PDA

View Full Version : NYT smears our Troops!



bamadog
01-15-2008, 07:30 PM
The New York Times, in their typical patriotic way, slanders our returning heroes.
With the surge working, violence down, and much evidence of political reconciliation in Iraq, the NYT manufactures a smear on our troops.

http://www.911familiesforamerica.org/?cat=16

(Excerpt)
"Retired Army Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Peters put it this way, this morning in the New York Post:

Aren’t editors supposed to ask tough questions on feature stories? Are the Times’ editors so determined to undermine the public’s support for our troops that they’ll violate the most-basic rules of journalism, such as putting numbers in context? Answer that one for yourself.

Of course, all of this is part of the disgraceful left-wing campaign to pretend sympathy with soldiers — the Times column gushes crocodile tears — while portraying our troops as clichéd maniacs from the Oliver Stone fantasies that got lefties so self-righteously excited 20 years ago (See? We were right to dodge the draft …). And it’s not going to stop. Given the stakes in an election year, the duplicity will only intensify.

That’s correct. The New York Times does not give a tinker’s damn about America’s soldiers. All it cares about is using them to influence the outcome of elections."

LWW
01-16-2008, 04:35 AM
Soldiers are merely props to that crowd.

If it required the loss of 100K US troops to beat Bush in 2004 there are far too many on that side who would have taken such a Faustian deal.

There are,of course, those on the left who oppose the war and would die themselves before seeing another soldier harmed but they certainly appear in the minority.

Further disdain for truth is shown by the fact that many are tossing around these doctored numbers for partisan gain.

The New York Times, IMHO, is roughly as accurate as the Weekly World News but less patriotic.

LWW

bamadog
01-16-2008, 02:34 PM
The mouthpiece of the left demonstrates, yet again, just how it "supports" our troops.
Where is the indignation from the libs?
Obviously they agree with this kind of slanted "reporting". Or are they just too partisan to acknowledge the turd in the punchbowl, which is the venerable NY Times.
Just another, in the long littany of examples of how the left "supports" the troops.

LWW
01-16-2008, 02:51 PM
And the sad thing is that not a soul here on the left will dispute any of this because they know it to be true, yet they will refuse to renounce the NYT for it's slimy reporting ... intend pretending as if it didn't exist.

LWW

hondo
01-16-2008, 05:39 PM
The article is too small for me to read.
All I could read was your right wing site ranting & raving over something I couldn't read.
Not sure what you want from us.
My son-in law is over there. You think I don't support him?
I want him to get the hell home from that nutty occupation
of a Muslim nation.

bsmutz
01-16-2008, 05:45 PM
I hereby refuse to denounce the NYT for their sleazy reporting (and the Tattler, the National Enquirer, the Omaha Daily Gazzette, and the Mujadin Herald.)

bamadog
01-17-2008, 01:15 AM
Come on Hondo, put in a little effort and try to keep up. Didn't you used to teach a class in media bias?

LWW
01-17-2008, 05:05 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote hondo:</font><hr> The article is too small for me to read.<hr /></blockquote>
There was a link to the original right under the photo of the NYT front page.


HERE (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/us/13vets.html?_r=1&amp;adxnnl=1&amp;oref=slogin&amp;adxnnlx=1200 567751-X5y3ehnoLSB0VPKFnDG09w) it is.

If you really support our troops this type of lie should enrage you.

I'm very disappointed that not a single "WE LOVE OUR TROOPS!" lefty here has denounced the King of Liars over this.

LWW

hondo
01-17-2008, 06:22 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bamadog:</font><hr> Come on Hondo, put in a little effort and try to keep up. Didn't you used to teach a class in media bias? <hr /></blockquote>

Exactly. And that's what I noticed about the site you directed us to.
Dawg, you can fool some of the people all of the time...

hondo
01-17-2008, 06:24 AM
I'm going to post a thread on this. Okay.
Needs addressed.

bamadog
01-17-2008, 10:36 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote hondo:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote bamadog:</font><hr> Come on Hondo, put in a little effort and try to keep up. Didn't you used to teach a class in media bias? <hr /></blockquote>

Exactly. And that's what I noticed about the site you directed us to.
Dawg, you can fool some of the people all of the time... <hr /></blockquote>

