Lt Pantano

Eggs · 02-16-2005, 09:43 PM

Another situation in which those that defend our country are being made to pay because somebody believes more in covering their own ass than doing what is right. In a combat situation one has to make decisions in a second, and the charges filed against Lt. Palano are rediculous at best.

The Marine Corp should know what a joke it is making of itself now... and what a bunch of piss ants the arm chair generals that allow this sort of crap to go on are.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/natio...1803-1937r.htm

I've got a big fuck you for the Devil Dogs that hang their own out to dry.

PreMier · 02-16-2005, 09:48 PM

What a fucking joke.

Eggs · 02-16-2005, 10:25 PM

Yeah, no kidding... they send our troops over under these conditions and we wonder why they get killed.

Need to pull their heads out of their asses.

PreMier · 02-16-2005, 10:28 PM

This type of crap has been going on for a while now. Not only does it piss me off, but it saddens me.. to think that these people put their lives on the line, and we punish them for doing a job that most would never consider.

Here is a petition I signed. Dont know what the aftermath was, but it has the story there. http://www.petitiononline.com/as125/petition.html

Eggs · 02-17-2005, 06:45 AM

Signed

**Dale Mabry** · 02-17-2005, 07:46 AM

I consider this George Bush's fault.

Signed.

ALBOB · 02-17-2005, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

I consider this George Bush's fault.

What scares me is that there's people out there saying that very same thing who AREN'T joking.

BoneCrusher · 02-17-2005, 04:50 PM

Signed it a while back.

Eggs · 02-17-2005, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

I consider this George Bush's fault.

Perhaps to a degree it is... I consider the main fault to lie at the feet of the media. They paint pictures that dont exist and try to create a craze with every new story. Unfortunately boring news doesnt sell... so the news is more than happy to sacrifice a few good men here and there if it means an increase in the ratings.

Its what America wants to see, sadly enough. People want all the drama of a day time soap in real life, and thats what the news gives them.

I have to admit if I heard a story of someone going postal in a news organization I'd definitely watch it with a bowl of popcorn.

"now thats news!"

Anything short of that probably wouldnt glue me to the tube though.

kbm8795 · 02-18-2005, 06:05 PM

Since the President is commander-in-chief of the armed forces, I believe he probably has a lot more ability to intervene in this matter than, say, the Rush Limbaugh Show. There are times when there is inherent sensationalizing in media, and that is certainly a valid observation on both ideological sides of the political spectrum. On the other hand, it was President Reagan's push for an end to the Fairness Doctrine that provided the key argument that the media should be more competitive with its news coverage. At least officially, the White House at the time believed the American people were intelligent enough to know how to support balanced news; as we've seen many times over the last few years, that just isn't the case. It is a direct result of the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine that brought us those endless hours of televangelista political fundraising and allowed news programs to create a political bias without having to provide time for a response. Attempts to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine have been killed repeatedly by Republicans.

While I'm more sympatheic to the situation covered in the petition, there are way too many unanswered questions in the Pantano case. For one thing, the information presented on the allegedly "disgruntled" enlisted man who "reported" Pantano, is so vague that it only speculates that this action might have caused this problem.

Moreover, General Mattis has already been in hot water over remarks he made earlier in the month.

At least the Times managed to mention that at the end of the story.
One does have to remember that The Washington Times is a newspaper owned by the Unification Church with strong ties to the Republican Party. The leader of the Church, Rev. Sun Moon, was crowned "monarch of America" last spring at a ceremony attended by some conservative legislators in the Senate Office Building. He is also widely regarded by his followers as the self-proclaimed "second Messiah."

Eggs · 02-20-2005, 04:49 PM

Whooptie Fucking do... I dont need your attempts to bash religion coming into every thread. I was bringing up a point about what I saw as a travesty, if you dont agree, then by all means make your own thread and stay the fuck out of mine.

Or in the least keep to relevant points, I dont give a fuck what you think about General Mattis or The Washington Times, or about friggin Sun Moon being crowned whatever he was.

Stick to the facts if you post in my threads, and get off the political agenda soap box.

kbm8795 · 02-20-2005, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eggs

Whooptie Fucking do... I dont need your attempts to bash religion coming into every thread. I was bringing up a point about what I saw as a travesty, if you dont agree, then by all means make your own thread and stay the fuck out of mine.

