Newsweek Shitdicks refuse to retact report

[PorchMonkey4Life]

these shitdicks got it wrong... people were killed and they still wont retract the story... what the hell is wrong with newsweek?
White House bashes Newsweek report on Koran
16 May 2005 14:00:56 GMT
Source: Reuters
WASHINGTON, May 16 (Reuters) - The White House said on Monday that a Newsweek report based on an anonymous source had damaged the U.S. image overseas by alleging that U.S. interrogators desecrated the Koran at Guantanamo Bay.

The May 9 report triggered several days of rioting in Afghanistan and other countries in which at least 16 people were killed.

Newsweek's editor, Mark Whitaker, apologized to the victims on Sunday and said the magazine inaccurately reported that U.S. military investigators had confirmed that personnel at the detention facility in Cuba had flushed the Muslim holy book down the toilet.

"It's puzzling that while Newsweek now acknowledges that they got the facts wrong, they refused to retract the story," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. "I think there's a certain journalistic standard that should be met and in this instance it was not."

The report sparked violent protests across the Muslim world -- from Afghanistan, where 16 were killed and more than 100 injured, to Pakistan, Indonesia and Gaza. In the past week the reported desecration was condemned in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, Malaysia and by the Arab League.

McClellan complained that the story was "based on a single anonymous source who could not personally substantiate the allegation that was made."

"The report has had serious consequences," he said. "People have lost their lives. The image of the United States abroad has been damaged."

Newsweek said in its May 23 edition that the information had come from a "knowledgeable government source" who told Newsweek that a military report on abuse at Guantanamo Bay said interrogators flushed at least one copy of the Koran down a toilet in a bid to make detainees talk.

But the source later told the magazine he could not be certain he had seen an account of the Koran incident in the military report and that it might have been in other investigative documents or drafts, Newsweek said.

[Fr. Dougal]

Didn't know Newsweek had a lot of subscriptions in Afghanistan...

[PorchMonkey4Life]

Didn't know Newsweek had a lot of subscriptions in Afghanistan...
why would you think that sweety?

[Smoke]

McClellan complained that the story was "based on a single anonymous source who could not personally substantiate the allegation that was made."

"The report has had serious consequences," he said. "People have lost their lives. The image of the United States abroad has been damaged."
It's time for Newsweek to be shutdown for sedition in wartime and it's owners and editor in chief tried for crimes against the United States.

[DoughBoy]

It's time for Newsweek to be shutdown for sedition in wartime and it's owners and editor in chief tried for crimes against the United States.

I'd really like to see that.

[jpc165]

i was thinking about starting a website where people can submit videos and pics of them desecrating the koran (pissing/shitting/splooging on it, etc.). these fucks will hate us regardless of what we say or do. anyone interested?

[PorchMonkey4Life]

i was thinking about starting a website where people can submit videos and pics of them desecrating the koran (pissing/shitting/splooging on it, etc.). these fucks will hate us regardless of what we say or do. anyone interested?
i'd do it... those sand nigg*rs need to be put in their place

[jpc165]

its a book with paper and ink on it. get a fucking life you fucks. its not our fault that you live in the desert and your lives would have no meaning whatso fucking ever if it wasn't for your cult. fuck you die. ahhhh fucking religion shit. FU.

And the worst part is i get to fly into that shit storm this saturday... wish me luck.

[PorchMonkey4Life]

its a book with paper and ink on it. get a fucking life you fucks. its not our fault that you live in the desert and your lives would have no meaning whatso fucking ever if it wasn't for your cult. fuck you die. ahhhh fucking religion shit. FU.

And the worst part is i get to fly into that shit storm this saturday... wish me luck.
best of luck man... come back safe and the virus will be waiting for you... kill a few for me... my best friends dad (who was like a father to me) was killed on 9-11... blast those fuckers back to the stone age

[roche]

It's time for Newsweek to be shutdown for sedition in wartime and it's owners and editor in chief tried for crimes against the United States.

I really hope you are kidding. http://www.wackbag.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

[jpc165]

best of luck man... come back safe and the virus will be waiting for you... kill a few for me... my best friends dad (who was like a father to me) was killed on 9-11... blast those fuckers back to the stone age

I'm just going to Bahrain for business. But its still smack in the middle of the muslim cluster fuck that is the middle east. So far no US citizen kidnappings or killings in Bahrain yet. So my goal is just to lay low and get the fuck out as soon as I can. But it is connected via bridge to Saudi where some of that shit has gone down and the saudi fucks come over on the weekends to drink (alcohol is legal in Bahrain). I know it is no where near as dangerous as going to Iraq but it still sucks monster cock.

