Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kazan on February 24, 2004, 02:34:04 pm
-
http://www.bushflash.com/gta.html
from
bushflash.com
-
Heh, very nice. How much of what was said can be considered the truth though? I always thought it prudent to trust nobody when it comes to this kind of thing - it's to easy to make the facts work for you or against others, but harder to tell the unvarnished truth.
-
Great link. Added straight to my bookmarks.
I'd read much of this in reputable broadsheets like the Guardian Kal so I'm pretty sure it's true. It's not even the worst I've heard about the florida elections either. I read stories of the police preventing black voters from voting. Considering that blacks vote 9:1 democrat that's quite a swing.
-
Reputable ??!!
-
You have a problem with the Guardian? It and the Independant are about the only papers worth trusting.
-
I'm no expert on UK papers, but the Times never seemed so bad, when i read it on my holiday's in England. the Daily Telegrpah was a good second, IIRC. the worst was off course The Daily Horror/Mirror
-
The telegraph didn't seem too bad from what I've rarely read of it but I wouldn't trust anything in the times. It's a Rupert Murdoch paper.
-
sorry, my knowledge on UK propaganda characters is non-existant, please elaborate.
-
Actually, the UK is one of the few countries which still has several different 'free' presses.
Many are politically motivated, leaning either to the left or the right, 2 claim to be independant, though that is debateable.
Our main problem is that (1) The papers go way over the top in the way of invading privacy, usually to obtain (2) Pictures of womens breasts.
-
heh the funny part is that even like this, Gore had more votes than Bush. Still Bush was made president. :D
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Actually, the UK is one of the few countries which still has several different 'free' presses.
Many are politically motivated, leaning either to the left or the right, 2 claim to be independant, though that is debateable.
Our main problem is that (1) The papers go way over the top in the way of invading privacy, usually to obtain (2) Pictures of womens breasts.
number 2 is something i noted when spotting the Daily Mirror in the newspaper racks, the difference between it's cover and that of the "magazines" on the top shelf was minimal. unless it had some really horrific bloodbad picture to show instead.
-
that information has 100% veracity
-
Originally posted by kasperl
sorry, my knowledge on UK propaganda characters is non-existant, please elaborate.
Murdoch is the same guy who runs FOX in America.
-
strange, really, i never noticed that much of it. i could be mixing up things, off course.
-
I read the Sun and am proud of it!!!
*thumps table*
-
Why?
Personally I wouldn't be proud to wipe my ****ing arse on that rag of a paper.
-
Originally posted by Kalfireth
Heh, very nice. How much of what was said can be considered the truth though? I always thought it prudent to trust nobody when it comes to this kind of thing - it's to easy to make the facts work for you or against others, but harder to tell the unvarnished truth.
Hate to say it, Thunder, but all of its true. Its been backed up by numerous sources. The original research was done by a British newspaper. I can probably find the original citations if you really want.
Its a sad, sad thing. As much as I dislike Bush, I'd dislike him just a little less if he'd been actually, fairly elected.
-
Originally posted by magatsu1
I read the Sun and am proud of it!!!
*thumps table*
Oh come on. You complained about the Guardian as a reputable source and then say you read the Sun!
*wonders if this is more of that sarcasm stuff he was told about* :D
-
Instant Bookmark
A very well done flash movie with decient sounding music and well planned momentum all rolled into a strong and focused political message.
4 out of 5 stars in my opinion. Could've used a bit more meat to it and a bit slower playback for the non speed-readers.
-
well it was designed to mesmorize more than inform, so...
-
An excellent ad. Instant bookmark, indeed.
Next question: what can we do about this, besides voting Democrat?
-
Originally posted by Kazan
that information has 100% veracity
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. I've got a nice bridge to sell you, by the way.
Considering how partisan the entire issue is, I don't trust anyone regarding it. Considering the arguments I've read over it before, I'm quite sure I could find some 'vote irregularities' of equal magnitude perpetrated by the losing side.
Not that I'm particularly fond of what Bush has done, but there's a lot of things the Democrats do or would do that I can't say I like either. 'Course I'm not American so it doesn't matter.
Hell, here (http://www.rense.com/general6/thomassowell.htm). Something from the other side. Knock yourself out.
-
vote Libertarian :)
-
I voted Marijuanna in the last provincial election, cause they didn't have Green in my city. :p
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
vote Libertarian :)
only if you want to have bush in office again
Nader should be completely ignored -- right now our votes are better spent voting strategically to get bush out of office
-
to hell with it, I don't like Bush, but all the democrats are just full of shjit.
at the very least he's good at blowing **** up :nod:
they won't do anything that we won't be able to un do in a few years.
