Mitch
David G Fisher
> > > > Source: http://www.racesimcentral.net/
> > > > (not exactly a communist news network, I think)
> > > Currently a socialist one, as Labour are in power. An anti-American
one,
> > > too.
> Most of the population of England are fundamentally anti-American. I don't
> know why. Maybe it is a thing passed on from generation to generation
since
> 1776, maybe it is our traitorous shift in policy over Israel which the US
> didn't reflect, maybe it is the fall of the British Empire, started by the
> American War of Independence, to be replaced by America (the ultimate
> kick-while-your down), maybe it is a whole bunch of things. But it is
> impossible to get any independent reporting of American news in the UK,
> because all news reports are tinged with anti-Americanisms. You don't
really
> notice them until you start watching American news shows. I'm not saying
> that American news services are not biased, but when you have seen news
> reports from an American (or even better, an independent) viewpoint, then
> you watch the BBC reports, you can see the subtle twisting of context away
> from the American side of things.
> For example, that incident where the Americans accidentally bombed
> friendlies in Afghanistan, left everybody I know saying how stupid
Americans
> are, etc etc. Like when they changed the name of the Harry Potter film
from
> The Philosophers Stone to The Sorcerers Stone for the American audience,
it
> prompted comments of 'Americans are so stupid, they can't understand words
> with 4 syllables', etc.
> The only things that can influence a ***agers' outlook on certain issues
> (before they learn, if ever, to find out for themselves) are parental
> influences and media influences. Influences from friends are pretty
> non-existant on things like this, because nobody this age is knowledgable
> enough to sway everybody else. Parental influences are different for each
> individual, but everybody sees the same thing on TV, and so TV conditions
> each individual (mostly in a partially subliminal way over many years) by
> adding certain leanings to reports in order to sway the masses.
> Having close connections to the education system, especially the A-Level
> fiasco perpetrated by Labour trying to fix things which simply weren't
> broken, and seeing exactly how far off the mark all the reporting was on
the
> subject by all the news services, I have finally come to realise that if
> they can be that wrong on something as widespread and fundamental as that,
> then what evidence is there that any other reporting has more basis in
fact
> or neutral comment? Everytime somebody asked me about the A-Level problem,
I
> ended up in arguments, because I was telling these people what was
actually
> happening, and what the situation was, and they were telling me I was
wrong
> because that's not what they heard on BBC. It is so infuriating.
> It's something we have to live with. All news reporting is biased, you
just
> need to read/see enough and pick out the common facts to form your own
> conclusions - something which is a lot harder to do than it is to say.
Steve
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12391626&metho...
siteid=50143
Didn't say it was only an American problem.
Read before you reply please.
iksteh
I agree, but not all countries preach that they are "self sufficient"
when they are not.
iksteh
What I was getting at, though, is what happens when a current affairs issue
comes up in conversation, where there are people who support one or the
other viewpoint. When they discuss (not argue) their personal opinions, and
you observe, you can get a good feel for the underlying situation and by
listening to one persons' defences against anothers' challenges can be very
informative. I guess I am one of the lucky people who, if I am in an
argument about something and I am proved wrong, I will hold my hands up and
say 'okay, I was wrong, thanx for pointing out the errors of my ways'...
> > Lol, no kidding. Bush is being more big government Democrat than the
Dems
> >themselves.
> It's honestly scary IMHO how many stereotypes for the parties seem
> backwards.
> For instance, there is the big/small government debate, where the
> Democrats (at least on the surface) appeared to be making some
> progress with reducing the size of the executive branch, at least,
> while the Republicans regularly increase funding for defense and are
> (with support, of course) creating an entirely new bloated executive
> department.
> Another example is war mongering. Without a question, people seem to
> see Republicans as war mongerers, and Democrats as liberal wimps.
> Yet, which party started the most conflicts in the 20th century? If
> Clinton or***were in office, I truly believe that Afghanistan would
> have been hit with a serious strike force rather than combed with spec
> ops. Aside from matters with Iraq, you've got Roosevelt, Kennedy,
> Johnson, etc all sticking our military in places where it didn't
> belong. Not what you expect from the stereotypes.
> Maybe Bush can be the breakthrough in this area. I just hope we don't
> run out of places to bomb before his only term ends. =)
> > p.s. If you really believe Clinton's claim of a surplus, I got a bridge
to
> >sell ya :)
> I haven't seen the books, honestly. Both parties claimed a surplus
> (it was the Republican House/Senate who drafted the budget, after all)
> so I assumed that there was one.