[turdfrgsn]

what the hell is wrong with newsweek?

nothing 'wrong' per se when you consider their main objective is to undermine the Bush admin specifically, and the entire country and anyone who disagrees w/their lefty elitist socialist worldview generally

now what could be a better way of doing that than faking a news story with that direct aim in mind?

and don't expect apologies or retractions, there is NOTHING legally that can be done about journalism and reporters can basically write or say any bloody thing they want without fear of any kind of retribution. they don't care how many afghanis died and they sure as hell don't care about how many U.S. servicemen and women die.

the ed board of newsweek, and this particular incident is just another example of the final death throes of a small but very vocal minority here and across the pond of baby boomer elitist latte-swilling limosuine liberals who simply cannot imagine that it's no longer 1968, that they are no longer relevant, that vietnam does not equal iraq, and the U.S. in particular and English speaking people in general are not the greatest cause of problems in the history of the human race.

that said, they will not go quietly into that good night. far from it, and this newsweek stunt is just the tip of the iceberg. it's only going to get uglier. after all the fighting in the streets of the 60s these radicals migrated into the universities, newsrooms, and courts and slowly took over the prime institutions for the dissemination of ideas in this country.

the good news, and the delicious irony of it all, is that younger generations (gen X up to the present) not only aren't buying what they're selling, but they're actively rebelling against it on campuses and communities across the country. now granted, this rebellion isn't as histrionic (or as bloody and in most cases, intellectually immature) as that of their hippy professors (for example the proliferation of campus affirmative action bake sales by student groups protesting the pc bs in the college application process--where whites and asians are, say, charged a buck for a cookie but those of color get them for fifty cents), but nevertheless it's still a sound rejection of their worldview, philosophy and value system.

[DoughBoy]

I really hope you are kidding. http://www.wackbag.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

I dont' think he was, nor was I.

Why do you hope he's kidding? Writing an article with no proof with the sole intention of damaging the current administration and the view of the US worldwide seems like a reason for it.

[roche]

I dont' think he was, nor was I.

Why do you hope he's kidding? Writing an article with no proof with the sole intention of damaging the current administration and the view of the US worldwide seems like a reason for it.

You have no idea what the authors intent was. The only person that knows that is the author himself.

First off I will say that the author is a piece of shit, and deserves to loose his job but he should not be tried for crimes against the country. Freedom of speech is one of the core principles this country was founded on. If you want to start throwing people in jail for what they write, maybe you are in the wrong fucking country. I suggest moving to China or Cuba.

[Diceman Cometh]

You have no idea what the authors intent was. The only person that knows that is the author himself.

First off I will say that the author is a piece of shit, and deserves to loose his job but he should not be tried for crimes against the country. Freedom of speech is one of the core principles this country was founded on. If you want to start throwing people in jail for what they write, maybe you are in the wrong fucking country. I suggest moving to China or Cuba.

Wrong, sir....Freedom of Speech does not give you the right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theatre, as the famous example goes, nor does it give you the right to intentionally print false statements about our military that led to worldwide riots, the deaths of our soldiers, political fallout, and an even more tarnished image since most of those rioters will just go on believing what Newsweek wrote cuz they want to believe it and ignore the retraction, maybe assuming the US govt coerced them into retraction.

Whether or not the author intended as much fallout as actually occured is irrelevent. Making false, dangerous statements about your own govt with even a remote possibility of bad consequences = public hanging.

[BeltOfScotch]

Uhhh, they won't retract it?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/05/16/newsweek.quran/index.html

(CNN) -- Newsweek magazine issued a retraction Monday of a May 9 report on the alleged desecration of the Quran at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.


And from what seems to be going on here, they probably could have done a better job finding a second source to verify the story before they reported it, but this is a case where their source backed off the story after it was already published. This isn't Jayson Blair type stuff where a reporter completely made up stories. Let's all calmo on the throwing people in jail stuff, jesus.

