Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Liberal bias

2007-08-17T18:45:53Z

Fuzzy901: /* Example 17 */

{{Protection Warning}}

== What is ...? ==

This article has no definition of what a Liberal Bias is.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 22:30, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd go for some citations, too. And some fries. :D [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 11:36, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Should the Daily Show and Colbert Report be on here? Neither make any claim to be unbiased, and Jon Stewart has occasionally derided interviewers (most famously on Crossfire, when he wasn't calling them bad for America) for assuming he was a real news outlet and should be expected to act like one. There's a difference between, say, Air America (Liberal Spin, or Liberal Perspective, depending on how nice you are) and NPR (Liberal Bias) [[User:Momoka|Momoka]] 01:02 15 March 2007

:I agree, but if we remove the "Duh..." cases, we're basically left only with unsourced statements. ;) I'm not sure what the point of the article is, anyway. If the things in question have a liberal bias, just say it in the article and supply a source.</opinion> --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 08:40, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::I also think this article should include a description of what [[liberal]] bias is so that the [[Conservative]]s amongst us know what to watch out for.
::[[User:JC|JC]] 09:28, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Unreferenced statements==

Cut from intro:

:The problem with liberal bias is not just the harm which advocacy of false liberal notions does (which is bad enough), but that Liberals are oblivious to their liberalness. Many of them quite literally and sincerely consider themselves "middle of the road" (see [[Dan Rather]], as mentioned in Goldberg's ''[[Bias (book)]]''.

[[user:Hojimachong]] called this "original research". That stings a bit, because I'm a refugee from Wikipedia where "OR" is a big no-no. So I'll try to dig up some referencs for this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 01:21, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Okay, I think I've provided 2 citations for the idea that Liberals are oblivious to their liberalness and 1 citation for Dan Rather calling a Liberal newspaper "middle of the road". This still might not be up to encyclopedia quality, because it's only one source: [[Bernard Goldberg]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 01:41, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== References that don't support the item they're referencing ==

Everything in it should have a citation.

And the citation should be a published statement by someone authoritative—a recognized conservative is fine, but not "me and my brother"—that ''says the thing in question is liberal.''

What set me off is that there '''is''' a reference for Dan Rather's being considered liberal. But the reference does not say Dan Rather is liberal. It says Dan Rather things the New York Times is middle-of-the-road.

There's a difference between "X says Dan Rather is liberal" and "Dan Rather says Y is middle-of-the-road."

Particularly when no source has been cited for the New York Times' supposed liberal bias. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:43, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
==According to this site==
The nation's major media outlets ''seem'' to be owned by corporations which are by no means "liberal", except, perhaps, in the way they have liberally given to [http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/47530.php | politicians.]+--[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 11:54, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Conservative bias ==

Could someone who knows please consider writing the matching [[Conservative bias]] article listing Conservative news sources? I am surprised and confused that Conservapedia criticizes Wikipedia by claiming that most Americans are Conservative, but that what I see as America's most reliable news sources are all listed as having a liberal bias. Thankyou. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 11:33, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
: Done; I don't understand this either (but remember FOX News, purveyor of truth and justice ;), isn't listed), but the powers that be won't appreciate anyone changing it. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

*Please! Whilst the majority of Americans are far more traditional/conservative than the news outlets are, and those who work for them, the fact that Fox News, in unbiased studies (and preception) is less "Liberal", it doesn't make Fox News "Conservative", just fair. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 20:36, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::Why does the Conservative American public continue to buy and read such biased newspapers, radio and television stations, instead of putting their money where their mouth is and creating a reputable conservative alternative? Is Rupert Murdoch the only person who saw the ''majority'' of Americans as a potential market!? Does he/News Corp have major newspapers too, or just the Fox News television channel? --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 23:48, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

*News Corp is one of the world's largest media holding companies. Its holdings includes ''TV Guide'', ''Sky'' and ''Direct-TV'' satellite services, the various ''Fox'' networks, ''Harper-Collins'' publishing, The ''London Times'', New York ''Post'', dozens of newspapers in Australia and the ''20th Century Fox'' motion picture and television studios. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:02, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Disney owns ABC, Disney gave GWB's 2000 campaign 640K.
:Westinghouse owns CBS. (No political contributions cited.)
:General Electric owns NBC, GE gave GWB $1.1 million in 2000
:TIME-WARNER TBS owns: CNN, HBO, Cinemax, TBS Superstation, Turner Network Television, Turner Classic Movies, Warner Brothers Television, Cartoon Network, Sega Channel, TNT, Comedy Central (50%), E! (49%), Court TV (50%). Largest owner of cable systems in the US with an estimated 13 million subscribers.
:TIME-WARNER TBS gave GWB $1.6 million in 2000.
:NEWS CORPORATION LTD. / FOX NETWORKS (Rupert Murdoch BoD Phillip Morris):Phillip Morris donated 2.9 million to George W Bush in 2000.
:::::[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 00:25, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Rob, please don't make me embarass you, with your posting of totally distorted and biased figures. You are in my area of expertise, and most of those coroporations gave exactly the same, if not more, to Democratic Party candidates. You have to go to real stats, not moveon.org for them! --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:35, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
::I don't get embarrassed , only enlightened, [http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/47530.php | here] is my source. I defer to your expertise. Thank you for your kind attention to my little additions around here. [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]

