> Unfortunately,
> most people I see think that just because they exist, their opinions should
> be heard.
LOL, Xavier - good points! Thanks for your post.
- Dave Cook
uwe
--
mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox)
Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/
Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E)
GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61
cheers,
uwe
--
mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox)
Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/
Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E)
GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61
I'll be the first in line to join you. The only problem is, all the people
who split to start a new country on an island will end up needing rules and
policies and will have to create some sort of government (depends on the
size of the island, though), so we will be back to square one... :-)
so are you, aren't you? So is almost everybody, in fact.
Picking out the things that you like and leaving out the things you
don't like is not tough at all.
JoH
But picking out the common facts to form your own conclusions from two
biased viewpoints is very tough. One of the best ways of learning is to
listen to an argument about something and decide for yourself which
viewpoint you believe in.
> > One of the guys at "The Pits" has plans to become *** rich, he's
> > young :-), and if he does he's going to buy himself a small island to
> > live on far away from politics and other stupid stuff, sounds like a
> > plan to me and I'm prepared to chip in with whatever I've got....:-)
> I'll be the first in line to join you. The only problem is, all the people
> who split to start a new country on an island will end up needing rules and
> policies and will have to create some sort of government (depends on the
> size of the island, though), so we will be back to square one... :-)
Beers and cheers
(uncle) Goy
"goyl at nettx dot no"
"The Pits" http://www.racesimcentral.net/
"A man is only as old as the woman he feels"
--Groucho Marx--
Pete
>>I cant help but ask what the annual US education budget is ? Especially
>>knowing that the US government spends one *billion* dollars a *day* for
>>its army. That is five dollars a day per inhabitant (children included),
>>or in other words defence spendings from a single day could buy every US
>>school-aged kid a luxury world atlas.
> But most of them wouldn't read it.
Mmmh... Switzerland ? Admittedly a small army but one of the strongest
education system in the world and very high living standards (and it is
older than the US of A, BTW). It also seems to me that Japan has been
more successful globally since parting from its imperial army.
Talking about empires... its military power did not prevent the Roman
empire to decline in decadence, quite the opposite I think.
Regards,
Xavier.
> Goy, they have banned guns here but not the ammunition!
> I just wish they would design it better to work with sling shots. :-)
Beers and cheers
(uncle) Goy
"goyl at nettx dot no"
"The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/
"A man is only as old as the woman he feels"
--Groucho Marx--
Kennedy won that election in popular vote. It was close (a few
hundred thousand as I recall?) but he still won.
The elect***college and popular vote never differed in the 20th
century. I can't remember all of the votes from the 19th century, but
I think there may have been one where they disagreed. I'd have to
check, tho.
Also, I assume you're implying I'm a Democrat by using the phrase "you
guys"? I'm a registered member of a party, actually, but it's not the
Democrats, Greens, or Reform.
Jason
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
>Yes I am.
>> >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.
>> Picking out the things that you like and leaving out the things you
>> don't like is not tough at all.
>But picking out the common facts to form your own conclusions from two
>biased viewpoints is very tough. One of the best ways of learning is to
>listen to an argument about something and decide for yourself which
>viewpoint you believe in.
Think about it: let's say something happens between two people, or
groups of people, or nations or whatever.
You have ONE objective fact, the event that took place.
Then you have at least two points of view of what happened, that will
most likely be totally opposite.
You also have a background to what happened, who knows how far it goes
back, and again there will be at least two points of view.
(most of the time, you have no clue of this background, or get fed
just (biased) parts of it, BTW)
If you're lucky (?), the event makes it into the news. Whether it
does, depends certainly not only on its 'real' importance (which
contains a judgement already) but on other aspects like "do we have
moving images?", "was there a reporter close enough?", "does the
country have oil?", "is it a former colony?", "do the people resemble
our skincolor/religion/language enough to feel empathy?", "is the
subject popular atm?", "did Michael Jackson show his face again so we
can broadcast that instead?"
When it makes the news, you see an interpretation of the previous by
the staff of TV news.
Next, if you think you're smart, you then try to filter out the things
YOU think were biased. This of course requires you to be able to
accurately analyse how exactly the news twisted the report. But this
is based on the ideas you already had about in which way they are
biased, and on your own preoccupations about what happened.
Face it: it's all useless and you're deluding yourself if you think
you can make sense of it, period. I wouldn't trust my own opinion and
judgement for a second.
JoH
> > > > Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2167515.stm
> > > > (not exactly a communist news network, I think)
> > > Currently a socialist one, as Labour are in power. An anti-American
one,
> > > too.
> > Tony B's "New" Labour are most definately NOT socialist, their change
> > heavily to the right was the only way they could get in power ;)
> 'New' Labour's swing to the right indeed was the only way to get in power,
> but once the achieved it, they returned (slowly) to their usual stance.
Protests brought the country to a halt, although I'll give you the fact that
the hikes caused the protests :)
This is one issue I won't comment on, as I myself have not decided whether
the "I, The driver" wants cheaper fuel more than "I, The Environmentalist"
wants to keep vehicles of the roads ;)
Or perhaps they could have refrained from their own 40% pay rise last year,
Ironically recommended by the same research group that suggested 40k for the
firefighters.
One reason I'll continue voting LD until they become an effective opposition
;)
Now this I have to challenge, I would agree that the country is split
between the pro and anti-american camps, but my experience is that the
anti-american is no more prevelant than the pro's, one thing that often does
lead, IMO, to this perceived anti-americanism being more numerous is the
fact that neutrals who question or debate about Americas actions/policies
are often immediately painted with the anti tag for having the cheek to
question such a great and wonderous nation :)
Strange that many Americans I know personally see this differently, and
equate mainstream US-based news reporting as borderline propaganda, and
prefer the BBC for it's more impartial stance, personally I question
EVERYTHING I read/see/hear from the media regardless of locality as likely
to be spoonfed propaganda by one source or another.
Damn straight! One thing I can agree with 100%.
Vennt.