Can the democrats change the US foreign policy?

[achilles]

Ever since George W. Bush was elected, i ve been hearing nothing but arguments against his government and him personally, both at the personal and political level. The most 'hot' issue surrounding him is, of course, his foreign policy. Will or can anything change if Kerry takes office? Have we been witnessing Bush's policy or just the usual American foreign policy presented and applied in a radical, perhaps disrespectful, manner?

Assuming Kerry wins, my impression is that only the image of the government will change (which will be good whatsoever) but not its 'neo-realist' essence and aims.

[FallenAngel]

depends. To those people who are informed and know how Clinton dropped the ball regarding terrorism, anything resembling a change and/or decrease in the foriegn policy will be seen as Democrats being cowardly again.

Course....the vast majority of the American people are more concerned about their gas prices and PC.

[cut]

Achilles, how old are you? or perhaps more to the point how long have you followed politics? If you're my age you won't remember Bush1 or Reagan or any other president before them. But they were criticised by the world media aswell, Clinton wasn't so much but then Clinton was very popular in the States and abroad. G. W. Bush is much more disagreeable, most people outside the states that had heard of him, disliked him before he was elected, and dislike him more and more since then.

My guess is that Kerry like the majority of american presidents will be criticiesd perhaps not as much Bush(2) but more then Clinton.

[scott]

Ever since George W. Bush was elected, i ve been hearing nothing but arguments against his government and him personally, both at the personal and political level. The most 'hot' issue surrounding him is, of course, his foreign policy. Will or can anything change if Kerry takes office? Have we been witnessing Bush's policy or just the usual American foreign policy presented and applied in a radical, perhaps disrespectful, manner?

Assuming Kerry wins, my impression is that only the image of the government will change (which will be good whatsoever) but not its 'neo-realist' essence and aims.

Hooray, you mentioned an IR theory
I'd almost figured the discipline was dead and forgotten in these strange times.
As for your question, I believe JK will keep true to his stated goals in FoPo. All he really has to do shape and lead, rather than the controller approach of the neo-realists (see Charles Maynes "Contending Schools" for the controller/shaper theory). For example, yes the force in Iraq will have to stay, but decisions and upgrades can be worked in a more multilateral/int cooperative way. The same can be said for the GWOT, it of course can't just stop, but every decision from the point of JK's election would be less unilateral than under GWB's term. Therefore coalition building and int cooperation would keep another say.. Iraq debaucle from happening again.

At least... thats the plan

[Mark Sman]

GWB is disliked abroad and in part at home because he is portrayed as dislikeable. People believe what they are told to believe. Agitprop has been particularly effective against him, and his admin hasn't learned how to counter.

Kerry hasn't got any spirit. If he gets elected he is going to be one lost puppy on foreign policy. He will be portrayed in a more sympathetic light, but his policies will either be the exact same things we are doing now, or a total freaking disaster if they are his own ideas.

If Kerry gets lucky he might end up with a good Secretary of State. And that would save him alot of hassles. But if he gets another version of Madeline Albright he is in deep trouble.

[n4292936]

depends. To those people who are informed and know how Clinton dropped the ball regarding terrorism, anything resembling a change and/or decrease in the foriegn policy will be seen as Democrats being cowardly again.

Course....the vast majority of the American people are more concerned about their gas prices and PC.
lets rephrase that first sentence to "To those people who are informed and know how Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, and Bush Jr. during the first 1.5 years dropped the ball regarding terrorism". The inept handling of the terrorist issue trancends the terms of several presidential administrations. I think we may be making the mistake of judging history through the lense of current events. Just as Dubya could not have possibly predicted 9-11 and therefore went on historical evidence regarding his pre-911 estimates of terrorism's threat to national security, so too did Clinton and Reagan see the issue as not requiring the highest prioritisation. It's not that they all f**ked up, the point is that they weren't soothsayers and had no reason to not retaliate disproportionatly. Just as we do not condemn Dubya's pre-911 record on terrorism, so must we not misjudge his predecessors records. Mind you, I'm a detractor of every administrations handling of terrorism since its inception so Im happy to go along with the accusation that they were all ineffectual numnuts who either kowtowed or made a half assed show of swatting at flys.

[Tane Angle]

Will we stop fighting terrorism? No, of course not. Will they do everything by the UN's orders? No, President Clinton (and yes, he was still the President of the United States, the same as President Bush ;) ) certainly didn't have much history of that, nor did other Democrats.

Will we pull out of Iraq? No, of course not as well. We can't, we spilled the glass of milk and now we have to clean it up, simple as that. We would be creating another early 90s Afghanistan if we just left now.

We shall see what he changes if Senator Kerry is elected, I suppose.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[Pooga]

we spilled the glass of milk and now we have to clean it up, simple as that.

More like slipped in it and know have to get up and clean it up.


*Stop looking at me like I'm crazy!* :D

[achilles]

Ever since George W. Bush was elected, i ve been hearing nothing but arguments against his government and him personally, both at the personal and political level. The most 'hot' issue surrounding him is, of course, his foreign policy. Will or can anything change if Kerry takes office? Have we been witnessing Bush's policy or just the usual American foreign policy presented and applied in a radical, perhaps disrespectful, manner?

Assuming Kerry wins, my impression is that only the image of the government will change (which will be good whatsoever) but not its 'neo-realist' essence and aims.

Hooray, you mentioned an IR theory
I'd almost figured the discipline was dead and forgotten in these strange times.
As for your question, I believe JK will keep true to his stated goals in FoPo. All he really has to do shape and lead, rather than the controller approach of the neo-realists (see Charles Maynes "Contending Schools" for the controller/shaper theory). For example, yes the force in Iraq will have to stay, but decisions and upgrades can be worked in a more multilateral/int cooperative way. The same can be said for the GWOT, it of course can't just stop, but every decision from the point of JK's election would be less unilateral than under GWB's term. Therefore coalition building and int cooperation would keep another say.. Iraq debaucle from happening again.

