go bush!
"Their's not to make reply,
Their's not to reason why,
Their's but to do and die."
i read in a newspaper the other day "family proud of son killed in iraq". i was like-waw! that's the first time i've seen that-that deserves a front page slot!
the war mgiht have been for money. i don't know. you don't know. however, both the british and american leaders have both been reinstated...*shrugs*-that says something to me...
Originally posted by shavixmirThose bastards want to take over Australia now?😛
And let's not forget to vote: "NEE" in the referendum in Holland today! We really don't need the multi-nationals and the European commission (who are NOT an elected body) calling the shots in the most civilised and social part of the world!!!!
Originally posted by dk3nnywhat, you mean that them doing their job right, you know being the voice of their people etc, isn't good? well-it mgihtn't be good for others, but hey-i voted lib dem!
It says something to me too, and its not good..
(yeah-that's right, i voted! i can vote! they let me vote! dumbasses...)
Originally posted by geniusDoing their job right?
what, you mean that them doing their job right, you know being the voice of their people etc, isn't good? well-it mgihtn't be good for others, but hey-i voted lib dem!
(yeah-that's right, i voted! i can vote! they let me vote! dumbasses...)
Without going through the whole tired argument again, i just think its sad that they both got elected again after the lies they told to start a war were there for everyone to see.
Either people don't see or they don't care. Thats whats sad imho.
Originally posted by shavixmirHa! "Nee"! What a silly language!
May he rot in hell for the rest of eternity!
And let's not forget to vote: "NEE" in the referendum in Holland today! We really don't need the multi-nationals and the European commission (who are NOT an elected body) calling the shots in the most civilised and social part of the world!!!!
Ha! "most civilised and social part of the world"! Holland- what a silly country!
Founding members that you are - you should be ashamed of yourselves.
Here's something you could legalise:
[b][i]Pride in good old Europe!
😏
2 edits
Originally posted by dk3nnylook-the war mgiht have been started over oil. i don't know. but we have 2 sources of information. source one is the biased press. source 2 is the biased goverment. the government is obviously not going to say it was wrong, while most of the press sem to find it their duty to topple the government whatever it may be.
Doing their job right?
Without going through the whole tired argument again, i just think its sad that they both got elected again after the lies they told to start a war were there for everyone to see.
Either people don't see or they don't care. Thats whats sad imho.
and yes, they are doing their job right. for, what is their job if it's not to please their people? do you really think bush would have been re-elected if he's sat down after the twin towers had been struck and said, "well, what can you do? what's been done has been done! we can build another couple of towers if you want, i'm not bothered..." and had a nice cup of coffee with mr powel?
i'm not saying what they did was morally right, meerly that they did their job. do you think gore would not have done the same as bush?
Originally posted by geniusWell maybe if Bush had continued to do what he started in Afganistan, namely take out the taleban and get Osama then i'd have a bit more respect for him..
look-the war mgiht have been started over oil. i don't know. but we have 2 sources of information. source one is the biased press. source 2 is the biased goverment. the government is obviously not going to say it was wrong, while most of the press sem to find it their duty to topple the government whatever it may be.
and yes, they are doing their job righ ...[text shortened]... y right, meerly that they did their job. do you think gore would not have done the same as bush?
Instead he left Osama running around and outsourced his killing to Pakistan while he started another war. Taking out the taleban was a great act, however he left the country in ruins and did nothing to stop the massive heroin export that has flurished since, mainly cos its run by their allies, the so called northern alliance.
And theres plenty of good news sources out there and plenty of good authors.. Its just a case of wanting to find out more and doing a little digging.
Originally posted by dk3nnyyes, some press isn't biased - but most is. to be perfectly honest, we aren't going to find out the proper truth until a good 10 or 15 years down the line. heck, the records won't be released from the british goverenment for just short of 40 years! if ever...
Well maybe if Bush had continued to do what he started in Afganistan, namely take out the taleban and get Osama then i'd have a bit more respect for him..
Instead he left Osama running around and outsourced his killing to Pakistan while he started another war. Taking out the taleban was a great act, however he left the country in ruins and did nothing to ...[text shortened]... plenty of good authors.. Its just a case of wanting to find out more and doing a little digging.
heroine was a major problem with afghanistan even before the war, and in iraq more shiite (i can't spell...) people died, on average, each year than have died each year in the war. so, if less people die when there's a war on...
but then again, china executed the most amount of people in 2004. it was soomewhere in the region of 2400. but that was meerly an estimate, it is beleived to be more than that.
america only came second with around 350...
i don't know. i study maths, not IR...
2 edits
Originally posted by geniusIt's not so much that the press is directly biased or that it deliberately sets out to manipulate its audience.
yes, some press isn't biased - but most is. to be perfectly honest, we aren't going to find out the proper truth until a good 10 or 15 years down the line. heck, the records won't be released from the british goverenment for just short of ...[text shortened]... cond with around 350...
i don't know. i study maths, not IR...
It's the fact that newspapers, for example, make their money from advertising revenue. Some advertisers will not want to be associated with a newspaper that is overtly controversial since they have a definitive conception of what their brand represents.
This type of influence, in a covert way, monitors and regulates the output of the media. Okay, I accept sometimes we are victims of spin and there are deliberate attempts to sway our opinions. But the most insidious influence is this corporate-economic hegemonic influence, precisely because the extent of the influence cannot really be determined.
However, the most biased variable in the equation is the reader. We, ourselves, are the most prolific censor. The thoughts and ideas that we shut out everyday is remarkable; and like the influence of corporate elites in our media we can never know the extent to which we are censoring our own thoughts.
Originally posted by demonseedvery well said.. rec'd
It's not so much that the press is directly biased or that it deliberately sets out to manipulate its audience.
It's the fact that newspapers, for example, make their money from advertising revenue. Some advertisers will not want to be associated with a newspaper that is overtly controversial since they have a definitive conception of what their brand ...[text shortened]... ate elites in our media we can never know the extent to which we are censoring our own thoughts.
Originally posted by dk3nny
Well maybe if Bush had continued to do what he started in Afganistan, namely take out the taleban and get Osama then i'd have a bit more respect for him..
Instead he left Osama running around and outsourced his killing to Pakistan ...
You're complaining about "outsourcing" the killing to Pakistan?
I thought you libs kept saying that Bush's problem is that he was "going it alone." And now you complain if other countries get involved? Wish you all would make up your minds!