[roche]

Wrong, sir....Freedom of Speech does not give you the right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theatre, as the famous example goes, nor does it give you the right to intentionally print false statements about our military that led to worldwide riots, the deaths of our soldiers, political fallout, and an even more tarnished image since most of those rioters will just go on believing what Newsweek wrote cuz they want to believe it and ignore the retraction, maybe assuming the US govt coerced them into retraction.

Whether or not the author intended as much fallout as actually occured is irrelevent. Making false, dangerous statements about your own govt with even a remote possibility of bad consequences = public hanging.

He did not yell Fire in a crowded theater. He wrote a story for Newsweek based on information from a government source. Newsweek did not check their sources very well, and the shit hit the fan.

Intent is not irrelevant.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying Newsweek is right, but I find it shocking you guys are screaming for someone to be hanged for something they have written in a magazine. They should loose their jobs, and have their pants sued off of them, but killed? That is not a road I want to go down because it sets a horrible precedent.

[Diceman Cometh]

He did not yell Fire in a crowded theater. He wrote a story for Newsweek based on information from a government source. Newsweek did not check their sources very well, and the shit hit the fan.

Intent is not irrelevant.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying Newsweek is right, but I find it shocking you guys are screaming for someone to be hanged for something they have written in a magazine. They should loose their jobs, and have their pants sued off of them, but killed? That is not a road I want to go down because it sets a horrible precedent.

I see it as being a good precedent - maybe next time, fuckhead journalists will be more careful and less triggerhappy about printing something so dangerous.

And who gives a SHIT about their fucking retraction? They can shove their retraction up their ass - the damage has been done. Soldiers are dead and muslims around the world are still foaming at the mouth over this.

[roche]

I see it as being a good precedent - maybe next time, fuckhead journalists will be more careful and less triggerhappy about printing something so dangerous.

I guess you are hoping for the People's Republic of America. http://www.wackbag.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

[roche]

They can shove their retraction up their ass - the damage has been done. Soldiers are dead and muslims around the world are still foaming at the mouth over this.

You know, the same thing could be said for that whole Weapons of Mass Destruction thing.....

I am leaving this thread for good. I see it getting pretty ugly in here, fairly quickly.http://www.wackbag.com/images/smilies/action-smiley-069.gif

[BeltOfScotch]

And who gives a SHIT about their fucking retraction? They can shove their retraction up their ass - the damage has been done.

Believe me I am far from defending them, it's a huge mistake to not backup a claim like that with multiple sources, they had to know what the outcome of publishing that story would be. For that, the repercussions should be extremely serious for the individuals involved. But jailtime or public hangings, and then backing it up like you really mean it, it just comes off as ignorant.

[Smoke]

They CBS'd themselves by issuing a "non-retraction retraction" and then the full retraction, but in the end, is anyone going to cancel the subscription? Nah, because most people who would already don't read Newsweek.

I'll avoid the WW2 reference here since we're already half way to thread locking.

[tattered]

......that is right scott...so ild like to remind everyone to keep it clean and dont bash

[abudabit]

Well if someone starts that Koran website I'd have quite a few pictures to donate. Koran pages used as a cum rag, toilet paper, wiping the bench off at the gym, dipped in pork blood, and smoking a big fat holy joint.

I wouldn't recommend running it from New York or California though, as you might find your house blown up.

[Diceman Cometh]

Well if someone starts that Koran website I'd have quite a few pictures to donate. Koran pages used as a cum rag, toilet paper, wiping the bench off at the gym, dipped in pork blood, and smoking a big fat holy joint.

I wouldn't recommend running it from New York or California though, as you might find your house blown up.

I wouldnt do anything to the Koran that I wouldnt do to the Gospels if I were you....thats the same God both books are referring to, remember?

[Madness]

They should charge everyone at Newsweek for manslaught and lock them up for a long time. Fuck a retraction, 15 people are dead over what these fuckers wrote and they should pay for it.

[abudabit]

I wouldnt do anything to the Koran that I wouldnt do to the Gospels if I were you....thats the same God both books are referring to, remember?

I have no problem desecrating the bible, it's just that Christians just don't care. The whole point of desecrating the koran is those mush brains take themselves too seriously. I've used a bible for rolling paper before, Christians really don't mind.

It would be cool to get all the holy scripts of the major religions though. An art project, showing the contrast between islams reaction vs other religions.

[BIV]

I wouldnt do anything to the Koran that I wouldnt do to the Gospels if I were you....thats the same God both books are referring to, remember?
No problem *whips out dick*

You act as if the bible isn't as bullshit as the Koran.

