and get the same thing and there's no reading required.

You may not like Snopes, but at least I try to back up my arguments...where's your source for this outrageous claim?

Yes!! Your nasty ass!! The media has a serious liberal slant!
(For the most part)


Originally posted by Freethinker
Oh brother. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

"Liberal Media" my ass.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
You may not like Snopes, but at least I try to back up my arguments...where's your source for this outrageous claim?

4000 NYC jews

Originally posted by dav6344
I'm just glad to see that there is a forum out there that has Republicans on it ! I don't feel quite so much of an outsider and hope that the Democrats that are here aren't as mean as some other boards I've been on.....

Welcome to the forums dav.

Don't worry about the meanie dems here ... just blame everything on Clinton and you'll do fine.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
4000 NYC jews

Yeah...well...I've got 5,000 that say you're full of it...:D

Really Dop...any links to back up the wild, and completely debunked, claim that 4,000 Jewish people called in sick at the WTC on 9/11...anything at all?

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
OK Lionel -- what's your problem with me not trusting Snopes?

You disagree with anything that doesn't back up your odd notions without offering up any real proof to the contrary, that's what.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Welcome to the forums dav.

Don't worry about the meanie dems here ... just blame everything on Clinton and you'll do fine.

don't listen to that lie Dave.... i think what he MEANT to say was "don't blame everything on bush as if he's the only person to EVER do something even though other presidents HAVE done it...."

THAT would be an accurate description of what is actually occuring.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
You disagree with anything that doesn't back up your odd notions without offering up any real proof to the contrary, that's what.

This is another case of you not trusting any link I point to and I won't trust any link you point to -- especially Snopes.

But that doesn't mean it can't be proven one way or another.

One would have to get the profile of every worker in the WTC, parse that data to see how many are jewish and then compare that data to the official death/missing list.

That's a lot of work.

Dop- as far as I know the 4000 jew thing is bunk. I haven't seen anything that snopes has been wrong on. If you showed me something they fabricated then maybe your claim would hold more weight. Especially if you showed your source saying 4000 weren't there (assuming its credible). I remember hearing Amiri Baraka claiming this and bought it at first but after reading up it seems to be a lie. However a major Israeli company did pull out of WTC 2 weeks before 9/11. Could be a coincidence though.

Decka - you are the main 'blame clinton republican' in the room. Shit you just did it twice yesterday.

500 -- in nearly every case, including snopes, the site does not produce any evidence that it did not happen. In most cases it is a subjective call on the sites part based on there not being any evidence that it did happen.

And in some cases, the site owners have made statements that they have decided to debunk the story based on their own personal gut feelings (again because of lack of evidence).

This one can still go either way.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
One would have to get the profile of every worker in the WTC, parse that data to see how many are jewish and then compare that data to the official death/missing list.

That's a lot of work.

So what you're saying is, there's absolutely no proof of this whatsoever. I mean in order for you to make that claim, you'd think you'd be relying on some source that had done that research.

No Lionel -- I'm relying on the fact that no one has done any research on the flip side of the coin either. And then wonder why, considering all these sites want to debunk the story. You'd think one of them would present something other than simple denial.

Originally posted by dav6344
I'm just glad to see that there is a forum out there that has Republicans on it ! I don't feel quite so much of an outsider and hope that the Democrats that are here aren't as mean as some other boards I've been on.....

:@@: :@@:

I looked everywhere on the internet for quite some time for a forum where anything approaching a progressive/liberal voice was allowed to take part in seroius dicsussions, before i found this place.

The vast majority of forums i found were dominated by Archie Bunker types who shouted down most of the posts or topics where a view was presented that challenged or criticized ths status quo.

It happens a bit here too, but at least there are a handful of liberal/leftist posters here who will hold their ground.

(there is always Democratic Underground, but the primary mindset of the folks there is, laughably --"let's kick out the Republicans and install Democrats!!!....THAT will solve all our problems!!!" ---- as if replacing Fascism (i.e., the 100% Corporate Party) with Fascism-Lite (i.e., the 98% Corporate Party) is going to save this country from its ongoing destruction)

Originally posted by Freethinker
[B]:@@: :@@:

I looked everywhere on the internet for quite some time for a forum where anything approaching a progressive/liberal voice was allowed to take part in seroius dicsussions, before i found this place.

The vast majority of forums i found were dominated by Archie Bunker types who shouted down most of the posts or topics where a view was presented that challenged or criticized ths status quo.

It happens a bit here too, but at least there are a handful of liberal/leftist posters here who will hold their ground.


You have GOT to be kidding me, right?
I have been posting to over 16 forums, and although I will admit a conservative opinion is not obliterated HERE, it definitely is on other forums. I do not understand how someone can assume because you attend church, and hold yourself to a moral code, that you are inherently sexist, homophobic, racist etc.

I appreciate the environment here where (for the most part) intellectual discussion is appreciated, but it is hardly true web-wide.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
500 -- in nearly every case, including snopes, the site does not produce any evidence that it did not happen.

This one can still go either way


Proving a wild claim did not happen is not a requirement in any credible discussion. On a whim, anyone can invent insane notions that are impossible to disprove. So what?

Dop, now disprove my claim that President wasn't a deep cover special-op during Vietnam, but can never discuss his service.

"This one can still go either way."

Originally posted by Divalatina
You have GOT to be kidding me, right?
I have been posting to over 16 forums, and although I will admit a conservative opinion is not obliterated HERE, it definitely is on other forums. I do not understand how someone can assume because you attend church, and hold yourself to a moral code, that you are inherently sexist, homophobic, racist etc.

I appreciate the environment here where (for the most part) intellectual discussion is appreciated, but it is hardly true web-wide.
Exactly. Well said, Diva.

Originally posted by Brooks
Proving a wild claim did not happen is not a requirement in any credible discussion. On a whim, anyone can invent insane notions that are impossible to disprove. So what?

Dop, now disprove my claim that President wasn't a deep cover special-op during Vietnam, but can never discuss his service.

"This one can still go either way."

I take it you're jewish brooks. That's fine but putting Israel and the jews above investigation for 9/11 also tells me you may believe they truly did have a hand in things. What other conclusion could there be?

Why do you not want Israel investigated? Especially since it is Israel that gained the most from the invasion of Iraq? Please explain your Israel is above the law attitude in some terms other than it's a Dop conspiracy theory

This should be easy to answer considering you're so sure of your positon.

And -- snopes does not debunk anything. They simply post their opinion.

Originally posted by Divalatina
You have GOT to be kidding me, right?
I have been posting to over 16 forums, and although I will admit a conservative opinion is not obliterated HERE, it definitely is on other forums. I do not understand how someone can assume because you attend church, and hold yourself to a moral code, that you are inherently sexist, homophobic, racist etc.

I appreciate the environment here where (for the most part) intellectual discussion is appreciated, but it is hardly true web-wide.

There are plenty of sites where conservatives get a fair shake and in some cases they completely rule. Look harder.

On this forum, which is nearly evenly split, the left is not opposed to your views (AFAIK) on church, morality, homophobia or ricism. Say what you want about any of those subjects and you'll get some of the best debate anywhere on all the internets [sic].

OTOH -- should you start cramming your beliefs down my throat, telling me your religion is the only religion and condeming my life style in the name of morality (probably false morality) and telling me what to do in my bedroom and with whom to do it -- then be prepared to be overwhelmed with responses, not only from the left but from the moderate right. No one likes to be told how to live their lives.

Racism is racism and a given on any forum. Conservatives are racists by definition, they have proven it over and over again and it's not a topic worth discussing as the right can no longer defend against the racism charges. In fact it should be posted as a sticky at the top of the page on every forum.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing


Conservatives are racists by definition, they have proven it over and over again and it's not a topic worth discussing as the right can no longer defend against the racism charges. In fact it should be posted as a sticky at the top of the page on every forum.



Democrats also have a very lengthy history of racism.

I would not assume that anyone was or was not racist simply based upon their party affiliation. Of course, I do not make assumptions about people based on anything other than WHO they are.

However, if we want historical trends to talk then let them talk for BOTH parties.

Proving a wild claim did not happen is not a requirement in any credible discussion. On a whim, anyone can invent insane notions that are impossible to disprove. So what? Dop, now disprove my claim that President wasn't a deep cover special-op during Vietnam, but can never discuss his service. Thats not what you were saying when Saddam was asked to prove he didn't have something (which is impossible)... damn hippy-crite/.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
1. I take it you're jewish brooks.

2. Please explain your Israel is above the law attitude in some terms other than it's a Dop conspiracy theory


1. This sums you up. I happen to be Catholic. You can't even IMAGINE that people could feel so strongly about those not like themselves.

