perfect example of merdia bias

[meesterperfect]

As far as the Waco thing goes, if I'm a Branch Dividian common sense tells me that if I kill 4 ATF agents, wound 16 others, hole up in a weapons and ammunition laden compound for 51 days afterwards while refusing to surrender, and accept then reject a negotiated solution, I'm pretty much begging to end up dead.

well they were found innocent of the killings because there was no evidence that they resisted before being fired upon. Once they were fired upon they did have the right to protect themselves.
The FBI on the otherhand intentionally tortured and killed those people, including many un armed outside the compound.
They purposely tortured and killed the women and children with massive amounts cs gas which turned to cyanide after the feds torched the place.
(its all on film).
Even if the parents were crazy or dangerous the government has the responsibilty to protect the children, not kill them with cyanide which is one of the most painful and horrible ways to die.
Clinton could have stopped it at anytime, just by ordering the feds to back off for a day.
My point was that the news media lied about everything during the siege under the orders of the democratic administration. And that biased is still very present today.
Think what you want, but would you feel the same if that happened during Bushes presidency?
I won't comment on waco anymore, or the presence of illegal weapons in Iraq in this thread.

 

[bodie54]

I won't comment on waco anymore

OK, Mr P. But maybe you can enlighten me on one last point. Let's assume you're right that the federal agents fired first. By what specific right are the Dividians entitled to fire back? If I'm in that situation and I value my life, and the life of my kids, I'm going to surrender as quickly and overtly as possible.

Once they were fired upon they did have the right to protect themselves.

 

[Will E Worm]

OK, Mr P. But maybe you can enlighten me on one last point. Let's assume you're right that the federal agents fired first. By what specific right are the Dividians entitled to fire back? If I'm in that situation and I value my life, and the life of my kids, I'm going to surrender as quickly and overtly as possible.

No warrant, and the agents fired first.
Something that would happen in Nazi Germany.
They had every right to protect themselves.
The sheriff had already checked their guns and they were legal.
Under the Constitution all guns are legal. So, they didn't have to let the sheriff check them in the first place.

If we don't start standing up to the government now, we might as well just march right into the internment camps.

 

[bodie54]

No warrant, and the agents fired first.

Got a link that proves either one of these assertions?

Cause I can't find a single site that denies a warrant (or warrants) was issued.

On February 28th, 1993, the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) attempted to execute a search warrant at the Branch Davidian ranch at Mount Carmel, a property nine miles east-northeast of Waco, Texas.

They had every right to protect themselves.

Based on? Help me out here. Give me a specific statute or something; something that spells out my right to return the fire of a federal agent, rather than surrendering.

 

[meesterperfect]

Got a link that proves either one of these assertions?

Cause I can't find a single site that denies a warrant (or warrants) was issued.





Based on? Help me out here. Give me a specific statute or something; something that spells out my right to return the fire of a federal agent, rather than surrendering.

There was a warrant, filled with mistakes but the judge signed it anyway, so it was legal at the time.
well heres the texas state law.

While I was here during the siege I ran across an interesting piece of Texas law. In the Texas Penal Code, ?9.31 (C), reads as follows:

9.31 (C) The use of force to resist arrest or search is justified:
(1) If, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

 

[meesterperfect]

I know, I said I wouldn't post anymore about waco ......but......

I understand why they wouldn't surrender. Fear of being shot.
They already were opened up on once, un armed bodies of men and women were found shot up on the property far from the house.
One guy who wife and baby were at the compound who was at work when he saw what was happening on tv ran home to be with them. He was shot 5 times in the back, twice in the face while entering the property, un armed.
A 17 year old kid was out working in the silo when the raid began. He climbed to the top to see what was happening, a helicopter flew by and mowed him down, its on video.
There's also videos of FBI agents with automatic weapons dropping thier pants and mooning the people in the house, giving them the finger.
Are you really gonna walk out that door unarmed and surrender to those fools?

As far as not surrendering after the cs gas which turned into cyanide was injected into the house, well the women and children were hiding in a food storage cooler in which the tanks purposely injected with massive amounts of cs gas knowing full well who was in there.
So most of them were too unconscious or dead to surrender at that point.

I don't think we are gonna agree on this bodie.
There is a well done documentary available in 14 parts on youtube called waco: rules of engagment which shows the hearings and shows much of the testimony and evidence on both sides including Janet "thats a man baby" Reno saying with a smile during her testimony " The tanks were like well equipped rent-a-cars".
Yeah, well equipped rent a cars that filled a room filled with infants and children with poisen gas, now thats funny......cold bitch, Clintons bitch.

 

[ChefChiTown]

In regards to Waco and David Koresh...

People realize that David Koresh wasn't just some innocent guy doing something that would benefit the world, right? How quick are we to forget that in the late 1980's, he had a big feud with George Roden (the son of the woman he was having an affair with) as they were having a power struggle, arguing about how their religious sect should be run. Eventually, David Koresh and seven heavily armed "followers" dressed up in camouflage, stormed into Roden's location and attempted to kill him. Unfortunately, flaws in our legal system caused a mistrial and Koresh and his seven "followers" were acquited of all attempted murder charges.