Or in the least keep to relevant points, I dont give a fuck what you think about General Mattis or The Washington Times, or about friggin Sun Moon being crowned whatever he was.

Stick to the facts if you post in my threads, and get off the political agenda soap box.

Well now. . .someone must have named you Crown Princess of the world of online discussion forums and forgot to tell me to mail in my tribute. Sorry - I'm not inclined to automatically trust the journalistic endeavors of the "monarch of America's" newspaper. If you don't want a reference to religion, don't use a source owned by his church. Perhaps you could have linked to the web site for his defense.

Since you used your thread to go off on another "media-is-to-blame" explanations (gee, how many of those have you dragged out before?) I simply pointed out why that may not necessarily be the situation in these military cases. I also drew information from the source you linked us to and offered my opinion based on what I read and pointed out that there seem to be some missing pieces in the Pantano case, at least in that story. Those missing things could certainly substantiate his case, but we don't know because that information isn't in the story.

I also indicated I was sympathetic with the case linked in the petition. I happen to have friends stationed over there and don't want to see them caught in any kind of scapegoating situation. Many of those cases may well be a travesty, but if someone is letting people take the fall the commander-in-chief can intervene.

If you only want "politically correct" responses to a thread you create, you should make that clear in the topic so that others understand you are just interested in homage. And if you aren't interested in a "political agenda", it's a good idea not to regularly link to sources that are well-known for those kinds of agendas and swear to their truth.

Eggs · 02-21-2005, 08:18 AM

Well I'll tell you what Kbm, let me tell you about a little resource called "Google". If you want more sites that have information on what happened then go to "Google" and type in - "Lt Pantano" marine

From there it will pop up a whole list of web sites that have information on this. I chose one, and being that this isnt a research publication, I dont really feel like going through and screening the background of every single source I post. If you're so inclined, then by all means do a search and find the other ones. Being that I'm not religious, I dont know much either way about which publication might have ties to Sun Moon.

The fact remains the same... this guy was charged for killing some people, even though initially he had been found without fault. On top of that, the government has been piling on charges (such as vandalism or something stupid) for his shooting out the cars tires as he was trying to get the people to stop.

My original post was in the spirit of trying to share something that was going on. Sure, I could have linked to numerous other articles about it... but in reality, I dont care enough about your anti-Christian efforts to give every link I post a background check. Obviously if it has a name that is shady I'll skip it, but if not, then deal.

Oh, and about that "media is to blame" thing... an you give me links to those posts and the total number of times I have done it? I've done that a whole lot less than you've bashed religion, so tell me, whose credibility is less?

kbm8795 · 02-21-2005, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eggs

Well I'll tell you what Kbm, let me tell you about a little resource called "Google". If you want more sites that have information on what happened then go to "Google" and type in - "Lt Pantano" marine

Wow. So you could have selected a combination of media sources.

From there it will pop up a whole list of web sites that have information on this. I chose one, and being that this isnt a research publication, I dont really feel like going through and screening the background of every single source I post. If you're so inclined, then by all means do a search and find the other ones. Being that I'm not religious, I dont know much either way about which publication might have ties to Sun Moon.

I don't think most of those sites would be very useful in a research publication except as a reference footnote. So you chose Moon's newspaper, and the article there actually differs a bit from what I read on a couple of other sites and it just happens to have strong affilations to your political viewpoints.

The fact remains the same... this guy was charged for killing some people, even though initially he had been found without fault. On top of that, the government has been piling on charges (such as vandalism or something stupid) for his shooting out the cars tires as he was trying to get the people to stop.

Well, we don't know all the facts yet. But if the government stalled for several months (which led him to believe that his own reports were accepted) and is piling on accessory charges, there are other things involved here. Perhaps that has to do with the "disgruntled" soldier who allegedly reported him later, or something else to do with how his original reports went up the chain. There are too many missing pieces at this point to know exactly what the facts are - only some honest speculation that someone is being punished without cause.