At least... thats the plan
Now that was an enjoyable reply, no kidding. Succinct, to the point and it even included reading references/suggestions!
Yes it seems that JK is inclined to follow a more moderete approach overall in theory, and hopefully, in practice. Scott, you leave me no choice...i agree

[cut]

GWB is disliked abroad and in part at home because he is portrayed as dislikeable. People believe what they are told to believe. Agitprop has been particularly effective against him, and his admin hasn't learned how to counter.


People aren't a gullible as you think they are, especially foreigners. Many people countries outside the US banned capital punishment a long time ago, the fact that anyone can be such a fervent supporter and become "leader of the free world" is unacceptable. This is not because the rest of the world is more left-wing, the conservative party in Britain is against it despite it's close ties with the republican party.

[Mark Sman]

People are gullible. Especially ones that think they aren't.

What does the death penalty have to do with the Democrats and foreign policy? Or did you want to change the subject?

[cut]

People are gullible. Especially ones that think they aren't.

What does the death penalty have to do with the Democrats and foreign policy? Or did you want to change the subject?

nah I didn't intend to change the subject but the thread was started with more then one question.

People are gullible in general but I people individually are not. On the theme of general gullibility, I see no reason why forigners or Americans who dislike Bush should be any more misled then those who voted him in.

[Pooga]

I see no reason why forigners or Americans who dislike Bush should be any more misled then those who voted him in.

:cantbeli:

[Mark Sman]

, I see no reason why forigners or Americans who dislike Bush should be any more misled then those who voted him in.

Not saying they are. As a matter of fact, you're statment seemed to indicate somrthing along those lines.


People aren't a gullible as you think they are, especially foreigners. In other words: That some group of people out there is less gullible than another. Which is funny, and could get you hired on Madisson Ave., just for having the balls to say it with a straight face.

What I'm saying is that a significant amount of propoganda has been levelled against GWB and his admin hasn't figured out a good way to handle it. Thats all.

There is pro-GWB propoganda of course. But opposing agitprop is not the responisibility of the native propoganda department. Its more of like a counter-intell thing. Finding ways to reshape the oppositions own propoganda issues.

addendum: GWB's little bro is much better at this sort of action.

[Deuterium]

Grammar Police reporting.....


Of course the Democrats CAN change the foreign policy. The correct question should be, WILL the Democrats change the foreign policy.

[Tane Angle]

It's not just that President Bush is portrayed as a poor President; he is a poor President (in my humble opinion).

Also, the death penalty actually has quite a lot to do with foreign policy, as does gay marriage-we lose credibility with the EU in general because of those two domestic policies, especially the death penalty. We also lose credibility specifically when we say things like "Operation Iraqi Freedom" when our President is attempting to deny a rather large percent (10% by some estimates) of the US population equal rights. Please, let's not turn this into another gay marriage or death penalty thread, I'm simply stating that there is a credibility link between domestic policy and foreign policy. Another example might be Libya's poor human rights record domestically, and how it thus has little credibility as the head of the UN Human Rights Council. Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[Mark Sman]

Grammar Police reporting.....


Of course the Democrats CAN change the foreign policy. The correct question should be, WILL the Democrats change the foreign policy.

Semantics Infernal Affairs reporting.....

Maybe the Democrats CAN'T change the foreign policy.

Don't even make me call the Solipist Words And Temporists team to determine what the correct question may or may not have been, or be going to be.

[achilles]

Grammar Police reporting.....


Of course the Democrats CAN change the foreign policy. The correct question should be, WILL the Democrats change the foreign policy.

I am glad we got the grammar police around here....questions can always be improved can they? Let me ask this......SHOULD the democrats change the foreign policy?

[Pooga]

It's not just that President Bush is portrayed as a poor President; he is a poor President (in my humble opinion).

Grrrrrrrrr growwwl!

[usa320]

The question here isnt rather or not the democrats will change US Foreign policy.

The real issue here is the outcome of any changes they may make to US Foreign policy.

[Tane Angle]

Sit p-)

[Pooga]

Heh.

[cut]

, I see no reason why forigners or Americans who dislike Bush should be any more misled then those who voted him in.

Not saying they are. As a matter of fact, you're statment seemed to indicate somrthing along those lines.

Purely intentional, I assure you.


People aren't a gullible as you think they are, especially foreigners. In other words: That some group of people out there is less gullible than another. Which is funny, and could get you hired on Madisson Ave., just for having the balls to say it with a straight face.

What I'm saying is that a significant amount of propoganda has been levelled against GWB and his admin hasn't figured out a good way to handle it. Thats all.

There is pro-GWB propoganda of course. But opposing agitprop is not the responisibility of the native propoganda department. Its more of like a counter-intell thing. Finding ways to reshape the oppositions own propoganda issues.

addendum: GWB's little bro is much better at this sort of action.[/quote]

no I wasn't suggesting foreigners were less gullible then americans, rather that foreigners are less gullible then a lot of people, on this forum in particular and the american right in general, think.

What do you mean by agitprop?

[Mark Sman]

agitprop

You use a small amount of aimed propoganda to agitate for a larger action. Hopefully the intial propaganda and the latter action aren't even commonally associated. Short for agitation propaganda.

You agitate a group to do what you want. In other words, if you want a group to come out against someone, you agitate them about that person. Then let them run under their own steam without having to expose your own initial propoganda to criticism.

The original meaning came from a Soviet era bureau, but that meaning is not usually attached to the term now.

People commonally misues the term in reference to a mass media campaign, but agitprop is much more focused.

[cut]

Sounds kind of abstract, is documented or conspiricy theory(-ish)?

[Mark Sman]

Just a term for a type of propoganda.

Like: Direct Marketing.

Not really a conspiracy theory, more a way to sell BS. But like I said, people misuse the term anymore.

[Mark Sman]

I wonder where and when the idea that the American Right is more gullible than foreigners was planted in your mind.

[cut]

I wonder where and when the idea that the American Right is more gullible than foreigners was planted in your mind.

1. I never said that
2. You misunderstood what I wrote
3. I corrected you
4. You misunderstand it again..

Are you going to go back and read it or do you want me to explain it for you again?

