Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: redmenace on August 24, 2005, 11:45:58 pm
-
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/08/24/D8C6JFCO0.html
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash6.htm
I wonder if these people understand that they are being used and exploited.
-
She's exploiting the media as much as they're exploiting her so I don't see what your point is.
Unless you're on about the pro-war protestors.
-
well I am refering to the politicians using these two woman. I kinda makes me want to puke. I kinda see this as a new low.
-
As you would say, they have a right to do this. :p
-
yes they do. That doesn't mean that I like people being used and manipulated for ones own interests.
-
It happens a lot, on both sides of politics.
-
Politicians will abuse anyone and everything they can, so it's scarcely a surprise. Unfortunately the media (particularly the US; I'm not sure they have the same legal requirement of impartiality as the UK media does) often does a very good job stripping away facts and presenting spectacle.
Albeit was the second news report anything beyond blind propaganda? Perhaps it's coming from a fairly laid back Brit perspective, but it does seem a bit... dodgy. Like saying people against the war are 'enemies of freedom'. Y'know, like 'war wins freedom' or 'criticism is counter-revo.... unpatriotic' or similar. Obey blindly, fight for the motherland, that general ethos.
The first one at least had a bit of validity in terms of an illustration of grief (although I'm always bewildered by the parents who seem shocked when their sons go off to war and die). Protests are ok, but if the government is going to take aim back the way, I'd kind of prefer it to be a response, not that sort of implicit attack.
-
cindy sheehan may be a moron - but she came to protest then the politicians and the media attached to her
the anti-sheehan [lady wit 3 sons and a husband in iraq] was latched onto by the politicians and brought to the media
little difference
on a side note: sheehan is an idiot - instant withdrawl = stupid, doesn't know difference between conventional weapons [DU] and nuclear weapons
PST: NEVER EVER link drudge - 80% of the stories he posts are from unreliable, unconfirmable sources and 100% of his stories are biased.
-
*Cough* Terry Schiavo *Cough*
Originally posted by aldo_14
Politicians will abuse anyone and everything they can, so it's scarcely a surprise. Unfortunately the media (particularly the US; I'm not sure they have the same legal requirement of impartiality as the UK media does) often does a very good job stripping away facts and presenting spectacle.
Interesting Aldo, I didn't know the media over there was required by law to be impartial. ^.^ Here it's all about who you can convince to be on your side. The truth went out the window long ago. Journalism today is a farce.
-
what about schiavo other than the fact she was in a PVS
-
Originally posted by Kazan
cindy sheehan may be a moron - but she came to protest then the politicians and the media attached to her
the anti-sheehan [lady wit 3 sons and a husband in iraq] was latched onto by the politicians and brought to the media
little difference
on a side note: sheehan is an idiot - instant withdrawl = stupid, doesn't know difference between conventional weapons [DU] and nuclear weapons
PST: NEVER EVER link drudge - 80% of the stories he posts are from unreliable, unconfirmable sources and 100% of his stories are biased.
DU is not a conventional weapon. First of all, it's a heavy metal which means it's poisonous. It also stays in the environment for years and gets into the groundwater and vegetation. At best, it's ability to cause long term damage to both people and the environment is disputed. At worst, it's the new Agent Orange.
How exactly does opposing withdrawl make one any different than every warhawk going on about "finishing the job"? What job? The job was to take control of Iraq, and short of genocide I don't see how that can be accomplished. The US has lost, the best it can hope for is a civil war which will be won by a loyal strongman - basically another Saddam. And even that is unlikely.
-
Rictor DU qualifies as a "Conventional weapon" - i is not a Biological, Chemical or Nuclear weapon - it uses it's kinetic properties to do damage. Weapon classification is based upon how it functions, not whether or not the metal it's made out of is toxic.
Second immediate withdrawl is suicidal - yes it's a war that should have never been fought - but we cannot pick up and leave because that would make it an even bigger terrorist breeding ground. We need to remove all the corruptions from the half-ass reconstruction effort, bust out a modern day marshall plan and get it ****ing done. We actually have to stabilize the country and that requires intelligent leadership that recognizes the problems instead of dismissing them.
--------------------
For as much as we liberals claim to use superior reasoning I often want to ****slap my fellow liberals for proving that statement wrong by using just as bad of reasoning as the conservatives do. Immediate withdrawl from any war - no matter how unjust - is foolish when you've destabilized the country and only made half-ass attempts to fix it up which were just really a cover for giving your corporate buddies butloads of money.
-
Remove corruption? Are you serious? Both the Iraqis and American companies thrive on it. Hell, that was half the fun in invading - moving massive amounts of public money into private hands. No one is interested in ending corruption, so it won't end. You assume that those in charge have the same goals as you, which they obviously don't. You assume that Cheyney sits in his office every day and thinks of way to make life better for the Iraqis, and cries every time there's a carbombing. No one actually gives a **** about the Iraqis, or at least no one powerful. It's a question of who will control Iraq.