My original post was in the spirit of trying to share something that was going on. Sure, I could have linked to numerous other articles about it... but in reality, I dont care enough about your anti-Christian efforts to give every link I post a background check. Obviously if it has a name that is shady I'll skip it, but if not, then deal.

My anti-christian impersonater efforts are part of being a responsible American. Rev. Moon has stated repeatedly over the years that he expects to be the undisputed monarch of this country. And for many years people laughed at his organization as nothing more than a "cult," but there has been evidence that he has been moving steadily and with deliberate intent on increasing his influence in the Republican Party. Members of his church openly contested state delegate seats to state party conventions this past year.

People who complain about media and media "bias" most certainly should attempt to do more background checks to feel more confident about their sources of information.

Oh, and about that "media is to blame" thing... an you give me links to those posts and the total number of times I have done it? I've done that a whole lot less than you've bashed religion, so tell me, whose credibility is less?

I think you could do your own search for your own posts. I can recall you even starting entire threads directed at the "liberal" media. As it is, in this case, you put the blame on the media, rather than those in charge of the military.
I am sorry that you mistaken my bashing of those who equate religion with conservatism as bashing the entire concept of religious belief. I guess that's the price Republicans pay for claiming the "christian" word as exclusively their own.

Eggs · 02-21-2005, 09:44 AM

Yes, I could have... as stated before, I was posting the article because I saw it and was pointing out a curiosity per say in the way our soldiers are being treated. Its not the only case like that, as you can well see by looking around.

For a person who doesnt post so many links but rather prefers to just make statements (as you have done repeatedly in the past), you dont have much room to criticize my links. When you start posting more links to what you say then by all means I'l discuss the quality of my referance links with you. As I recall, the only link you have posted is www.godhatesgays.com or something along those lines.

No, we dont know all the facts. Regardless, dont you think it seems a bit peculiar that nothing happened for several months, and now there are charges against him that include rediculous ones such as "vandalism" to the persons vehicle?

I had actually never heard of Moon until you brought him up... and thats nice that he wants to be the King of the US. Sounds like a nut job to me. The story posted on his site was more critical of those prosecuting Pantano than other papers, but I have to admit I could care less. If you care so much about the topic then I'm sure you'd research it and find other stories about it, which you seem to have done.

Yes, I did make a thread about the liberal media... and it is something I think is rediculous. However, if I'd even posted 10 or 20 times about the liberal media I'd still have posted much less than you have bashing Christianity.

Lets act like adults here... anybody that reads your posts can see you bash Christianity and only Christianity as far as religions go. So let me amend my religion bashing to that. You can make all the claims that you want to and try to spin your statements all over until they seem ambiguous enough to fly under radar, but its still what you're doing. The price any Republican (Or Democrat) shouldnt have to pay is listening to your drivel.

kbm8795 · 02-21-2005, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eggs

Yes, I could have... as stated before, I was posting the article because I saw it and was pointing out a curiosity per say in the way our soldiers are being treated. Its not the only case like that, as you can well see by looking around.

For a person who doesnt post so many links but rather prefers to just make statements (as you have done repeatedly in the past), you dont have much room to criticize my links. When you start posting more links to what you say then by all means I'l discuss the quality of my referance links with you. As I recall, the only link you have posted is www.godhatesgays.com or something along those lines.

No, we dont know all the facts. Regardless, dont you think it seems a bit peculiar that nothing happened for several months, and now there are charges against him that include rediculous ones such as "vandalism" to the persons vehicle?

I had actually never heard of Moon until you brought him up... and thats nice that he wants to be the King of the US. Sounds like a nut job to me. The story posted on his site was more critical of those prosecuting Pantano than other papers, but I have to admit I could care less. If you care so much about the topic then I'm sure you'd research it and find other stories about it, which you seem to have done.

Yes, I did make a thread about the liberal media... and it is something I think is rediculous. However, if I'd even posted 10 or 20 times about the liberal media I'd still have posted much less than you have bashing Christianity.

Lets act like adults here... anybody that reads your posts can see you bash Christianity and only Christianity as far as religions go. So let me amend my religion bashing to that. You can make all the claims that you want to and try to spin your statements all over until they seem ambiguous enough to fly under radar, but its still what you're doing. The price any Republican (Or Democrat) shouldnt have to pay is listening to your drivel.

Well, you certainly understand the concept of "spin" enough to know how to choose your sources for information. And, while it is obvious that you disagree, christianity, despite claims by such pundits as Pat Robertson, does not equal conservatism or endorsement of particular political viewpoints just because a political party has chosen to claim the term for its own purpose.

But you do use some nice memorized political cliches like "under radar" and "spin". . .which indicates a political agenda of your own.

If you want to "act like adults here" then I suggest you own your statements and assertions instead of projecting them as "anybody that reads your posts." You don't represent anyone but yourself and the way you see and interpret things.

As for your desire for me to post links to prove each statement I make, at this point I see little reason to do so when you've managed to mistype one I've recently made. In the future, it might be a good idea to post a request to see some further information about a topic rather than accuse someone later of sharing questionable sources.

As for Pantano, I expect more information to unfold as this case progresses. Since months have apparently gone by between his initial reports and the allegations, there are some important parts of the puzzle missing here.

Eggs · 02-21-2005, 10:53 AM

Its quite obvious that Conservatism and Christianity are not the equivalent, however, you tend in general to bash Christians as conservatives, then throw in a disclaimer that you arent referring to real Christians. I dont think I've stated that Christians are all conservative. I'd like to see a referance though.

I have heard "spin" before, but I have to admit I'd actually thought "under the radar" wasnt used so very often. Regardless, I dont think you have to be in any political faction to use either of those terms. I've seen them used by liberals and conservatives alike.

Umm, okay, I own my posts... hows that for being accountable... now since we're doing that, how about you stop dancing around statements and stick to the facts in threads. You have a tendency to throw in material that doesnt have anything to do with what is at hand.

Weee'll, thats groovy, since I mistyped your url you're going to provide even less links to back up what you're saying. Truth tell though, I hadnt really expected you to use any to begin with, so its no big change.

kbm8795 · 02-21-2005, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eggs

Its quite obvious that Conservatism and Christianity are not the equivalent, however, you tend in general to bash Christians as conservatives, then throw in a disclaimer that you arent referring to real Christians. I dont think I've stated that Christians are all conservative. I'd like to see a referance though.

I think if you visit any of the "conservative christian" legal and social activist groups, they'll readily disclose their representation of "christians." Try looking at the Alliance Defense Fund, the ACLJ, the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family for starters. You can certainly search for transcripts from 700 Club broadcasts in which christianity is defined as those who embrace certain political beliefs.

I have heard "spin" before, but I have to admit I'd actually thought "under the radar" wasnt used so very often. Regardless, I dont think you have to be in any political faction to use either of those terms. I've seen them used by liberals and conservatives alike.

Yes, and you read it rather regularly too.

Umm, okay, I own my posts... hows that for being accountable... now since we're doing that, how about you stop dancing around statements and stick to the facts in threads. You have a tendency to throw in material that doesnt have anything to do with what is at hand.

If you don't see the connections, it isn't my responsibility.

Weee'll, thats groovy, since I mistyped your url you're going to provide even less links to back up what you're saying. Truth tell though, I hadnt really expected you to use any to begin with, so its no big change.

Well, if you can mistype a simple link and use that as an example without correction, then provide your own resources as links to decidedly political web sites, I'd be tenuous about your definitions of "truth" and what it "tells."
I'm not employed as your research assistant or think it's appropriate to bring up other links to points stated in other threads. You've made it quite clear that you don't desire that in "your" thread.

Eggs · 02-21-2005, 11:44 AM

Thats fine, not all Christians believe that. Not all conservatives are Christian, and not all Christians are conservative. You're making near blanket statements, which do a disservice to those that you wrongfully group.

Sure, whats your point?

And it isnt my responsibility when you constantly drag stuff into the discussion that doesnt belong there. Such as in the Kinsey thread where you tried to shift the blame to Catholics for their "support" of child molestation rather than simply discussing Kinsey and his work. Catholocism had nothing to do with it, but you felt the need to drag it in to divert attention from Kinsey. I see the connection, but I didnt feel there was any need to make it as it had nothing to do with Kinsey.