[Mark Sman]

rather that foreigners are less gullible then a lot of people, on this forum in particular and the american right in general, think.

Pretty easy when you type thing like that, hmmm.

[Mark Sman]

Please write more clearly.

You did not "correct" me, except maybe in your own mind.

We are having a discussion, you are not teaching a class.


Are you going to go back and read it or do you want me to explain it for you again?

Back off the sarcasm. Considering what you wrote is what I called it almost word for word.

Perhaps you need your own writing explained to you.

[cut]

Please write more clearly.

You did not "correct" me, except maybe in your own mind.

We are having a discussion, you are not teaching a class.


Are you going to go back and read it or do you want me to explain it for you again?

Back off the sarcasm. Considering what you wrote is what I called it almost word for word.

Perhaps you need your own writing explained to you.

What makes you think I'm trying to teach a class? I understood what I wrote even when you cut the first part off.

But if I am confusing you or get annoyed it's because I'm writing something else at the same time, and it's 4am.

[Mark Sman]

Is English your first language?

Also quick question.

Do you think foreigners are less gullible than the American right in general?

[cut]

Is English your first language?

Also quick question.

Do you think foreigners are less gullible than the American right in general?

Yes english is my first language, is it yours?

Simply this time: I honestly believe that any group of people is just as gullible as any other.

In other words people from anywhere would have been just as ****e to propaganda as the germans in Nazi Germany or the russians in the Soviet Union.

[Mark Sman]

OK, that was unclear from your previous posts which stated almost the opposite. Thats why I asked.

[hank]

Yes english is my first language, is it yours?

Simply this time: I honestly believe that any group of people is just as gullible as any other.

In other words people from anywhere would have been just as ****e to propaganda as the germans in Nazi Germany or the russians in the Soviet Union.

You are right. The only way people can recognize propogande is if the notice that another group's propogande is different than theirs and then also realize that those people believe theirs as just ass fervently. I was about 17 when I figured that out and I've never been the same since. That is why these threads are kind of silly. I voted fo Bush, but that does not believe that I think he is perfect or even very good. But the fact that he is imperfect does not make everything he does awful.

Clinton was the same wawy. I strongly disliek him becuase he made a mockery of the Presidency, but he was not evil incarnate as many among the right would have us believe. Question everything and believe only those things that are logical to you and it will all work out.

hank

[Pooga]

I understood what I wrote even when you cut the first part off.

SDHJKjkasdbjvadfbnjkadbadb.!!111

That means "My father came here to this land three score years ago, with naught by a plow and his donkey."

I understood it.

*back to sleep*

[achilles]

Simply this time: I honestly believe that any group of people is just as gullible as any other.

i totally agree with this statement which is almost self-evident anyway. The thing about american people-without making any distinction between 'left and right' is that they are subject to more intense propaganda compared to, say, most european countries. That makes them more sensitive-and not personally gullible by any means- to bias.
I d say that sensitivity refers to people with relatively low level of education , democrat or republican fanatics, people who have a clientilist relationship with political parties and finally chauvinists, who have this strong feeling of 'exceptionalism' in the sense that America has always been here to make the calls, rule the world or even save it from times to times. The rest of the people are as gullible and sensitive to propaganda as anyone in Japan, Uganda, Surinam or Germany. Lets not make this a right-left or foreigners-non foreigners discussion.

[KB]

Bush has damaged America's relations with the rest of the world worse than I ever thought they could get, but we're in the middle of a shaking out period in the aftermath of the Cold War that poses fundamental foreign policy challenges for the US, regardless of which party is in office.
A few points to consider:

GWOT is a given. Just doubt we will be making any more unilateral decisions to invade Middle Eastern nations any time soon.

NATO's purpose and future? Not sure the US is needed nor wanted in Europe anymore. No point in over staying its welcome (and investing finite resources in it) if this is the case.

UN's purpose and future? The world needs it, but its not going to get better without the US doing its part. Its time to reform the UN and give greater representation on Security Council to nations like India and Brazil. The US has to work and help make it more relevant and useful.

China? Forget tensions with Taiwan: China's economy is growing by leaps and bounds. Hundreds of thousands of new cars go onto Chinese streets every month. What impact will this have on world wide petroleum supplies and prices? China is becoming the #1 nation to invest in. How much longer can the US rely on foreign investors to fund our deficits?

US relations with Latin America. Unprecedented numbers of immigrants entering the US from south of the border. The US can't keep absorbing millions of unskilled laborers indefinitely. It needs to focus on helping those nations with debt relief where needed and political reforms so they can offer more opportunities for their citizens.

Hopefully the next President can interact more effectively and diplomatically with the rest of the world than the arrogance and ham- handedness that has marked the last 3 years.

[Pooga]

Bush has damaged America's relations with the rest of the world
Yeah, severely damaged relations with countries like Poland, Bulgaria, Latvia, Estonia, Ecuador, Honduras, Japan, Australia, Britain and Pakistan, to name a few.

:roll:

[cut]

Bush has damaged America's relations with the rest of the world
Yeah, severely damaged relations with countries like Poland, Bulgaria, Latvia, Estonia, Ecuador, Honduras, Japan, Australia, Britain and Pakistan, to name a few.

:roll:

Bush has done a lot of damage to the US in terms of foreign relations including in Britain, and I'm sure other other coalition countries are the same.

[Pooga]

Trading in Germany, Russia, and France for others. Fine by me. People call these other nations "worthless," but how are they not better than the three aforementioned (hate that word)?

[duck]

Bush has damaged America's relations with the rest of the world
Yeah, severely damaged relations with countries like Poland, Bulgaria, Latvia, Estonia, Ecuador, Honduras, Japan, Australia, Britain and Pakistan, to name a few.

:roll:

This from the American Chamber of Commerce in Japan website. Mr.Fingleton is a veteran hack of FT and Forbes fame.

"Eamonn Fingleton Bucks Conventional Wisdom on Japan and the U.S.