So, you didn't read the article, but you have no problem pronouncing judgement on it anyway. I can only guess what kind of standards you maintained in your class if this is the kind of example you set. Put in the effort hondo. It's not that hard. There are some subtleties about demographics that may fly over your head, but you should have no trouble with the rest. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

hondo
01-17-2008, 05:19 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bamadog:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote hondo:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote bamadog:</font><hr> Come on Hondo, put in a little effort and try to keep up. Didn't you used to teach a class in media bias? <hr /></blockquote>

Exactly. And that's what I noticed about the site you directed us to.
Dawg, you can fool some of the people all of the time... <hr /></blockquote>

So, you didn't read the article, but you have no problem pronouncing judgement on it anyway. I can only guess what kind of standards you maintained in your class if this is the kind of example you set. Put in the effort hondo. It's not that hard. There are some subtleties about demographics that may fly over your head, but you should have no trouble with the rest. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif <hr /></blockquote>

I read the article after I read LWWs post.
And why the smart mouth? I thought I was a brother of the light?
Also, I created a new thread as a response.
Haven't seen your spin, er, response, yet.

bamadog
01-17-2008, 05:34 PM
OK, so now you've read the article. What do you think of the NY Times take on the subject?
(hint) Remember, you used to teach the media bias class.

hondo
01-17-2008, 09:08 PM
The Times is reporting the fact that many of our guys are returning from Iraq traumatized and some are inclined to turn to violence as a result of their war experience.
The Times quotes sources that say we should monitor
the mental health and well being of our returning soldiers.
All of the cases they report seem to be documented.
At various places in the article they mention that this is not the norm but more and more cases are turning up.
What do you want here? Did you read the article?
I bet not.
You're a strange guy, Dawg. You seem blinded by your concepts that Bush is doing the right thing, the war
is a good thing, and those who disagree with you are the enemy and have no idea what they're talking about.
You and Lotter think that whackjob McCarthy was a great American.
You appear to get mad when people don't share your worldview.
I really would have liked to have met you at DCC.
I'm sure you can't be as strange as you come across on the forums. Deeman said you seemed pretty normal.
Perhaps if we talked face to face I could get a handle on where you're coming from, but on here you just seem bizarre.
A few that I've fussed with over the years turned out to be fine in person: Wally in Cincinnati, Mark Tadd, Easy E.
I'm sure you're okay too.

bamadog
01-17-2008, 09:35 PM
So you completely missed the fact that our Veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan are significantly LESS likely to murder than the demographic at large.
Good, you are exactly the kind of non-critical reader the NY times is aiming this slanderous article at.

hondo
01-17-2008, 09:45 PM
Dawg, you see what you want to see. That's obvious.
I read the article. Tried to explain what the article was saying to you because I'm pretty sure you didn't read it,
just the right wing rant about it.
If I can't have an intelligent conversation with you without you sqawking about anti-Americans all the time, I might as well give up.
Honestly, brother, you're like a broken record.

bamadog
01-17-2008, 10:20 PM
So you obviously missed the critique, by John Hinderacker, of the NYT article.
That is where you will find the discussion of the skewed statistics. It is in the link I provided.
It was the point of the post.
Hondo, why do I have to lead you around by the nose?

hondo
01-18-2008, 06:32 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bamadog:</font><hr> So you obviously missed the critique, by John Hinderacker, of the NYT article.
That is where you will find the discussion of the skewed statistics. It is in the link I provided.
It was the point of the post.
Hondo, why do I have to lead you around by the nose? <hr /></blockquote>

Forget the right wing critique. I read it.
I'll go real slow here.
READ THE ARTICLE.
You can do this , Dawg. Try digesting a little information that's not filtered through right wing rants.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste, buddy.

BTW, in fairness to you, I re-read the Peters column
( Hinderacker?).
I see what he's saying if it's true. Indicative of most
reporters who go for the sensational rather than the positive. I can't argue with that.
But, again, did you read the Times article? It's certainly not the smear job you indicated it was without actually reading it.
You read the Peter's rants and got fired up, perhaps rightly so, but cover all your bases before you post , Dawg.
It'll make you look smarter.

bamadog
01-18-2008, 09:43 AM
Hondo, I read the NYT article and it was a smear job. I think you need to re-read it with your critical faculties turned on. This time look at the big picture. What was the Times trying to say about the War, the Administration, and these damaged Troops?