-
the dems won't tred all over human rights, etc
kerry may be an ass -- but he's better than bush
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
at the very least he's good at blowing **** up :nod:
wasn't that the problem in the first place?!
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Nader should be completely ignored -- right now our votes are better spent voting strategically to get bush out of office
I wouldn't worry about Nader. He's not running as a Green this time, he's running as an Independent, so he won't have any party's backing. He might not even be able to get on the ballot in most states. Nader's impact will be minimal.
However, I just heard some good news. Roy Moore, the Alabama "ten Commandments" judge, was recently approached by the conservative Constitution Party to be their presidential nominee. Lots of conservatives are pissed at Bush for not toeing their line enough and it's possible that if Moore were to get into the race as the Constitution Party nominee, he could draw enough votes from Bush to throw the election to the Democrats.
Wouldn't that be a nice, ironic twist of fate? :D
-
Originally posted by Shrike
Considering how partisan the entire issue is, I don't trust anyone regarding it. Considering the arguments I've read over it before, I'm quite sure I could find some 'vote irregularities' of equal magnitude perpetrated by the losing side.
Fortunately, Shrike, the details of the case are backed up by unconcerned third parties (IE a british newspaper) as well as several independent studies done here in the US. Given that the various reports agree on the major details and many of the minor ones--without referencing each other--I'd say that indeed, the details are accurate.
The illegally disenfranchised voters are a matter of the public record and are easy to verify for any US citizen. The changes in Florida voting laws are on the record, and are verifiable by pretty much anyone willing to look. The lists sent to the database company were voting rolls, and as such are a matter of the public record and can be requested by any citizen.
One fact that was not listed in that little flash thing was that the database company was told to use Soundex to match names as well. Soundex is a system by which phonemes are matched to mathematical abstractions. These abstractions are matched against each other to find words that 'sound alike'. Its a notoriously inaccurate system generating a rather huge (upwards of 25%) rate of false positives. Thus, if your name 'sounded like' a convicted felon according to soundex, you were removed from the rolls as well.
Not that it actually matters. Facts are irrelevant when all you want is to sell the country a lie.
-
I wouldn't exactly call British media 'unconcerned third parties', at the very least they are concerned, hell they wouldn't have done that report if they wern't
-
Neutral parties then :)
-
neutral could be debated, though I don't particularly feel like doing that at the moment.
-
public records are not debatable though - and this is simply a matter of public records
-
"unconcerned" as in "have not stake in the outcome"
The British media gets a story either way. They don't have a stake in either candidate.
Regardless, if you're really, really concerned, Bob, the facts are out there and available to you as a US Citizen. All it'll cost you is some cash to get copies of the relevant documents and some time analyzing them.
-
what's a better story,
Bush won fair and rightly,
or
SCANDAL!!! EVIL conservitive militaristic corprate whore steals the American government and subjegates the populace into his theocrtic dictatorship! were all DOOOMED!!!
and you WILL DIE, if you don't buy our paper and read about it
-
How about just reporting the news. Not all UK papers are out for scandal.
-
Bobboau: Your argumentum is MOOT
The information in the flash is widely known public records
-
but you will admit that at least some of them are, therefore declairing a newspaper neutral or unbiased or any other synonem, simply becase it is UK based is incorect
-
True but when it is one of the more truthful and accurate papers. One which is respected in other countries then it's a reasonable assumption.
Besides as Kazan is probably getting tired of saying the details are all available to the general public without having to go through a newspaper.
-
As far as I recall the majority of the details have been kicking about the public domain since the whole farce began.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
that information has 100% veracity
I cant say I know about the figures and stuff but the general story was reported on the BBC and in Michael Moore's book I seem to remember.
Online you can get away with anything but if its in print or reported by a company like the BBC then if you are talking crap Bush would be able to sue you into the ground so its very likely to be accurate.
-
Bob:
So, you start of with the assumption that the government is honest and fair and loves every special unique snowflake in this world. Any time that someone contradicts the government, they're just sensationalists and looking for a quick buck. Right.
And please explain to me how you can, for example, refute the fact that Bush stole the election. The evidence has been thoroughly documented. The evidence is not biased. Its government papers, voting records and such. Official documents in their unaltered state.
But ofcourse, its not evidence if the goverment says it not.