There is no God people, give it up.

[turdfrgsn]

There is no God people, give it up.

http://www.bushwood.net/shack/caddy104.JPG

Bishop - "Never ask a Navy man if he'll have another drink, because its nobody's god damn business how many drinks he's had already, right?"

Judge Smails - "Wrong! You're drinking too much Your Excellency."

Bishop - "Excellency....fiddlesticks. My name is Fred and I'm just a man, same as you are."

Judge Smails - "You're not a man! You're a Bishop! For God's sake!"

Bishop - "There is no God."

[DoughBoy]

You have no idea what the authors intent was. The only person that knows that is the author himself.

First off I will say that the author is a piece of shit, and deserves to loose his job but he should not be tried for crimes against the country. Freedom of speech is one of the core principles this country was founded on. If you want to start throwing people in jail for what they write, maybe you are in the wrong fucking country. I suggest moving to China or Cuba.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050515/ts_nm/religion_afghan_newsweek_dc

From that link:
"On Sunday, Afghan Muslim clerics threatened to call for a holy war against the United States."

inciting a holy war against the US based on bad reporting is a bit beyond the first amendment. This would not LIMIT free speech, it would make sure that people are held resposible for that speech.

[BeltOfScotch]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050515/ts_nm/religion_afghan_newsweek_dc

From that link:
"On Sunday, Afghan Muslim clerics threatened to call for a holy war against the United States."

inciting a holy war against the US based on bad reporting is a bit beyond the first amendment. This would not LIMIT free speech, it would make sure that people are held resposible for that speech.

Do you have any idea the kind of prior restraint issues the courts would have to deal with, and the near impossibility for any news outlet to report controversial stories, if the precedent were set to criminally punish reporters based on stories where sources changed stories after it became public?

How far does this extend, to public citizens, or only to the lives of soldiers we're at war? Does i it have to hurt someone physically, or is economic or emotional harm enough? How far does the media have to go? If they have two sources, is that enough?

This is complete insanity, it's a horrible thing that happened, but there's no logical way to punish the people in the way you're talking about concerning the facts as they are. If it were to come out that they deliberately made up a story, or that they ignored facts/sources that blatantly contradicted the one source they had, you may have a different situation, but that's not what is going on here.

[turdfrgsn]

This is complete insanity, it's a horrible thing that happened, but there's no logical way to punish the people in the way you're talking about concerning the facts as they are.

correction, no LEGAL way to punish them

but being punished they are (thank you YODA!!), have you seen their circulation #'s? nobody reads that crap anymore much less gives it any credibility
same thing with all the mainstream media: abcnbccBSfoxcnnmsnbc, wash post, etc. the genie's out of the bottle and their day of news monopolization is over

the internet walks again, god bless us each and ever one
(the preceding was paraphrasing a charles dickens quote, not necessarily a reflection of the theosophical inclinations of this author or any member/lurker of this board...we all know there is a god, her name is loretta and she's as benevolent as nicole richie to a toy poodle but she does have tourette's wicked haahd, hence wars and all that shit.../sarcasm)

and now the nytimes wants us to pay to read frank rich, mo dowd, jack krugman, et al? can you say stock sinking faster than sirius?

[jpc165]

the real problem here is how serious these cult members react to a report about an inanimate object on the other side of the world allegedly being placed on a toilet.

[turdfrgsn]

the real problem here is how serious these cult members react to a report about an inanimate object on the other side of the world allegedly being placed on a toilet.

of course it is, and you won't hear a bloody thing about it in the media because that would violate their own holy scripture--the gospel of political correctness

far better to smear the military on utterly false premises, much like the lamented junior senator from mass., john "lovey, have ramon gas up the Scaramouche (the name of his private yacht, cue Queen "Bohemian Rhapsody" clip here), i feel like a jaunt to maaaaatha's vineyaaahd" kerry did when he came back from vietnam

god forbid the media actually call these savages "barbarians"
i mean for the love of p.c., we wouldn't want to offend them now, would we?

no, much easier to call these animals "freedom fighters" (like reuters does), make shit up and blame it all on the U.S.

[Smoke]

I wouldnt do anything to the Koran that I wouldnt do to the Gospels if I were you....that's the same God both books are referring to, remember?
If the Pope doesn't get royalties from the Mohammidians then it's not the same God.

