Grex Agora46 Conference

Item 108: CNN...A Network of Cover-ups and Lies.

Entered by sabre on Wed Jul 23 22:55:27 2003:

There may or may not be reasonable justification for CNN to withhold, for 12
years, first-hand information of torture and murder and terror in Iraq. But
where there can be no justification is in knowing, beyond doubt, of the
brutality of the Hussein regime while still continuing to report on Iraq as
if they possessed moral equivillency to the United States, for continually
undermining the American effort to save 25 million people from slavery. There
can be no forgiveness for that. CNN KNEW, and yet they still refused to report
based on what they knew.

CNN is finished.

Here's an e-mail from a Limbaugh listener that says it all:

For over a decade CNN has knowingly hidden the truth about Saddam for years.
People have been tortured and killed because CNN hid the truth in order to
keep an office open in Iraq. But why? They werent reporting the truth! Read
this news executives excuses. His hypocrisy is disgusting... Who's Responsible
For More Deaths, Bush or CNN?
I want to hear from you liberal cocksuckers on THIS one.
61 responses total.

#1 of 61 by tod on Wed Jul 23 23:29:40 2003:

This response has been erased.



#2 of 61 by scott on Wed Jul 23 23:31:52 2003:

What the problem?  CNN was in it for the money, which is a perfectly
Republican motivation.


#3 of 61 by spectrum on Wed Jul 23 23:41:24 2003:

Right scotty..I thought the motives of you liberals were more altruistic.


#4 of 61 by rcurl on Thu Jul 24 00:10:59 2003:

I certainly read about Saddam's regime from the day he took power. It was
in many news media - including CNN. This is just baseless calumny (known
as lying).


#5 of 61 by scott on Thu Jul 24 01:57:54 2003:

CNN is not run by liberals.  Glad I coulcd clean up that bit of confusion from
#3...


#6 of 61 by pvn on Thu Jul 24 05:08:25 2003:

re#5:  I think it probably depends on where you are in the political
spectrum.  OBviously there are those that view CNN as part of the "vast
right-wing conspiracy".  


#7 of 61 by sj2 on Thu Jul 24 05:24:03 2003:

Old post. And they sell news, if you don't like it, don't buy it. 
Simple.


#8 of 61 by pvn on Thu Jul 24 05:27:59 2003:

Hear,hear.


#9 of 61 by sabre on Thu Jul 24 15:27:08 2003:

RE#2
You don't see the problem? You jump on jazz's Bush bashing bandwagon because
you feel we were killing innocent people in Iraq. CNN covers up Saddam's
murders and with that you don't have a problem? This is the perfect example
of a liberal hypocrite. I guess any party that justifies your buttfucking is
ok. 

RE#4
You stupid dipshit. You better do a little investigating before spouting off.
CNN admitted to covering up saddam's atrocities. What a stupid fuck you are.

RE#%
WHAT? CNN is the most liberal network in this nation. You people are fucking
STUPID.
 " OBviously there are those that view CNN as part of the "vast
 right-wing conspiracy"

Only an idiot would think that. Anybody with any savy at all kn ows that CNN
is run by a bunch of far-left liberals.

RE#7
I don't buy anything those bastards sell. I'm a fox news fan.
People need to be informed about the leftist liberal cover-ups before they
shoot thier mouth off at the Great President Bush however.
You losers piss and moan about the so called "republican cover-ups"
When it's one of your own you sweep it under the rug.
Well here it is...IN YOUR FACE.

Also. I POST WHATEVER I WANT. If you don't like it..FUCK YOU.
You don't have to read it.
You bastards are no match for me ...even if all you do all day is play with
your SPEAK-n-SPELL.


#10 of 61 by rcurl on Thu Jul 24 16:56:36 2003:

(What a spectacle of a jerk making a fool of himself.)


#11 of 61 by flem on Thu Jul 24 17:32:30 2003:

from #0: 

> Here's an e-mail from a Limbaugh listener that says it all:
> 
> For over a decade CNN has knowingly hidden the truth about 
> Saddam for years.