:::Thanks TK. I meant ''American'' newspapers, as I know News Corp is the largest newspaper publisher in Australia. The only US newspaper you mentioned is the New York Post. Is that a widely-distributed and well-known newspaper like the NY Times and Washington Post, but Conservative? It's not mentioned in the references for liberal/conservative bias, that I can see. Is there widely perceived to be a liberal/conservative bias in the movie houses such as 20th Century Fox? --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 01:24, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Cracker, the donation amounts to GWB don't tell me much without knowing whether they were given before or after he was the endorsed Republican presidential candidate - did they actually support him against Al Gore/John Kerry, or against other Republicans to ensure they had the right Republican? Note that while I (think I) understand the US political ''process'', I do not have a good grasp on the ''politics'' of the various people, along with many of the other non-American readers here, so may well be asking naive questions to someone in the system. Sorry, but if we don't ask, we don't learn. Your source is dated 2003, but was wrong anyway - it says News Corp owns Ansett Airlines. It sold its 50% interest in early 2000, and the airline went bust in 2001. I don't know if it got any media info wrong. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 01:24, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I was only providing "who owns what" The campaign contributions just happened to be on the site I cited so I included that as well. I suppose my point was that Westinghouse, GE, News Corp, and Disney are not known in the USA as bastions of liberalism. [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]

*That site must need some kind of Liberal password, cause it won't resolve for me..... :p --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 02:00, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
::Try it now. [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]
::Ouch! --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 02:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::GE and Westinghouse probably care more about Defense and electricity contracts and policies than they do about media bias. If they exercise editorial control, that is likely to be the focus. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 02:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, that would explain NBC hiring Rick Kaplan to run its news. :p Time-Warner, one should see that Ted Turner is one of the largest stockholders. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 03:19, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== The [[BBC]] ==

Ed Driscoll wrote:
*Austin Bay asked me to guest host the Pajamas Media "Blog Week In Review" podcast this week, so I interviewed Robin Aitken, the former BBC journalist and on-air personality who left the network and has written a new book, very much in the vein of Bernard Goldberg's books on American media bias, titled Can We Trust The BBC. I tried to aim the questions towards an American perspective on the topic, but then, how could I not? Aitken also discussed in depth the BBC's biases regarding Iraq, Israel, and the Palestinians. Regular readers of this blog won't exactly be shocked where the BBC comes down on these issues, but for those who still hold out a belief that the BBC is entirely objective, its an eye-opener. [http://eddriscoll.com/archives/cat_oh_that_liberal_media.php] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:02, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Technically the term "objective" is objective, therefore I wonder if it is differences in culture that can explain any bias by the BBC. Surely the BBC is less geared towards sensationalism then American media and it focuses on the issues that are being discussed rather then simply telling the masses where the majority of their opinion lies. This would be more encouraging of a neutral environment where the individual is left to make their own choices. Britain is considerably less puritian in its customs and culture as well as more liberal. The fact that a liberal bias may exist is less important, though then whether it allows for opposing views to be formed. I am unable to do anything more than simply offer a generalization, however, as issues are exceedingly complex and diverse as are the ways of covering them, but surely the issue is more complex then whether the BBC is biased or not.--[[User:Theseus|Theseus]] 22:16, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== TK? ==

:(Protection log) (diff; hist) . . TK (Talk | contribs) (protected "Liberal bias": Warning of locking soon.... [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])

Explain, please... --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:50, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

*Just checking to see how many keyholes you're peeping into. :p --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== It's locked? ==
''Note: This page has been locked so that only registered users can edit it.''
I am Gulik's complete lack of surprise. But last I checked, I _am_ a registered user. --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 01:34, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

== Middle of the Road ==
" During a phone conversation, Bernard Goldberg asked him, "What do you consider the New York Times? Rather answered, "Middle of the road." "
:The article uses this quote to prove that Dan Rather has a liberal bias? That seems rather foolish to me considering that if left is liberal and right is conservative the middle would be no bias at all. [[User:Dilbert|Dilbert]] 02:27, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

== Communism for Dummies ==

Can anyone tell me what this is? The others are all famous, but I haven't heard of this one. It was entered by Hektor back in March, and he was later blocked for questionable edits, so I'd just like to verify we don't have a red herring here. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:03, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
:It looks very suspicious. It should be removed because of the circumstances you just described. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 17:05, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