On December 9, author, commentator, and economist Eamonn Fingleton stimulated an ACCJ audience by challenging the conventional wisdom on U.S. and Japanese geopolitical economic affairs. He predicted the implosion of American power, and talked about the largely unrecognized strength of Japan's economy and its future growth.
Fingleton stated that the tremendous weakness of the US economy is in part due to the severe hollowing-out of industry and the continuous widening of trade deficits with Japan, China, and other east Asian countries. He maintains that the U.S. economy is so structurally deficient that even a weak dollar position--which normally gives domestic producers an edge in both domestic and international markets--is no longer a factor in stimulating the economy because the U.S. simply can no longer produce the goods needed to fill domestic demand let alone exports. Moreover, as military power is closely linked to economic power, he maintains that U.S. military strength and dominance will decline as the U.S. can no longer finance its own wars, which is now evidenced by major donations Japan is being asked to pay for the war and peacekeeping in Iraq and the number of U.S. treasury bonds being sold to Japan and China to finance the growing U.S. debt. Fingleton went so far as to say that the U.S. will eventually end up in the same situation as Argentina. One of the possible precipitating factors that will lead to America's implosion is likely to be a steep increase in oil prices that may result in part from China's increasing need for oil.

Regarding Japan, he believes that the so-called lost decade and talk about the deeply troubled economy is not a correct representation of Japan's situation and is mainly a successful play by the Japanese government to avoid U.S. trade pressure. At the same time, while the Japanese government's public position on China is somewhat negative and it seems that the two governments are often at odds, he maintains that the governments are actually getting along well. Japan has in fact been improving relations and laying a foundation for a long-term cooperation with China, as evidenced by the significant increase in the Japanese acceptance of Chinese imports, as well as Japanese aid to China, technology transfers, and increased Japanese construction contracts to build China's infrastructure. Fingleton's conviction about the strength of Japan's geo-economic position is so strong that he called downtown Tokyo real estate an excellent investment."

[BlackRain]

Any country that does not support the death penalty by jury system of peers and the right to bear arms is barbaric. :D

[Pooga]

EAMONN FINGLETON ROCKS!!!

http://www.unsustainable.org/graphics/ef_large.jpg
http://www.japaninc.net/images/june2003/jun03_p03c_150x200.jpg


Don't you just hate it when other people make fun of your sources?

Listen, that's nice that Mr. Fingleton likes Japan. But his guess is as good as any other financial guru. He could be a whistleblower or a Mooreon (yes, lame pun).

[cut]

Any country that does not support the death penalty by jury system of peers and the right to bear arms is barbaric. :D

So what about those that do? What are they? You know the likes of the US, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Lybia, Syria, etc...

You're in the wrong club.. ;)

[Nawlins]

rather that foreigners are less gullible then a lot of people, on this forum in particular and the american right in general, think.

Pretty easy when you type thing like that, hmmm.

Just to throw my two cents in, I think the kind of problem you're talking about has alot less to do with being gullible than it does with simply being absolutely convinced that the ideology of your social/political group is correct and all others are wrong. More people suffer from this than from simply being gullible.

[cut]

rather that foreigners are less gullible then a lot of people, on this forum in particular and the american right in general, think.

Pretty easy when you type thing like that, hmmm.

Just to throw my two cents in, I think the kind of problem you're talking about has alot less to do with being gullible than it does with simply being absolutely convinced that the ideology of your social/political group is correct and all others are wrong. More people suffer from this than from simply being gullible.

I agree, how would you fit that in this context though? Do you think everyone is ****e to that to the same extent or some more then other etc..?

[Nawlins]

rather that foreigners are less gullible then a lot of people, on this forum in particular and the american right in general, think.

Pretty easy when you type thing like that, hmmm.

Just to throw my two cents in, I think the kind of problem you're talking about has alot less to do with being gullible than it does with simply being absolutely convinced that the ideology of your social/political group is correct and all others are wrong. More people suffer from this than from simply being gullible.

I agree, how would you fit that in this context though? Do you think everyone is ****e to that to the same extent or some more then other etc..?

Well, I think that everyone is ****e to closed-minded thinking to pretty much the same extent... it's just that some people handle (overcome) it better than others. And I'm talking about individuals, not groups. I've seen liberals who were just as closed-minded and convinced of the correctness of their own opinions as any conservative, so I'm definitely not going in that direction.

It depends on how willing you are to hear the other side, and many people are not. We've all seen that here, when people start threads about hot issues... they never go anywhere, because everyone knows that their own opinions are correct. And that kind of behavior really has nothing to do with being gullible, although it can look the same from the outside.

[BlackRain]

Any country that does not support the death penalty by jury system of peers and the right to bear arms is barbaric. :D

So what about those that do? What are they? You know the likes of the US, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Lybia, Syria, etc...

You're in the wrong club.. ;)


Yeah, but we enjoy the perks! Come on over to the dark side.

LUKE SKYWALKER (Cut): I am your father....

[Pooga]

I think Nawlins hit it on the head and broke the hammer.

(broke the hammer? what the heck, who is this guy? :lol: )

[cut]

Any country that does not support the death penalty by jury system of peers and the right to bear arms is barbaric. :D

So what about those that do? What are they? You know the likes of the US, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Lybia, Syria, etc...

You're in the wrong club.. ;)


Yeah, but we enjoy the perks! Come on over to the dark side.

LUKE SKYWALKER (Cut): I am your father....

I have to kill you then?

[Pooga]

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!

[BlackRain]

I have to kill you then?

No Luke, I have a worker's compensation injury inflicted by my boss.

Palpatine was scheduled to arrive at the second Death Star. The Emperor foresaw that Skywalker would come before the two, and then they would seduce young Luke to the dark side, just as Anakin had been drawn to its power decades earlier.

When Luke surrendered, and was taken before the Emperor, Palpatine pitted father and son in a lightsaber duel. Skywalker refused to fight and give into the temptation of the dark side. Vader, probing his mind, learned of his daughter, Leia Organa. He threatened to turn her to the dark side. At this threat, Luke gave into his hatred and attacked his father. In the ferocious assault that followed, young Skywalker nearly killed Vader. Horrified by what he had become, Luke abandoned his new found dark side rage, and refused Palpatine's offers of power. "I am a Jedi, like my father before me," Skywalker proudly claimed.