Then, Koresh continued to lose his mind and started to believe that he was the head of the House of David. He truly believed that he was the final prophet and that his actions were going to change the world. In all reality, he was a nutty psycho who could've severely injured or harmed the people who he had brainwashed with his "prophet" mumbo-jumbo.

Yes, I agree that the situation wasn't handled correctly and yes, the media reported on it with some inaccuracies, but he needed to be stopped. Unfortunately, some "innocent" people died during the ATF's raid, but, in all honesty, who is to know what they might've done in retaliation if the ATF took only Koresh and no-one else. They believed he was the final prophet too and as we can all agree, religious people can be extremely unstable, especially if their "leader" has been taken away, so, they could've ended up being extremely dangerous as well. Some of the worst acts of violence in this world are caused by "religious beliefs".

FYI - I am not trying to justify the ATF's actions. I am just saying that the whole situation wasn't as cold-hearted as it's being made out to be.

 

[bodie54]

Some good points, Chef.

OK Mr P. Thanks for the reply. I'm ok with agreeing to disagree.

 

[hedonis]

what's the merdia?

 

[Becks...poamr]

Everyone needs to read The Onion.

 

[Will E Worm]

In regards to Waco and David Koresh...

You were listening to the associated press. They lie and twist things. Like they did here.

 

[gunslingingbird]

The media has been liberally biased for as long as there have been newspapers. The reason why people don't see that is because they are used to being spoon-fed the same left-leaning bullshit day in and day out by various journalists. When a station like the Fox News Channel comes along and offers a different point of view from the "America sucks, we're scum, we don't deserve to be here, bow down to the rest of the world" perspective that we're used to people freak out and don't know how to handle this change in opinion.

It's similar to when someone is used to eating chicken every day. He eats chicken for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and gives it no further thought other than chicken is what's to eat. One day, someone comes along and introduces him to steak, and, lo! and behold!, he shits a brick because steak is different from the chicken that he's grown accustomed to.

 

[meesterperfect]

Bumping this thread not with an example of media biased but media difference.
It seems a guy was purposely blocking fox newses shot of Barak Obama.
O'reilly stood up to him and told him repeatedly to move.
fox posted the situation which only lasted a few seconds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-H-s2AHbfeE&feature=related

Now in this clip msnbc spends almost 10 minutes twisting it into some big deal, making fun of it. true journalism I suppose. Also promoting and even finding it funny when an angry crowd chased sean hannity .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EI80aKMA00&feature=related

The whole thing seems representive of just how fucked up the countrys priorities have become.
A man stands up for himself and his rights and gets ridiculed and condemed for it.
What should he have done pussied out?
Similar to the U.S. standing up for itself and getting the same treatment from its own people and the world

 

[Member2019]

I dislike most media, period ...

Fox News is just more "in your face" type news, than the "beat you with our emotional stick" on the left "big 3."
They flat out come out and say it, and they don't hide it, and are clearly showing their bias, on purpose (even right-wing US radio admits it too).

Now internationally, the whole concept of capitalism/conservatism is already and heavily US only (with few exceptions).
So any US media outlet that purposely caters to "ultra right wing" views (from the international perspective) is definitely disliked.

I actually don't listen to either, and can't stand the 98% arrogant non-sense all of them put out -- whether with "we are right, direct insult" (Fox) or "we are morally better than you, indirect insult" (Big 3).
All I know is that I'm not "wrong" for being successful when I live at a much lower standard than everyone else on my block, despite my income in comparison.

Especially when it's my continued and excessive tax dollars to pay for the mess everyone else on my block created by spending 2-3x more on themselves than I did on myself.
I'm almost at the point I'm going to "give in" to the fair tax, no matter who is fucks over, because I'm tired of paying taxes when I drive a 12 year-old, $10,000, 4-cylinder pick-up I've had since I graduated from college and I live in a very small house that was a "fixer."

I've never bought a "luxury" in my life (at least how the "Jones'" define it), yet I pay far more in taxes than those who do.
And I will pay even more (to the point my wife need not work since we are fully into the "marriage penalty," which only hurts how much taxes are collected) because "I'm rich" no matter who gets in the White House.

Sigh ... oh well, I've talked about that before (saving $2.5M just so I can retire on, basically, my $30,000/year standard of living now in some 30 years).

 

[meesterperfect]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081113/ap_en_tv/palin_hoax

Oops!

 

[bodie54]

:dunno:

So? Fox news was duped too. They aired the same report. As a matter of fact I think they initiated it. Are they part of the liberal media bias?

And frankly it was a well conceived hoax. After Palin's idiotic "Russia" remarks it wouldn't have surprised much of anybody if she'd believed Africa was a country.

 

[max0rz]

if you read the fine print, it actually just applies to some guy who MSNBC named as the source.

the original Fox/O Reilly/Cameron story still stands, well, for what it's worth, lol.

it was pure tabloid gossip, which only seemed to have helped Palin now anywho, which was probably the Fox plan all along :helpme: