[Cerek]

Originally posted by Davros: You read way too much into things Cerek, but your disagreement with me (shock gasp horror) is noted . All I see is a failure to show the moral fibre to do the right thing because it was called for by someone who usually argues the ante. If it was called for by somone who usually argues pro it would have been acknowledged and changed ages ago. Blind stubborness can be seen by some to be only a virtue, but as you are aware it is a two edged sword. That is the crime - it is also the punishment . OK - been back - re-evaluated - still boils down to the paragraph up there. Stiff neck symphony. Now that Morgie is pulling up a chair and basking in your supporting glow we can give up any notion that the right thing willl be done, and instead expect the RIGHT thing will continue to be done (sigh).

Yes, blind stubborness can be a two-edged sword. You take exception to the title. Fair enough. In your opinion, the title is defamatory and offensive. Some members have agreed with you, but an equal number have disagreed with the offensiveness or seriousness of the title. In the end, though, it still boils down to a matter of opinion for both sides.

As for Morgie "basking in my supporting glow", that has GOT to be the funniest thing I've seen you post in a long, long time. You've had your own "cheering section" in this thread, so it can be assumed that your own unwillingness to change is just as firmly entrenched as Morgie's.

Originally posted by Davros: You Cerek are taking me down a path that I have steadfastly avoided in this thread up till now. The path of the like minded simile. When it boils down to it, if I lost the plot with some nameless American (think outside the IW box - this is hypothetical) and labelled them as "redneck scum", how much more offensive would it be if I labelled him as "American redneck scum". By your arguments the answer is that the one title is no more offensive than the other but I think that is bollocks plain and simple. I think the hue and cry of outrage would be immeasurably greater and rightly so. The 2nd term to me would be as unforgiveable as the title of this thread. Come out and tell me honestly Cerek that the 2nd doesn't offend you more. Putting the country in the term unforgiveably slanders the country in a manner that is unacceptable.

First of all, I'm very flattered I am able to force you down a path you don't wish to trod. I had no idea my arguments were that powerful.

As for your example of like-minded simile, I CAN honostly say that I do NOT consider the term "American red-neck scum" any more offensive as "red-neck scum", because quite frankly, I didn't know "red neck scum" lived in any country OTHER than America. And it all depends on the context in which the term is used. In this case, I am not offended by it at all. But for the two weeks following the election, I DID get a freakin belly-full of the members here demonizing the "ignorant, inbred, red-neck hillbillies that were too stupid to think for ourselves". Most Southerners really do NOT take as much offense at "red neck scum" as you might think. As John D. pointed out, we actually wear that badge with a bit of pride. Because whenever it is used, it is a clear sign that we have pissed off somebody who disagrees with us and they have nothing left to do but to resort to insulting our heritage. Too bad for them we aren't as ashamed of our heritage as they would like us to be.

Originally posted by Davros: FOX - yes - I am out to condemn their misinformation. Lets not pretend that no-one here ever watches it. What perecntage of American households is it the main news source? What percentage of those would be democrat households? How many posts have we seen hereabouts that show there are people here amongst us that believe that WOMD were found and that are dead set sure links between Saddam and Al Queda. Let's not spread the net wider than I was setting it bud. I am aware that not everyone watches FOX, but I am aware that FOX watchers know less truth than what they think they now too.

You're welcome to condemn Fox News all you want - and I agree with you about their slanted coverage. But I still say that the number of actual viewers (both here AND in the general public) are much smaller than you are implying. I named the most vocal conservatives on this board and EVERY ONE of us has said we either don't watch Fox News at all or only watch it occasionally. And I go back to my original assertion that 60% of the viewers may have believed the misinformation by Fox, but that still doesn't tell us what percentage of the actual population qualify as "regular viewers". Again, I assert the actual number is far less than most sources like to imply.

And I notice that there were no statistics given for the percentage of CNN viewers that believed THEIR news source wholeheartedly - even though CNN ended up admitting that they manufactured an interview derisive of American troops and much of their coverage had a definite negative tone towards the President, war, and troops. Disagreeing with the action is one thing, but even CNN took it past the point of objective disagreement and firmly into the side of "slanting" the news. So I ask again, how many CNN viewers bought thier news reports hook, line and sinker?

Just some points to ponder, mate.