Washington Times Editorial: UN Threatens 1st and 2nd Amendments - Page 2
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > Washington Times Editorial: UN Threatens 1st and 2nd Amendments

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-27-2010, 05:29 AM   #11
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
noremf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 18
Default

Who are u referring to ?

__________________
noremf is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2010, 10:41 AM   #12
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1305 Times on 664 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by belercous View Post
Wow, someone here thinks the three most trusted sources of news world-wide are untrustworthy of what they report? But "Fox News" is? Even though "Fox News" has been caught in more lies than Nixon & Clinton? Well, that just proves that people believe what they want to believe, not reality.

67% of "Fox" viewers believed that Iraq had WMD.
Over 5000 former inhabitants of Halabja are unavailable for comment.

The fact is, Iraq DID have WMD. Hans Blix said so in the U.N. Security Council meeting when Bush and Powell were seeking a resolution against Iraq.

I invite you to read the book Disinformation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by belercous View Post
Again, not true, "Fox News" reported about Shirley Sherrod being racist, again proven not true once all the facts were out.
Sherrod resigned at the prodding of the Obama administration before Fox said anything about her. Get your facts straight.

And you might want to keep current on her comments because they don't portray her in a very good light.

Determining what's true and what's hyperbole, lies or propaganda is no easy task. Relying on only one source (like Fox) is unwise; you will get misinformation from time to time. But wasting your time with CNN or MSNBC or CBS is nothing short of stupid because you WILL NOT get the facts. The BBC, CSM and NPR are lean very hard left. If those are your idea of centrist, you might consider a recalibration.
__________________

Last edited by bkt; 07-27-2010 at 11:02 AM.
bkt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 09:30 AM   #13
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1305 Times on 664 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by belercous View Post
BKT; You are mistaken. I remember very clearly that Hans Blix stated that they had not any credible evidence, nor did he or any other U.N. Inspector have reason to believe Sadaam had WMD. Hans Blix wanted to give the inspections more time to uncover the WMD's. Sadaam was running a bluff to keep Iran from getting too cocky. And it worked for him, all too well. And just exactly were are all those WMD's? Still looking. That argument is over.
No, I'm not mistaken. I remember sitting in my car in front of my house listening to the radio as live airing of comments at the U.N. were taking place. Blix did state that as of 1998 when the weapons inspectors were kicked out that they had visually catalogued significant stockpiles of chemical weapons. These comments were made in February, 2003 -- a few months before we invaded Iraq. In his report, Blix stated that Iraq failed to account for 1,000 tons of chemical agent, 6,500 chemical bombs, 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 500 tons of sarin, mustard gas and VX nerve agent and 380 rocket engines useful in the delivery of biological and chemical agents. Please see here, here, here, here and here for more information.

Blix and ElBaradei wanted to continue their work, yes, but it is established fact that the Iraqis were in no way cooperating with them. The purpose of the inspectors was to work WITH the Iraqi government, not against it. In short, there was no way Blix et al would uncover the truth.

We know Hussein had WMD at some point -- he used them extensively. If he wanted to pretend he was still a threat so Iran wouldn't take advantage of his weakness and if he presumed that Russia, France and Germany -- all involved in the illegal shipment of goods to Iraq under the failed oil-for-food program -- would block any military action in Iraq by the U.N., he presumed wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by belercous View Post
Sherrod resigned because when the Administration even hints that you should, you do. Every political appointee tenders a letter of resignatiobn whrn they are hired, that way one is never fired. Standard practice in every administration.
The point is, it was Breitbart who released the video segment, not Fox. It was Glenn Beck on Fox news who showed the video in full context, in fact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by belercous View Post
The Obama Administration believed a right-wing propagandist, and learned a lesson for believing such an untrustworthy source's excerpt. They should have known better and done their own research.
Yes, exactly. But the "propagandist" in this case was Breitbart, not Fox.

Quote:
Originally Posted by belercous View Post
You can bet they will from now on. Perhaps I conflated "Fox News" with commentary/opinion on the Fox Radio Network, but Fox Broadcasting was a big promoter of the Sherrod "being a racist" thing.
I believe it was Bill O'Reilly who aired the short video that painted Sherrod in a bad light, but that aired AFTER she resigned, not before. The Obama administration could not have used that O'Reilly segment as the precursor or justification for its act.

Quote:
Originally Posted by belercous View Post
Hard to separate the op/ed from the news with them.
It's not just "them"; it's all media. That's why having just one source for your news is a bad idea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by belercous View Post
Let's see, the most trusted sources for news don't report the news. How on earth did these sources ever get to be so trusted? And do you have any idea of who the 4th most trusted source (and I'm talking worldwide, not just in America, although we know it all) in journalism is? Al Jerzeera English language. How can this be? Well, they (like the BBC, NPR, & CNN) report the facts. Not slanted, but straight. That's why the Muslim countries hate them. Al Jezeera English is located in Quatar, basically a city-state and very western friendly. Who in your opinion is more truthful in journalismthan the BBC, CNN, and NPR? And what is their record? And if they are so trusted, why haven't I heard of them?

The MSM does fact-checking, something bloggers and "Fox News" seldom do. Just because one doesn't like what one hears does not mean such reportage is untrue. We are all entitled to our own opinions, but we are not entitled to our own facts.
There are countless examples where the MSM launched pretty significant stories that were outright false. CBS' Dan Rather and the National Guard memos...Newsweek and the koran-in-the-toilet lie (after which people died)...and countless instances of "fauxtography". You have my sincere sympathy if you honestly believe the MSM is not biased.

Quote:
Originally Posted by belercous View Post
I have read "Disinformation: Everything You Know Is Wrong." Also "You Are Being Lied To." The book I believe you are citing "Disinformation: 22 Media Myths that Undermine The War On Terrorism." I have not yet read it, but I'll see if my local libray can get it. But if it's a partisain hit piece, by either the right or left, I won't give it much creedence. I want my facts straight up.
Just don't mistake something that might contradict conventional wisdom or your preconceived notions as a "partisan hit piece".
__________________
bkt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2010, 04:00 PM   #14
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Kimber45's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 261
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by belercous View Post
That's funny, because I remember hearing all about invading Iraq and I disticntly remember saying that the one person who ought to know was saying that he found no evidence of WMD. Hans Blix, Chief U.N. Inspector. It wasn't Blix who was there, it was Colin Powell, and he wasn't too pleased if I remember. I believe that is why he made the director of the C.I.A. G. Tenet sit by him. And Powell also later stated that he was mislead. Said it was the lowest point of his life. Research this, I'm not mistaken.
The U.N. was kicked out, certainly. Maybe it had something to do with us making ridiculous demands upon Iraq, or so the rest of the world seems to think. We wouldn't take "yes" for an answer and so made demands that no nation would accept. And just where are those WMD's?
Wow, this is a hard-line view that even the Bushies gave up on years ago.

Just when did Beck release it? Before or after all the hoopala went on? I will say this Beck did say it was a farce. But he was the only one. And his voice was drowned-out by all the other Fox talking heads and hate-radio crowd. I still hear the hate-radio crowd on the Fox radio network trying to get mileage out of this. Fox promoted it, no denying that. Before she resigned, not after. Otherwise there would have been no need for her to resign. Ya really think some lone whacknut on the blogosphere has that kinda power? And why for are all the media reporting this as Fox's baby? Ohh, right, a big conspiracy against Fox. Gotcha, sure. That's credible.

Not all the media is in on opinion pieces. Try the BBC, NPR or Al-Jezeera English. Cnn has op/eds, but still their news is straight. Actually, all the major
media outlets produce straight news, only "Fox News" has been caught lying, and several times at that. Even then, they mostly report the truth, one just needs to double-check them. Hardly an endorsement for objectivity.

Dan Rather got caught & fired, as well he should be. But his is not standard practice for the industry. Newsweek retracted their story, as would any responsible journal. Countless examples of the MSM lying? Really, making up stuff, and not retracting them? Name some if they are so countless.
A basic tenet of journalism is to verify one's source.

Overall, the MSM is reputable, but not infallible. Certainly Fox news is no different, they make mistakes. But a reputable source admits mistakes. Why for did 2/3 of Fox viewers believe that Iraq possessed WMD? Why did "Fox News" report that a McCain staffer was assaulted by an Obama staffer? And no verification was made, and oops, it was a lie? And "Fox News" still reports on climate change as some big lie wherein all the world is in on it, but they know the truth? All the climatoligists are bought-off by Al Gore?

Keep on believing what you want because when reality settles in, and it will, I won't be the one dumbfounded and confused. I love it. Keep the echo-chamber going. Gotta love it.
Goodnight one & all, may you enjoy your life as much as I do mine.
You vant some cheeeese vith dat vine mr liberal/socialist/I'm going to name all my children barack/berry/hussein/obama? Yes mr prezident I'll be a good little socialist/communist and tow the banner of hope and change with me every where I go.

New title for this prez, WORST UNITED STATES PRESIDENT EVER!!!! Yeah, even worse that the f'n peanut farmer.
__________________
Kimber45 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2010, 08:59 PM   #15
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1305 Times on 664 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default

Hindsight being what it is (what is it, exactly? Certainly not 20/20 in this case!), it is important not to confuse what we think we know now with what we accepted as true THEN which was the pretext for going to war with Iraq. If you need a refresher, here are some comments by some friends of yours that might shine a somewhat different light on the issue:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is using and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
You're right that Blix later backpeddled and said there was no indication Hussein had any WMD. Whether he said that because he honestly believed it, he was following orders, or he wished to soften his previous statement, we'll never know.

If you want to find out the Sherrod timeline and when who said what, google it. You're obviously far superior to research than I am.

For the record, I do listen to NPR, the BBC, Huffington Post, CNN, MSNBC, AP, ABC, NBC, Al Jazeera and a bunch of other crap-laden agitprop sources. That's how I keep up with what you and those like you are thinking and planning.

As for examples of MSM mis/disinformation and outright lies, again, I'll leave that to you. There are sites out there that do nothing but highlight exactly that. I won't be wasting my time providing information to you any more than I have already. It hasn't escaped my notice that you failed to refute what I said or the links I posted other than to say that you remember it differently. Whatever.

Reality is settling in with me. It is apparent to me now that where we are and where we came from are worlds apart. It is clear that countless "useful idiots" (and up until 10 or 12 years ago, I counted myself among them) have allowed us to get to this point.

I did have one question for you, though, and I sincerely hope you will take a moment to answer it. We can keep going with this thread if you want, or let it die a merciful death. Your choice. But I would appreciate an answer to this question:

In your opinion, why does the Second Amendment exist?
__________________
bkt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2010, 10:51 PM   #16
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Kimber45's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 261
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by bkt View Post
Hindsight being what it is (what is it, exactly? Certainly not 20/20 in this case!), it is important not to confuse what we think we know now with what we accepted as true THEN which was the pretext for going to war with Iraq. If you need a refresher, here are some comments by some friends of yours that might shine a somewhat different light on the issue:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is using and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
You're right that Blix later backpeddled and said there was no indication Hussein had any WMD. Whether he said that because he honestly believed it, he was following orders, or he wished to soften his previous statement, we'll never know.

If you want to find out the Sherrod timeline and when who said what, google it. You're obviously far superior to research than I am.

For the record, I do listen to NPR, the BBC, Huffington Post, CNN, MSNBC, AP, ABC, NBC, Al Jazeera and a bunch of other crap-laden agitprop sources. That's how I keep up with what you and those like you are thinking and planning.

As for examples of MSM mis/disinformation and outright lies, again, I'll leave that to you. There are sites out there that do nothing but highlight exactly that. I won't be wasting my time providing information to you any more than I have already. It hasn't escaped my notice that you failed to refute what I said or the links I posted other than to say that you remember it differently. Whatever.

Reality is settling in with me. It is apparent to me now that where we are and where we came from are worlds apart. It is clear that countless "useful idiots" (and up until 10 or 12 years ago, I counted myself among them) have allowed us to get to this point.

I did have one question for you, though, and I sincerely hope you will take a moment to answer it. We can keep going with this thread if you want, or let it die a merciful death. Your choice. But I would appreciate an answer to this question:

In your opinion, why does the Second Amendment exist?
Man you have been busy! Thanks for the information.
__________________
Kimber45 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2010, 11:06 PM   #17
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1305 Times on 664 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimber45 View Post
Man you have been busy! Thanks for the information.
Nah. I posted this info a while ago and just copied/pasted it for this thread.

These days, defending the media is like defending a political party. They all suck, they're all guilty of corruption, they all put their personal interests ahead of serving us, etc. To garner the truth is impossible unless you witness an event. But to tease the likely truth requires some work...poring over numerous sources.

When someone suggests that our mainstream media are largely unbiased, that is a clear indicator to me that that person is not up to speed yet.
__________________
bkt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2010, 07:04 PM   #18
Resident JackHole
FTF_LIFETIMESUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Angry_bald_guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Perryville, Kentucky
Posts: 1,605
Liked 305 Times on 170 Posts
Likes Given: 42

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bkt View Post
Nah. I posted this info a while ago and just copied/pasted it for this thread.

These days, defending the media is like defending a political party. They all suck, they're all guilty of corruption, they all put their personal interests ahead of serving us, etc. To garner the truth is impossible unless you witness an event. But to tease the likely truth requires some work...poring over numerous sources.

When someone suggests that our mainstream media are largely unbiased, that is a clear indicator to me that that person is not up to speed yet.
Very true. I don't read the news as much as I should... What are some good middle of the road sources that I should check out?
__________________
Darrel

No, you can't take my gun. I'm gonna need it when you try to take my truck...

Μολὼν λαβέ

I'm a mechanic. I fix things. This is why I will never be able to hold public office.
Angry_bald_guy is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2010, 09:55 PM   #19
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1305 Times on 664 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angry_bald_guy View Post
Very true. I don't read the news as much as I should... What are some good middle of the road sources that I should check out?
All of them.

Watch ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, BBC if you want and listen to NPR and reading the Huffington Post. But also hit Drudge, Lucianne.com, and as many milblogs as you can find. My favorite is Michael Yon's.

Hit gata.org, lewrockwell.com, scour youtube for commentary from Schiff and others. Most things will lead you to other worthwhile things.

What you can't be is in a hurry. There's no way to spend 30 minutes a day watching the news and expect to know anything.
__________________
bkt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 01:02 AM   #20
Resident JackHole
FTF_LIFETIMESUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Angry_bald_guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Perryville, Kentucky
Posts: 1,605
Liked 305 Times on 170 Posts
Likes Given: 42

Default

Unfortunately about 30 mins a day is all I get any more...

__________________
Darrel

No, you can't take my gun. I'm gonna need it when you try to take my truck...

Μολὼν λαβέ

I'm a mechanic. I fix things. This is why I will never be able to hold public office.
Angry_bald_guy is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
EDITORIAL: Obama surrenders gulf oil to Moscow Last Crow Politics, Religion and Controversy 3 03-30-2010 06:21 PM
1st and 4th amendments do not apply Chester Politics, Religion and Controversy 5 03-09-2009 09:43 AM
Hating on the First AND Second Amendments Kelly J Legal and Activism 0 09-30-2008 04:18 PM