*Sigh. There is a whole line of books with the tag ....."For Dummies" explaining things like "Computers for Dummies", "Windows XP for Dummies", etc. Check Barnes and Noble's website. Or Amazon.com. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:31, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

::Yes my friend I have a few of those, but in regards to liberal bias if that is what was meant then that wouldn't exactly be a good example. I was just wondering if there was some infamous show or newspaper by that name that I wasn't aware of. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:52, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

*Ahh! Wasn't a valid link anyway! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:55, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

== Media bias ==

So... since no one can agree whether media etc. are "accused of having liberal bias" or "have well known liberal bias," why don't we follow [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Commandments CP Commandment #2]? If it's so obvious, shouldn't it be written somewhere objective? (And no, that page of out-of-context quotes about minor examples of bias can't be a source; at least not the only source). [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 21:29, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
:huh? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:58, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
::I seem to be rambling and in need of sleep. Let me try again: we are on the cusp of a revert war over the issue of whether the media is "accused" of having a liberal bias, or whether they have a "well known" liberal bias. Why don't we just add some sources instead of reverting? See [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Commandments CP Commandments #2 and #5], as well as the [http://www.conservapedia.com/Help:Editing_etiquette Editing Etiquette] ''("put your "facts" in neutral terms. For example, Secular geologists believe that the world is 4.5 billion years old is better than The world is 4.5 billion years old")''. According to the rules, both versions of the statement in contention are not acceptible in their current form. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 23:31, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
:::ok.. so you mean like, "according to longtime media watcher and analyst so-and-so the [[MSM]] is dominated by commie stooges & useful idiots", for example? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:42, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Uh, yeah, as long as it follows the [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Commandments#_note-1 footnote] to commandment two: "Sources should be authoritative works, not merely published opinions by others." Though good luck finding an authoritative source calling the NYTimes "commie stooges & useful idiots" ;-) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 23:57, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

*Great sourcing on the CBS News bias, Rob. I don't think we will see Uncle Walter issuing an apology will we? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 02:05, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

== The United Nations? ==

I'm not sure if the United Nations fits in here. It's a liberal organization, yes, but it wouldn't seem right to put, say, the ACLU or the Democratic Party in here, as it's not a media organization per se. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:50, 9 August 2007 (EDT)
:A gathering of nations in a forum for discussion originally created to prevent a third world war is inherently liberal? [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 19:39, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
::Actually, yes, if you use a different definition of the word liberal. In international politic theory the spectrum is more often broken into "realist" and "liberal". In a nutshell, a realist believes in the use of power and force to ensure security and enforce policy, and a liberal believes in organizations to ensure security and enforce policy. In these terms, the UN is the definition of a liberal solution :) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 20:22, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
::: You make [[liberalism]] sound less like [[evil]] than some others here. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 20:24, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
::::In the olden days, Americans could always say, "Let the UN handle it;" thank the Lord for Conservapedia, cause now we can see just exactly what this attitude of letting "UN Peacekeepers handle it" really means: [[United Nations#UN Sexual Abuse Scandals]]. [[User:Robs|Rob Smith]] 20:42, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::"Just let the Americans handle it" worked well too, until the Abu Ghraib pictures were leaked. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 21:22, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

*Yes! One should be highly offended at terrorists and criminals being humiliated! Of course that is on the same level as stealing billions from the poor, letting hundreds of thousands starve, and aiding anti-Semites.....of course. Kazumaru, see [[Deceit]]. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:48, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

:*Yes indeed. Those sadistic American torture techniques, making Mighty Islamic Warriors of God wear women's panties. What will the neighbors think? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:46, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

:* I appreciate you only disagreeing after you banned me, TK, however... I'm not referring to the panties-on-head thing. I'm referring solely to legitimate acts of torture, like [[Waterboarding]]. And I don't mean surfing.

:* Haven't a clue what any of that has to do with deceit, though... [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 20:32, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

== "More then half of Americans agree that their is liberal media bias"==
Here is an interesting poll which gives more evidence of liberal media bias [http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070809222839.jzdcwmy8&show_article=1], you may want to consider adding that information to this article.--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 22:06, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

Actually that ''is'' an interesting poll, but you're reading words into it that's not there. First, it simply says that 'more than half of Americans say new orgs...are biased'. It does '''not''' say 'liberal bias'. Many, many people do indeed believe the MSM is biased, and many believe it is biased towards the right. Bias is most obvious on Fox News, who make a mockery of their tacky marketing phrase 'Fair & Balanced'. Anybody can see their entire output is heavily slanted to the right (cf. the use of the phrase 'Homicide Bombers', the only org outside the White House to use the phrase; even the Army uses the phrase 'Suicide Bomber', as it's more accurate). But bias is also visible in places like the NYT, which have a tendency to bias left.

Bias is everywhere, and the sooner people on the Right understand that the Left believe this too, the better. If all sides of the argument see bias, maybe we should fix our news? [[User:PhilLynott|PhilLynott]] 22:20, 9 August 2007 (EDT)
:That is a very interesting analysis; so liberals are pro-"suicide bomber" whereas right-wingers in the White House and FOX News oppose it. Even the Pentagon has jumped on the liberal bandwagon with this one, defying thier right-wing bosses and cow towing to the liberal slant. Hmmmm, that's news itself. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:30, 9 August 2007 (EDT)
:We should include the quote from Diane Sawyer when she said she was being interviewed for jury duty. A lawyer asked her if she could be objective. She responded with something like, "I'm a journalist. I'm always objective." The Courtroom broke out into a roar of laughter. Sawyer says it was the most embarassing moment of her life. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:12, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, after a second look it did not say liberal bias, thanks for the catch. But still, if you look through the article, it seems to imply leftest bias in the media. --[[User:Tash|Tash]] 22:33, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

*Poor Diane. :-( A long way from those long walks on the beach with Richard Nixon in exile. Sawyer was part of the very small staff working for Nixon post-exile. She had a nible mind, and a fierce dedication to Nixon. Then she moved East, married Mike Nichols...and what happened! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 01:23, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:*[[Monica Crowley]] now is the spiritual heir of Nixon's thinking, although Hillary Clinton has been the most successful at the ballot box using everything she learned from Nixon. Amazing, how the true heirs of Nixonion thought all seem to be women. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 13:05, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
*Nixon said several times he was profoundly influenced by his Mother's values and thoughts....--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:21, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

== Example 17 ==

Chamberlain was a Conservative; the last Liberal PM was Lloyd George (1916-22). (Source: http://www.annualreport.gov.uk/output/Page123.asp) [[User:G7mzh|G7mzh]] 10:18, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

:No, you see, he's an unpopular figure so he becomes a liberal by default. [[User:Fuzzy901|Fuzzy901]] 14:45, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Define Civil War

2007-05-13T19:42:17Z

Fuzzy901:

Again, liberals have skewered another meaning, this time civil war. Iraq is a low level civil war, they claim. I didn't know there were so many levels of civil war. 25,000 Al Qaeda bandits try to provoke Sunnis and Shiites to fight each other. Out 24 million citizens, how many people are fighting for one side or another? possibly 1%? Then 240k people are fighting each other in a low level civil war?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 20:48, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

1% is enough for a war (in most countries the military comprises less than 1% of the total population): it means 1 out of every 50 males is fighting, which probably means something like 1 out of every 30 able bodied males: so chances are every Iraqi knows at least 1 person who's fighting for some faction.

If this is not a civil war, then what is it?

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

It's a war on terror with no defined armies, only groups of competing militias. Porous borders with enemy nations surrounding on all sides, providing proxy support. --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 16:31, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Civil wars can be of varying intensity and size. The United States' Civil War completely dwarfed in size and area and casualty counts most civil wars of the 20th Century...like El Salvador's for example. But just because El Salvador's was small and limited doesn't mean it wasn't a civil war. Iraq falls into that category, with the added pressure of a failing government. If the al-Maliki government collapses, then you'll have a failed state. Which is the only thing that could be worse than what we have right now in Iraq.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 16:36, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

"No defined armies"?

1. U.S. military

2. British military

3. Coalition peacekeeping forces

4. Iraqi military

5. Al Quieda

6. Al Sadr's Shiitte militia

7. Sunni death squads

8. Shiite death squads

...

Some of these are not traditional armies, but neither are the various rebel factions fighting civil wars in Africa and Latin America.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Not to mention foreign fighters, and common criminals. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 23:24, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

So then civil war meaning armies of any nation? Middle Man, I find you quite knowledgable and can understand your rebuttal quite well. Is it a civil war or a world wide war then? What you are describing is a world wide war or maybe a war of independence. If you look at the American civil war, both sides looked to other nations support however none participated in military action. In Iraq, you have outside powers (defined), possibly caught up in a war with militias and foreign extremist elements (quasi undefined). North Iraq versus Middle Iraq versus Southern Iraq would in fact describe a civil war, pitting a side against another. Shiite militias/death squads versus Sunni militias/death squads with a guerilla Al Qaeda movement of foreign fighters is a civil war? More like a religious war or war of independence. You have a coalition of willing nations trying to prevent an elected govt from failing (much like the French coming to Americas defense in 1776). What does the Iraqi population want of their country, rogue bandits taking charge or their elected govt? The line is blurred, you can make your case it is a civil war, it is not a civil war, it is a low level civil war, a religious war. It is a national conflict with many nations contributing to the success or the defeat of the current government.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:33, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

I believe Iraq is going through a civil war by comparing the situation to that in Congo: rebel factions, involvement of foreign nations, abductions, attacks against civilians, etc... (a deathly mess.)
Of course it depends on your definition of civil war.