Palpatine unleashed a deadly barrage of dark side energy on the young Jedi. Lightning bolts spawned from pure evil tore into Luke's body with searing pain. Vader stood helplessly, watching his son writhe in agony from torture delivered by his master. Unable to watch anymore, Vader turned against his master. He grabbed a surprised Palpatine from behind, hoisted him above his head, and tossed his evil master down a bottomless reactor shaft. Vader was bombarded by the Emperor's Force lightning, mortally wounding him.

As he lay dying, Vader ceased to be. Anakin Skywalker returned. He asked his son to remove the cumbersome, fearsome mask that had concealed his face for decades. His mask and life support removed, Anakin looked upon Luke for the first and last time. He then died, his body disappearing into the light side of the Force. Luke burned the dark armor that had encased Anakin's crippled body in a quiet funeral pyre on the forest moon of Endor that night.

[Pooga]

See, that's what I thought but I never really liked Star Wars, so I figgered I could be wrong. Then I'd be laughed at and stuff would be thrown at me and it'd be a mess.

[ibstolidude]

i totally agree with this statement which is almost self-evident anyway. The thing about american people-without making any distinction between 'left and right' is that they are subject to more intense propaganda compared to, say, most european countries. - Hi I'm your credibility -
http://rds.yahoo.com/S=96062883/K=toilet/v=2/l=IVS/*-http://www.highfashion.org.uk/homestyle/renovation/images/toilet.jpeg

subject to more intense propoganda :roll: shoudl we even list the number of European "new magazines" and other sources? - Ohh that is right they are only propoganda when they are counter to your claims.

[achilles]

[quote=achilles]i totally agree with this statement which is almost self-evident anyway. The thing about american people-without making any distinction between 'left and right' is that they are subject to more intense propaganda compared to, say, most european countries. - Hi I'm your credibility -
http://rds.yahoo.com/S=96062883/K=toilet/v=2/l=IVS/*-http://www.highfashion.org.uk/homestyle/renovation/images/toilet.jpeg

subject to more intense propoganda :roll: shoudl we even list the number of European "new magazines" and other sources? - Ohh that is right they are only propoganda when they are counter to your claims.[/quote

One nice laugh i had with your toilet pic...when it comes to bull***t you can be very innovative. Anyway it was fun...

You are welcome to come up with any lists you like. I insist in my previous statement. USA is notorious for its lack of quality mass media. Check out for example the prime-time news in France, Germany, Greece or Spain (just a few examples-dont check it in the UK though...) and then compare it to the American prime-time news. I dont want cause any bias...just check it out for youself and lets talk about it again.

US...the country with one of the strictest film-censoring schemes in the world. Each and every film is heavily scrutinized before released. Moore's film was almost banned a while ago am i right? i was surprised to see it released eventually...no matter how good or bad it is.

And your final comment was a blast...i mean....you really got me. You prooved your point while at the same time completely refuted mine...'its propaganda only when they are counter to my claims...', i ll take that as a bad joke...no hard feelings dude.

[Pooga]

USA is notorious for its lack of quality mass media.
Y'know, I've been wanting to ask this for a loooong time. What is wrong with Fox News' reporting? If you say "Paaah! It's biased," I will kill you slowly (whooooa ease off the trigger, mods, that was said with a comical crazy face).


Check out for example the prime-time news in France, Germany, Greece or Spain and then compare it to the American prime-time news.
No no no, it's ok, you can tell me! What's different? I wanna hear!


US...the country with one of the strictest film-censoring schemes in the world. Each and every film is heavily scrutinized before released.
Bull puckey. Weekend at Bernie's II should have NEVER EVER been allowed to lurk the dark corners of video rental stores. And yet it was.


Toodles.
p-)

[achilles]

USA is notorious for its lack of quality mass media.
Y'know, I've been wanting to ask this for a loooong time. What is wrong with Fox News' reporting? If you say "Paaah! It's biased," I will kill you slowly (whooooa ease off the trigger, mods, that was said with a comical crazy face).


Check out for example the prime-time news in France, Germany, Greece or Spain and then compare it to the American prime-time news.
No no no, it's ok, you can tell me! What's different? I wanna hear!


US...the country with one of the strictest film-censoring schemes in the world. Each and every film is heavily scrutinized before released.
Bull puckey. Weekend at Bernie's II should have NEVER EVER been allowed to lurk the dark corners of video rental stores. And yet it was.


Toodles.
p-)

I think i ll just go with a quick painless death so i ll explain. ;)

Lets take the example of the war in Iraq:
USA news: almost absolute lack of reports/pictures/videos on Iraqi victims. Complete focus on American victims and nothing more....makes sense but its only part of the picture.
Say, Greek news: reporting number of victims from both sides and usually showing pictures or videos, tough-to-watch ones most of the times, of the dead in both sides. From my experience, the quality of the news is more or less the same in France, Portugal, Germany and to a lesser extent in Spain and Italy. UK news? i would count on them....

In general, news i have watched in the US try to create an IMPRESSION rather than cover and report the events. I am not saying by any means that the European coverage is unbiased but its much closer to what is called 'reporting' instead of 'opinion making'...

Shoot...

[Nawlins]

I think i ll just go with a quick painless death so i ll explain. ;)

Lets take the example of the war in Iraq:
USA news: almost absolute lack of reports/pictures/videos on Iraqi victims. Complete focus on American victims and nothing more....makes sense but its only part of the picture.
Say, Greek news: reporting number of victims from both sides and usually showing pictures or videos, tough-to-watch ones most of the times, of the dead in both sides. From my experience, the quality of the news is more or less the same in France, Portugal, Germany and to a lesser extent in Spain and Italy. UK news? i would count on them....

In general, news i have watched in the US try to create an IMPRESSION rather than cover and report the events. I am not saying by any means that the European coverage is unbiased but its much closer to what is called 'reporting' instead of 'opinion making'...

Shoot...