2. Please see signature line.

What's annoying about your stance here is the stubbornness (since I know you're not stupid) of it. You have nothing to base any of this on besides the hatred in your gut. No one can fight that.

I think about fifty thousand worked in the World Trade Center, and about 2,500 or so workers got killed. I guess a lot of Catholics must have gotten a warning from the Vatican. PROVE OTHERWISE.

It boils down brooks to the claim of the jews being fore-warned having never been debunked via proof ... only opinion.

There's the problem.

When the debunkers admit it is possible because it has never been studied and proven otherwise, then I will go half-way on the issue.

Until then -- the story stands true as initially reported.

Originally posted by Divalatina
Democrats also have a very lengthy history of racism.

I would not assume that anyone was or was not racist simply based upon their party affiliation. Of course, I do not make assumptions about people based on anything other than WHO they are.

However, if we want historical trends to talk then let them talk for BOTH parties.

Right on Diva... its no secret that dop and FT are always trying to lump ALL conservatives into one mold, and it always seems that they represent me with some extreme wacko....

Now i dont think you will get any arguement from FT and dop that THEY indeed are extreme lefties... and with that mindset comes the egoism, something i remark on quite a bit, and it shines through over and over as i see post after post from these guys....

Originally posted by Decka
Right on Diva... its no secret that dop and FT are always trying to lump ALL conservatives into one mold, and it always seems that they represent me with some extreme wacko....

Now i dont think you will get any arguement from FT and dop that THEY indeed are extreme lefties... and with that mindset comes the egoism, something i remark on quite a bit, and it shines through over and over as i see post after post from these guys....

I am just as afraid of the extreme right as I am the extreme left. I find the extremes on either side tend to be more interested in further division than any actual problem solving. It is a form of elitism. "I am better than you, smarter than you, etc. because I believe this."

Originally posted by Divalatina
I am just as afraid of the extreme right as I am the extreme left. I find the extremes on either side tend to be more interested in further division than any actual problem solving. It is a form of elitism. "I am better than you, smarter than you, etc. because I believe this."

Wow... someone slap me... is this for real?

LOL sorry i just VERY MUCH agree with your thoughts Diva... and maybe you word them better than i ever did.

Originally posted by Decka
Wow... someone slap me... is this for real?

LOL sorry i just VERY MUCH agree with your thoughts Diva... and maybe you word them better than i ever did.
I find it funny how you usually say "The liberals think this" "All liberals are bla" because you use to have that signature that said, "When I say liberals I don't mean all liberals" or whatever it said. And yet you are attacking Dop and FT for saying "All conservatives" when they know there are exceptions just like you do....funny how you are both the same.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
It boils down brooks to the claim of the jews being fore-warned having never been debunked via proof ... only opinion.

There's the problem.

When the debunkers admit it is possible because it has never been studied and proven otherwise, then I will go half-way on the issue.

Until then -- the story stands true as initially reported.

Normally I wouldn't post an article instead of a link, but it's a short one so here goes...

4,000 Jews, 1 Lie
Tracking an Internet hoax.
By Bryan Curtis
Posted Friday, Oct. 5, 2001, at 5:30 PM PT

[Addendum, Oct. 7, 4 p.m. ET: Osama Bin Laden essentially claimed credit for the Sept. 11 attacks in a statement recorded before Sunday's strikes on Afghanistan. "America was hit by God in one of its softest spots," he said. "If it continues with this policy [against Iraq and the PLO], the sons of Islam will not stop their struggle."]

It is an article of faith in many Muslim countries that Israel was behind the attack on the World Trade Center, with many citing as their evidence a "news report" that 4,000 Israelis called in sick from their jobs at the World Trade Center on Sept. 11. The allegation has now appeared on scores of Web sites and bulletin boards, has been reproduced in e-mails too numerous to count, and has run as fact in newspapers and news broadcasts in the Middle East. Where did this charge originate, and what path did it take around the world?

First, a question begs: Where did the precise figure of 4,000 Israelis come from? According to the Anti-Defamation League's Web site, on Sept. 11, the Israeli Embassy released a statement expressing concern about the 4,000 Israeli nationals living in New York City—few of whom actually worked in the World Trade Center. At press time, the embassy couldn't confirm this statement.