[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

About the same level of violence as Detroit, my opinion of course.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:14, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, because there are car bombs and IEDs in Detroit, and coordinated suicide bombings, and death squads and helicopter gunships; I saw them last time I was there. The 'civil war,' or whatever euphemism you wish to apply, is referring to the conflict between the minority Sunnis, who have been in power until recently, and the majority Shiites, who have been living under the thumb of said Sunni majority. Constant fighting between Shiites and Sunnis, death squad activities on both sides, bitter rivalry... hmmm.... sounds like there are some doubleplus ungood bellyfeelings in Iraq. These two sides will never back down, the Sunnis because they're used to power and privilege (and rightly fear being exterminated by the Shiites should they wrest power) and the Shiites because they see the Sunnis as oppressors, and associate them with the Baath regime. The fighting between the two groups could very well determine which sect runs the government (I'd bet on the Shiites). Two large, nationwide groups of Iraqis fighting each other... nope, not a civil war at all. When those evil liberals use the phrase 'civil war,' they are referring to the fact that at present, many American soldiers are caught trying to end violence between the two warring factions, rather than accomplishing something or hunting down al-Qaeda, a much better use of time. -[[User:Fuzzy901|Fuzzy901]] 15:42, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Define Civil War

2007-05-13T04:48:08Z

Fuzzy901:

Talk:Debate:Restoring the USA image in the world, just a fancy phrase that means zilch?

2007-05-13T04:34:11Z

Fuzzy901: /* Moved from page, again! */

Snipped from the article by [[User:Hojimachong]]
----
:On the other hand, [[Guantanamo Bay]] still hasn't been shut down, and those pesky Iraqi [[Weapons of Mass Destruction]] remain unfound. --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 14:33, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:Just having "pro-American leaders" isn't enough to restore the image, I'm afraid:
::In a recent poll of international travellers, commissioned by Discover America Partnership, a coalition of US tourist organisations, 70 per cent of respondents said they feared US officials more than terrorists or criminals. Another 66 per cent worried they would be detained for some minor blunder, such as wrongly filling out an official form or being mistaken for a terrorist, while 55 per cent say officials are "rude."
:Comes from [http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10436518 this] recent news article. Check [http://www.poweroftravel.org/media.aspx here] for details. Some things that might be worth a look on that page:
:*March 22, 2007 -- New Figures From Dept. of Commerce Show Continued Decline in Overseas Travel to U.S.
:*January 23, 2007 -- Decline in U.S. Share of Global Travelers Since 9/11 Cost Nation $93 Billion; $15 Billion in Lost Taxes
:*November 20, 2006 - Study: Perceived Treatment of Foreign Travelers Driving Away Visitors, Damaging America’s Image Abroad
:I'm most likely not going to engage in a lengthy debate about this since my online time is limited, so I'd rather spend it on working on articles. I just wanted to add this as food for thought. There's more to the US image than the opinion of some leading politicians. --[[User:JLindon|JLindon]] 14:55, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
----
Hojimachong, why did you declare this to be an essay? The posts on the "essay" page are simply signed edits like on a debate or talk page. I'm not sure if I missed something, but I find it odd. --[[User:JLindon|JLindon]] 14:58, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
:Okay, the "essay" tag was now removed. Does this mean that the above comments can be moved back? I'm confused. --[[User:JLindon|JLindon]] 07:47, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Moved from Essay. Post on the talk page! ==

:On the other hand, [[Guantanamo Bay]] still hasn't been shut down, and those pesky Iraqi [[Weapons of Mass Destruction]] remain unfound. --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 14:33, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:Just having "pro-American leaders" isn't enough to restore the image, I'm afraid:
::In a recent poll of international travellers, commissioned by Discover America Partnership, a coalition of US tourist organisations, 70 per cent of respondents said they feared US officials more than terrorists or criminals. Another 66 per cent worried they would be detained for some minor blunder, such as wrongly filling out an official form or being mistaken for a terrorist, while 55 per cent say officials are "rude."
:Comes from [http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10436518 this] recent news article. Check [http://www.poweroftravel.org/media.aspx here] for details. Some things that might be worth a look on that page:
:*March 22, 2007 -- New Figures From Dept. of Commerce Show Continued Decline in Overseas Travel to U.S.
:*January 23, 2007 -- Decline in U.S. Share of Global Travelers Since 9/11 Cost Nation $93 Billion; $15 Billion in Lost Taxes
:*November 20, 2006 - Study: Perceived Treatment of Foreign Travelers Driving Away Visitors, Damaging America’s Image Abroad
:I'm most likely not going to engage in a lengthy debate about this since my online time is limited, so I'd rather spend it on working on articles. I just wanted to add this as food for thought. There's more to the US image than the opinion of some leading politicians. --[[User:JLindon|JLindon]] 14:55, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

You're convinced the Dems hate America, aren't you, JP? At any rate, Blair's out in the UK...so much for Bush's buddy there. [[User:Pendayho|Pendayho]] 16:48, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, many of them do, actually. And, by the way, Blair, a Liberal person, politically, like FDR here, at least knew danger when he saw it, and supported the US policy in Iraq. He is being replaced by an even more pro-US leader, strong Bush supporter, from the Conservative Party, like Thatcher was. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 16:52, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
:Tony Blair will be replaced by [[Gordon Brown]]. If you're referring to [[David Cameron]] he has made comments distancing himself from Tony Blair's pro-Bush line.[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article637436.ece] In any case there is a difference between the knee-jerk anti-Americanism of the left and criticisms of the Bush administration from the right. A lot of conservatives in Europe dislike Bush for his perceived fiscal irresponsibility. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 05:08, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:*No argument there, about the fiscal irresponsibility. Bush hasn't exactly been a "Tiger" fighting off spending, but Europeans need to remember that in America, only the Congress can appropriate money. Given it was controled by Republicans until recently, all the more shameful, IMO. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:12, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
::Most Europeans wouldn't make much distinction between the policies of a Republican president and the policies of a Republican congress that supports him -- they're just seen as parts of the same political movement with collective responsibility for the actions they take. More important is the point that you shouldn't assume politicians from the political right in Europe will be any more pro-Bush or pro-American than those from the Left. That would have been a reasonable assumption during the Cold War when support for the USA was useful in establishing anti-communist credentials, but these days that is no longer an important issue. Similarly the Reagan/Thatcher axis shared common ground in how to tackle common domestic issues, but these days the important domestic issues in Europe are often different from those in the USA, and in any case domestic policy during the Bush administration is not considered to be a shining example to be emulated by most European conservatives. There is no longer any overriding reason for European conservatives to be pro-American or pro-Bush. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 05:51, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

*Yet the new French President seems to contradict what you are saying.....--[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 06:32, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

== Is this REALLY an essay? ==

The initial poster removed the "Essay" template and inserted a "Debate" template. That kinda told me that this is meant to be a debate, not an essay. --[[User:JLindon|JLindon]] 15:33, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

==Moved from page, again!==
:You criticize liberals' use of the phrase "USA image" (I believe they actually say "America's image") but then use the incredibly jingoistic phrase "Coalition of the Willing:" are the White House's 'talking points' less meaningless than other 'talking points'? 84% of the invasion force was American; 15% was British. That leaves the remaining 1% of ground forces to be composed of Australian, Polish, and Danish forces - wow, some coalition. It pales in comparison to the original Coalition in 1991. But wait, more nations have joined the coalition of the willing! South Korea, Macedonia, Azerbaijan, Latvia, Mongolia, the glorious state of Kazakhstan... I could go on. I mean, what would we do without Moldova's twelve soldiers?

:Also, I seriously doubt the world hates us for our porno. And what's this about Europeans hating us for our capitalism? Sure, they may be more socialist than we are, but they're hardly communists. Most of Europe is in the EU Free Trade bloc. You know, free trade? Capitalism? Economists love that stuff. The reason people hate us is more complex than "they hate our freedom" - although that is a nifty, jingoistic argument. I believe it has more to do with those in power (Hamas, Syria, and the like) being smart and seeing that they can hold onto their power by unifying those under them against the 'evil West', so that those people don't realize that the leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah are crooks who couldn't care less about them. -[[User:Fuzzy901|Fuzzy901]] 16:14, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

*Fuzzy, who is "you"? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:54, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:*"You" would be the original debate-topic starter, from the first page. What happened here? -[[User:Fuzzy901|Fuzzy901]] 00:34, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Restoring the USA image in the world, just a fancy phrase that means zilch?

2007-05-12T20:14:58Z

Fuzzy901:

{{Unofficial}}
{{Debate}}

Restoring USA image in the world, a common liberal talking point. They have determined that America, with it unilateral approach on Iraq has damaged our image. False. The image has been damaged for some time now. First, is was a coalition of the willing, not the USA alone. Second, now that the Europeans have chimed into the Iraq debate as America wrong, liberals see it as the whole world hates America now. Before 9/11, extremists plotted to kill Americans. Why? We are the richest nation on Earth, do you think others hate us for that? Many nations are appalled at our pornagraphic industry that we export to them, can that be a part of it? Our support of Israel? We give women equal rights and a voice, many women in the world can't even leave their house alone or without a veil or go to school. My belief, and I am always correct, that liberals have found a hammer to hit conservatives with because the Europeans dislike our capitalism, and we are against socialism.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 18:20, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Update, Europe heading toward pro-American leaders. Victory in Germany by Merkel replacing anti-American Schroeder. Now victory in France replacing Chirac. Coupled with victory by Harper in Canada, it now seems we have support of major nations that took a direct stand against the USA foreign policy. Restoring the USA image in the world has worked itself out without the Democrats help.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:16, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:You criticize liberals' use of the phrase "USA image" (I believe they actually say "America's image") but then use the incredibly jingoistic phrase "Coalition of the Willing:" are the White House's 'talking points' less meaningless than other 'talking points'? 84% of the invasion force was American; 15% was British. That leaves the remaining 1% of ground forces to be composed of Australian, Polish, and Danish forces - wow, some coalition. It pales in comparison to the original Coalition in 1991. But wait, more nations have joined the coalition of the willing! South Korea, Macedonia, Azerbaijan, Latvia, Mongolia, the glorious state of Kazakhstan... I could go on. I mean, what would we do without Moldova's twelve soldiers?