Yep, that pretty much says it all.  But in case that wasn't enough,
there's this:  

> I'm a fox news fan.

Yeah, that clears it up.  



#12 of 61 by sabre on Thu Jul 24 18:04:17 2003:

RE#10
HaHa...I showed how stupid you are. Is that when I made a "spectacle" of
myself. You are one STUPID motherfucker. And tell us...How did you happen to
have access to onfo that CNN confessed to covering up?

RE#11
The fact that I have been labeled for my taste in news pretty much sums it
up to me. You are a liberal jackass. A grammer queen that obfusticates an
issue by directing the focus on  minor typos. It's only because you lack the
intelligence to deal with the salient issue. I've heard your preaching before.
It lacks any real merit and therefore can be discarded as easy as you claim
mine can be.
THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HAS THE POWER NOW..liberal scum
ON YOUR KNEES


#13 of 61 by rcurl on Thu Jul 24 18:08:05 2003:

(What a jerk.)


#14 of 61 by sabre on Thu Jul 24 18:11:34 2003:

BOW BEFORE THE REPUBLICAN  PARTY.
You closet queen. Yes rcurl is a wannabe girl.
Get ready for 4 more years of republican rule.
I may be a jerk...but you jerk off. It's the only way you can get sex.


#15 of 61 by rcurl on Thu Jul 24 18:21:28 2003:

(Little does he know - very little.)


#16 of 61 by gull on Thu Jul 24 20:03:22 2003:

Fox News = America's own version of Al-Jazeera.


#17 of 61 by flem on Thu Jul 24 21:06:31 2003:

The problem is, sabre, that the form of what you post is so much more
interesting than the content that I can't help but prefer to respond to it.
I mean, really.  If I wanted to talk about issues, do you think I'd involve
*you* in the discussion?  :)


#18 of 61 by sabre on Fri Jul 25 14:07:27 2003:

Of course you wouldn't involve me. I would rip your arguementa to shreads.
You would surround yourself with a horde of sycophants that agreed with your
every word. Your form isn't much better. Your posts lack any content at all.
You lack the ability to debate. Your rebuttals are all ad-hominenistic.
i can see that you are a total dumbass. You are probally a social reject that
depends on this "forum" for acceptance.


#19 of 61 by gull on Fri Jul 25 16:07:26 2003:

This response has been erased.



#20 of 61 by rcurl on Fri Jul 25 16:57:08 2003:

(While just a lot of noisy blather, #18 does show less signs of the
frequent jerkiness that eminates from sabre. Congratulations on the
improvement!)


#21 of 61 by flem on Fri Jul 25 18:45:06 2003:

Sabre, do you do it on purpose, or is it merely a particularly amusing facet
of the universe's tendency toward irony that almost all your posts directed
to others would make more sense if you were talking about yourself instead?

Oh, and in case you weren't able to figure it out for yourself, the above
paragraph translates loosely to "I know you are but what am I?"


#22 of 61 by sabre on Fri Jul 25 19:01:32 2003:

What are you..you ask?
You are a confused liberal.buttfucking,cocksucking,shiteating,asslicking
fool that can't think his way out of a special education class. You are
afflicted with down's syndrome. You are an UGLY little dweeb that can't get
laid. You are about as humorous as a pay toilet in a dysentary ward.


#23 of 61 by rcurl on Fri Jul 25 19:28:05 2003:

(Well, a jerk stays a jerk, I guess.)


#24 of 61 by flem on Fri Jul 25 19:50:12 2003:

I once had occasion to read some things written by Sigmund Freud.  I remember
thinking, as I read, that it was amazing that he had the balls to state as
simple facts things that he was quite clearly making up as he went along. 
Not just things without any evidence, but things for which it was radiantly
clear that he had not even bothered to attempt to look for evidence.  