First of all... you've got your causes backwards. The news media reports what happens, sure, but they're always going to skew it toward what the people want to see and hear, because all TV in America (don't know how it works anywhere else) is a ratings game. If they showed videos/pictures that were as you said tough-to-watch (particularly violent or disturbing, especially during prime time), people would turn it off. It's sad but true... we can't blame it totally on the media, they're showing us what we want to see. I'm not sure to what extent that is true in the rest of the world, but it probably is somewhat.

Of course American news will be biased in favor of American casualties... people want to know what's going on with their friends/family/fellow citizens, that only makes sense. The news media is first and foremost a business, and it makes good business sense to report what people want to see/hear. We don't have government run or public news... so you're always going to get that kind of skewing.

The one good thing is that with the Internet and the availability of so many news sources, if people really want to hear all sides, they can.

[BadKarma26]

If you want quality news your going to have to read something. All the news you see on television is crap.

[achilles]

I think i ll just go with a quick painless death so i ll explain. ;)

Lets take the example of the war in Iraq:
USA news: almost absolute lack of reports/pictures/videos on Iraqi victims. Complete focus on American victims and nothing more....makes sense but its only part of the picture.
Say, Greek news: reporting number of victims from both sides and usually showing pictures or videos, tough-to-watch ones most of the times, of the dead in both sides. From my experience, the quality of the news is more or less the same in France, Portugal, Germany and to a lesser extent in Spain and Italy. UK news? i would count on them....

In general, news i have watched in the US try to create an IMPRESSION rather than cover and report the events. I am not saying by any means that the European coverage is unbiased but its much closer to what is called 'reporting' instead of 'opinion making'...

Shoot...

First of all... you've got your causes backwards. The news media reports what happens, sure, but they're always going to skew it toward what the people want to see and hear, because all TV in America (don't know how it works anywhere else) is a ratings game. If they showed videos/pictures that were as you said tough-to-watch (particularly violent or disturbing, especially during prime time), people would turn it off. It's sad but true... we can't blame it totally on the media, I'm not sure to what extent that is true in the rest of the world, but it probably is somewhat.

Of course American news will be biased in favor of American casualties... people want to know what's going on with their friends/family/fellow citizens, that only makes sense. The news media is first and foremost a business, and it makes good business sense to report what people want to see/hear. We don't have government run or public news... so you're always going to get that kind of skewing.

The one good thing is that with the Internet and the availability of so many news sources, if people really want to hear all sides, they can.

First of all a correction...when i spoke of UK news i meant i WOULDNT count on them...just to be precise...
Well my friend i dont have my causes backwards and you definitely cannot claim that since your have only watched american TV. Dont jump into conclusions without having checked foreign news for yourself. There are quite a few decent channels that i came across all over Europe. Examples: Canal+, Rai Uno, Alpha, and many others which slip my mind right now.
Its all about ratings i agree...but it seems there are some networks that can sustain decent ratings combined with a decent quality in their news...

People worry about their families etc? I absolutely agree with you but there is a vast number of americans and non-americans who would be really interested to see whats going on on both sides. Its not fair is it?

On your argument of 'switching channels when scenes are tough'...just the opposite...i think two things are the most attractive or interesting for people to watch nowadays ( at least the majority)...*** and violence so perhaps some more violence would increase the ratings. In the case of showing dead Iraqi civilians however, it would probably reduce the support towards the war so it is not an option...i insist...they are trying to formulate opinions and create false impressions. All i am saying is that the extent of this sort of propagande is greater in the US...Europe has more decent and objective news but by NO means flawless....

About your internet comment...true but the main means of mass communications is the TV. Its what really influences large chunks of people...
well....
you said it my man...."they're showing us what we want to see..."

[achilles]

[quote="BadKarma26"]If you want quality news your going to have to read something. All the news you see on television is crap.[/qu

No doubt reading is the best way to stay well-informed. News is basically crap but can be decent in some cases.

[Nawlins]

Well my friend i dont have my causes backwards and you definitely cannot claim that since your have only watched american TV. Dont jump into conclusions without having checked foreign news for yourself.

I was only talking about American news sources... I even said in my last post that I didn't claim to know how it was in the rest of the world. My point was that you're blaming the news media, when the people watching are also to blame, because for the most part it's catered to what they want.

Sure, maybe *** and violence sell to adults... but during prime time news, I assure you, if there was *** and violence on the television, American families wouldn't be happy about it. People might get a little peeved about their children seeing dead bodies and the like.

[khukuri]

I agree with achilles. I also watch international news. Everything from fox-aljazeera to the sedish state tv. American-europian and arab networks.

And on everychannel i see something differently biased. The best channels ive seen is the europian ones.

When it comes ot arab media it differs from channel to channels. State tv:s like lybia are almost like a comedi show while televions like alarabia and aljazeera shows from several different perspectives.

Believe me or not, i see aljazeera and alarabia showing the news from more perpectives than for example fox tv.

[Pooga]

Dearest Achilles (is that French A-SHEEL or the good ole Greek way?),

Elaborating a wee bit on Nawlins's point: American news agencies are going to focus more on American casualties. I guarantee you that if Greece was at war with Equatorial Guinea, Greek news agencies would focus in on their own casualties rather than Equatorial Guinea's.

Also, are you talking about reporting enemy casualties or civilian casualties, and are you talking about during the war or during peacekeeping (peacefetching)? I hear all the time about how car bombs go off in Iraq and x police officers and x bystanders were killed. They show some of the less gratuitous hospital scenes; you are never going to see the actual carnage and horror up close and you are never going to know their names—but you don't with American casualties either (unless if they were captured or executed). So it's not that in-depth for either "sides."

Now maybe I'm retarded, but I can only detect about 17 µL of bias in Fox's reporting. Sure, if I don't have a life that evening and I watch O'Reilly Factor or something EXTREMELY EXCITING like that, I'm going to get a more conservative point of view. But that's not reporting. It's an editorial. I guarantee you the "political talk-shows" in Portugal are biased some way. I can't check that because I don't even get out-of-country channels except the occasional obituary for a Palestinian suicide bomber (don't even remember what channel that is or why I have it…it's talking about how he left behind a 3 year-old son and it's got a picture of the father taking aim with his assault rifle on the hood of a car) and the BBC. [/u]

[duck]

EAMONN FINGLETON ROCKS!!!

http://www.unsustainable.org/graphics/ef_large.jpg
http://www.japaninc.net/images/june2003/jun03_p03c_150x200.jpg


Don't you just hate it when other people make fun of your sources?

