USA soldiers scum

“Nigal, I said should, that doesn't mean I think that is what is happening. Some sort of bias will always happen whether it's intentional or not simply by what the reporter chooses to include and exclude in their report.”

“Yeah I caught the should in there and wasn't suggesting you were naive or anything. There is no absolute balance in the media and the truth is always skewed by someone down the line.”

“Um, Phaedrus. Declaring somebody as having low morale is a psychological assessment. Maybe you're new to the language?”
Sarge
7:59:16 AM
6/17/05

reporter: The women were wailing. They were very sad.

Sarge: Idiot. Who does he think he is? A psychologist?”

“Historian: Desertion is a sign of low morale.

Sarge: He's a historian, not a psychologist!”

“Phaedrus - the reporter said "fragging is an ominous sign of low morale and poor discipline".

This isn't the same as seeing somebody cry and saying they're sad. A better analogy would be:

reporter: A woman was wailing. All of the women were very sad.

Sarge: Idiot. Who does he think he is? A psychologist?”

“Reporter: A couple of women in the group have wailed. If this continues, we may consider the group of women to be sad.

Sarge: The media sucks. Let's eat them.”

“The point is the reporter doesn't know why the fraggings happen.

50% of them so far has been not because of low morale, nor discipline, but because the guy hated Americans.

The other 50% happened not because of low morale, nor lacking discipline, but because he was disciplined.

This reporter makes the ridiculous assumption that more fraggings would indicate low morale or lack of discipline, even though none of the ones that have occured were for either of those reasons.

Seriously, if that reporter worked for me, he'd be fired on the spot. That's just too ridiculous of an assumption for a professional reporter to make. I wouldn't expect that from a high-school newspaper, yet alone CBS news.

Why do you accept their incompetencies?”

“Because I can think for myself without taking everything at face value and hating the air I breathe.

The reporter said that "if this continues" it would represent a sign of low morale and lack of discipline. "If this continues" to me means that he is saying if this becomes a pattern of continual fraggings. I happen to agree on that point, and you have taken what he said in the light of "this is a pattern. the Army is in a state of panic. They're going to start pillaging your mother's house in five minutes and there is no Santa Claus."”

“Sarge... you need to qoute the whole sentence: "If it keeps happening, fragging is an ominous sign of low morale and poor discipline, Martin reports."

Not a brilliant sentence, but it isn't Martin's sentence. But, importantly, he is saying that if there is a persistant pattern it would be an ominous sign (which was the "conventional wisdom" when there was more of a pattern).”

“It's also important to note that CBS framed this as one reporter's opinion. They did not state it as fact.”

“pedx, since when has opinion ever stopped the bulk of TTers from using it as fact? LOL”

“this is a good example of why i don't try to debate ped.

usually solid logic, good observations, yet somehow manages to not insult the person he's disagreeing with.

hat's off to you ped.”

“pedx - Like I said. It's his "opinion". You just confirmed that. That's not news. That's a reporter making news up.”

“The observation and opinion of people close to events, including reporters is what news is. Trying to be objective and forming opinions is not mutually exclusive, Sarge.”

“Trying to be objective and forming opinions is not mutually exclusive, Sarge.

Only in a relativists puny little mind.”

“Case closed. you got spanked again.”

“No way! You got spanked first.”

“I’ll ask you to keep your wishy-washy, namby-pamby observations OFF of fuego threads, pedxing.

You’re mucking things up.”

“"Arm one (1) little Dairy Queen store and I bet you they have 2 fraggings in 2 years also." -Sarge

More guns = more murders & deaths?

I thought so. But I never would have expected that coming from the gun lobby.
last edited: 6/17/05 11:52:12 PM”

“USA- Your math is a little off.

There are more guns in the military, but in my example, the same number of deaths as in 1 Dairy Queen.”

“The term you are looking for that describes when a journalist gives an opinion regarding a topic is editorializing not "making news up" and is quite acceptable when framed as an editorial.

An example of making news up would be the yellow journalism of the Hurst owned newspapers that led us into the Spanish American War.”

“hpm - Would you say that this CBS news article was an editorial? Did you even read it?”

“I read it and my comment was simply a clarification of terminology.

I would not call it an editorial, I would call it alarmist. As far a making news up....that's a bit further than I'm willing to go as that implies an intention to decieve.

The "if this continues." casually dropped into the text infers that there is an ominious cloud of unrest on the horizon. 2 motivationally unrelated incidents in over 2 years does not constitue impending doom.

Fragging is indeed a sign of low morale and poor discipline....in an individual. It could be considered the same in the body at large if it were indeed a persistent trend however it isn't a trend.