For some reason, you remind me of that, sabre.  :)


#25 of 61 by sabre on Fri Jul 25 20:53:55 2003:

Yea flem? But I'm hung like jung


#26 of 61 by keesan on Fri Jul 25 21:06:56 2003:

Would people please stop turning every item into a sabre item?  I am getting
tired of forgetting items.


#27 of 61 by mynxcat on Fri Jul 25 21:48:38 2003:

WEll, these items are entered by sabre...


#28 of 61 by happyboy on Sat Jul 26 02:04:07 2003:

hahahaha!


#29 of 61 by sabre on Sat Jul 26 11:35:00 2003:

yea keesan...why don't you post an interesting thread huh? I am relieving this
place of some of it's boredom. If you don't like my methods..well SHOW me a
better one. Maybe you like it boring ? I don't know.


#30 of 61 by oval on Sat Jul 26 12:46:50 2003:

i find you pretty fucking boring as well, sabre.



#31 of 61 by spectrum on Sat Jul 26 13:38:17 2003:

Oh yea....well I haven't heard enough from your sorry ass to make a judgement
yet. It's like you're not even THERE!


#32 of 61 by oval on Sat Jul 26 13:53:25 2003:

my sorry ass don't participate in flame wars.



#33 of 61 by novomit on Sat Jul 26 14:31:26 2003:

Hey sabre, want me to fuck you up the ass. I hear anal-retentives can benefit
from a good ass-fucking. 


#34 of 61 by sabre on Sat Jul 26 15:30:01 2003:

er....I'll pass on that no-vomit
Besides that little piece of vienna sausage that passes for your penis
couldn't do much anyways.


#35 of 61 by novomit on Sat Jul 26 15:46:02 2003:

Hey, cat  viena suasage is vastly underated!!!!
,


#36 of 61 by sabre on Sat Jul 26 16:42:56 2003:

RE#32
What a conundrum you are oval. You flame me...call me boring and then you come
back and say "my sorry ass don't participate in flame wars"
interesting....perhaps you lack the wit.


#37 of 61 by oval on Sat Jul 26 17:08:54 2003:

thanks for the compliment, but calling you boring isn't really a flame imo.
personally i don't care if you go or stay, i just think maybe your girlfriend
just dumped you or something and you're in dire need of attention. i'm not
really trying to start some flame war with you or attack you, but since you
so desperately need some sort of self-validation from grex, and think that
you've made this bbs more interesting, i'd like to inform you that you have
not.

i think the advice of going back into previous agora's and checking out some
really interesting trolls would benefit you if this is neccessary as part of
your "research".



#38 of 61 by sabre on Sat Jul 26 18:19:54 2003:

Well.....give me some precise examples and I will be happy to so.
Although those "troll" I suspect were just psuedos of board/staff members
trying to livin things up 'round here.

As far as me not being interesting...well IYHO I'm not. They are plenty of
poeple who get thier jollies by dissing me.
My fame has spread to m-net where I have never been a member...until last week
that is. The members there have started threads about me. Even they believe
I'm an old m-netter.


#39 of 61 by oval on Sat Jul 26 18:41:08 2003:

so?



#40 of 61 by sabre on Sat Jul 26 19:19:04 2003:

Just pointing out opinions opposed to yours


#41 of 61 by jaklumen on Sat Jul 26 22:31:51 2003:

What a pompous blowhard.  Maybe they are getting their jollies, eh?


#42 of 61 by polytarp on Sun Jul 27 00:57:23 2003:

You're the bigot.


#43 of 61 by gelinas on Sun Jul 27 02:58:23 2003:

(The CNN cover-up was mentioned in the previous agora.  Nothing new here.)


#44 of 61 by richard on Tue Jul 29 22:23:50 2003:

Sabre, CNN is not finished.  CNN is still worldwide the world's largest 
news source.  If you go outside the U.S. to Asia or Europe, you'll find 
CNN International in any hotel.  You won't find Fox News Channel or any 
other news group you consider more politically correct in many places.  
CNN has a great presence worldwide.  And why would you be against CNN 
anyway, haven't they given great platforms to a wide variety of your 
beloved conservatives like Pat Buchanan, Robert Novak, Tucker 
Carlson .etc for years and years?