Okay, let me get this straight. Because I mistyped your link as I couldnt remember it off the top of my head, and because I posted a link that is certainly politically motivated, then my definitions of truth and what it tells cannot be valid. I'm not making a logical connection here... how is your argument valid?

I'm not asking you to bring up links to other threads, I'm asking you to post links backing up claims that you make. You dont do it... as a rule of thumb. You may not be my research assistant, but I'm not your student to run about looking for information to back up what you're saying.

What I dont desire in my threads is changing the subject and information that has nothing to do with the thread.

Flex · 02-21-2005, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PreMier

but it saddens me.. to think that these people put their lives on the line, and we punish them for doing a job that most would never consider.

Me too, bro.

It's fucking ridiculous. WHAT DO THEY EXPECT?????? You put our boys out there in a fucking hostile war zone where a split second decision will determine whether you live or die.

If i was there, i'd be blastin' WAY before the thought of "well, maybe i'll get court marshalled" ever crossed my mind.

Don't they remember the phrase, "shoot first, ask questions later"

Flex · 02-21-2005, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eggs

Perhaps to a degree it is... I consider the main fault to lie at the feet of the media. They paint pictures that dont exist and try to create a craze with every new story. Unfortunately boring news doesnt sell... so the news is more than happy to sacrifice a few good men here and there if it means an increase in the ratings.

Its what America wants to see, sadly enough. People want all the drama of a day time soap in real life, and thats what the news gives them.

I have to admit if I heard a story of someone going postal in a news organization I'd definitely watch it with a bowl of popcorn.

"now thats news!"

Anything short of that probably wouldnt glue me to the tube though.

Eggs,
you make some great points here, bro.

I, like you, fault the fucking media for what this world is turning into. It's absolutely ridiculous. First off, we're at war, so they have NO business being there trying to get breaking stories for the mere purpose of getting a "good" story.

Secondly, that's ALL they're about, is getting a good story. They take ANY little fucking thing and blow it WAY outta proportion, with hopes that it'll attract attention.

I think the media is one main reason why this world is so fucked up. Everyone hasta give their opinion, even when most of the time it's absurd.

Enough of my rant. Go grab a bowl of popcorn, Eggs. I'm gonna go start blasting some media faggots. And i'm not even gonna charge myself.

BoneCrusher · 02-21-2005, 12:40 PM

Are we trying to produce a result here? KBM is known as more of a Centrist, while Eggs seems the Conservative Republican. Neither of you are ... in appearance anyway ... trying to increase the awareness of or disprove the existence of the Lt.'s case but are rather involved in a battle of wills and tangential partisan politics

Did Lt. Pantano kill an enemy combatant for whatever reason or did he commit murder? Is this a case where someone is ruthlessly victimizing Lt. Pantano by attempting to hijack his situation and the attendant media attention for their own agenda or is the man guilty of war crimes

I vote to give whoever is in uniform the benefit of the doubt. I vote we get past that to WTF is anyone doing trying to lambaste the troops in the first place? DO we really care if he killed someone who was about to die anyway? Lets not split that hair. Is there some grand ethical/moral humanistic mantra someone is trying to rally all the human rights people behind in order to prevent the rights of the dying enemy combatants from being violated in their last agonizing moments before they are whisked away to Allah? Not a chance ... it is some group of self-serving anarchist a-holes somewhere dong politics as usual at the expense of our troops

With out a doubt we need to keep our military personell in clear and proper states of mind and not allow free unchecked armed rampaging and murderous mayhem to become an acceptable attitude ... but come on man let the guys exorcise their own judgments on individual situations and not have to stand before the man for someone else's political gain

Eggs · 02-21-2005, 01:45 PM

Actually, I think both Kbm and I are somewhat Centrist... I do tend towards conservative, but there are quite a few issues where I could swing towards the liberal end of the spectrum.

The main problem that Kbm and I have is that we dont like each other. I'm pretty sure we'd both chose a side merely to spite the other, and appear more polar than we are because our dislike tends to push us in opposite directions.

You're probably right though... two people having a "bigger dick" contest does get a bit boring. I'll try and restrain

kbm8795 · 02-21-2005, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eggs

Thats fine, not all Christians believe that. Not all conservatives are Christian, and not all Christians are conservative. You're making near blanket statements, which do a disservice to those that you wrongfully group.