In general I'm not to impressed with most writing nowadays.”

“Agreed.

I do however think that he was trying to deceive (ie - make the appearance of military morale appear worse than it is), but even if that wasn't his intention, he did set-up for the readers' future reference, and "create", a cause and effect where none was there. That is a good indication of just how biased this reporter is in his reporting.

Sorry for going on, but I'm passionate about the mainstream media's obvious agenda guided reporting. It reminds me of the former USSR, even though this isn't government sponsored. It's almost as bad to me because there are many people (especially older people who grew up on relatively honest reporting) who are oblivious to it. If they would only admit their editorializing at the beginning of each article/news program, I'd be all for it, but they deny it to the end.
last edited: 6/18/05 9:56:23 AM”

“I think the only agenda is to sell product.
I do not believe that there is a concerted effort industry wide to promote one party over the other.

Every industry is composed of individuals and groups and each have their own spin and levels of competence. Very few people are truly neutral (as the news is expected to be) and not everyone is a hack. In the same vien not all reporters are radical partisans out to promote their view at the expense of all. Even the best of us have our bad days/stories/products despite our best efforts.

I think the artical was factual and in an attempt to provide deeper information some opinion/inference was inserted, but to me it seemed to be the opinion of the the writers sources and not necessarialy the writer.

Reality is, that to be a journalist is to be doubly damned because you will get hit from all sides no matter what you do.”

“The key here is "consistency".

CBS, CNN and ABC especially are consistently conveying the news in a way that gives one side of the story, or spin it in a way that favors one side.

And before somebody says I'm only saying that because I'm a conservative (so it's from my viewpoint) - Once again, the reason that I am a conservative is because while I was a liberal, I noticed this trend. I realized they were flat out lying about the news and I decided I was fighting for the wrong team. The liberals were the ones supporting the same views as the lying reporters. Especially those from CNN, ABC and CBS.

This isn't about occasional human error. This is about consistent bias.
last edited: 6/18/05 10:30:38 AM”

“I do not believe that there is a concerted effort industry wide to promote one party over the other.

I agree. So does the media research center. Check this page out. It addresses that very issue.

http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/welcome.asp

I'd also encourage you to pay special attention to the elite-media's voting patterns which are presented here. (in recent years, the numbers are even more swayed to the left, but aren't on these charts) Compare that to the general population. As you said, very few people are truly neutral, and given this data, how do you think the media would lean? I'm not blaming the individuals. I'm blaming the industry for not putting tighter reigns on their employees. A few companies have recently been burned, like the NYTimes, and are finally beginning to revise their rules of conduct. Even PBS is finally reconsidering their policies because they realize they have been leaning too far left.

A few simple controls and the media outlets could present a much fairer picture of reality to their customers, but for the most part they refuse to admit their problem - and that is where I have a problem.
last edited: 6/18/05 10:41:31 AM”

“For a CBS insider's view, I'd encourage you to read "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg. He worked at CBS almost 30 years and is admittadly a liberal democrat. The lying and bias he saw every day at CBS was too much for him, and in this book he blew the whistle on them.

In it he details not just that it happens, but exactly how it happens.
last edited: 6/18/05 10:46:47 AM”

“Sorry there Sarge, but your statement implies that arming the Dairy Queen will result in more deaths than there are now. Pretty clear indictment.”

“USA - ... and streeeeeatttttccccchhhhhh ...”

“its a vast soft-serve with crunchy sprinkles conspiracy!”

“its a vast soft-serve with crunchy! sprinkles! conspiracy! thang!”

“Thanks for the kind words Sacco.”

“and the award for best making a mountain out of a molehill goes to......

sarge, ignore usa, and for heavens sake, defineitely dont think of this guy as a typical liberal. if you said usa hates america, i wouldnt disagree with you. he certainly seems to. hes far left of center, and far left of the average liberal. peace out”

“c!b! - I know ... I know ... LOL

Thanks though!

If I can put just a little doubt in his mind and turn him from "Potential Terrorist Status" to "Typical Liberal Whack-O Status", then I'll be happy.

LOL

And don't worry, I know not all liberal whack-Os are the same. ; )

-----

Hey, here's something to think about: Did you ever notice that liberal whack-os are considered threats to America, but conservative whack-os are just considered threats to the liberal whack-os?

Just more proof that liberals hate America more than conservatives.

peace out

(Oh, and throw a couple "LOLs" and winkies up there.)”