Article:
John Hinderacker at Power Line exposed the Times’ sorry excuse for journalism yesterday when he wrote:

"Now put yourself in the place of a newspaper editor. Suppose you are asked to evaluate whether your paper should run a long article on a nationwide epidemic of murders committed by veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan–a crime wave that, your reporter suggests, constitutes a “cross-country trail of death and heartbreak.” Suppose that the reporter who proposes to write the article says it will be a searing indictment of the U.S. military’s inadequate attention to post-traumatic stress disorder. Suppose further that you are not a complete idiot.

Given that last assumption, I’m pretty sure your first question will be: “How does the murder rate among veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan compare to the murder rate for young American men generally?” Remarkably, this is a question the New York Times did not think to ask. Or, if the Times asked the question and figured out the answer, the paper preferred not to report it.

As of 2005, the homicide rate for Americans aged 18-24, the cohort into which most soldiers fall, was around 27 per 100,000. (The rate for men in that age range would be much higher, of course, since men commit around 88% of homicides. But since most soldiers are also men, I gave civilians the benefit of the doubt and considered gender a wash.)

Next we need to know how many servicemen have returned from Iraq or Afghanistan. A definitive number is no doubt available, but the only hard figure I’ve seen is that as of last October, moe than 500,000 U.S. Army personnel had served in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Other sources peg the total number of personnel from all branches of the military who have served in the two theaters much higher, e.g. 750,000, 650,000 as of February 2007, or 1,280,000. For the sake of argument, let’s say that 700,000 soldiers, Marines, airmen and sailors have returned to the U.S. from service in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Do the math: the 121 alleged instances of homicide identified by the Times, out of a population of 700,000, works out to a rate of 17 per 100,000–quite a bit lower than the overall national rate of around 27.

But wait! The national rate of 27 homicides per 100,000 is an annual rate, whereas the Times’ 121 alleged crimes were committed over a period of six years. Which means that, as far as the Times’ research shows, the rate of homicides committed by military personnel who have returned from Iraq or Afghanistan is only a fraction of the homicide rate for other Americans aged 18 to 24. Somehow, the Times managed to publish nine pages of anecdotes about the violence wreaked by returning servicemen without ever mentioning this salient fact. "

LWW
01-18-2008, 09:55 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bamadog:</font><hr> Hondo, I read the NYT article and it was a smear job. I think you need to re-read it with your critical faculties turned on. This time look at the big picture. What was the Times trying to say about the War, the Administration, and these damaged Troops?


Article:
John Hinderacker at Power Line exposed the Times’ sorry excuse for journalism yesterday when he wrote:

"Now put yourself in the place of a newspaper editor. Suppose you are asked to evaluate whether your paper should run a long article on a nationwide epidemic of murders committed by veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan–a crime wave that, your reporter suggests, constitutes a “cross-country trail of death and heartbreak.” Suppose that the reporter who proposes to write the article says it will be a searing indictment of the U.S. military’s inadequate attention to post-traumatic stress disorder. Suppose further that you are not a complete idiot.

Given that last assumption, I’m pretty sure your first question will be: “How does the murder rate among veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan compare to the murder rate for young American men generally?” Remarkably, this is a question the New York Times did not think to ask. Or, if the Times asked the question and figured out the answer, the paper preferred not to report it.

As of 2005, the homicide rate for Americans aged 18-24, the cohort into which most soldiers fall, was around 27 per 100,000. (The rate for men in that age range would be much higher, of course, since men commit around 88% of homicides. But since most soldiers are also men, I gave civilians the benefit of the doubt and considered gender a wash.)

Next we need to know how many servicemen have returned from Iraq or Afghanistan. A definitive number is no doubt available, but the only hard figure I’ve seen is that as of last October, moe than 500,000 U.S. Army personnel had served in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Other sources peg the total number of personnel from all branches of the military who have served in the two theaters much higher, e.g. 750,000, 650,000 as of February 2007, or 1,280,000. For the sake of argument, let’s say that 700,000 soldiers, Marines, airmen and sailors have returned to the U.S. from service in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Do the math: the 121 alleged instances of homicide identified by the Times, out of a population of 700,000, works out to a rate of 17 per 100,000–quite a bit lower than the overall national rate of around 27.

