Iraqi Olympians Denounce Bush

I agree. No one I know reads Sports Illustrated.

 

Mainstream for sports lovers, contrarian simpleton. It is far from a generalised news outlet to which the majority of Americans would routinely turn for news and information.

The New York Daily News is a welcome find, I admit, but still falls far short of qualifying for nationwide readership.

Keep trying PB, you only further emphaisze how petty and contradictory you prefer to be in the face of a clear case of information control back home.

 

nydailynews.com is not mainstream media either.
And only half of american households have internet access anyways. Mainstream coverage would be like FOX, CBS, NBC, CNN, etc....

 

Otter, if you read the article, the team was not just sounding off - they were also responding to the fact that BUSH is running ads referencing them. They don't WANT to be used as pawns for Bush's reelection, and certainly have the right to object - for all we know, a reporter may have asked the team directly what they thought of the ads.

I also have to agree with the poster who pointed out that this was probably the only chance these athletes had to get their point across to the world, and they took it. More power to them. If making political statements at the Olympics is as taboo as you suggest, it should be obvious what an extreme situation exists in Iraq. It is also sort of obnoxious to whine about your viewing enjoyment of the Olympics being curtailed by these athletes' comments - after all, many are FROM towns that are being bombed AS WE SPEAK - if I thought my family and friends were in imminent danger of being blown apart, burned alive, permanently scarred or mutilated, or crippled for life, my sympathy wouldn't be for the "poor american athletes" who "feel like shit" - it would be with the people who were in danger of being SLAUGHTERED LIKE PIGS. God, cut these guys some slack, for Christ's sake.

 

You realize that innocent Iraqi civvies are not the only ones who are, as you so eloquently put it, being slaughtered like pigs right?

I'm sure the Iraqi athletes arent getting much sympathy from the countries who had aid workers and journalists snatched up in Iraq and murdered infront of the entire world...gruesomely with knives...like pigs.Or from countries whose own governments are slaughtering their civvies lig pigs.

You do realize that if these insurgents pick on the wrong country say...another Korean...North Korea(who's already pissed about the murdered S.Koreans) will not hesitate to drop every nuke they have onto Iraq and reduce the entire country to glass...you realize that right? They dont give a fuck about environmental impact or innocent lives. They will bomb the shit out of Iraq. China, if one of their own got killed by this Zawquari(however it's spelled) China would call up the US and all the coalition countries, tell us to evacuate our troops and drop nukes all over the place. They wouldnt even need to leave China.They dont give a shit.

I have sympathy for the Iraqis...I really do. But no more so then I have for the Congolese or for the Laosians or for the Baltic people. I have sympathy for any group of oppressed, occupied, wartorn, and invaded peoples. I would love to see their pain end.

But I'm not gonna feel worse for one group over the other just so I can prove what a terrible government the US has. Which is something that happens all too commonly on these forums.

And Lickherish....instead of pretentiously labeling people...perhaps you ought to look at yourself and wonder why these kind of comments keep coming your way.

cause and effect baby..cause and effect.

 

I dont have to wonder Otter, I consider the source and respond in kind. Perhaps you should wonder why those of PB's ilk spend all their energy doing nothing more than admantly clinging to positions which have been duly shown as false, misinformed or simply ideologically-based.

Such dismissive types do not merit serious retort as they offer nothing of substance to any debate.

 

Liar and weasel.

You said "mainstream media". Of course after proved wrong the weasel quickly changes this to "nationwide readership" and then further excludes sports publications with nationwide readership as well. Shall we keep playing the game where I provide links and you keep redefining what you meant by "mainstream media" to exclude whatever i provide?

Sports Illustrated - one of the most popular sports magazines and sports websites in america, with an unduplicated audience of 10 million per month, no that's not mainstream. And who'd be going to a sports website to read olympics stories during the olympics? Who'd go to a sports website linked to CNN, the most popular news website? Nobody, right?

And Sera says "nobody she knows" reads Sports Illustrated. Well, SI has over 3 million subscribers, the third highest magazine circulation in the United States, and is read by 23 million adults each week, including over 18 million men, 19% of the adult males in the country. Hmmm... nope doesn't sound like mainstream media to me.

That means nobody is watching ESPN either, since who watches sports? Especially conservatives, everyone knows conservatives don't watch sports! So nobody will notice they covered the story either.

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/summer04/gen/columns/story?id=1865386

Well how about the Washington Post then? Or have you got an excuse for that one too?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20387-2004Aug20.html

But no, weasels weasel, that's what they do. So since we all agree that CNN counts as "THE MEDIA", lets go to CNN.

 

As i said from your first snide post, find reference in mainstream NEWS media and ill gladly acknowledge my gratitude. Thank you for doing so.

Nevertheless, applying a term oft used by the dutch, you are an "ant-fucker" extraordinaire who, for the sake of maintaining your contrarian rants (why you even waste time in a forum so obviously opposed to all you hold dear is anyone's guess) continues to insist that a SPORTS magazine qualifies a mainstream NEWS source. Sad to say, it does not.

All in all my contention (duly reinforced with calls to friends and family back home who heard nary a word on the matter) remains sound and you remain the grasping argumentative troll you have always been.

Once again then for the intellectually challenged PB, the issue of the matter is just how controlled (and thus not "liberal") our domestic media truly is by not blazoning such clearly anti-Bush statements as visibly as possible.

Any further claims of liberal media bias will henceforth be met by sheer ridicule.

 

One of the most exciting things about proving you wrong is finding out how I was right in the "wrong way", and how it only goes to show what a bad person I am for standing up for the truth.

As these earlier quotes show, you're still lying. You said the media, you said the press. Even if you want to go to the pathetic weasel contortion of pretending that sports news isn't news, and that coverage of a story about the Iraqi Olympic team by the sports media somehow doesn't count, you said it did not appear in the "press" or "the media". It did, as I proved several pages ago.

So your contention that major media did not cover the story remains true EVEN AFTER I PROVED IT WAS COVERED ON CNN AND IN THE WASHINGTON POST. For claiming it was covered by mainstream media and proving it, I am a "grasping argumentative troll".

Well, not really, if it takes you three pages of posts before you can admit you were wrong, that makes you a grasping argumentative troll, not me. I was correct from the first post.

Going out in a blaze or vindictive glory aren't you? First it had to appear in the media, then it had to appear in the nationwide media, then in the nationwide non-sports news media, and finally as each blocking attempt crumbles and we see that the story was covered by the biggest television news network in the country and the Washington Post... you've decided to change the rule again and go from "absolutely no coverage" and there wasn't "any reference" to it isn't "visible enough". Keeping moving those goalposts Lick, you'll always have something to cling to!

 

And which TRUTH would that be? Continual defence of proven liars against the ominous liberal conspiracy perhaps?

You stand for your own skewed versions of hyper nationalistic reality perhaps, little else.

Noone else seemed to fail to understand what i referred to by mainstream media, only you, the eternal literalist and contrarian. Two well buried references hardly serve as the sort of headline reportage i have been referring to. A truly "liberal" media certainly would have gained all the mileage it could (especially in an election year) from such clear indication of Iraqi sentiment toward our continued occupation. This is the point of my original contention which seems to have eluded you.

I shall, nevertheless, be ever so careful, henceforth, to spell it all out and not miss those necessary terms that you seem to need.

How sad and pathetic a person you must be to know in person.

 

Funny. I was wondering th same about you.

I'd shit the bed if you actually had friends offline. You talk down to EVERYONE on these forums including those who agree with you.

You sling insults and names and when called out on that childishness, you make the arrogant and nonsensical claim "that so 'n' so doesnt deserve anything more intelligent than petty insults...bla blah blah". The reality is is that you can't refute much that's put your way, so you HAVE to resort to petty 3rd-grader insults..and your head is so inflated that you can't even be honest about it. You are probably sitting there at your computer desk with a dictionary, thesaurus, and "Petty Insults for Dummies" and thinking..."Boy I can really fool these morons into thinking that I'm some cultured,worldly, scholar. They will have to bow to my vast intelligence or incur my unsult-laden wrath!" followed by the requisite dramatic and villainous laugh that only the Saturday night D&D men possess.

Please, you aren't fooling anyone. If you were this great intellect with such an important job...you wouldnt be here on Hipforums responding 24/7 to Point Break for pages and pages and pages and pages and pages. I feel like I'm reading an epic with these threads with you two. Tolstoy could have used you guys to help lengthen his stories. It's insane.

With that said Lickherish...Just admit who you really are and that you have a subscription to SI because you adore the swimsuit edition. You'd get more credit and merit for your insults if you just laid the truth on the table.

Laughinwillow once called me a "fucking fuckhead". Petty? yes. Childish? certainly. But I don't see Willow talking down to people like she's some God-emperor of Hipforums. She's blunt, honest,and can get as trashy(and admit it) as the next person. Her insults arent thrown in between a bunch of silly $20 words like she's trying to cover up the fact that she just swore like a drunken trailer hick.

She pisses me off but she's real....unlike you.

I read SI.I love that magazine. I read it for the equestrian stories. IT IS MAINSTREAM AND WIDELY READ THE WORLD OVER!

 

You are free to believe what you will, otter. The only persons here to whom ive addressed insults are those who first assail me with such. I make no apologies for addressing willful ignorance with the derision it deserves, especially in light of the long prevailing ethos of verbal attacks such as "un American", "lover of terrorists", "America bashers", etc. which was ushered in with the neo-cons in 2000.

Such types have made their contrarian intents well known on this board and indeed do deserve exactly what they offer, which is hate-filled invective and nothing more.

Those who seek to discuss issues intelligently I am fully capable, as well demonstrated by many of my earlier posts on numerous issues (prior to the snide contrarian verbal assaults), of conversing with respectfully and substantively. Those who flame and dismiss without offering anything beyond their misinformed or ideologically inspired opinion are not worth the time nor effort, given that they do not seek knowledge but self aggrandizing "point scoring".

As for my frequent presence here at the moment, August is a holiday month and thus i have plenty of time until after Labour day.

No i do not read SI, btw and neither does anyone I happen to know. Neither, as you insultingly contend, do i consider myself God Emporer of Hip Forums, that role belongs to skip and skip alone.

As for the remainder of your invective, i find it as amusing as anything PB offers as his version of informed debate. Clearly we see that you share his penchant for labels and categorisations. Bravo, give yourself some points.

 

You two can go at it back and forth all you want, but this has been bothering me since it originally came up and I have been biting my tongue because I think it is one of the most ridiculous arguments on these forums and there is so much more to worry about. Sports Illustrated, is not a news magazine. I don't know why anyone would pick it up to find out about politics, unless they are confused or like the rest of Americans who get all of their information from the 6 o'clock news and believe that reality tv is actual reality.

Sports Illustrated is a great magazine if you are into sports and of course it is a fun magazine to read for ENTERTAINMENT. It isn't bike, runners world or volleyball, or even Muscle & Fitness, as I consider those to be better for particular sports, but it is typical American "news" I suppose. Certainly, as someone has posted out, I would look to that magazine or ESPN for coverage on the Olympics, however, not coverage on Iraq. I think that is where you all are getting confused and upset. And it is really quite petty to be arguing about. What news outlet that covers it isn't the point, the point is that these people probably won't get much media coverage if they don't say something where the world can hear them. Like I already posted, I don't recall any Sports Illustrated reporters going to Iraq to cover anything (I could be wrong as I haven't a subscription). The story most likely would have been squashed if these people didn't come out and say something at the Olympics, or not heard by anyone who is not in a 10 mile radius from those saying it, I mean honestly who is going to tell everyone? And I do believe that Americans are not exempt from political stances at the Olympics, if you do remember 1968 and the whole black power thing. So would it not be just a little bit hypocritical to say that these people shouldn't say anything?

I don't know I just don't have a problem with them coming out and saying what they feel. Doesn't bother me at all, because I know that there isn't anywhere else for them to say it where it will be heard by everyone, including media outlets that aren't owned by politicians. Then again the only thing I care to watch is volleyball and they never put it on until like 2am.

 

No one on these forums is perfect. Everyone makes mistakes and messes up. You made one. You were shown major media outlets, including CNN, Sports Illustrated--argueably one of the most popular magazines in the United States, newspapers, etc, and still are in denial. YOU ASKED for CNN, HE GAVE you CNN, and you are still bitching! It wouldn't take a 12 year old reading this thread to figure out the story was covered on numerous occassions. You are still blatenly ignoring the fact that it was covered, and most of your posts are insults--nothing to even refute the links--that is pathetic.

 

The point is, the reason this story was covered was because the Iraqi people stood up at the Olympics and said something. Others were saying that they shouldn't have said it at the Olympics at all (Otter being one) but rather they should have said what they wanted to say in Iraq, not at the Olympics. It would not have been picked up by anyone had they done that. It hadn't really already, sure the news outlets that lean a little more to the left, have been saying that the Iraqi people want us gone, and every now and again you hear some grumbling, but it is always followed by "but that is not the majority" that is a few rebels, or troublemakers, etc. No people, don't you get it. They want us gone, they didn't want us there to begin with. You can fool yourself into believing whatever crap you want, but reality is reality. Things are real and people have feelings on issues even if it isn't covered by CNN or Sports Illustrated.

 

It's nice that these guys can speak their minds. BUT it does say something about the job we're doing over there. They aren't saying "Whoopee! We're free from our uber evil dictator because of these whoop-ass Americans!" The fact that they are actually critical of us freeing them sure says something on the opinions of rational, non-terrorist Iraqis, no matter what side of the political spectrum you are.