-
Here's the best one from the BushFlash website. At least, in my opinion.
http://www.bushflash.com/pl_lo.html
-
Just for reference: Ignore his DU ones, he is talking out of his arse on those
Depleted Uranium is U-238 -- it has a half life of 4.3 billion years (which means it's BARELY radioactive) and is the most abudant heavy radioisotype on the planet - you are constantly exposed to certain levels of it.
The Entire U-238 decay chain is alpha particle emission - alpha particles are blocked by a piece of paper, your skin, THE AIR [they travel less than 5 meters through normal density air before being interecepted by a particle] -- an alpha particle is two protons and new neutrons
(only in fission reactions does U-283 give off "hard radiation" in the form of gamma)
The chemical properties of uranium are far more of a hazard than it's radiological properties - and it's chemical properties wouldn't cause deformed babies or cancer.
In short: his DU information is incorrect and unfounded
(I never said all his flashes were good)
-
Well, since I have only a very rudimentary knowledge of nuclear emmisions (such as would be learned in a highschool chemistry class), I really can't know who is right or wrong on any such matter.
But what about his figures citing an enormous rise in birth defects and cancer at times when DU was used? It seems unlikely he's pulling those stats out of his ass.
What I can say with a very high degree of certainty is that there has been a marked increase in DU-related ailments in Yugoslvia since the '99 bombing. And if you accept his figures for tonnes of DU used, Yugoslavia made out far better than Iraq.
_____
I love the flash. Very good use of video techniques and music. Watched most of the other ones and I'm liking it.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
right now our votes are better spent voting strategically to get bush out of office
If you do that you might just end up with someone worse. (wouldn't be too hard to do)
Originally posted by Kazan
In short: his DU information is incorrect and unfounded
Are you sure that his other information is correct?
And after seeing this (http://www.bushflash.com/ihr.html) I really don't think I will believe this guy when he is so obviously someone who discriminates, nay HATES because of political views. In other words: Slime. He doesn't even deserve the slightest respect.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Bobboau: Your argumentum is MOOT
The information in the flash is widely known public records
Linky? (to a reliable unbiased source)
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Just for reference: Ignore his DU ones, he is talking out of his arse on those
Depleted Uranium is U-238 -- it has a half life of 4.3 billion years (which means it's BARELY radioactive) and is the most abudant heavy radioisotype on the planet - you are constantly exposed to certain levels of it.
The Entire U-238 decay chain is alpha particle emission - alpha particles are blocked by a piece of paper, your skin, THE AIR [they travel less than 5 meters through normal density air before being interecepted by a particle] -- an alpha particle is two protons and new neutrons
(only in fission reactions does U-283 give off "hard radiation" in the form of gamma)
The chemical properties of uranium are far more of a hazard than it's radiological properties - and it's chemical properties wouldn't cause deformed babies or cancer.
In short: his DU information is incorrect and unfounded
(I never said all his flashes were good)
Kazan you ignore the danger of breathing in uranium dust. Without skin to block it their is a significant danger of contracting lung cancer.
IIRC studies in Japan have found that the dangers of radiation from alpha partices were underestimated.
-
So? Many, many Republicans hate Dmeocrats and Liberals, going so far as to call Liberalism a mental disorder and a cancer on America. But I don't hear anyone (or more specifically, you) complaining.
But, hey, maybe I got it all wrong. Who knows.
-
Erm. I didnt say any names, and you are right. Anyone who hates like that is SLIME. However I did do a search for a democrat hate mongering site and I couldnt find one. Interesting no?
-
Originally posted by Rictor
But, hey, maybe I got it all wrong. Who knows.
yes, you did. :p
-
karajorma: good point - but that is from the's chemical properties - and more importantly it's physical size property -- like asbestos dust there
Deepblue: some of his information is acurate - not much of it, the GTA flash is one of the accurate ones
Rictor: let's see, just before we invaded in 1991 Saddam was using chemical weapons on his own people - yep that had NOTHING to do with it
-
He used chemical weapons. Once. On the Kurds. The Kurds are not his own people, they are his enemies. Both parties can attest to that.
Do you think that gassing 5000 Kurds in the North could have any serious effects on a sizeable portion of the Iraqi population, most living several hudred miles away from the site where the bio weapons were used? Or could it possibly be the tonnes of DU dropped.
I punch someone in the arm. You shoot them in the head. And then you say that it is most likely my attack that killed him. Sorry, but that arguement doesn't hold water. I'm not saying that Saddam using bio weapons was not a factor in those deaths, just that it was miniscule compared to the DU and other crap used in Desert Storm and Iraq 2003.
