Anyone else ever think we could do a better job?

Post Reply New Topic

BEFORE we had any interventionism.
Once we started throwing our weight
around (especially post WWII) our rep
got pretty lousy.

All you people are is armchair idiots that believe what ever you want.

I dealt with tons of similar experts while trucking, they where experts who knew nothing about trucking, but where going to tell truckers how they should do it even though they knew nothing about it besides what they thought they knew.

I'll let the people that went to medical school take care of my health and let the people who went to west point and other places to study about world affairs run the country. When george bush calls one of you for advice or you testify before congress, than I'll believe you know something worth listening to, until than stick to doing whatever it is you are knowledgable in and leave things you know nothing about to people who know something and just maybe without you idiots making their job harder, they will get-re-done.

God bless the great vice president Dick Cheney and thank God Gore & Kerry didn't become presidents.

Being in the health care business (and it is a business) I shudder to see what those people that went to medical school want to do by the dictates and 'studies' put on by the big business pharmaceutical lobbies and for profit HMO's to do to and put into your body.

I care more about that than any off chance some "progressive sponsored terriortist" is going to blow up my existance.

so you see people with no real hands on experiance in the feild that should butt out and let the people on the front lines do their jobs as they see fit to do them.

The fact is the typical journalist is no more qualified to present their slanted veiw of what is going on in the world than some clerk at blue cross is capable of making medical decissions.
The journalist in this country are mostly liberal and looking for approval of their peer group and they get it by being the best Bush basher and could care less about actually presenting an unbiased veiw of things. they not only are a hit at the tavren amoung their peers by out liberaling the rest of them, they also advance their careers by scoring bush bashing points. So they have no vested interest in not slanting their reporting, just the opposite.

it was just the opposite when the last guy was in the white house, they got brownie points for twisting the news the other direction. News is a business, reporting is a job with the oppertunity for career advancement, they have a vested interest in being brown nosers.

Fox news saw a consumer that wasn't being served and does just the opposite to make money. Coulter & Rush could be flaming liberals, but are PAID to preform and broke right into the big time because they weren't competing against a mllion other journalists, well that is a poor desription, talking heads is more like it.

Okay, well instead of calling people idiots why don't you just lay down your points and discuss.

Orwell already acknowledged that the issues you bring up should be addressed. The point is: deaths in other fields of employment do not justify the deaths of so many soldiers and civilians when they accomplish nothing. I have a very important question for you now:

If a congressman proposed a bill requiring us to pull out of Iraq, and immediately begin funneling all the hundreds of millions of dollars we've spent there into making harzardous jobs like truck driving and construction work safer, would you support it?



Think about your own statement: regardless of how knowledgeable we are, why would George Bush call people who disagree with him to testify before congress. If this is your standard, then by definition you will never acknowledge anyone who disagrees with you as intelligent.



After WWI the Germans decided to put people with "hands on experience" in charge. That's how the Nazis came to power.



Yes, that's why journalists have sources. The sources usually ARE qualified.



At the beginning of the war they went through alot of trouble NOT to bash him. They rarely, if ever, questioned what he said. It was only after no WMDs showed up that they started to question him.



Huh? Clinton was bombarded by the media for having an affair, which was had nothing to do with his ability to perform his duty as president. I'll grant you that he shouldn't have done it during office hours, but that's still minor compared to the number of people Bush has killed by proxy.

your liberal mentality is showing, your solution is automaticely government money is needed to address a problem.



It's not up to a president to call anyone before congress, it's up to congress to call people, if you read more carefully you would have spotted the word ((( or ))) between president and congress. You are dilusional to think that everyone who sat in white house stratagy meetings was just a yes man and other options weren't thrown on the table and debated.



you lost me, if they weren't in power before and came to power, how did they have hands on experiance ?



qualified to support their point of veiw. It's sort of like david Doke is qualified to support the veiws of the KKK and Al Sharpton is qualified to support the veiws of the NAACP, their veiws are totally biased in favor of their point of veiw and both all very knowledgable on the subject of race problems.

the american trucking asscociation can supply all sorts of talking heads that would appear to be experts in their feild and could paint a rosy picture of truck safety. Their veiw is totally biased because they are paid to support a point of veiw.



so what you are saying is the paid gossip girls when not given total access to all the gossip about the war turned on bush and had a temper tantrum.



and how much that clinton did wasn't covered by the media, most of it. He is the moron who flooded the middle east with money leaving bush a mess to deel with.





people react to the way they are treated, kick me and i kick back.

There is nothing to discuess, the average person has no clue about international affairs so it's just funny as hell to see keyboard diplomats go at it because they think they are informed about something after tuning into the joke of a news media.

it's as stupid as following the news about the trucking industry and thinking your opinion has some merit while reality all you would know is what the news media told you. niether you people or the news media people would actually have a clue what is going on in trucking or be able to offer any solution without actually going out there and doing the job for a few years and than somebody would have to be inteligent enough to look at the big picture to see how to make imporvements that would make things a lot better.

you people would laugh at some 22 year old saying he went to college for 4 years and drove a truck for a year and has it all figured out and the industry needs to impliment the following changes. If it was that simple somebody involved in the industry for decades would have done it already or at least tried to do it. A biiger joke would be somebody sitting on the sidelines saying they have all the answers.

God bless the great Newt Gingrich for saving us from clinton doing even more damage to the country.

The average person? Maybe.

But when the Middle-East scholars gave their advice about the merits of invading Iraq, they were ignored and proven to be right. Surprise, they actually did have a valuable perspective, and ignoring it cost American lives.

We sheep can't know what is really going on in the world, so we just have to trust whatever government is in power to do the right thing? Nah, I don't believe that.

Everyone has bias, either professional or personal, but remember whilst you slate their "frontline" knowledge, that most journalists on the "front line" have seen way more combat than anyone except the military themselves, and in some cases MORE combat. Any given unit might be in combat once or twice for its whole tour. Some never even see the enemy before the war is over (I'm thinking Gulf War 1 here.) Frontline journalists will be moved from area to area, seeing a shedload of fighting from all angles, sometimes from the other side, and they do so without the benefit of weaponry or proper camoflage. Example: Walter Kronkite was actually on the beaches at Normandy, "in the s**t.". He's seen Saving Private Ryan in 3D reality.

And wasnt it the Chinese who helped bankroll the NVA, not the Soviet Union?

with 6 billion people on the planet flapping their lips, it's bound to happen some will be right. Some have been calling for a recession for years, one of these days they will be right just by default.
Wall Street Journal poll at their forum was split 50/50 on whether we will be a recession in the next 6 months, so half the people will be right and half wrong.



using your logic, every grunt that spends some time in a foxhole or the bush is general material because they have been there and done that. What next are you going to conclude goober & Gomer are qualified to run Exxon/Mobil because they had a esso station or Forrest Gump should be made a general or how about putting Leroy in charge of UPS because he has years of experiance driving the little brown truck.

just because some flunky journalist dodged a few rounds don't make them any sort of expert on nothing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War

I really don't think it was a matter of chance. It was about understanding the situation better than the politicians who wanted war. You know, the same ones that lied about WMDs, lied about Saddam's links to al qaeda. The ones that have said 'another six months should do it' for the past several years.

Yes, predicting the economy a year in advance involves a lot of uncertainty because of all the factors that go into the economic balance. Predicting what would happen if the government decided to take a particular course of drastic economic policy is not so mysterious, not beyond the reach of many economists.

If we extend your way of thinking to its logical conclusion, no one knows anything (or else it is all being controlled by 'them' and they want it the way it is).

using your logic, every grunt that spends some time in a foxhole or the bush is general material because they have been there and done that. What next are you going to conclude goober & Gomer are qualified to run Exxon/Mobil because they had a esso station or Forrest Gump should be made a general or how about putting Leroy in charge of UPS because he has years of experiance driving the little brown truck.

just because some flunky journalist dodged a few rounds don't make them any sort of expert on nothing.[quote]

Thats the EXACT OPPOSITE of the logic I used. I said that a journalist who has served in several different warzones over a long period of time, with various combat units is going to have MORE experience of war than a "grunt who spent some time in a foxhole." Im stating the fact that JUST BECAUSE a GI has been in a warzone, it does not mean he is experienced, or knowledgeable, or even a capable soldier. Likewise, just because someone went to West Point, doesnt make them a fit or capable officer, or an expert on military affairs. Someone

To extend the Kronkite analogy: "After working at a public relations firm, for newspapers, and in small radio stations throughout the Midwest, in l939 Cronkite joined United Press (UP) to cover World War II. There, as part of what some reporters fondly called the "Writing 69th," he went ashore on D-Day, parachuted with the l0lst Airborne, flew bombing mission over Germany, covered the Nuremburg trials, and opened the UP's first post-war Moscow bureau."

And thats before he even got near Vietnam and the Tet offensive. It suggests that hes seen more combat than the average soldier, as most grunts in a foxhole DONT fly bombing missions or do parachute drops and beach landings. Nor do they get to watch the most famous war crime trials to date. Thats a pretty broad experience of warfare in several conditions, for several different causes.

READ what I post before you choose to answer, please.

Chinese or soviet, regardless.. that war was LOST, and did nothing to prevent the spread of communism, except kill a lot of people, and suggest that the US isnt up to much in a combat sense, to the rest of the world.

So you agree, they are performers. . paid to entertain. And to be taken as seriously??


Merle

why this is totally pointless besides something to do during a commercial on TV or while taking a break from something. that's if you people do something besides sit in front of a computer all day & night living on mountain dew & twinkies.
Try taking a shower and going outside for some fresh air once in a while, instead of sitting around watching the silly news and getting all bent out of shape about things you have no control over.

How did Nancy Pelosi make out with her first 100 days of congress or was that hours or weeks or what It was funny as hell to see the silly liberals get so excited that they wet their pants after the last election and than the hero's they elected did nothing but makes fools of themselves.

newt was able to get-re-done

The big 3 networks, CNN, FOX are just after ratings to get advertising dollars. they will go on and on about anything to try and keep their veiwers coming back for more.

A woman in my former home town did a onlice cyberpaper covering the town political crap, she made mistakes all the time and i saw the samething with the news media coverage of trucking.

Journalisim majors are people who barely squeezed into college and took an easy major, it was either that or school teacher A few of them get lucky and hit the big time, sort of like a lottery and by default somebody wins the high dollar big jobs. A few really desperate ones who can't even get a half way decent local TV station job resort to covering wars to hopefully make a name for themselves. they do it because the alternative is a life of drudgery in some factory, so they take the chance they might get noticed.

The skill to do TV is news is to be able to read a telapromter and fake out the silly veiwers that they actually know something about what they are babbling about.

Yeah, Bush & company told us there were WMDs, they invaded, they told us they couldn't find them, then told us they were no WMDs and they told us they had called off the search for WMDs. Possible explanations for this include:

1) The Bush Government badly wanted to embarrass itself.
2) There were no WMDs.
3) There were WMDs, but they were provided by the United States or US allies.

My bet is on the second choice, but the third is plausible. The US didn't want Iraq to lose its war to Iran, and Bush the Father was providing military support to Saddam, even after Saddam gassed the Kurds.

Can't handle the truth, Johnnie? Just activate your force-field of denial: "Nobudy noes nuthin! It doesn't take the IQ of a truck driver to know that people don't always tell the truth, and those media types is sometimes people!"