[Smoke]

There is no God people, give it up.

There is a God, I just haven't named and trademarked him yet.

[Smoke]

If it were to come out that they deliberately made up a story, or that they ignored facts/sources that blatantly contradicted the one source they had, you may have a different situation, but that's not what is going on here.
How about this: They intentionally jumped on a story they had no verification on and held it up as a total truth simply because it would damage the President's ability to gain allies in the Islamic world?

[Smoke]

the real problem here is how serious these cult members react to a report about an inanimate object on the other side of the world allegedly being placed on a toilet.
Not only is it the Word of Allah, it's never been modified the way the other pre-Islamic holy books have.

[BeltOfScotch]

How about this: They intentionally jumped on a story they had no verification on and held it up as a total truth simply because it would damage the President's ability to gain allies in the Islamic world?

So now in order to convict someone under these new laws some of you want, you have to prove their mental state? Good luck, and I"d love to hear some of your proof that what they did was intentional.

They had a source tell them that this had happened and was going to be included in a report that is soon to come out. They contacted two other people, one declined comment and the other denied another, unrelated part of the story. There have been reports that detainees have complained of similar actions by U.S. interrogators. After the story had been published, the source came back and said that the story may not have been as he actually told them. U.S. officials like Myers have said that although there is no proof in the record that this happened, they are taking a in depth look at their procedures to ensure that it didn't happen and won't happen in the future.

[Smoke]

Fuck a retraction, 15 people are dead over what these fuckers wrote and they should pay for it.
15 savages, not people.

[Smoke]

How about this: They intentionally jumped on a story they had no verification on and held it up as a total truth simply because it would damage the President's ability to gain allies in the Islamic world?

So now in order to convict someone under these new laws some of you want, you have to prove their mental state? Good luck, and I"d love to hear some of your proof that what they did was intentional.

I don't have any proof, but they didn't need anything more than some shadowy, unnamed source to print this alleged "truth" so I'm just holding them to their same standards. They had no physical evidence that it took place but since, I'm speculating here, that this would hurt the President they are against they printed it when they shouldn't have done so. They couldn't have waited for the report this info was allegedly going to be in?

We used to lock up troublemakers like this in wartime, and it may be a good idea to at least look at who runs Newsweek and who they're supporting politically both in the rag and with monetary contributions.

[Diceman Cometh]

Not only is it the Word of Allah, it's never been modified the way the other pre-Islamic holy books have.

Yes it has. Don't take the word of Muslims who say it was never touched. Read a few books on the subject - it only got to its original form about 70-80 years after Mo's death.

[BeltOfScotch]

I don't have any proof

Thank you.

They couldn't have waited for the report this info was allegedly going to be in?

Um, investigative journalism? I'm not completely defending Newsweek here as it does seem that they went to print with this story without corroborating it to the level they should have, but at the same time, the news media wants to break stories before the whole public has access to them via a government report. Otherwise, what's the point of having them.

We used to lock up troublemakers like this in wartime

We also put people of Japanese decent in interment camps during WWII. I guess we should take anyone of any Arab decent and put them in camps too (because the clerics that are declaring holy war would love that).

and it may be a good idea to at least look at who runs Newsweek and who they're supporting politically both in the rag and with monetary contributions.

I probably can't respond to this without violating some of the rules of this board, so I won't.

[roche]

I probably can't respond to this without violating some of the rules of this board, so I won't.

That is why I have refrained from commenting. I simply cannot believe some of the things I have been reading in this thread.

[turdfrgsn]

I simply cannot believe some of the things I have been reading in this thread.

the truth is stranger than fiction

don't believe me?

just read newsweak.....

[roche]

the truth is stranger than fiction

don't believe me?

just read newsweak.....

Yeah!

Wait....What?

[Smoke]

Yes it has. Don't take the word of Muslims who say it was never touched. Read a few books on the subject - it only got to its original form about 70-80 years after Mo's death.
Sorry, I missed one of these in that post: :action-sm Still, you get the idea why it's so magickal to them.

[Smoke]

That is why I have refrained from commenting. I simply cannot believe some of the things I have been reading in this thread.

Were you expected enlightened political discussion from a site that's named after a Dice joke?

[Smoke]

Thank you.
So I have no proof other than what _____ ____ tells me was said. That's Newsweek's standard, I'm applying it back to them.

Um, investigative journalism? ...but at the same time, the news media wants to break stories before the whole public has access to them via a government report. Otherwise, what's the point of having them?
If they can't get reliable sources what's the point of reporting?

We also put people of Japanese decent in interment camps during WWII. I guess we should take anyone of any Arab decent and put them in camps too (because the clerics that are declaring holy war would love that).
They shouldn't be here in the first place, but you're right, if we want to be secure, banning Islam would make us safer without everyone being treated like a potential terrorist.

I probably can't respond to this without violating some of the rules of this board, so I won't.
So you're saying we shouldn't know what media outlets support which parties and concepts? I'd rather the words "Liberal Fiction" be printed on each copy of Newsweek than them pretending they're totally objective.

Troll on!

[roche]

Troll on!

Someone doesn't agree with you and they are a troll?

[BeltOfScotch]

Someone doesn't agree with you and they are a troll?

That's the least of it, within the span of two sentences he said no people of Arab decent should be allowed in the country, the Islam religion should be banned, and attempted to justify looking at the personal activities of members of the media to attempt to determine whether they're biased against the president. I'm done trying to have an intelligent argument.

The scary thing is that I generally vote Republican, but you people are nuts. It would almost be worth having a Democrat president just to see how the lunatic fringe handles it.

[turdfrgsn]

It would almost be worth having a Democrat president just to see how the lunatic fringe handles it.

ANARCHIST!!!!!!

so if this site leans more libertarian/conservative that most of the rest of the o&a sites, where does it rate on the sarcasm scale? are we more sarcastic over here than they are over there?

i'm over here now :action-sm

[BeltOfScotch]

This site is more conservative/libertarian than the rest of the web(or other O&A sites...)

There's conservative and there's "lock up the Ay-rabs and suspend all newspapers except for the Post"

Actually on some issues I'm more traditionally conservative then most. Personally I think most of the big social issues have no business being discussed as constitutional issues or by the federal government at all, it should be up to the individual states to decide.

[SOS]

ANARCHIST!!!!!!

so if this site leans more libertarian/conservative that most of the rest of the o&a sites, where does it rate on the sarcasm scale? are we more sarcastic over here than they are over there?

i'm over here now :action-sm

We are just as sarcastic, just not as negative, postwhorish, or two-faced.

Any idears garnered from these threads should be realized as from a select group of people and not to be taken as an indication of what most people think.

[Smoke]

Someone doesn't agree with you and they are a troll?
No you silly goose, I'm the King of the Trolls. It was my status for a month, and I frequently take a new troll's post and "correct it" by making it even more obscene. I should have ended the post with a /troll tag to make it clear, but look how many posts I've caused just by not doing that.

[abudabit]

So did you guys hear about the Pakistani man who was killed by a mob of 200 of his neighbors because he accidently dropped a Koran on the ground?

They chased him up a tree and shot him.

[Smoke]

That's the least of it, within the span of two sentences he said no people of Arab decent should be allowed in the country, the Islam religion should be banned...
Are you sure you're not mixing up what I said in this thread and the immigration thread (which we're done with, I hope)? It's still a serious question, do you (plural) think a religion which openly teaches oppression and discrimination against non-believers should be allowed into our country? Muslums call non-Muslum minorities "dhimini" and have a special set of taxes just for them.... I hope the Europeans look forward to that with their awesome immigration policy. The are merrily marching toward the fate of the Hagia Sophia befalling Notre Dame and the Canterbury Cathedral.
I'm done trying to have an intelligent argument.
Coming to Wackbag for political insight is going to an Apple store for PC advice.
The scary thing is that I generally vote Republican, but you people are nuts. It would almost be worth having a Democrat president just to see how the lunatic fringe handles it.
Am I nuts or am I just a Message Board Character? I report, I decide. Fawx News.

[Smoke]

So did you guys hear about the Pakistani man who was killed by a mob of 200 of his neighbors* because he accidently dropped a Koran on the ground?

They chased him up a tree and shot him.
I think you misspelled "fellow savages" there. /troll

[roche]

The scary thing is that I generally vote Republican, but you people are nuts.

I do not think this discussion has anything to do with which political party one is aligned with. I am not a liberal, but if the right starts to erode our constutional freedoms, that might be enough to push me over to the left.

