[Zeronet]

Lol, nice to see how some people brought up the war and their heavily slanted version of events, with the exaagerations etc that come with such views.

Incidently, i used to read the Independant, right up until around April of last year, when it just became so pathetically biased, i decided i just couldnt hack reading it. I really do hate the media, its all biased, most people think what the stupid channel/paper or whatever tells them to. I think the BBC is about the only reliable source i can get these days, everything else is either too far right or too far left.

[an0n]

Freedom is an illusion created by the rules your parents and society impose on you.

It works on the principle that if someone can't do something, you tell them they don't want to do it until they stop wanting to do it. From then on, they believe they're not doing it because they've chosen not to.

[Flipside]

Were the media in it simply to 'report' the truth, it'd be fine, but they don't give a damn about truth, or accuracy, or even the knock-on effects of their own stories, that's just a chance for a 'follow-up' report. All the Media cares about is money, and that means telling stories that sell papers.

[egon]

i've seen that some of you get irate at bumping of old thread so apologies in advance to those who this will distress but i was searching for comparison pics and came across this which seemed an intersting subject.

was jada libelous?

possibly to bush he was.
i'm no expert on libel law but accusing someone of a crime with no conclusive proof is probably libelous based on my understanding of the word.
now jada ain't the first person to offer the opinion that bush was involved in letting 911 happen.
i personally don't think that he was complicit in letting it happen (though i don't doubt that he capitalised on it for his own ends) but should people be allowed to speculate on these things?
i think that they have to be.
i am not overly familiar with american history, how did the whole nixon watergate thing come out?
didn't someone at some point, against the tide of popular opinion, say "the president is involved in wrongdoing"?

for you republicans who just don't like the anti bush sentiment think back to clinton, i'm sure that a lot of you thought it was acceptable  to question and investigate as to whether he commited anything improper.

being president shouldn't place you above suspicion.
now before the notion that bush would let 911 happen is dismissed as completely implausible bear in mind that throughout history politicians have always performed underhand deeds and sent people to their death if they thought it would achieve what they wanted.
whether or not you think bush DID let it happen (and again, i dont think he did) doesn't mean that it is out of the realm of possibility that a politician would do such a thing.
i mean after all him and blair did start the iraq war.
whether or not you think the war was justified, they undoubtedly knew people would die and decided it was a price they would pay to achieve their goals, we can't pretend that these are people  who would never dream of letting people die to achieve a "greater" plan.


as far as the halle berry comment i'm pretty sure he never called her a slut ( i haven't heard the song in a while)
he put forward the idea that her sex scene with billy bob and the accompanying racial elements of the film helped her to win an oscar.

this isnt at all an unheard of notion to put forward.
in fact just on saturday an article in the guardian alluded to it.
the oscars are often said to reward actors for playing ugly or ill.

it isn't anything new or shocking at all to suggest that performance isn't the prime criteria for winning an oscar

[Kosh]

Originally posted by Night Hammer
Jadakiss is one of my favorites, but he crossed the line with that song, if he doesnt like how Bush runs things he can get the **** out, that goes for the rest of those damned liberals too.

I would expect such hate from a Texas republican.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Rictor




Yeah, I hardly ever hear them say things like "cheerio old chap" or "God save the Queen".

But seriously, why do you see them as a foreign paper? If its regarding their political/whatever views, they're not that much different than The Guardian. And don't tell me the Guardian ain't British..

Ooh...never replied to this. I should explain.

It's simple - the national newspapers focus on English, and mainly London, issues.  It's understandable - that's servicing the vast majority of the readership - but I prefer to actually have news which affects me.  I.e. Scotland.

International news will always be in the papers, yes?  But the local stuff, i.e. close to home, will vary based on the paper.  The 'big' British newspapers have always felt to me to be very London (not just Anglo) centric, so I prefer to read Scottish newspapers.  The Herald, mainly.  

And also I read the sports pages.

Remember - I'm Scottish, not British.  There's a world of difference there.

[PeachE]

Originally posted by Rictor
They should do a "Morality Alert" like the terror alert thing.

Blue -  Everything is under control. Proper Christian values are being observed.
Green - A few bad apples here and there, but the FCC is dealing with those radicals.
Yellow - The liberal media is indoctrinating our kids, teaching them promiscuity and violence.
Orange - Howard Stern is on the loose. Kids are getting upity. South Park is on every Tuesday.
Red - All hell has broken loose. Marylin Manson is probably holding a concert somewhere.
Hot Pink - Reserved for Pride Day and Armageddon. Battlestations! Get out your Bibles and chastity belts, this means war!

meh - the censorship comes from both sides, just on different issues. the right wants to censor language and sexual content. but it's the left that leads the fight against violence in the media. it was the left that came out protesting the Matrix and Fight Club as ultra-violent. hell, for a while, Lieberman was leading the fight against violence in video games.

it depends on the issues, but they're all idiots in some way, shape or form. and there's only one way it should be: freedom of speech. anything goes. period.

Originally posted by Lonestar
You can have your hitleristic views, heck your republican country is heading towards naziism anyhow its not a wonder you say what you say. Its interesting to finally see the truth come out of republicans.

{sarcasm}
Lets ban peanut butter. It kills more then Marijuana does yearly, it should be considered a terrorist act to even possess the stuff! ROFL

{/sarcasm}

... and you're just an asshat.

[vyper]

**** me this is an old thread.

Anyway, nice mature argument there PeachE

I'll say it again on the main topic: read the orange text in my sig.

[PeachE]

Edit: meh

[.::Tin Can::.]

If the public doesnt ***** about the lyrics, then why do they ***** about the Vietnam Vets saying John Kerry is lying?

[jdjtcagle]

[.::Tin Can::.]

Because the media is liberal and hates to see their star candidate fall so easily at truth, not lies.

[jdjtcagle]

Bah, the whole world is full of lies... get over it...

The media is a big source of it, too.  I don't care anymore, this bickering is getting nowhere, we are not in that free of a country (which can be good at times), so what...

[.::Tin Can::.]

Tell that to everyone else here and they may chew your head off since they have a real problem with ANYTHING being restricted...

For me, I dont care really. I am living happily at the moment.

[phreak]

Originally posted by Bobboau
was this the guy who sudgested kicking pregnant women in the gut was a good idea in his song?

i know what bob is talking about, but the name of the band is anal cnt and it won't let me post a link since it censors it

pm me for a link

[.::Tin Can::.]

"Not Found"