> Jason
John
> >Hmm, wasn't Kennedy shot partly because he wanted the troops to pull
> >out of 'Nam? At least that's Oliver Stone's view...
> Never saw the movie, altho I love hokey *** theories so it's
> high on the list. =)
> I could have sworn that Gulf of Tonkin happened during Johnson's term,
> but that the Chiefs of Staff had been planning military action in
> Vietnam during Kennedy's presidency. Something I'd have to research.
> Jason
John
> > Well, fwiw, it IS what he did as President,(sex stuff ? who cares) and
> >what he represents, that I can't stand :)
> There are things about him that disgust me, including essentially
> defrauding the voters in 92 by supporting NAFTA after he said he
> wouldn't (that is one of the wimpiest things I can think of any
> President doing, even the Wimp-In-Chief's wimpy father), but what
> specifically don't *you* like? I'm just generally curious, that's
> all.
> The main thing that disgusts me is that his support of big business
> was nearly as bad as Reagan or either Bush. There's also using
> military strikes (the Sudan incident, in particular, was well timed)
> to try and deflect attention from his sex scandals.
> Jason
Since you asked, and thanks for doing so......... :) I didn't like his
catering to the UN/world opinion. I didn't like his Sec. of State for the
same reasons. His using the Armed Forces as a world police force, including
in the Balkans. His complete lack of meaningfull response to the numerous
terrorist actions under his watch. This was a copy of the German reaction
to the lack of a British/French response to Germany's pre-war aggressions;
"Why not try X event; they won't do anything but talk rhetoric " At the
same time, the same can be said about Reagan after the Marines in Beirut.
The same reaction to Iraq's actions under his watch, including the lack of
reaction when Iraq booted the inspectors out, the ongoing hostile actions
against American/British aircraft, disregarding sanctions, etc. Equal
responsibility for that rests with the UN too though imo, who along with
their precursor, The League of Nations, is a joke, and always has been.
I didn't like his social agenda; the vaunted "Welfare changed as we know
it" didn't happen, it became more bloated. But then, for me, that would be
to completely eliminate it, so that'd be hard to please :)
Anyway, I think both parties have good points and bad. Clinton
represented the bad parts of the Democratic party imo, the far, elitist,
left. The only thing I dislike equally with that group, is the far,
Christian coalition right :)
Both dangerous imo.
John
> I agree, but not all countries preach that they are "self sufficient"
> when they are not.
> iksteh
John
".....poll was carried out at the self-proclaimed centre of the world -
Times Square on Broadway."
The people who elected Hillary Clinton also can't find Iraq. What a
surprise.
"Drag queens Kristal Snow and Hagatha Christie, from the Lower East Side,
were equally sure.....pointing at Norway."
Now there's a fine representation of the country.
All joking aside, it's certainly sad. I wouldn't feel so bad if they would
have, at least, pointed out a country in the Middle East.
That was Persia, not the current states of Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and
Pakistan.
Sure... built when the climate was a lot more agreeable and it was still
nice to live there.
Now these ancient monuments (made out of rock, BTW), just sit in sand, in
crushing heat. I know who built them, where they are and I suppose I could
go and visit them if I really wanted to, but I find it a lot easier to just
watch a National Geographic movie about them. That way I can have a beer
while watching, for example.
You're paying the taxes that fund your school system and you vote for the
people who set the policy on education, not me.
That said, I'm pretty sure there'd be more people than one would care to
acknowledge over here who wouldn't have a clue where Iraq is either. If it
hadn't been in the news so much over the past decade, I'm not sure my guess
would even be approximately correct. Take a relatively low profile country
like Cameroun.. can you describe where it's situated without looking it up
first? I tried this on myself and was about 1200miles out.
Jan.
=---
>>ops. Aside from matters with Iraq, you've got Roosevelt, Kennedy,
>>Johnson, etc all sticking our military in places where it didn't
>>belong. Not what you expect from the stereotypes.
> Hmm, wasn't Kennedy shot partly because he wanted the troops to pull
> out of 'Nam? At least that's Oliver Stone's view...
--
Fester
There is a better way, for the enlightened.
http://www.racun.tk/
That was James Ellroy's view in American Tabloid....cracking read, if a
little '***y' :-)))