I don't represent those groups I cited. They represent themselves.

Sure, whats your point?

And it isnt my responsibility when you constantly drag stuff into the discussion that doesnt belong there. Such as in the Kinsey thread where you tried to shift the blame to Catholics for their "support" of child molestation rather than simply discussing Kinsey and his work. Catholocism had nothing to do with it, but you felt the need to drag it in to divert attention from Kinsey. I see the connection, but I didnt feel there was any need to make it as it had nothing to do with Kinsey.

You don't set the rules for discussion. If you miss the point that sexual education and research was conducted by scriptural interpretation in the past as a comparison, that was your choice to do so.

Okay, let me get this straight. Because I mistyped your link as I couldnt remember it off the top of my head, and because I posted a link that is certainly politically motivated, then my definitions of truth and what it tells cannot be valid. I'm not making a logical connection here... how is your argument valid?

It's valid because you've shown no indication that you have an interest in thinking about your sources or the ones provided. Rather than talk about the source that was linked, you merely mistyped it.

I'm not asking you to bring up links to other threads, I'm asking you to post links backing up claims that you make. You dont do it... as a rule of thumb. You may not be my research assistant, but I'm not your student to run about looking for information to back up what you're saying.

You didn't want those in this thread. You stated that clearly in another post, and it would change the intention of the discussion over Pantano. Like you said before, those can be brought up in the context of another thread.

What I dont desire in my threads is changing the subject and information that has nothing to do with the thread.

Then you need to make it clear that you only want supportive remarks about your point of view concerning the link of information you provide.

02-16-2005, 09:43 PM	#1
Eggs Senior Member Elite Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 7,008	Lt Pantano Another situation in which those that defend our country are being made to pay because somebody believes more in covering their own ass than doing what is right. In a combat situation one has to make decisions in a second, and the charges filed against Lt. Palano are rediculous at best. The Marine Corp should know what a joke it is making of itself now... and what a bunch of piss ants the arm chair generals that allow this sort of crap to go on are. http://www.washingtontimes.com/natio...1803-1937r.htm I've got a big fuck you for the Devil Dogs that hang their own out to dry.

02-16-2005, 09:48 PM	#2
PreMier happy sumo Elite Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 21,308 Photos: 2	What a fucking joke.
	P-side Inc. "the post-workout high is more profound than any drug-induced rush imaginable." -Dante B.

02-16-2005, 10:28 PM	#4
PreMier happy sumo Elite Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 21,308 Photos: 2	This type of crap has been going on for a while now. Not only does it piss me off, but it saddens me.. to think that these people put their lives on the line, and we punish them for doing a job that most would never consider. Here is a petition I signed. Dont know what the aftermath was, but it has the story there. http://www.petitiononline.com/as125/petition.html
	P-side Inc. "the post-workout high is more profound than any drug-induced rush imaginable." -Dante B.

02-17-2005, 07:46 AM	#6
Dale Mabry Moderator Moderator Join Date: May 2003 Location: Elsewhere Posts: 13,883 Photos: 10	I consider this George Bush's fault. Signed.
	If sense were common, everyone would have it. 4/2007-Current 75th Ranked most popular image 1 spot behind Prince's bulge...

02-16-2005, 10:25 PM	#3
Eggs Senior Member Elite Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 7,008	Yeah, no kidding... they send our troops over under these conditions and we wonder why they get killed. Need to pull their heads out of their asses.

02-17-2005, 06:45 AM	#5
Eggs Senior Member Elite Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 7,008	Signed

02-17-2005, 04:50 PM	#8
BoneCrusher Lift or Die Elite Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Austin Texas Posts: 8,580	Signed it a while back.

02-18-2005, 06:05 PM	#10
kbm8795 Registered User Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Illinois Posts: 2,367 Photos: 1	Since the President is commander-in-chief of the armed forces, I believe he probably has a lot more ability to intervene in this matter than, say, the Rush Limbaugh Show. There are times when there is inherent sensationalizing in media, and that is certainly a valid observation on both ideological sides of the political spectrum. On the other hand, it was President Reagan's push for an end to the Fairness Doctrine that provided the key argument that the media should be more competitive with its news coverage. At least officially, the White House at the time believed the American people were intelligent enough to know how to support balanced news; as we've seen many times over the last few years, that just isn't the case. It is a direct result of the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine that brought us those endless hours of televangelista political fundraising and allowed news programs to create a political bias without having to provide time for a response. Attempts to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine have been killed repeatedly by Republicans. While I'm more sympatheic to the situation covered in the petition, there are way too many unanswered questions in the Pantano case. For one thing, the information presented on the allegedly "disgruntled" enlisted man who "reported" Pantano, is so vague that it only speculates that this action might have caused this problem. Moreover, General Mattis has already been in hot water over remarks he made earlier in the month. At least the Times managed to mention that at the end of the story. One does have to remember that The Washington Times is a newspaper owned by the Unification Church with strong ties to the Republican Party. The leader of the Church, Rev. Sun Moon, was crowned "monarch of America" last spring at a ceremony attended by some conservative legislators in the Senate Office Building. He is also widely regarded by his followers as the self-proclaimed "second Messiah."

02-20-2005, 04:49 PM	#11
Eggs Senior Member Elite Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 7,008	Whooptie Fucking do... I dont need your attempts to bash religion coming into every thread. I was bringing up a point about what I saw as a travesty, if you dont agree, then by all means make your own thread and stay the fuck out of mine. Or in the least keep to relevant points, I dont give a fuck what you think about General Mattis or The Washington Times, or about friggin Sun Moon being crowned whatever he was. Stick to the facts if you post in my threads, and get off the political agenda soap box.

02-21-2005, 08:18 AM	#13
Eggs Senior Member Elite Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 7,008	Well I'll tell you what Kbm, let me tell you about a little resource called "Google". If you want more sites that have information on what happened then go to "Google" and type in - "Lt Pantano" marine From there it will pop up a whole list of web sites that have information on this. I chose one, and being that this isnt a research publication, I dont really feel like going through and screening the background of every single source I post. If you're so inclined, then by all means do a search and find the other ones. Being that I'm not religious, I dont know much either way about which publication might have ties to Sun Moon. The fact remains the same... this guy was charged for killing some people, even though initially he had been found without fault. On top of that, the government has been piling on charges (such as vandalism or something stupid) for his shooting out the cars tires as he was trying to get the people to stop. My original post was in the spirit of trying to share something that was going on. Sure, I could have linked to numerous other articles about it... but in reality, I dont care enough about your anti-Christian efforts to give every link I post a background check. Obviously if it has a name that is shady I'll skip it, but if not, then deal. Oh, and about that "media is to blame" thing... an you give me links to those posts and the total number of times I have done it? I've done that a whole lot less than you've bashed religion, so tell me, whose credibility is less?

02-21-2005, 09:44 AM	#15
Eggs Senior Member Elite Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 7,008	Yes, I could have... as stated before, I was posting the article because I saw it and was pointing out a curiosity per say in the way our soldiers are being treated. Its not the only case like that, as you can well see by looking around. For a person who doesnt post so many links but rather prefers to just make statements (as you have done repeatedly in the past), you dont have much room to criticize my links. When you start posting more links to what you say then by all means I'l discuss the quality of my referance links with you. As I recall, the only link you have posted is www.godhatesgays.com or something along those lines. No, we dont know all the facts. Regardless, dont you think it seems a bit peculiar that nothing happened for several months, and now there are charges against him that include rediculous ones such as "vandalism" to the persons vehicle? I had actually never heard of Moon until you brought him up... and thats nice that he wants to be the King of the US. Sounds like a nut job to me. The story posted on his site was more critical of those prosecuting Pantano than other papers, but I have to admit I could care less. If you care so much about the topic then I'm sure you'd research it and find other stories about it, which you seem to have done. Yes, I did make a thread about the liberal media... and it is something I think is rediculous. However, if I'd even posted 10 or 20 times about the liberal media I'd still have posted much less than you have bashing Christianity. Lets act like adults here... anybody that reads your posts can see you bash Christianity and only Christianity as far as religions go. So let me amend my religion bashing to that. You can make all the claims that you want to and try to spin your statements all over until they seem ambiguous enough to fly under radar, but its still what you're doing. The price any Republican (Or Democrat) shouldnt have to pay is listening to your drivel.

02-21-2005, 10:53 AM	#17
Eggs Senior Member Elite Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 7,008	Its quite obvious that Conservatism and Christianity are not the equivalent, however, you tend in general to bash Christians as conservatives, then throw in a disclaimer that you arent referring to real Christians. I dont think I've stated that Christians are all conservative. I'd like to see a referance though. I have heard "spin" before, but I have to admit I'd actually thought "under the radar" wasnt used so very often. Regardless, I dont think you have to be in any political faction to use either of those terms. I've seen them used by liberals and conservatives alike. Umm, okay, I own my posts... hows that for being accountable... now since we're doing that, how about you stop dancing around statements and stick to the facts in threads. You have a tendency to throw in material that doesnt have anything to do with what is at hand. Weee'll, thats groovy, since I mistyped your url you're going to provide even less links to back up what you're saying. Truth tell though, I hadnt really expected you to use any to begin with, so its no big change.

02-21-2005, 11:44 AM	#19
Eggs Senior Member Elite Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 7,008	Thats fine, not all Christians believe that. Not all conservatives are Christian, and not all Christians are conservative. You're making near blanket statements, which do a disservice to those that you wrongfully group. Sure, whats your point? And it isnt my responsibility when you constantly drag stuff into the discussion that doesnt belong there. Such as in the Kinsey thread where you tried to shift the blame to Catholics for their "support" of child molestation rather than simply discussing Kinsey and his work. Catholocism had nothing to do with it, but you felt the need to drag it in to divert attention from Kinsey. I see the connection, but I didnt feel there was any need to make it as it had nothing to do with Kinsey. Okay, let me get this straight. Because I mistyped your link as I couldnt remember it off the top of my head, and because I posted a link that is certainly politically motivated, then my definitions of truth and what it tells cannot be valid. I'm not making a logical connection here... how is your argument valid? I'm not asking you to bring up links to other threads, I'm asking you to post links backing up claims that you make. You dont do it... as a rule of thumb. You may not be my research assistant, but I'm not your student to run about looking for information to back up what you're saying. What I dont desire in my threads is changing the subject and information that has nothing to do with the thread.

02-21-2005, 12:40 PM	#22
BoneCrusher Lift or Die Elite Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Austin Texas Posts: 8,580	Are we trying to produce a result here? KBM is known as more of a Centrist, while Eggs seems the Conservative Republican. Neither of you are ... in appearance anyway ... trying to increase the awareness of or disprove the existence of the Lt.'s case but are rather involved in a battle of wills and tangential partisan politics Did Lt. Pantano kill an enemy combatant for whatever reason or did he commit murder? Is this a case where someone is ruthlessly victimizing Lt. Pantano by attempting to hijack his situation and the attendant media attention for their own agenda or is the man guilty of war crimes I vote to give whoever is in uniform the benefit of the doubt. I vote we get past that to WTF is anyone doing trying to lambaste the troops in the first place? DO we really care if he killed someone who was about to die anyway? Lets not split that hair. Is there some grand ethical/moral humanistic mantra someone is trying to rally all the human rights people behind in order to prevent the rights of the dying enemy combatants from being violated in their last agonizing moments before they are whisked away to Allah? Not a chance ... it is some group of self-serving anarchist a-holes somewhere dong politics as usual at the expense of our troops With out a doubt we need to keep our military personell in clear and proper states of mind and not allow free unchecked armed rampaging and murderous mayhem to become an acceptable attitude ... but come on man let the guys exorcise their own judgments on individual situations and not have to stand before the man for someone else's political gain

02-21-2005, 01:45 PM	#23
Eggs Senior Member Elite Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 7,008	Actually, I think both Kbm and I are somewhat Centrist... I do tend towards conservative, but there are quite a few issues where I could swing towards the liberal end of the spectrum. The main problem that Kbm and I have is that we dont like each other. I'm pretty sure we'd both chose a side merely to spite the other, and appear more polar than we are because our dislike tends to push us in opposite directions. You're probably right though... two people having a "bigger dick" contest does get a bit boring. I'll try and restrain

02-21-2005, 03:06 PM	#25
kbm8795 Registered User Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Illinois