You seem to think that the longer America stays there, the better it will get. Quite the opposite actually, the longer the US stays, the more the country will descend into chaos. It's over, you lost. And the more you keep trying to fight that, the worse you will come out in the end. Iraqi can not at present be made into a democratic, secular state, aside from taking extreme measures (like I said, genocide). The insurgency is too strong, the resentment too deep and few have the will, much less the means, to institute democracy.
-
Originally posted by EtherShock
Interesting Aldo, I didn't know the media over there was required by law to be impartial. ^.^ Here it's all about who you can convince to be on your side. The truth went out the window long ago. Journalism today is a farce.
Yup, it is. I was slightly incorrect in saying that, though; the TV is legally required to be balanced (and i think the radio), but the print media (newspapers) isn't and indeed is frequently biased.
Ofcom observes radio & tv media fairness; it was them that, for example, censured Fox for biased criticism of the BBC without offering a chance for rebuttal, and for presenting an opinion based upon false evidence. (http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/prog_cb/pcb_11/upheld_cases?a=87101).
IMO the system works fairly well, although there was and is some concern about Ofcoms creation (it merged 5 or so previous bodies) as it's feared part of the governments stated purpose in it was to open up the TV media, and this could lead to a US style system of multiple biased sources lacking fair treatment and coverage.
-
Rictor you're making some pretty basless assumptions
Assumption 1: You assume that i think Bush&Co are capable of doing the job right and removing the corruption - i abso****inglutely do not and that's part of the current problem: the fact they're im power
Assumption 2: You're as naive as you accuse me of being if you assume every politician is a corrupt fount of cronyism -- some politicians are honest and we need to learn to elect them instead of the guy who is "christian", "good looking", "a small town guy" [born with a silver spoon in his mouth]
Assumption 3: that no Administration could do it right and make things better -- this is a patently false assumption.
-
OK, who would you get to do the job? Setting aside for a minute that I don't think the "job" should be done in the first place, that I don't agree with it and those who are doing it, who would you pick? You think that the Democrats would be any less corrupt? You think they would care for the fate of Average Ali in a Baghdad suburb? That's just partisan bias, with no grounding in fact.
Even assuming that some perfect white knight were to be elected tommorow, it's still pretty far fetched. The fact is, counter-insurgency is a very bloody thing. In order to make a dent, you would need to be far more brutal than the US is willing to be (thank God for that). You won't even acknowledge that the Iraqis are your enemies. How can you fight against them if you're trying to murder them on the one hand, and trying to play nice on the other. Either you want what's best for Iraq, in which case the US should go home, or you want what's best for America, in which case you need a Saddam-like character in power, someone who can kill with impunity. In case you haven't noticed, the insurgency isn't going away. They're willing to die and kill in whatever numbers are necessary. It's not like if you just keep doing what you're doing, they'll eventually give up.
Read this:
http://www.alternet.org/story/23851/
Originally posted by Kazan
Assumption 2: You're as naive as you accuse me of being if you assume every politician is a corrupt fount of cronyism -- some politicians are honest and we need to learn to elect them instead of the guy who is "christian", "good looking", "a small town guy" [born with a silver spoon in his mouth]
Alright, name one Prez in recent memory who has been a nice guy, one who genuinely cares for something other than power or wealth? Just name one.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
OK, who would you get to do the job?
I don't have a name in mind right now, because nobody is in a position to change who's in charge, unfortunately, so I haven't been looking for someone anymore.
I think Kerry MAY have been able to do SOME GOOD.
Originally posted by Rictor
Setting aside for a minute that I don't think the "job" should be done in the first place
So you don't think we should clean up our own ****ing mess - we ****ed that country up really bad and you don't think we have a responsibility to try and set things straight and undo the damage we did?
Are you naive, or just completely misunderstanding what the **** I'm talking about and what my objectives are.
Originally posted by Rictor
that I don't agree with it and those who are doing it, who would you pick?
I don't agree with the war having been started, and I don't agree with they way it's carried out - but once you have completely destroyed the economy and infrastructure of a country you CANNOT just let it sit there and rot and no expect to not fight another war there within 20 years
Originally posted by Rictor
You think that the Democrats would be any less corrupt?
I don't think - it's pretty well established that the democrats ARE less corrupt as a whole. Personally I think the democrats are only "better" they're definantly not "perfect"
Originally posted by Rictor
You think they would care for the fate of Average Ali in a Baghdad suburb?
It may be difficulty for you to fathom - BUT SOME DO.
Originally posted by Rictor
That's just partisan bias, with no grounding in fact.
The same can be said of your naive tripe that you post on a daily basis in political threads. You are so against "the established parties" that you cannot possibly fathom that some people in both of them honestly hold the traditional values of that party. Some [probably many] Democrats really do care about the good of the people - some [not many in congress, but probably many at the state level] republicans really believe in the traditional "small government/fiscal responsibility" platform.