But wait! The national rate of 27 homicides per 100,000 is an annual rate, whereas the Times’ 121 alleged crimes were committed over a period of six years. Which means that, as far as the Times’ research shows, the rate of homicides committed by military personnel who have returned from Iraq or Afghanistan is only a fraction of the homicide rate for other Americans aged 18 to 24. Somehow, the Times managed to publish nine pages of anecdotes about the violence wreaked by returning servicemen without ever mentioning this salient fact. " <hr /></blockquote>
Well, 17 per 100K vs 27 per 100K means our vets are less than 63% as likely to commit murder. Divide that by 6 years and they are less than 10.5% as likely. Factor in that it's nearly all men are in combat zones and that 88% of murders are commited by men and you find that these vets are actually only about 1.25% to 2.5% as likely as the general population for that age group to commit murder.

Slander, plain and simple and anyone who carries water for the NYT should be ashamed of theirselves.

LWW

Deeman3
01-18-2008, 10:16 AM
It is strange that you would never see the headline in the NYT, "Returning US Soldiers much less likely to commit violent offenses than the general public!" I don't think you could have made that statement in the 1970's with returning Vietnam soldiers.

I saw a special last night on "Gangland" that said gang members (MS-13, et al) makes up about 1 percent of the armed forces so some of that crime from returning soldiers certainly makes the number even higher than it would be otherwise.

LWW
01-18-2008, 10:24 AM
If the NYT had the truth as anagenda the headline would read like yours.

Since they clearly aren't, and please don't anyone claim this is isolated because I have posted a long string of lies told by the NYT up to and including "DEAD VICTIMS" getting up and walking around in the next picture, we have the headline that we have because they have the agenda that they have.

LWW

bamadog
01-19-2008, 01:48 PM
Well hondo, were you finally able to see the forest?
I know it is painful for you to admit that the NY Times has an agenda, as is evident in this article. But as a man who teaches recognition of media bias to children, this should be an easy call for you.
Or are you just too personally biased to recognize the obvious?
By the way, what are some of the examples of media bias that you used in your class?

hondo
01-19-2008, 03:08 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bamadog:</font><hr> Well hondo, were you finally able to see the forest?
I know it is painful for you to admit that the NY Times has an agenda, as is evident in this article. But as a man who teaches recognition of media bias to children, this should be an easy call for you.
Or are you just too personally biased to recognize the obvious?
By the way, what are some of the examples of media bias that you used in your class? <hr /></blockquote>

Dawg, I can recognize bias when I see it.
I see it in EVERY ONe of your posts.
I apologize for not seeing eye to eye with you on every subject. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
You'll have that on a small forum.

bamadog
01-19-2008, 08:26 PM
So, you admit that you can't see the bias in this NY Times article.
Pretty sad hondo.
How in the world did you ever manage to teach that class?

hondo
01-19-2008, 09:32 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bamadog:</font><hr> So, you admit that you can't see the bias in this NY Times article.
Pretty sad hondo.
How in the world did you ever manage to teach that class? <hr /></blockquote>

Same old tired crap from the dawg.
Yes, the Times article is awful! I'm appalled!
Happy? I'm so ashamed my teaching didn't reach your lofty neo-con standards. If I had it to do over again, I teach the Gospel according to Bamadog. Bush is great. McCarthy was a true American. We're over in Iraq fighting those who attacked us in 9/11. The media, with the possible exception of Faux news is controlled by evil liberals who want to see this country controlled by Islamo-fascists. There is no global warming but if there might be, it certainly wasn't man-made. Hilary is an evil hoe who would like nothing better than to destroy this country. All of our soldiers are tickled pink to bring Wal-Mart to Iraq. Big oil loves us and any profits they are making are well deserved and purely coincidental. Iraq and Nam are nothing alike. God loves Republicans who are the true Americans and hates Democrats who are the devil's spawn. Did I leave anything out? Yawn.

bamadog
01-19-2008, 10:22 PM
Stop throwing up smoke hondo. You only make yourself look more foolish.
Why did you bother to post on this thread if you didn't get the concept of the issue?
We are talking about this specific article, and this specific instance of bias.
Why can't you just be honest?

hondo
01-19-2008, 11:43 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bamadog:</font><hr> You only make yourself look more foolish.
<hr /></blockquote>

When you start this garbage, it's time for me to drop out.
Have a nice post. I'm done.