According to Nexis and the Google search engine, the first mention of Israeli involvement in the attacks came in a Sept. 17 report on Lebanon's Al-Manar Television. The Los Angeles Times reports that the terrorist group Hezbollah has free access to Al-Manar's airwaves, and the station's Web site claims that the station exists to "stage an effective psychological warfare with the Zionist enemy."

The next day at 6:26 a.m., the American Web site Information Times published an article headlined "4,000 Jews Did Not Go To Work At WTC On Sept. 11," and credited it to an "AL-MANAR Television Special Investigative Report." This was not the first time that Information Times had pointed the finger at Israel. The day after the attacks, it warned in an article that the "terrorist government of Israel … cannot be ruled out" as a suspect. Information Times purports to be edited by Syed Adeeb from the eighth floor of the National Press Club at 549 15th St. NW, Washington, DC, 20045. The Press Club says it has no such tenant and repeated messages sent to the e-mail address for Syed Abeed listed on the site bounce back as undeliverable. Directory assistance for Washington, D.C., has no listing for Information Times.

The "4,000 Jews" page is easily forwarded as e-mail, and this may explain the message's rapid dissemination.

The Information Times article makes three charges:

1) Citing the Jordanian newspaper Al-Watan, it alleges that "Israelis remained absent [on Sept. 11] based on hints from the Israeli General Security Apparatus, the Shabak." No media source except Al-Manar claims to have actually seen the editorial in Al-Watan, which the Jordanian Embassy's information bureau describes as an obscure newspaper with a low circulation. Al-Watan's source? Unnamed "Arab diplomatic sources." (A few newspapers called Al-Watan have Web sites—click here, here, and here to visit them—though none seem to be based in Jordan.)

2) Citing the Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot, it alleges that Israeli secret police prevented Prime Minister Ariel Sharon from traveling to New York City on Sept. 11.

3) Citing the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, it alleges that the FBI arrested five Israelis who were caught filming the WTC's smoking rubble from their office building roof. (They were being held on the charge of "puzzling behavior.")

No other media outlet that can be searched through Nexis or Google has confirmed the Information Times claims about Sharon and the five Israelis.

Within days, the story appeared in newspapers around the world. A remarkably similar version appeared under the byline of Irina Malenko in Russia's Pravda on Sept. 21. Pravda removed the article from its Web site a few hours after posting, calling it a "great and foolish mistake," but it can still be accessed here. On Sept. 21, the Chicago Tribune reported that a Pakistani paper, which it did not name, had published a similar account. In his Sept. 23 Slate "Dispatch" from Islamabad, Peter Maass reported that a local pro-Taliban politician repeated the 4,000 Jews claim at an anti-U.S. rally. On Sept. 26, Pakistan's Business Recorder printed the story about 4,000 Jews in language almost identical to the original Al-Manar article as a letter to the editor under the name "Hakeem." The same day, the New York Times reported that the allegation had appeared in a newsletter published by an Islamic charity and in lesson plans prepared by Egyptian middle-school teachers. On Oct. 4, the Chicago Tribune spotted the allegation in a Saudi paper, which it did not name. In the Oct. 8 issue of Time, Tim McGirk reported from Pakistan that the story had swept through the country's mosques and Urdu newspapers.

On Sept. 28, USA Today repeated the claim in the context that "Muslims the world over" had tried to pin the attack on Israel. USA Today did not explain the origin of the charge. The Village Voice did the same on Oct. 2. The hoax-debunking site Snopes.com assailed the story, as well. With the Web as a weapon, a lie spreads quickly and easily. With the Web as a corrective tool, the same lie becomes much easier to bat away.

Bryan Curtis is a Slate staff writer.

The article appeared on the Slate website.

http://slate.msn.com/id/116813/

Your turn Dop. Any source whatever for this claim you'd like to provide?

I find it funny how you usually say "The liberals think this" "All liberals are bla" because you use to have that signature that said, "When I say liberals I don't mean all liberals" or whatever it said. And yet you are attacking Dop and FT for saying "All conservatives" when they know there are exceptions just like you do....funny how you are both the same.


I tend to believe these "exceptions" are the vast majority of either side. What nonsense is it that so many are hard-core extremists to either ideology? Many Americans could care less about politics, ask them when their gubernatorial races are, who their secretary of state is, ask them what the sides concerning gay marriage are...good chance you will get blank responses from many, while good responses from an active few.
Besides, when people refer to a group such as "conservative" or "liberal", they of course are not referring to each individual head involved in such squabbling, unless of course they use the word all. :D