Print

[The unProfessional]

You're absolutely right... Journalism is dead.

CBS, CNN, Fox, Al Jazeera, the list goes on.  Everyone has a political agenda, these days, and journalism is their front.  

The public tends to believe what they see on the "news"... after all, we should.  The media has taken advantage of an age-hold obligation and flipped us all the bird.  We're reaching a point in time where people are becoming increasingly keen to news organizations' tactics, but their reign continues.

Essentially, people just need to be aware that anything they don't see with their own eyes should be taken with a grain of salt.  The fascinating thing about it is that as technology improves, the global quality of information diminishes.  One would think to expect the opposite.

Basically, the moral of the story is f*ck 'em all.

[pug_ster]

QUOTE (damam @ Nov 11 2004, 09:00 PM)

Im not trying to silence their voice.  The point is that they should state their biases somewhere instead of claiming to be Journalists.  And they should only report stories that are true. Just as all the reporters/journalists at CNN and FoxNews should as well.  To Give an example, no one is ignorant to the fact that Combs is a moderate liberal, or that Rush Limbaugh is a conservative.  They state it themselves, so everything they say from that point on can be evaluate with that in mind.  Really I think journalism is dead.  I would much rather listen to commentators from the left and right, then journalists claiming to be neutral.  Its just more honest. Second, I dont care whether your arab, american, British, or ethiopian, wouldnt you at least like to read or see stories that have actually happened from your news source?  Al Jazeera has flat out lied at times,  putting them in the realm of the national inquirer and the star.  But unlike the national inquirer and the star who right there stories with a nudge and wink, they still claim to journalists reporting the truth.  They never offer retractions, and the untrue stories are almost always anti-american.

Yeah, I think what Jon Stewart says that News is not what it used to be.  Instead of the News organizations tries to bring news with some information, they just want to bring short headliners.  During the election you will probably hear news anchor saying that 'Bush called Kerry a flipflop and Kerry called Bush Incompetent.'  Is this kind of news that has any informational value, of course not.

I think it has to do with Bush's Administration where they do not really comment on anything on what they are doing...  For example, after Bush's victory on his 2nd election, he had a conference with reporters about spending his 'political capital.'

http://www.whitehous...20041104-5.html

Notice in the conference about Bush talking about his '3 question rule.'

When reporters have the chance to ask questions to Bush, Bush ducked most of the questions that is critical to his administration...  If you remember the days before the election, there was a scandal about the missing explosives, this news was basically censored because Bush won't comment on it when it is something obviously important and it doesn't seem any effort to try to investigate...  No news organizations, not even CNN doesn't have anything new so they won't report it.

[gronne]

QUOTE (The unProfessional @ Nov 11 2004, 08:55 PM)

You've got issues, Gronne.  I merely mentioned that black men aren't the majority here.  That's racist?  Hispanics are the growing majority in LA, and in my area, probably Asians as well.   Jesus. It's people like you who feed racism in a bogus front to stop it.  Someone mentions the word black and you go ape shit.  Way to go... Hey, my car's black... (ooooh)

Oh, I will have to apologize. My understanding of english is probably not what it's supposed to be. I was refering to the last part of your line...

QUOTE

Blacks aren't even a majority here, let alone men.

Since you were talking about black males I thought your last line "let alone men" refered to the black men as a less worthy people. To be honest I don't know what that line would mean otherwise, in case you refer to men as men in general being a minority to women. Really sorry for that misunderstood accusation. I figured it seemed logical with your other awful statements about muslims.

I'm really sorry OK? It just seemed very bad to me.

/me goes studying english.

[EverythingButAnAnswer]

Go play:

[gronne]

QUOTE (EverythingButAnAnswer @ Nov 11 2004, 11:56 PM)

Go play:

You have to love nazi's, right? You always make comments about nazi's. And when you blame socialists for racism, something's very wrong with your understanding of socialism.

[EverythingButAnAnswer]

QUOTE (gronne @ Nov 12 2004, 12:20 AM)

You have to love nazi's, right? You always make comments about nazi's. And when you blame socialists for racism, something's very wrong with your understanding of socialism.