Get off this "liberal media" bs, its not true, it never has been.  If 
you report the news, and tell the truth, you will always have people 
who refuse to believe the truth and call the reports biased.  But if it 
is still the truth, then it isn't biased, even if you don't agree with 
it.

CNN is run by AOL/TW now, not Ted Turner anymore, it is a corporate 
entity and does not show a political slant.  Unlike Fox News Channel, 
which is run by Roger Ailes, Reagan's former political advisor, and 
owned by outspoken conservative Rupert Murdoch, and makes no bones 
about their bias.  You should have more of a problem with Fox News 
Channel than CNN.  Those guys really ARE biased and openly admit it.


#45 of 61 by pvn on Sun Aug 17 07:20:37 2003:

CNN "does not show a political slant"?  What planet you from?


#46 of 61 by goose on Sun Aug 17 13:50:36 2003:

Yeah, find a news organization without a slant....I don't think you can.


#47 of 61 by ea on Sun Aug 17 16:29:39 2003:

re #46 - The Onion


#48 of 61 by pvn on Sun Aug 17 21:09:06 2003:

re#47: Got yah there!


#49 of 61 by tpryan on Sun Aug 17 21:48:29 2003:

        The Onion doesn't have a slant....it has layers.


#50 of 61 by gull on Sun Aug 17 21:59:44 2003:

CNN's slant these days is basically pro-corporate, I think.


#51 of 61 by goose on Mon Aug 18 00:41:33 2003:

RE#47 -- I stand corrected and bow my head in shame.....


#52 of 61 by oval on Mon Aug 18 14:23:56 2003:

CNN is pure fear-propaganda.



#53 of 61 by gull on Tue Aug 19 14:37:56 2003:

FOX tends to be more sensationalist, but CNN is a strong runner-up.


#54 of 61 by mvpel on Thu Aug 28 01:01:41 2003:

I was subjected to CNN in various airports, and I was struck by how often they
felt the need to run their "CNN: The most trusted name in news" promo.  Trying
to apply the old "oft-repeated lie" principle, perhaps?


#55 of 61 by mcnally on Thu Aug 28 04:38:51 2003:

  Perhaps they saw how many people had swallowed Fox "Fair and Balanced" News'
  tripe..

  As distressing as it is to contemplate, CNN might actually *be* "the most
  trusted name in news." (which says nothing about their accuracy, just about
  what television-news viewers are accustomed to accept as reporting.)


#56 of 61 by rcurl on Thu Aug 28 05:58:03 2003:

CNN was the only station I could find that showed a Hubble photo of Mars
tonight. It was *much* better than with my binoculars (which only served
to prove that I shake....). 

I look at CNN headline news to get some idea of what has happened recently
of the headline variety, not expecting with a "trusted name" or "fair and
balanced". There are other sources that are better for those. My biggest
gripe is that there is only maybe 25% "news": the rest is advertising and
grandstanding.


#57 of 61 by goose on Thu Aug 28 16:50:30 2003:

Exactly.  I use CNN to find out what the heck is going on, and then find
may other sources to find out the more indepth "why's".


#58 of 61 by tod on Thu Aug 28 16:55:30 2003:

This response has been erased.



#59 of 61 by tpryan on Thu Aug 28 16:58:20 2003:

CNN Healines news still looks like an exploded web page, with news
stories put into some mixer and randomly presented.


#60 of 61 by tod on Thu Aug 28 17:01:06 2003:

This response has been erased.



#61 of 61 by gull on Fri Aug 29 00:05:40 2003:

I usually try the BBC's web page first, then go to CNN's out of
desperation if the BBC doesn't have anything about whatever bit of
breaking news I'm interested in.


There are no more items selected.

You have several choices: