The unofficial online home for fans of the Western Michigan University Broncos. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

Answer the question Dip.

Here's the original that you all either ignored, ducked or deflected.

Quote:What's Al supposed to do? TURN DOWN the money? Why? Not emotional, "because they're bad" diatribes, rather let's try and understand if they are a real threat to our national security, and if doing business with them (i.e. selling a business to them) should be blocked.

I won't really argue Gore's hypocrisy, nor do I know enough about that situation to really comment.

I think it's sad to see people dismiss Al-Jazeera and frankly I think it stems from an automatic distrust of anything Middle Eastern in this country. Interestingly enough, they get a bunch of claims from the other side that they're too "pro-American". They're a propaganda tool? How? Because they broadcast the tapes from Bin Laden? I'd say that was legitimate news.

Every news outlet is going to have their inherent bias, that's human nature, but you have to take information from all sides to make a judgment and AJ is probably more balanced than most U.S. sources, from what I've seen.

I'd say Al probably is a total hypocrite, turned bitter after 2000 and has thumbed his nose at anyone who has cried foul, all the while winning Nobel Prizes and making millions.

Not the question. I asked it originally and am getting all kinds of deflections and dodges instead of a real answer. Very telling.

The AJ guy in the US was interviewed this morning and on the question of the tape, he said their approach is to be editorially correct, rather than politically correct.

So, the tape was the tape and they aired it.

Versus the political decision to not air it, which other news organization made who had the same tape.

My contrast here would be all the criticism about Rice for not telling the real story about Bengazi. She was political in that. And the right said it was her obligation to speak the actual condition. But now they are outraged about a news organization that is committed to do that very thing?

(01-06-2013 12:00 PM)Dirty Ernie Wrote:  The AJ guy in the US was interviewed this morning and on the question of the tape, he said their approach is to be editorially correct, rather than politically correct.

So, the tape was the tape and they aired it.

Versus the political decision to not air it, which other news organization made who had the same tape.

My contrast here would be all the criticism about Rice for not telling the real story about Bengazi. She was political in that. And the right said it was her obligation to speak the actual condition. But now they are outraged about a news organization that is committed to do that very thing?

AJ owes nothing to the US. It can choose to do as it pleases.

Just be realisitc in understanding that there is a clear difference between what an official spokesman for the US government owes us vs. a supposed news organization.

Rice is employed by you and me. She was not obligated to even appear on those shows. She/they choose to. Even then she could have shown discretion and said that due to security concerns they needed to flush out the entire truth before commenting. No need lie.

(01-06-2013 01:10 AM)DesertBronco Wrote:  Answer the question Dip.

Here's the original that you all either ignored, ducked or deflected.

Quote:What's Al supposed to do? TURN DOWN the money? Why? Not emotional, "because they're bad" diatribes, rather let's try and understand if they are a real threat to our national security, and if doing business with them (i.e. selling a business to them) should be blocked.

Again, yes, turn it down. They chose to support those that have sworn to kill any American they can. Their field of battle is anywhere and time they choose. AJ supports terrorism hiding behind the skirt of being a news organization. So does every propaganda machine. No diff.

If Al is unquestionably a hyprocrit as you state, on what basis do suggest he should have sold to this outfit? Legal to do? Right thing to do?

From Forbes, that liberal rag. "The Real Problem with Al Gore Selling Current"

Quote:All sorts of people are hurling all sorts of criticisms at former Vice President Al Gore over the $500 million sale of his Current TV network to Al Jazeera. Gore is helping a foreign government spread propaganda in the U.S.! He’s doing business with a network that’s sympathetic to terrorists! He’s taking oil money! He’s trying to avoid paying taxes!

These accusations range from borderline silly to flat-out wrong.

(01-06-2013 09:56 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  I won't really argue Gore's hypocrisy, nor do I know enough about that situation to really comment.

I think it's sad to see people dismiss Al-Jazeera and frankly I think it stems from an automatic distrust of anything Middle Eastern in this country. Interestingly enough, they get a bunch of claims from the other side that they're too "pro-American". They're a propaganda tool? How? Because they broadcast the tapes from Bin Laden? I'd say that was legitimate news.

Every news outlet is going to have their inherent bias, that's human nature, but you have to take information from all sides to make a judgment and AJ is probably more balanced than most U.S. sources, from what I've seen.

Not "commenting" on Gore is either intellectually lazy on your part or you know your dead wrong and dont have a freaking leg to stand on. A cop out in the highest degree.

Trust and distrust is earned. Get it?

I have family that is Palestinian. Don't tell me or imply to others that my position is triveal.

Every news agency has bias? News flash. Ok.

Name an American new agency that has aided terrorist organizations against American military forces? That is the criteria of which I basing my posititon.

I disagree with a host of news organizations on their bent. A huge difference between that and AJ. Light years.

(01-06-2013 02:13 PM)DesertBronco Wrote:  From Forbes, that liberal rag. "The Real Problem with Al Gore Selling Current"

Quote:All sorts of people are hurling all sorts of criticisms at former Vice President Al Gore over the $500 million sale of his Current TV network to Al Jazeera. Gore is helping a foreign government spread propaganda in the U.S.! He’s doing business with a network that’s sympathetic to terrorists! He’s taking oil money! He’s trying to avoid paying taxes!

These accusations range from borderline silly to flat-out wrong.

Misses the entire point. Your'e so naive.

Quote:Misses the entire point. Your'e so naive.

I didn't write it, check the article.

Name calling. Tsk tak.

(01-06-2013 02:13 PM)gobaseline Wrote:  

(01-06-2013 01:10 AM)DesertBronco Wrote:  Answer the question Dip.

Here's the original that you all either ignored, ducked or deflected.

Quote:What's Al supposed to do? TURN DOWN the money? Why? Not emotional, "because they're bad" diatribes, rather let's try and understand if they are a real threat to our national security, and if doing business with them (i.e. selling a business to them) should be blocked.

Again, yes, turn it down. They chose to support those that have sworn to kill any American they can. Their field of battle is anywhere and time they choose. AJ supports terrorism hiding behind the skirt of being a news organization. So does every propaganda machine. No diff.

If Al is unquestionably a hyprocrit as you state, on what basis do suggest he should have sold to this outfit? Legal to do? Right thing to do?

I think like I said, everyone does business with everyone. We draw a line at Al and his private venture? Meh.

We did "bidness" with Bin Laden at one time, we were told we didn't understand.

I think you don't understand.

DB's moronic question

Quote:What's Al supposed to do? TURN DOWN the money? Why?

Well Duhhhhh. Hell yes he should turn down the money. No doubt there were other suitors for Al's worthless network. Al took the highest bidder, while ignoring the ethics of selling to a network that has REPEATEDLY supported the efforts of terrorists. Name one time when AJ condemned terrorism against the U.S.?

Al Gore is more than just some stooge trying to make money. He's a former Vice President, who came within inches of being president. He needs to act like he's a representative of the United States, and not the money grubbing hypocrite whore he's become.

Killer logic there Dip. "Because AJ didn't condemn terrorism, Al shouldn't sell his network to them".



Sooooo, is AJ an official threat to the US that we're not permitted to do business with by the State Department or the Pentagon? There's an easy one, try and answer that without splitting hairs or playing your little games. :domokun:

(01-06-2013 04:09 PM)DesertBronco Wrote:  Killer logic there Dip. "Because AJ didn't condemn terrorism, Al shouldn't sell his network to them".



Sooooo, is AJ an official threat to the US that we're not permitted to do business with by the State Department or the Pentagon? There's an easy one, try and answer that without splitting hairs or playing your little games. :domokun:

No, the State Department does not stop anyone from doing business with AJ. In Al Gore's case he has an image to project. He wants people to believe he's there for the little guy, he's a patriot who believes our money should be spent on bettering the environment, and improving the well being of the people and the country. As of now his image is that of a money grubbing whore who cares more about his wallet than about his country.

The irony here is that you are so much against phony capitalists, yet when it's one of "your guys" you throw out all of your principles to defend the indefensible.

Anxiously awaiting another one of your 1 sentence platitudes

Quote:No, the State Department does not stop anyone from doing business with AJ.

Exactly. Much ado about nothing.

You're projecting, he acts like one of the GOP's top people doing business with everyone and anyone, and you choose HIM to have a problem with, I can name numerous examples of American Oil and Gas companies doing business with states and individuals that are less than favorable to the US. Including Qatar.

He has been out of office for 12 years, he doesn't have an image to uphold any more than the Koch brothers do, he is going his own thing and driving the right nuts because he doesn't have to cow tow to them or their false projections of his image that they want to throw in his face. I think it's hilarious how worked up you get over him, of course it's "fake outrage" following the lead of Rush and Fox, but outrage just the same.

I think the term he probably uses is "eff them". Rightfully so.

Besides, they bailed his network out, it was failing, he didn't have "numerous suitors", it's an end around attempt by Al Jazerra to get access and it's going to fail.

(01-05-2013 10:38 PM)gobaseline Wrote:  The question is how Al Gore, who desired and sought to be the "leader of the Free World" would align himself with an organization that has aided and comforted terrorists who have declared war on the US killing Americans.

That's rich. How exactly has Al-Jazeera done that? Again, facts only, please.

Charm, are you blind and deaf? We already know you're dumb.

Time Warner, who clearly has more ethics than fat money grubbing whore Al Gore, has pulled the plug on Current and it's new owner. It is also being rumored that Direct TV will drop them.

David Merrish a correspondent for ABC News went to work for AJ. He ended up quitting because he felt they were an anti American network.

One of AJ's journalists was arrested for being a spy for Hamas.

A few years back Glenn Beck offered 300 million to Al Gore. Current only had 42,000 viewers which in the world of television is virtually no viewers. At the time this was a great offer for a worthless network. Gore turned down Beck.

Point? He was still trying to make it work then.

(01-06-2013 07:33 PM)DesertBronco Wrote:  Point? He was still trying to make it work then.

No, he knew by year one it wasnt going to fly. He didnt sell to Beck because Beck scares him more than AJ does.

(01-06-2013 02:21 PM)gobaseline Wrote:  

(01-06-2013 09:56 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  I won't really argue Gore's hypocrisy, nor do I know enough about that situation to really comment.

I think it's sad to see people dismiss Al-Jazeera and frankly I think it stems from an automatic distrust of anything Middle Eastern in this country. Interestingly enough, they get a bunch of claims from the other side that they're too "pro-American". They're a propaganda tool? How? Because they broadcast the tapes from Bin Laden? I'd say that was legitimate news.

Every news outlet is going to have their inherent bias, that's human nature, but you have to take information from all sides to make a judgment and AJ is probably more balanced than most U.S. sources, from what I've seen.

Not "commenting" on Gore is either intellectually lazy on your part or you know your dead wrong and dont have a freaking leg to stand on. A cop out in the highest degree.

Trust and distrust is earned. Get it?

I have family that is Palestinian. Don't tell me or imply to others that my position is triveal.

Every news agency has bias? News flash. Ok.

Name an American new agency that has aided terrorist organizations against American military forces? That is the criteria of which I basing my posititon.

I disagree with a host of news organizations on their bent. A huge difference between that and AJ. Light years.

Except I never started arguing anything about Gore, only about Al Jazeera, so try again.

Aided terrorist organizations? Let's see the evidence. There was one reporter accused of it, and that's tenuous at best.