[turdfrgsn]

but if the right starts to erode our constutional freedoms, that might be enough to push me over to the left.

which particular constitutional freedoms are starting to be eroded?

[Digital_Trauma]

. . . . It would almost be worth having a Democrat president just to see how the lunatic fringe handles it.

Gridlock isn't such a bad thing, really. The less the "work" the Govt. can do, the better, in my opinion. And worst case scenario: Democrats have to govern from the center to keep up their poll numbers. Then we get stuff like welfare reform and balance budgets. They also raise taxes and stuff too, so it's not a perfect system, obviously. The other (Republican) end of the spectrum involves fun stuff like amnesty for immigrants and Ted Kennedy education bills.

[Begbie]

I am not a liberal, but if the right starts to erode our constutional freedoms, that might be enough to push me over to the left.

Isn't it the left that is eroding our constitutional freedoms? I mean, they're always the ones who, if they don't get their way, try to bend the rules in order to gain an upperhand. I mean, just look at the train wreck that is Hillary.

And some of the biggest lefty groups around this country (cough!...ACLU...cough!) are notorious for taking away our rights and freedoms cuz it may offend people of different ethnicities and backgrounds.

I fear the left just as much as I fear the right.

[abudabit]

I think you misspelled "fellow savages" there. /troll

:clap:

Well, as long as they are busy killing each other I guess I'm cool with the fanaticism.

It'd be nice if China decided to expand a little westward.

[roche]

which particular constitutional freedoms are starting to be eroded?

If the goverment started to take people to trial and convict them for crimes against ther country for writing something in a magazine, I would have to say, thatwould be the first admendment there pal. The one, basic, core principal this country was founded on.

When people start to post, "So and so should be hanged for saying that," it really makes me wonder if they have the slightest grasp on why this country was founded. I think you might want to read that history book again there fella.

[turdfrgsn]

If the goverment started to take people to trial and convict them for crimes against ther country for writing something in a magazine, I would have to say, thatwould be the first admendment there pal.

and this is happening.....where?

"if" being the operant word here, and "if" that were to happen i'd happily pick up arms and join you against the totalitarian regime that perpetrated it in this country, then again, that's a pretty big "if"

When people start to post, "So and so should be hanged for saying that," it really makes me wonder if they have the slightest grasp on why this country was founded.

i concur but there's also an allowance for things such as hyperbole, exaggeration and sarcasm within the first amendment, and such instances would hardly seem out of place in a message board centered on the O&A show

I think you might want to read that history book again there fella.

gladly, and after consulting it i come to find that the alien and sedition acts (enacted 1798), the only instance where the U.S. govt. did punish people for what they wrote in newspapers/magazines, were either repealed or allowed to expire in 1801. we're living in the year 2005 and no one's getting hanged for what they write in newspapers/magazines or say on tv or radio
now, why do you suppose those acts were ever made law? and why were they allowed to expire? and what relevance does it bear on our current situation?

then again, as has been stated previously in this thread, focusing on newsweak might perhaps be missing the underlying point:

http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/mccarthy/mccarthy200505171307.asp

May 17, 2005, 1:07 p.m.
The Smug Delusion of Base Expectations
Count me out of the Newsweek feeding frenzy.

We're in the grips of a pathology. And it's not media bias.

Here's the late-breaking news (you'll want to be sitting down for this): The mainstream media is ideologically liberal and instinctually hostile to George W. Bush, U.S. foreign policy, and the American military.

No kidding. Really. If you want to throw the off-switch for the cognitive part of your brain — as many conservatives seem only to happy to do this week — then, by all means, that is the story you want to run with in this latest media scandal.

Newsweek, in reckless pursuit of a scoop that might score the daily double of embarrassing the Bush administration while heaping more disrepute on the Left's favorite punching bag, Guantanamo Bay, falsely reported a martial toilet-flushing of the Koran. Oops, I'm sorry, I mean the Holy Koran — after all, I don't want to be left out of the new, vast right-wing "we can be just as nauseatingly pious as they can" conspiracy.

The false report, according to the New York Times, instigated "the most virulent, widespread anti-American protests" in the Muslim world since...well, since the last virulent, widespread anti-American protests in the Muslim world — particularly in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where at least 17 people have been killed.

That's right. The reason for the carnage is said — again and again, by media critics and government officials — to be a false report of Koran desecration. The prime culprit here is irresponsible journalism.

Is that what we really think?