You hate Jews, you are a socialist, and you think anyone whose opinion differs from yours is unfit to live and intellectually/morally inferior, how again are you not a Nazi?

[The unProfessional]

QUOTE

Blacks aren't even a majority here, let alone men.

Yes, you misunderstood me.  It was mentioned that black men, specifically, were the majority here.  My point was that blacks weren't the majority... so therefore, black men were not he majority (# black men < # of total african americans)

[EverythingButAnAnswer]

[gronne]

QUOTE (EverythingButAnAnswer @ Nov 12 2004, 08:47 AM)

He's a Nazi, you can't reason with a Nazi. They will, no matter what you say or what credible sources your provide, think their arguement is always superior to yours.

I don't know what you're trying to get out of all this, but anyone with a brain bigger than a popcorn would realize that I, as a socialist, hate nazi's.

None of you provide credible sources, unless you claim Fox is credible.

This is not about whose argument is being the best. When it comes down to innocent peoples death, arguments can never win over that.

I feel awful every time I hear muslim terrorists killing innocent jews. And I feel awful every time I hear of jewish counter-attacks. But asking me which side I'm on, I will always choose the palestinian side, for countless reasons. I don't want Israel to be dissolved, but they should immediately draw back the borders to '67, and work it from there. Occupying someone's land can't be accepted.

I have to add I like when some of you americans say us europeans shouldn't try to affect your election, as it's apparently none of our business, and then you try to decide how Iraq should be ruled. Such irony.

Please elaborate for me how socialists have ANYTHING to do with National Socialists. Yes, I hate jews thinking they have the right to a stolen country, but I don't have anything against jews realizing it's a sick occupation.

I can guarantee you Hitler would like american capitalists a lot better than socialists. You definitely share more with Hitler than I do.

[EverythingButAnAnswer]

Hitler was a socialist (fascism is extreme socialism), as far as the government was concerned. Their market was also socialist, the government (not the people) owned not just all income producing assets, but well, everything, and their market was based entirely around "collective" (I use that term loosely, since the people really had no say) planning. Italy's economy on the other hand, under Mussolini adopted the idea of corporatism, where a few large corporations control all the income producing assets. Oddly enough, Italy's economy did very well under his reign. So again, fascism is extreme socialism, and has nothing to do with democracy (free society) or capitalism (free market), so please in the future, refrain from making absurd comments comparing them both.

[damam]

QUOTE (gronne @ Nov 12 2004, 08:57 PM)

I don't want Israel to be dissolved, but they should immediately draw back the borders to '67, and work it from there. Occupying someone's land can't be accepted. Yes, I hate jews thinking they have the right to a stolen country, but I don't have anything against jews realizing it's a sick occupation.

Lets not forget how this occupation came to be way back in 1967.  Taken from the "Peace encyclopedia", and was collaborated by a show I saw on the history channel about the 6 day war.

May 14, 1967: Egypt's President Gamal Nasser demands the withdrawal of United Nations force--established in 1957 as an international "guarantee" of safety for Israel--from the Sinai peninsula. The UN meekly obeys; the United States and Britain fail to rouse the Security Council to take action.

May 15: Three Egyptian army divisions and 600 tanks roll into the Sinai. World community does nothing.

May 17: Cairo Radio's Voice of the Arabs: "All Egypt is now prepared to plunge into total war which will put an end to Israel."

May 18: Voice of the Arabs announces: "As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is a total war which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence."

May 18: Nasser announces blockade of Straits of Tiran in the Red Sea, severing Israel's southern maritime link to the outside world. Israel considers the closure an act of war. (US President Lyndon Johnson later says: "If a single act of folly was more responsible for this explosion than any other it was the arbitrary and dangerous announced decision that the Straits of Tiran would be closed.")

May 20: Syria's defence minister (now president) Hafez el-Assad says: "Our forces are now ready not only to repulse the aggression but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united ..."

May 27: Nasser: "Our basic objection will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight."

May 30: Nasser : "The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel."

May 30: Jordan's King Hussein signs a five-year mutual defence pact with Egypt and the two set up a joint command, making clear its stance in any future conflict.

My 31: Egyptian newspaper Al Akhbar reports: "Under terms of the military agreement signed with Jordan, Jordanian artillery, co-ordinated with the forces of Egypt and Syria, is in a position to cut Israel in two ..."

May 31: Iraqi President Rahman Aref announces: "This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear--to wipe Israel off the map."

June 4: Iraq joins Nasser's military alliance against Israel.

June 5: Israel lunches a pre-emptive strike on Jordan, Iraq, Syria, and Egypt by taking out there airforce.

This is how it started.  And, I might add, this was the second time they had tried to do this.  If they, meaning Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Iraq had not been the agressor the palestenians would not even exist today.  They would still be egyptians.  This is to a large extent, self inflicted.

[Baner]

QUOTE

I have to add I like when some of you americans say us europeans shouldn't try to affect your election, as it's apparently none of our business, and then you try to decide how Iraq should be ruled. Such irony.

It's one thing when the country is well-developed (note the US being a 1st world country) and another when the country cannot supply basic water and electricity to many of its residents. When your leader is interested more on war, then to the well-being of his citizens at home, then your country is in need of a reform. The US government has been able to make it's own choices since its creation. Iraq has proven that it cannot.

[gronne]

Is that what they teach in american schools nowadays? That Nazi-Germany should be considered socialistic? The cold war really messed up your heads. Nazi-Germany was outspokenly anti-socialistic. Apart from jews they hated nothing more than socialists. Nazism is considered extreme right-wing, and communism/socialism is considered extreme left-wing.
It had elements of socialism, but it can NEVER be considered socialism if it's not for everyone, that's the whole purpose of socialism. They killed dissabled and mentally dissabled people, that's anti-socialism. And it's funny when you've decided Nazi-Germany was socialistic, you mention Mussolini's economy, but you don't mention Hitler got the economy running pretty damn well.

I am a DEMOCRATIC socialist. I guess I have to add democratic every time otherwise you think I sympathize with Stalin, Mao and other totalitarian leaders. By saying Hitler was a socialist you redicule yourself, and Hitler as well. My country is socialistic but not even the right-wingers would consider it totalitarian. We have the greatest tax wage in the world, which I think is great. Since my family is more rich than the average I'm also glad we have to pay more tax than the average.

Baner: During the debates Bush rhetorically asked if USA should let african nations decide whether USA should go to war or not. Well, why not? USA had no more reason to attack Iraq than any other nation. If USA was attacked by Iraq, I could at least understand you would want to attack, but as we all know Iraq has never attacked USA. And if you seriously think we shouldn't try to interfere, then I hope you pay our nations for what it costs in terms of asylum seekers and so on. Many iraqies now want Saddam back in power, I guess they don't mention that too often in Fox. And when you have forced the iraqies to democracy, they will elect a totalitarian leader anyway. The Bush administration obviously didn't think that far.

And what is a well-developed country? A country that automatically knows better, especially running other countries? You don't understand muslims, so why force them upon something they most likely don't want?

[EverythingButAnAnswer]

, you might want to read Animal Farm sometime).

[EverythingButAnAnswer]

QUOTE (gronne @ Nov 14 2004, 02:08 AM)

We have the greatest tax wage in the world, which I think is great. Since my family is more rich than the average I'm also glad we have to pay more tax than the average.

That is called a progressive tax, as income increases your tax rate increases, which is a pretty bad thing considering taxes are harmful to the economy because they are leakages, and they cause consumers to save (to prepare for the next round of taxes) instead of purchasing (inputting) goods or services. Although one can argue that the government purchases enough goods and services (i.e., public works programs, etc.) through taxes that they are able to counterbalance that effect, thus bringing the market back in the equilibrium. In reality, the market will never reach full potential because the consumers are discouraged for purchasing goods and services as a result of high taxes, and thus are unwilling to input back into the economy. Again I just want to restate that in reality (not ideology) socialism/communism and fascism are the same, because their main focus is big government.