Listen, that's nice that Mr. Fingleton likes Japan. But his guess is as good as any other financial guru. He could be a whistleblower or a Mooreon (yes, lame pun).

Let's get back to this. No, why should I? He rocks indeed. Btw, what is your opinion on this pro-American and pro-market "guru's" statement? Is the US too dependend on Asian capital or not?

[Pooga]

I don't really have an opinion because, believe it or not, I've never heard of anybody with a last name of Fingleton. I've heard of a Finkbeiner and a Humperdink, but no Fingleton.

I'm sure the US is dependent on lots of things. Toooooo dependent on radios and cars and toys? Dunno about that. p-)

Teehee!

[duck]

How old are you, pooga?

[Pooga]

89. You?

[duck]

Beyond HS and college. Enjoy your school years while you can.

[Pooga]

Enjoy retirement while you can.

[duck]

Depends on those Chinese and Japanese institutional investors. If they pull the plug, I can't. ;)

[Pooga]

Sorry, that retirement thing was messed up.

Anyhoo…

[ibstolidude]

US...the country with one of the strictest film-censoring schemes in the world. Each and every film is heavily scrutinized before released. Moore's film was almost banned a while ago am i right? i was surprised to see it released eventually...no matter how good or bad it is.
My response lies in your own text - please elaborate the above. It appears that the US media totally blacked this out; please post about how this movie was almost banned in America by "the strictest film-censoring schemes."

Here is the chance to proove your credability and the worth of your news sources.

[achilles]

US...the country with one of the strictest film-censoring schemes in the world. Each and every film is heavily scrutinized before released. Moore's film was almost banned a while ago am i right? i was surprised to see it released eventually...no matter how good or bad it is.
My response lies in your own text - please elaborate the above. It appears that the US media totally blacked this out; please post about how this movie was almost banned in America by "the strictest film-censoring schemes."

Here is the chance to proove your credability and the worth of your news sources.

You could check this link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3817993.stm

I hope BBC is credible enough for you. Believe me i can find quite a few more internet sources talking about censoring and especially attempts to ban the specific film, but please dont ask me to waste my time like that. Just click 9/11 on any search engine.... The whole censoring thing is based on the idea that 9/11 is neither a documentary nor a film but its merely a worthless piece of propaganda against the current government. (A few more details on who could be behind the banning movement can be found in the above link.)
I say it is as much propaganda as Bush's and his spokesmen's everyday briefings regarding the war on terror, Iraq and Afghanistan. It is no more propaganda than what Bush and Tony blair have been doing, claiming that the existence of WMD in Iraq is a 'fact' and its a matter of time for their troops to find them.
The bottom line is that even TALKING about banning a film, a book, an article or whatever is tragic. Trying to shut people's mouths and hide opinions is anything but democratic. I have already posted my view of Farhenheit 9/11 and it doesnt even matter if it is true or not, good or bad. Even if we assume that the democrats have financed it, its still a point of view which is no less propagandistic than the claims of the Bush administration. Its a voice that must be heard no matter what.
By the way...the film that large groups in the US are trying to stop has won this year's prize in Cannes...just in case you doubt that check the following link:

http://www.worldpress.org/Americas/1863.cfm

You can claim that giving the prize to '9/11' was just Europe's way to express its opossition to the Bush administration and its choices. Yet, this does not discount the organization's status and credibility. By the way...the president of the cannes committee is Quentin Tarantino...an American...


The following link is not to proove anything...i think its just a small piece of interesting, if not objective, opinions based on sound argumentation.

http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/Media/USA.asp

Wanna know more about 'freedom of speech' and 'media censoring' in the US? If you havent done so already, read Chomsky. I dont care if Chomsky is left or right, anarchist or fascist or the devil himself. All i care about is his writings which are based on strictly logical grounds supported by, at least, serious sources. As oppossed to the now and then claims of the Bush or any Bush administration.

Bottom line? There is an issue with media control in the US...Do you see any differences in the coverage of, say, the war in Iraq among TV channels?. Has anyone ever seriously criticised the american foreign policy prime time? More or less you hear the same things everywhere. The only exceptions are some newspapers and magazines.

Well, i guess i didnt proove anything and to be honest this is not my final goal...i suppose you could try and proove to me and everyone following this forum that censoring and media control is not an issue in the States and you might also want to proove that media are less controlled in the US than in Europe...

Take care

[achilles]

Dearest Achilles (is that French A-SHEEL or the good ole Greek way?),

Elaborating a wee bit on Nawlins's point: American news agencies are going to focus more on American casualties. I guarantee you that if Greece was at war with Equatorial Guinea, Greek news agencies would focus in on their own casualties rather than Equatorial Guinea's.

Also, are you talking about reporting enemy casualties or civilian casualties, and are you talking about during the war or during peacekeeping (peacefetching)? I hear all the time about how car bombs go off in Iraq and x police officers and x bystanders were killed. They show some of the less gratuitous hospital scenes; you are never going to see the actual carnage and horror up close and you are never going to know their names—but you don't with American casualties either (unless if they were captured or executed). So it's not that in-depth for either "sides."

Now maybe I'm retarded, but I can only detect about 17 µL of bias in Fox's reporting. Sure, if I don't have a life that evening and I watch O'Reilly Factor or something EXTREMELY EXCITING like that, I'm going to get a more conservative point of view. But that's not reporting. It's an editorial. I guarantee you the "political talk-shows" in Portugal are biased some way. I can't check that because I don't even get out-of-country channels except the occasional obituary for a Palestinian suicide bomber (don't even remember what channel that is or why I have it…it's talking about how he left behind a 3 year-old son and it's got a picture of the father taking aim with his assault rifle on the hood of a car) and the BBC. [/u]

Its Achilles the good old Greek way man! But i liked the frenchy 'A-sheel' version...so elegant!