:Also, I seriously doubt the world hates us for our porno. And what's this about Europeans hating us for our capitalism? Sure, they may be more socialist than we are, but they're hardly communists. Most of Europe is in the EU Free Trade bloc. You know, free trade? Capitalism? Economists love that stuff. The reason people hate us is more complex than "they hate our freedom" - although that is a nifty, jingoistic argument. I believe it has more to do with those in power (Hamas, Syria, and the like) being smart and seeing that they can hold onto their power by unifying those under them against the 'evil West', so that those people don't realize that the leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah are crooks who couldn't care less about them. -[[User:Fuzzy901|Fuzzy901]] 16:14, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Are the Democrats capable of fighting terrorism?

2007-04-20T01:39:16Z

Fuzzy901:

I personally believe the Democrats have zero clue about the war on terror. So much so, they want to change the wording, terror on the yellow brick road. How about a little insight to how they think, I give Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., "You can't end the war if you vote against the supplemental". They want to end the war on terror using congress. I've got news for anybody and everbody- the terrorists are not laying down their arms surrendering. Quit what? They attacked us and they will attack us until we are all dead, that's all they want. Anything less, you are dreaming of negotiations and nice talk. You are thinking irresponsibly.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:28, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== no ==
absolutily not! Why did Osama endorse kerry? liberals are more cocerned with spending your money on crazy social programs than on defense. In the words of Benjamin Netanyahu, "Today we have the power to destroy them. Now we must summon the will to do so". Its as if democrats dont understand the threat at all. they are too worked up over "global warming" (which I am sure they think is '''100%''' President Bush's fault!) [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:Maybe he endorsed Kerry knowing that it would benefit Bush. Al Qaeda benefit at least as much from the wars as they would from a lack of wars - think about what motivates their recruits. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:57, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==yes==
1993 WTC bombing. Omar Abdel-Rahman was arrested, tried and convicted. That happened under Clinton. GWB hasn't even come close to trying, let alone convicting, any senior member of AQ that was behind the 9/11 bombing. Terrorism hasn't been reduced globally since the "war" began; if anything, it has spread. Now there are bombings in moderate Arab countries like Morocco. AQ almost stole Somalia from under our noses, and would have if it wasn't for Ethiopia stepping in. In no facet have the policies of GWB made a serious dent in terrorism.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 11:43, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::have there been any terrorist bombings here? no. war=success. but would anything be better with democrats in charge? do you seriuosly think we would be better off with clinton?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:::You mean besides 9/11? Or are you saying that the War on Terror begins and ends at the US Border? Because if you take it as a whole, terrorism has only comtinued to ramp up since 9/11. Would the Democrats be better? Until they show me that they are as incompetent as this Administration, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:43, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== YES ==
:Surprisingly. The real issue with terrorism is not that they want to just kill us. Were that the case, all they would have to do is start by killing every American they come across, around the world. This is not being done. Rather, the purpose of a terrorist act is the act itself. (I have spent significant time and energy studying this--even spoke at a conf. on the subject.) Take the example of the attacks on the World Trade Center. Now, as a thought experiment, ask your self, honestly, if no one had died in the buildings--if the terrorists were caught before they could kill more people than were on the planes--would it have still been a significant moment in American history? If you're being honest, the answer is yes. The sight of two enormous buildings collapsing is just too much for most of us to comprehend.

:Now, looking at the same event, if the planes were empty, and the buildings were empty, would we still have been as awestruck? Again, if you're being honest the answer is yes. I argue that it is not the fact that people died in the attacks, but the attacks themselves are the reason we are affected by terrorism.

:The message of terrorism is this: we (the terrorists) can do this to you whenever we want. We (Americans) are supposed to believe that if this giant building can be taken down, anyplace we hide will not be safe.

:When we look at our national response to the attack, the Republican-led administration has done exactly what the terrorists wanted in the first place: they listened to the message and played it over and over again for everyone to see and (re)experience. At the risk of a lifetime ban, the Republicans could not have responded better had Osama bin Laden been in the White House. We were meant to be afraid--to disrupt our society--to fear their strength.

:Now ask yourself this: Before 9/11 had you ever heard of Al Qaeda? More than likely you hadn't. A few of you might have--those i tune with the news cycles and so-on. Today, everyone knows the name Al Qaeda. Their name recognition is incredible. They are the Coca Cola of terrorism. When most of us ask for a tissue we say Kleenex, not thinking about the name brand, and now the same is true of Al Qaeda.

:The reason I believe the Democrats can fight terrorism is because I believe they will go back to attacking it through anti- and counter-terrorism tactics, e.g. Intelligence. Think of the movie Munich if you want a good example. I have no problem in my liberal heart with one of our SEALs putting two in the back of a terrorist's skull. That is how terrorism needs to be fought--not drawn out into the open-that's what they want. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:57, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::You want CIA to assassinate people.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 19:50, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:What do you do when confronted by scary, shadowy people who have no qualms with killing? Release your own scary, shadowy people who have no qualms with killing on them: the CIA.[[User:Fuzzy901|Fuzzy901]] 18:41, 18 April 2007 (PDT)

User:Fuzzy901

2007-04-07T02:02:18Z

Fuzzy901: New page: Wewt!

Wewt!

Debate:Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?

2007-04-07T02:01:52Z

Fuzzy901:

{{debate}}

The mercenaries work in conjunction with the DOD. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:38, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Reply''': that does not answer the question. The question is should the companies be allowed to send their own troops in, or should the american government ban this so that the american people are still reliant on the american military for defence.

Double Edge

'''Yes''' Since our military is 100% voluntary sometimes you need more people to fill vacancies. Often the mercs fill in for security details for visiting dignitaries and other positions that would normally pull some of our troops off the front line. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 08:35, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

'''Reply''' But those mercenaries are working under government command, as are the troops on the front line. However, for the purposes of this debate the mercenaries are working for the company, not the american government. The main problem I see with allowing this is that if Americnan companies can build the their own armies, to work under their comand, then those troops might destroy the need for the American government to have an army of it's own. Commanding an army is one of the many things that a government should do for it's citizens, not the other way around. If the comapny wants to help America's military efforts they can just give more money to the government, so that the government can strengthen the military effort as it should.

Double Edge

: '''Yes''' It makes sense, here in America we have the free market system, any economics student can tell you it would be a perfectly logical extension of that market to open war to the lowest bidder. Instead of putting our precious youth in danger, we go to war and have an auction for which companies/mercenary groups want to fight it. The demand for war will be balanced by the supply of mercenaries to fight the war. Soon we won't even have to worry about war; we'll just set up a group akin to the FCC to make sure that various mercenary groups don't break the rules (killing thousands of innocent civilians, using nerve gas to save money, etc.) Plus, since mercenaries aren't armies, they don't have to deal with the Geneva convention or prisoners of war. Halliburton can set up an Invasion Division to take over countries with oil supplies instead of waiting for opportunities, thus growing the US economy. We're better than those countries anyways. [[User:Fuzzy901|Fuzzy901]] 19:00, 6 April 2007 (PST)

Debate:Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?

2007-04-07T02:01:07Z

Fuzzy901:

{{debate}}

The mercenaries work in conjunction with the DOD. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:38, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Reply''': that does not answer the question. The question is should the companies be allowed to send their own troops in, or should the american government ban this so that the american people are still reliant on the american military for defence.

Double Edge

'''Yes''' Since our military is 100% voluntary sometimes you need more people to fill vacancies. Often the mercs fill in for security details for visiting dignitaries and other positions that would normally pull some of our troops off the front line. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 08:35, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

'''Reply''' But those mercenaries are working under government command, as are the troops on the front line. However, for the purposes of this debate the mercenaries are working for the company, not the american government. The main problem I see with allowing this is that if Americnan companies can build the their own armies, to work under their comand, then those troops might destroy the need for the American government to have an army of it's own. Commanding an army is one of the many things that a government should do for it's citizens, not the other way around. If the comapny wants to help America's military efforts they can just give more money to the government, so that the government can strengthen the military effort as it should.

Double Edge

: '''Yes'''It makes sense, here in America we have the free market system, any economics student can tell you it would be a perfectly logical extension of that market to open war to the lowest bidder. Instead of putting our precious youth in danger, we go to war and have an auction for which companies/mercenary groups want to fight it. The demand for war will be balanced by the supply of mercenaries to fight the war. Soon we won't even have to worry about war; we'll just set up a group akin to the FCC to make sure that various mercenary groups don't break the rules (killing thousands of innocent civilians, using nerve gas to save money, etc.) Plus, since mercenaries aren't armies, they don't have to deal with the Geneva convention or prisoners of war. Halliburton can set up an Invasion Division to take over countries with oil supplies instead of waiting for opportunities, thus growing the US economy. We're better than those countries anyways. [[User:Fuzzy901|Fuzzy901]] 19:00, 6 April 2007 (PST)