Here's an actual newsflash — and one, yet again, that should be news to no one: The reason for the carnage here was, and is, militant Islam. Nothing more.

Newsweek merely gave the crazies their excuse du jour. But they didn't need a report of Koran desecration to fly jumbo jets into skyscrapers, to blow up embassies, or to behead hostages taken for the great sin of being Americans or Jews. They didn't need a report of Koran desecration to take to the streets and blame the United States while enthusiastically taking innocent lives. This is what they do.

The outpouring of righteous indignation against Newsweek glides past a far more important point. Yes, we're all sick of media bias. But "Newsweek lied and people died" is about as worthy a slogan as the scurrilous "Bush lied and people died" that it parrots. And when we engage in this kind of mindless demagoguery, we become just another opportunistic plaintiff — no better than the people all too ready to blame the CIA because Mohammed Atta steered a hijacked civilian airliner into a big building, and to sue the Port Authority because the building had the audacity to collapse from the blow.

What are we saying here? That the problem lies in the falsity of Newsweek's reporting? What if the report had been true? And, if you're being honest with yourself, you cannot say — based on common sense and even ignoring what we know happened at Abu Ghraib — that you didn't think it was conceivably possible the report could have been true. Flushing the Koran down a toilet (assuming for argument's sake that our environmentally correct, 3.6-liters-per-flush toilets are capable of such a feat) is a bad thing. But rioting? Seventeen people killed? That's a rational response?

Sorry, but I couldn't care less about Newsweek. I'm more worried about the response and our willful avoidance of its examination. Afghanistan has been an American reconstruction project for nearly four years. Pakistan has been a close American "war on terror" ally for just as long. This is what we're getting from the billions spent, the lives lost, and the grand project of exporting nonjudgmental, sharia-friendly democracy? A killing spree? Over this?

In the affirmative-action context, conservatives have written trenchantly about the "soft bigotry of low expectations" — the promotion of a vile dependency-ethos that says "you don't need to strive for better," as a result of which many people who might, don't. Our cognate sense of the Islamic world has become the smug delusion of base expectations.

Someone alleges a Koran flushing and what do we do? We expect, accept, and silently tolerate militant Muslim savagery — lots of it. We become the hangin' judge for the imbeciles whose negligence "triggered" the violence, but offer no judgment about the societal dysfunction that allows this grade of offense to trigger so cataclysmic a reaction. We hop on our high horses having culled from the Left's playbook the most politically correct palaver about the inviolable sanctity of Holy Islamic scripture (and never you mind those verses about annihilating the infidels — the ones being chanted by the killers). And we suspend disbelief, insisting that things would be just fine in a place like Gaza if we could only set up a democracy — a development which, there, appears poised to empower Hamas, terrorists of the same ilk as those in Afghanistan and Pakistan who see comparatively minor indignities as license to commit murder.

"Minor indignities? How can you say something so callous about a desecration of the Holy Koran?" I say it as a member of the real world, not the world of prissy affectation. I don't know about you, but I inhabit a place where crucifixes immersed in urine and Madonna replicas composed of feces are occasions for government funding, not murderous uprisings. If someone was moved to kill on their account, we'd be targeting the killer, not the exhibiting museum, not the "artists," and surely not Newsweek.

I inhabit a world in which my government seeks accommodation with Saudi Arabia and China and Egypt, places where the practice of Christianity results in imprisonment...or worse; in which Jews have been driven from almost every country in the Middle East, and in which the goal of destroying their country, Israel, is viewed by much of the globe as legitimate foreign policy; and in which being a Christian, an animist, or the wrong kind of Muslim in Sudan is grounds for genocide — something the vaunted United Nations seems to regard as more of a spectator sport than a cause of action.

In my world, militant Muslims, capitalizing on the respectful deference of others, have been known tactically to desecrate the Koran themselves: by rigging it with explosives, by using it to secrete and convey terrorist messages, and, yes, even by toilet-flushing parts of it for the nuisance value of flooding the bathrooms at Guantanamo Bay. Just as they have used mosques as sanctuaries, as weapons depots, and as snipers' nests.

There's a problem here. But it's not insensitivity, and it's not media bias. Those things are condemnable, but manageable. The real problem here is a culture that either cannot or will not rein in a hate ideology that fuels killing. When we go after Newsweek, we're giving it a pass. Again.

— Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.