You think you're really insightful rictor, but YOU'RE NOT - you're not some origional voice of reason - you're just another person in the angsty-teenage-wannabie-philosophical stage of life and to boot you don't have a tenth of the intelligence to back up your mouth.
Originally posted by Rictor
Even assuming that some perfect white knight were to be elected tommorow, it's still pretty far fetched. The fact is, counter-insurgency is a very bloody thing. In order to make a dent, you would need to be far more brutal than the US is willing to be (thank God for that).
WRONG - counter insurgancy is easy if you cut off the insurgent groups ability to recruit by protecting and reestablishing infrastructure throughout the country
Originally posted by Rictor
You won't even acknowledge that the Iraqis are your enemies.
The Iraqis are not Some Iraqis are - there is a difference
Alright, name one Prez in recent memory who has been a nice guy, one who genuinely cares for something other than power or wealth? Just name one.
Clinton was the closest you would get to that - nobody makes it to that position without caring for power: but you can care for power without being a tyrant, and you can be wealthy without being selfish.
You are just too naive to understand these things!
[Edit]
Rictor - i'm placing you on ignore - you have NEVER said anything insightful since you registered on this board and talking to you is a waste of keystrokes - you are just as ignorant as liberator, just ignorant in a different way
-
Thanks sweetheart. Coming from you, that means alot.
-
When you consider what the job of President of the United States pays...then you cease to wonder about why you get the type of people you do in the White House, and why they fall over themselves for a million or so in donations.
-
It is worth pointing out that a certain administration used and exploited practically the entire country after 9/11.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
what about schiavo other than the fact she was in a PVS
Terry Schiavo was used as a pawn by the politicians and the media. I was just citing her as an example of exploitation.
Originally posted by aldo_14
Yup, it is. I was slightly incorrect in saying that, though; the TV is legally required to be balanced (and i think the radio), but the print media (newspapers) isn't and indeed is frequently biased.
Ofcom observes radio & tv media fairness; it was them that, for example, censured Fox for biased criticism of the BBC without offering a chance for rebuttal, and for presenting an opinion based upon false evidence. (http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/prog_cb/pcb_11/upheld_cases?a=87101).
IMO the system works fairly well, although there was and is some concern about Ofcoms creation (it merged 5 or so previous bodies) as it's feared part of the governments stated purpose in it was to open up the TV media, and this could lead to a US style system of multiple biased sources lacking fair treatment and coverage.
Ah OK, cause I noticed some articles I've read that have been linked here from British media are biased.
We used to have something here in the US called the Fairness Doctrine, which required that you had to present a counterpoint on your programming for issues that were controversial or of public interest, but that was thrown out during Regan's term, and that's why people can say whatever they want to the degree of verbal diarrhea now.
Originally posted by Kazan
Assumption 2: You're as naive as you accuse me of being if you assume every politician is a corrupt fount of cronyism -- some politicians are honest and we need to learn to elect them instead of the guy who is "christian", "good looking", "a small town guy" [born with a silver spoon in his mouth]
I didn't think he was good looking. ^_^ But yeah, those are excuses for people voting for their party not a candidate they think is fit for the job. The whole country would crumble if an independent won a state. We can't expect politicians to be perfectly honest though, regardless of what they stand for. Even if one was, he or she would still wind up lying and pissing off people somehow.
-
EtherShock: yeah no politician tells the truth 100% of the time, no human tells the truth 100% of the time.
but unlike in Rictor's naive rants not every politician is a self-serving power-hungry corruption-monger
-
Originally posted by Kazan
cindy sheehan may be a moron - but she came to protest then the politicians and the media attached to her
the anti-sheehan [lady wit 3 sons and a husband in iraq] was latched onto by the politicians and brought to the media
little difference
on a side note: sheehan is an idiot - instant withdrawl = stupid, doesn't know difference between conventional weapons [DU] and nuclear weapons
PST: NEVER EVER link drudge - 80% of the stories he posts are from unreliable, unconfirmable sources and 100% of his stories are biased.
I wasn't using the drudgereport to argue or prove anything other that these two women are being manipulated. At the time it was the only source availiable.
Also, I am not trying to say that one situation is better than the other. But that these woman are being manipulated and honestly are in it way about their head.
And yes, Cindy Shehan is an idiot. She is also IMO is having a nervous breakdown over her sons death. Which is totally understandable. I also heard her state that pulling out of Iraq and stopping the support of Israel would stop terrorism.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
I also heard her state that pulling out of Iraq and stopping the support of Israel would stop terrorism.
which is why i consider her an idiot
stopping supporting israel would probably help [they can support themselves just fine] and putting iraq back togeather since we smashed it would help - simply pulling out won't.
My problem with the iraqi war is A) we shouldn't be there in the first place, but since we're there already B) we should be handling it correctly and we're not
-
Originally posted by EtherShock
Ah OK, cause I noticed some articles I've read that have been linked here from British media are biased.
We have some blindingly awful newspapers, tis true. Some of which are owned by Rupert Murdoch, oddly enough.