bamadog
01-20-2008, 01:40 AM
Finally, a wise decision from you.
I suspect your class was titled "how to recognize conservative media bias" because it appears you can't see anything else. Too bad for your students.

nAz
01-20-2008, 02:18 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote hondo:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote bamadog:</font><hr> You only make yourself look more foolish.
<hr /></blockquote>

When you start this garbage, it's time for me to drop out.
Have a nice post. I'm done. <hr /></blockquote>

Hondo? your sounding like a Kerry democrat... No back bone? /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Qtec
01-20-2008, 04:31 AM
The claim that the, [ QUOTE ]


purpose of Sunday’s instantly notorious feature “alerting” the American people that our Iraq and Afghanistan vets are all potential murderers when they move in next door was to mark those defenders of freedom as “unclean” — as the new lepers who can’t be trusted amid uninfected Americans <hr /></blockquote>

.....is totally false. All they are doing is telling truths that the Govt would rather keep quiet.
GW and the GOP in particular accuse the Dems of not supporting the troops because they oppose the war, but when GIs come back from Iraq traumatized, how much support do they get?
Obviously not enough.

Q

hondo
01-20-2008, 07:42 AM
NAz, when he starts the personal stuff, you're stupid, you're a lousy teacher, I feel like knocking him into the next state, and I could, so it's time for me to quit the thread.
I'm on here to have fun, not get irritated by some big mouth who thinks he knows it all.
And here I thought I was a brother of the light!
When he can't win an argument with intelligent comments, he starts running his mouth.
I took a lot of pride in my 30 years of teaching and I don't appreciate some punk running his mouth cause I don't agree with his horseshit. /ccboard/images/graemlins/mad.gif

cheesemouse
01-20-2008, 09:31 AM
Hondo,

http://www.nytimes.com/regi

Here's a link for the 'dog' and open minded who walk upright...it's free

hondo
01-20-2008, 10:27 AM
LOL! I'm sure he'll subscribe, CM. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

bamadog
01-20-2008, 11:22 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> The claim that the, &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;


purpose of Sunday’s instantly notorious feature “alerting” the American people that our Iraq and Afghanistan vets are all potential murderers when they move in next door was to mark those defenders of freedom as “unclean” — as the new lepers who can’t be trusted amid uninfected Americans <hr /></blockquote>

.....is totally false. All they are doing is telling truths that the Govt would rather keep quiet.
GW and the GOP in particular accuse the Dems of not supporting the troops because they oppose the war, but when GIs come back from Iraq traumatized, how much support do they get?
Obviously not enough.

Q <hr /></blockquote>

The troops get plenty of "support". Have you ever even met an American GI?
Here's the point of the critique. Hondo didn't get it, but perhaps you can.

"Do the math: the 121 alleged instances of homicide identified by the Times, out of a population of 700,000, works out to a rate of 17 per 100,000–quite a bit lower than the overall national rate of around 27.

But wait! The national rate of 27 homicides per 100,000 is an annual rate, whereas the Times’ 121 alleged crimes were committed over a period of six years. Which means that, as far as the Times’ research shows, the rate of homicides committed by military personnel who have returned from Iraq or Afghanistan is only a fraction of the homicide rate for other Americans aged 18 to 24. Somehow, the Times managed to publish nine pages of anecdotes about the violence wreaked by returning servicemen without ever mentioning this salient fact. "

bamadog
01-20-2008, 11:30 AM
I love you too hondo. I'm just disappointed in your allergy to critical thinking.

hondo
01-20-2008, 05:07 PM
Think about it, Q. All the murders in the U.S., for WHATEVER REASONS is a much higher per centage rate
than those committed by returning soldiers from
Iraq so how dare anybody bring up those murders or
suggest the our young people might need some help?
Why, there's even more young people in the U.S in the 18-21
range who have committed more murders!!!
Aren't statistics a beautiful thing?
Why, there might even be more gang members, per centage-wise, who have committed more murders than our Iraqui
vets. So there's obviously no problem.
Those damn libs are always making up crap cause they hate our sons and daughters doing their duty for our glorious leader Von Bush.
I just wish I wasn't too dern old to go over there and bring Wal-Mart and Christianity to the heathens.

hondo
01-20-2008, 05:11 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bamadog:</font><hr> I love you too hondo. I'm just disappointed in your allergy to critical thinking.
<hr /></blockquote>

You don't love me. If you did you wouldn't trash my life work just because I don't agree with you.
You don't know me, and unless you apologize to me you don't want to know me. Trust me on this, little buddy.
You ought to watch your mouth.

Qtec
01-20-2008, 08:29 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Who are homeless veterans?

The U. S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) says the nation's homeless veterans are mostly males (4 % are females). The vast majority are single, most come from poor, disadvantaged communities, 45% suffer from mental illness, and half have substance abuse problems. America’s homeless veterans have served in World War II, Korean War, Cold War, Vietnam War, Grenada, Panama, Lebanon, Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan), Operation Iraqi Freedom, or the military’s anti-drug cultivation efforts in South America. Forty-seven percent of homeless veterans served during the Vietnam Era. More than 67% served our country for at least three years and 33% were stationed in a war zone.

How many homeless veterans are there?

Although accurate numbers are impossible to come by -- no one keeps national records on homeless veterans -- the VA estimates that nearly 200,000 veterans are homeless on any given night. And nearly 400,000 experience homelessness over the course of a year. Conservatively, one out of every three homeless men who is sleeping in a doorway, alley or box in our cities and rural communities has put on a uniform and served this country. According to the National Survey of Homeless Assistance Providers and Clients (U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness and the Urban Institute, 1999), veterans account for 23% of all homeless people in America. <hr /></blockquote>

web page (http://www.nchv.org/background.cfm)

The FACT is that many coming back from war are incapable of adjusting back to normal life. They suffer, their families suffer and the Govt doesn't want to know because to actually REALLY help them would cost TOO MUCH MONEY!!

It should be a national disgrace that so many Vets are sleeping on the streets.

Q

bamadog
01-20-2008, 10:10 PM
You really know how to hurt a guy's feelin's there big fella. Just when I thought we were gettin' so close.
I have never met you, but for some reason you remind me of the skipper on Gilligan's Island. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

hondo
01-20-2008, 10:56 PM
I ought to remind you of Attila the motherfu**ing hun.

bamadog
01-20-2008, 11:47 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote hondo:</font><hr> I ought to remind you of Attila the motherfu**ing hun. <hr /></blockquote>

Not really. He was a conservative, and a warrior who wasn't afraid to go to war to project his power, and protect his interest. He understood that empires fall when they lose their stomach for war.
I think he would have put a dress on you big fella- Yee Ha!
Also, I'm pretty sure he could recognize media bias. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

hondo
01-21-2008, 07:18 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bamadog:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote hondo:</font><hr> I ought to remind you of Attila the motherfu**ing hun. <hr /></blockquote>

and a warrior who wasn't afraid to go to war
I think he would have put a dress on you big fella <hr /></blockquote>
Sent you a PM. I trust you'll keep it that way.

DickLeonard
01-21-2008, 10:23 AM
Bamdawg I know the Times was pretty pissed off about being instrumental in leading our Country into a phony War. That was when they were supposed to be be asking the hard Qwestions. Now your complaining.####

DickLeonard
01-21-2008, 10:34 AM
LWW take your stats and shove them. 4 gun shops have provided the weapons used in 50,000 deaths and the NRA gets Congress to pass a law banning police in this country from sharing information with each other about Gun Shops and George Bush signs it.

The most Anti American Organization, the NRA. Instead of being for the people their for their Killers.####

eg8r
01-21-2008, 10:42 AM
LOL, you post is pretty funny. You tell LWW to shove his facts and then you want to jump in with your own.

Like Gayle, Dick you are doing your best to infring on others rights.

eg8r

LWW
01-22-2008, 04:27 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DickLeonard:</font><hr> LWW take your stats and shove them. 4 gun shops have provided the weapons used in 50,000 deaths and the NRA gets Congress to pass a law banning police in this country from sharing information with each other about Gun Shops and George Bush signs it.

The most Anti American Organization, the NRA. Instead of being for the people their for their Killers.#### <hr /></blockquote>
Got a link, because I believe you pulled your stats from a nether region my friend.

LWW

LWW
01-22-2008, 04:28 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> LOL, you post is pretty funny. You tell LWW to shove his facts and then you want to jump in with your own.

Like Gayle, Dick you are doing your best to infring on others rights.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>
That's what all good little jihadis do.

LWW