_________
Deepblue: I'm currently working on something which has to be printed today to be ready tommorow. Give me a day or so and I'll show you what hate mongering really is.
____
I have no interest in getting into the old Dem vs Rep arguement...again. I doubt anything will be resolved or that anyone involved will change their minds. However feel free to prove me wrong :D:D
-
Originally posted by Kazan
karajorma: good point - but that is from the's chemical properties - and more importantly it's physical size property -- like asbestos dust there
Deepblue: some of his information is acurate - not much of it, the GTA flash is one of the accurate ones
Rictor: let's see, just before we invaded in 1991 Saddam was using chemical weapons on his own people - yep that had NOTHING to do with it
Well, on Kurds. Could be an important distinction, there...
That said, the WHO has said that there is no concrete evidence of a link between the use DU ammunition and cancer rates in Yugoslavia, because there are insufficient medical records to make a comparison - in other words, there is no real way to even prove rates have changed, let alone to connect to DU.
-
several EU studies have shown that DU has no harmful effects (other than being a bullet)
furthermore we're exposed to uranium EVERY DAY - it's EVERYWHERE just not in significant concentrations
-
Originally posted by Kazan
several EU studies have shown that DU has harmful effects (other than being a bullet)
Well, yes - both the Us and UK acknowledge the harmful effects (the UK ihas offered to assist cleanup of DU in Iraq, although the US hasn't).
I was making the point that, in the specific example of Yugolsavia, there's no evidence to prove a direct link between use of DU and cancer rates.
Doesn't mean there isn't, of course.
-
aldo -- DOH i left a word out "NO"
-
Aldo, could I perhaps ask you a question. Is it intentional that you seem to take a special joy in asserting that the US (and NATO) acted with the utmost care and justice in its military dealing with Yugoslavia. Because you seem to do it an awful lot.
Usually, you right up there with everyone else shouting "Death to Bush", but with Yugoslavia you seem to really get a kick out of laying the blame squarely at the feet of the victims. Why the double standard? I mean, do you really believe that in one scenario the US are devils, and in the other they're angels. You have no problem saying that the US did this and this and this in Iraq, and are assholes because of it, but when Yugoslvia is brought up, you deny any wrongdoing on behalf of the agressor (US and NATO).
To me, it seems to be a testament to Billy's mastery of public relations and misdirection. Bush is so heavy-handed that you can't help but notice. But Clinton, he was more devious. He actually got most of the Western world to tote the party line, despite the fact that the circumstances surrounding Kosovo 99 were not that different than those surrounding Iraq 2003.
One day, when I have the time, I'll set you staright. As you might imagine, I take particular offence to lies being propagated when its is my country that is the subject of those lies.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Aldo, could I perhaps ask you a question. Is it intentional that you seem to take a special joy in asserting that the US (and NATO) acted with the utmost care and justice in its military dealing with Yugoslavia. Because you seem to do it an awful lot.
Usually, you right up there with everyone else shouting "Death to Bush", but with Yugoslavia you seem to really get a kick out of laying the blame squarely at the feet of the victims. Why the double standard? I mean, do you really believe that in one scenario the US are devils, and in the other they're angels. You have no problem saying that the US did this and this and this in Iraq, and are assholes because of it, but when Yugoslvia is brought up, you deny any wrongdoing on behalf of the agressor (US and NATO).
To me, it seems to be a testament to Billy's mastery of public relations and misdirection. Bush is so heavy-handed that you can't help but notice. But Clinton, he was more devious. He actually got most of the Western world to tote the party line, despite the fact that the circumstances surrounding Kosovo 99 were not that different than those surrounding Iraq 2003.
One day, when I have the time, I'll set you staright. As you might imagine, I take particular offence to lies being propagated when its is my country that is the subject of those lies.
It's not hard to understand. - I take exception to the massacre of ethnic groups under the pretence of national security.
Frankly, I'm surprised you seem to think Milosevic was incapable of such an act, given his history and nature. But I'm sure the forthcoming verdict in the Hague will justify my position.
My only dissapointment was that NATO was ordered (to reduce possible losses) to use high-level bombing tactics instead of more dangerous-but-also-more-accurate-low-level attacks.
-
You seem to think that if I oppose the US bombing, I must support Milosevic. That's utter bull****. The US, for obvious reasons, is guilty in my book. But so is Milosevic, for 10+ years of oppression and war he visited on Yugoslvia.
As I said, when I have the time, I'll set the record straight on the actual events that transpired. Until then, you can continue thinking whatever you want. But I urge you to atleast think about the source of the information.
Is it hard to believe that a government that has lied once (Iraq) has not done so before? Just becuase *this time* the US has been caught in the lie does not mean that this is the only time they have lied. Quite obviously, every previous time they got away with it. Thats the point.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
You seem to think that if I oppose the US bombing, I must support Milosevic. That's utter bull****. The US, for obvious reasons, is guilty in my book. But so is Milosevic, for 10+ years of oppression and war he visited on Yugoslvia.
That's not what i said. You seem to be under the illusion that Milosevic was incapable of sending an army to ethnically cleanse the Kosovan populaiton, under the auspices of national security.
Correct me if i'm wrong, but you were in Yugoslavia at the time of the conflict / bombing, weren't you? What was your source of information of what was going on at the time? State TV?
Or are you saying the rest of the world should have sat still and watched as civillians were murdered in their homes?
-
OK, until I can come up with proof to back my statements, I'm going to drop this conversation.
And no, I was not in Yugoslavia at the time. I was in Toronto throughout the bombing. I was there a few months after, but thats not really an issue.
My source of information was a mixture of News TV (CNN etc), Internet news (antiwar.com was started in the wake of the '99 bombing, and is now among the Net's Top 50 news sites.) and firsthand reports. Believe it or not, my family was chatting via ICQ with friends in Belgrade even as the bombs were falling.
I see no reason to believe that State TV would be any less reliable than any of the big News Networks (CNN, MSNBC, ABC, Fox). If the Iraq war has not proven that the media is working with a very specifc agenda - to support whatever the government says, I don't know what will.
But, as I said, I'm going to stop this until I have specific evidence. Until then, its just empty words on both sides.
-
Wasnt Yugoslav state tv bombed off the air fairly early in the campaign? Killed 30 journalists iirc. The Nato bombing of yugoslavia, while done for the right reasons was handled very badly.
On the subject of DU the british mod has issued these cards to their troops:
(http://gallery.cybertarp.com/albums/userpics/14110/f_med_1018.jpg)
(http://gallery.cybertarp.com/albums/userpics/14110/f_med_1018_back.jpg)
They obviously think its a health hazard.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
karajorma: good point - but that is from the's chemical properties - and more importantly it's physical size property -- like asbestos dust there.
That has an effect too but the alpha emissions won't help either. Remember that alpha particles are the most damaging of all. When touching your skin it isn't too bad since you constantly lose your skin cells but inside the lungs it can do a lot more damage.
-
alpha particles most damaging of all? I htink not - gamma rays are the most harmful radiation
if alpha particles were harmful we's all be dead when a helium ballon popped near us - since alpha partices are just helium nucleii without electrons (2 proton, 2 neutron)
Hold up a piece of paper - you are now blocking alpha radiation from that direction
-
Originally posted by Kazan
alpha particles most damaging of all? I htink not - gamma rays are the most harmful radiation
if alpha particles were harmful we's all be dead when a helium ballon popped near us - since alpha partices are just helium nucleii without electrons (2 proton, 2 neutron)
Hold up a piece of paper - you are now blocking alpha radiation from that direction
Alpha particles are the most harmful. They just don't hit you very often :D The danger from radiation is dependant on two factors. How much damage they actually do when they hit you and the ease with which they can hit you.
You are indeed correct that alpha particles can be blocked easily but if you've breathed in uranium dust there isn't much you can do to shield yourself from the effects.
Gamma rays are nasty because there is very little you can do to stop them. Even a few inches of lead shielding mearly lowers the numbers who get through. However when they hit you they don't actually do as much damage because they aren't charged particles like alpha and beta particles are.
The charge on an alpha particle on the other hand is actually quite large. It's far higher than the charge on a beta particle.
Alpha sources are considered relatively harmless as long as they are outside of your body but they are really nasty if they get inside you.
EDIT : Did a quick googling. Here's (http://www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/ionize/ionize.htm) an EPA page confirming the ionising power of alpha particles. Unfortunately it doesn't which is the most dangerous.
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
Erm. I didnt say any names, and you are right. Anyone who hates like that is SLIME. However I did do a search for a democrat hate mongering site and I couldnt find one. Interesting no?
I found one:
http://www.gwbush.com
And another one:
http://www.democraticunderground.com