“sarge, i have to say youre defineitely evolving (i know you hate that word) slowly but surely. you started out all fists and gnashing of teeth, and now youre almost likeable (winkie winkie rotflmmfao)”

“c!b!:

http://www.moviesoundscentral.com/sounds/full_metal_jacket/ilikeyou.wav”

“Well Sarge there was that bombing in Oklahoma by right wing wackos. It's been a long time since left wing wachos in America went and killed anyone. Has there been anyone since the Weather Underground and the SLA?”

“pedx - Do you think all those murders in the inner cities are done by conservatives?

Hey Tirone, dawg, vote for Bush yo ... "Ka-Blam!"

(nice job citing ONE conservative example pedx)”

“I think they are done by radical right wingers. Obviously they are extreme free enterprise entrepeneurs and anti gun control activists.

Besides, its not just one example. There was the bomb at the olympics, and there were also the anti-abortion clinic bombings and assassinations.”

“Obviously they are extreme free enterprise entrepeneurs and anti gun control activists

LOL!”

“Was it P-diddle that had that wonderful slogan during the last election?... Vote or Die”

“i ran into a bunch of hateful churchies in denver. they were protesting some group of gay journalists or some such, with their children, carrying placards with the american flag with the label "fag flag". according to them 9/11 was god punishing this nation because of the gays.

defineitely right-wing. defineitely hating america.”

“"Do you think all those murders in the inner cities are done by conservatives?"

what makes you think theyre liberal? cuz theyre black?”

“Just b/c they are affiliated with a church and hate gays doesn't make them right wing. Sounds to me like they just hate, period.

I certainly don't see anything conservative in them, do you? I think by definition, a conservative likes America (i.e. - wants to preserve it's original intent). That's what a conservative is, as opposed to somebody who wants to liberate from that and follow a progressive path. By the description you just gave, they aren't conservative.”

“CB - Have you looked at the inner-city and black voting statistics lately?

I do believe that's something the liberals boast about ... are you going to tell me those numbers are wrong now? LOL

Yes, they're liberal because they are black (as a group), and live in the inner city. That's statistics for you.

Don't you dare tell me I'm racist either because I understand statistics.”

“i defineitely see them as conservatives. you gonna tell me they vote democrat? tolerance of homosexuals is a progressive attitude, and they are opposed to that progressive attitude. the very definition of conservativism. granted, theyre the extreme, most cons are not that hateful, but even you have to admit that neither are conservatives by any stretch of the imagination supportive of the gay community (at least until they find out they have one in their family, like our vice president does) and most often oppose gay rights.

as far as inner city blacks go, im sure they do vote democrat more often. but urban centers in general tend to vote democrat while rural tends to vote republican. urban areas have more of a diversity of peoples, therefore more of a diverstiy of thought, therefore ppl in urban areas are more open-minded and progressive and liberal, and so gravitate towards the democratic party cuz the dems are perceived as being liberal. but ped, behind his snarkiness, makes a good point. they like guns, and so do republicans, maybe they should switch.
last edited: 6/20/05 7:12:48 AM”

“LOL - I love your "reasoning" why people in urban cities vote Democrat. That's hysterical! Actually they vote democrat b/c they are promised more government funding - welfare, etc. They're promised "free" money. This is a fact. (1) Look at urban political campaigns (2) Look at urban welfare numbers. They campaign to what will get their vote. It's funny how progressives always categorize themselves as "open-minded". LOL. If you're not a progressive, you're closed-minded, right crash?? Think about it.

Just because somebody would tend to vote Republican does not make them a conservative. The Republican party is full of liberals and liberalism. That's why I left the party. They spend wrecklessly as much as the dems do. On that note, as far as "gay" hating, I do not believe that is a conservative value. You are confusing it with religious whack-os that hate gays. I am not saying they aren't usually associated with conservatives, but true religious conservativism does not have room for hate. Quite the opposite in fact. You implied a stereotype on my part earlier, and now I am going to imply that you are stereotyping, although I'm not wanting to make an issue out of it.
last edited: 6/20/05 7:35:44 AM”

“"but ped, behind his snarkiness, makes a good point. they like guns, and so do republicans, maybe they should switch"

Not to mention the Rush Lindbaughe business spirit! A young thug jacks enough cash to get himself a corner and enough smack to get his little enterprise up and running and within a year he’s rollin’ a new M300 with dubs and livin’ large. It’s the American dream! Not only that he's learning at the same time. He's learning basic economics, metrics (kilos, 9mm), people skills, ect.”

“Honestly, the killers and gang bangers are a tiny minority within their community - and their values are obviouslyvery different from their community as a whole, so the politics of their community is no indicator of the politics of these gang bangers.

Of course, the "snarky" answer was more fun.”