As for your questions. You are focusing on details, which is great, but if we start analyzing every single channel or newspaper i am afraid we are gonna miss the point. Check my previous post-the response to 'ibstolidude'- and i am sure you ll see my point. All i am trying to say is that censoring and media control is a big issue in the US, as oppossed to Europe where things are comparatively better but NOT PERFECT.

And i dont doubt that there are good things to watch on US TV. I am afraid this is the exception rather than the rule. Anyway i hope i made my points clear and managed to avoid a slow torturous death...

Oh...and...Greece at war with Equatorial Guinea? lol that was good...

[ibstolidude]

...There was no better way than the above to proove your bias then let you show them yourselves....

AGAIN please back up your very biased statement that the movie was almost banned in America by "the strictest film-censoring schemes."

Your own bias are a reflection of the media that you claim is unbiased - a FAIR AND IMPARTIAL news media would have made available the information that there are really only 2 bodies with any relation to the release of films (apart from the film companies themselves):
1 The MPAA
2 the FCC - NEITHER OF WHICH ENTERTAINED BANNING THE MOVIE.

So either your media has inaccurately portrayed some conservative group of a nature unrelated to any governing action regarding "allowing" the film to be viewed or they didn't and your own personal ignorance and biases made the leap. Which is it? I suggest you re-read you own article from the BBC -
letter-writing campaign, while Citizens United is making TV and internet adverts -
Despite the campaign by the two independent groups, US cinema chain Regal Entertainment Group said it intended to go ahead and screen the film as planned.


BESIDES your assumptions about my views on the topics you discussed that were un related to my question, besides your assumptions of were I LIVE and/or lived, besides you assumptions of what news sources I use, besides your assumptions of what I know and don't know - you still have failed to back up the claim you made that...please post about how this movie was almost banned in America by "the strictest film-censoring schemes."

[ibstolidude]

As for your questions. You are focusing on details, which is great, but if we start analyzing every single channel or newspaper i am afraid we are gonna miss the point. Check my previous post-the response to 'ibstolidude'- and i am sure you ll see my point. All i am trying to say is that censoring and media control is a big issue in the US, as oppossed to Europe where things are comparatively better but NOT PERFECT.
Your own biases blind you. Besides your assumptions about me (ignorant of the fact haveing lived in Europe or the ME/Afrika for half my life or the languages I STILL use for the collection of media) You are blind to the slants of your own media because they fuel the biases that you support; such is the nature of the human condition. The differences between you and I is that I admit such and recognize it - you choose to elevate yourself by telling me I don't get enough exposure to European media (nice assumption) and by putting down US (and UK) media. In the US Neo-con/Reps like Fox becuase it tells the story as they see it - therfore it has little bias. Libs/Dems like CNN or NYT because they tell the story as they see it - they notice little bias. US media tells the story as the US likes to see it - therefore there is little bias in their eye. French media tells it like the french see it - therefore the US media looks like propoganda and LeMonde looks like the most credible source in the world. Ofcourse the media that favors your veiw point appears "comparatively better". Your media looks no worse to Americans than theirs looks to you; the difference is that you "just know you are right"; as opposed to me who recognizes the diachotomy. My sense of dualism doesn't require two seperate things to be opposites nor needing to be seeking a superior. TO believe that French/German/ETC media doesn't "slant" to their perspective to the same extent of the average American station is an absolute JOKE.
Your previous statements about the Moore movie being almost (slightly short of; not quite; nearly) banned is a prime example. When in fact that in NO WAY is accurate; yet does however portray Americans in the manner which supports your epistemology / belief structure about Americans. I knew to what you refered the entire time - I also knew it was an incorrect and a BIASED belief.

For the next setup - Who runs/manages this "censoring and media control" in the US - Please explain what would prohibit a news outlet/media from reporting "item X" on this evenings news?

[Dennis G]

Ever since George W. Bush was elected, i ve been hearing nothing but arguments against his government and him personally, both at the personal and political level. The most 'hot' issue surrounding him is, of course, his foreign policy. Will or can anything change if Kerry takes office? Have we been witnessing Bush's policy or just the usual American foreign policy presented and applied in a radical, perhaps disrespectful, manner?

Assuming Kerry wins, my impression is that only the image of the government will change (which will be good whatsoever) but not its 'neo-realist' essence and aims.


Kerry has a world view that will prohibit him from taking any action, regardless of the provocation, without the blessing of the "world community", specifically the U.N. and Western Europe. The Tangos know this. He has essentially said this over and over again. Obviously, Kerry holds the military in even greater disdain than Clinton did. Therefore, within a short time he will have demoralized, eviscerated and "sissified" with P.C. the military to the point that it would be useless anyway, via what Carter did in four short years. Moreover, I would not put it past Kerry to seek the "assistance" of the U.N. within the United States itself. Given all he has said about "world community" and the U.N. why would one think otherwise.

Democrats, in general, are not willing or even able to stand on their own two feet believing that there should be a governmentally provided "safety net" for everyone at all times. This can't help but translate over to foreign policy. "Oh, gee, Mr's Annan and Chirac we really need your help, please, oh please, we just can't make it alone without a world governing body to prop us up and help us!" Heck, some of the "Dims" are already calling for "oversight" of the November elections!

Bush, on the other hand has stated that he will not bow to the pacifism of the "world community" in matters of defense of the United States and will pursue the WOT wherever and whenever necessary.

[achilles]

[quote=achilles]
As for your questions. You are focusing on details, which is great, but if we start analyzing every single channel or newspaper i am afraid we are gonna miss the point. Check my previous post-the response to 'ibstolidude'- and i am sure you ll see my point. All i am trying to say is that censoring and media control is a big issue in the US, as oppossed to Europe where things are comparatively better but NOT PERFECT.
Your own biases blind you. Besides your assumptions about me (ignorant of the fact haveing lived in Europe or the ME/Afrika for half my life or the languages I STILL use for the collection of media) You are blind to the slants of your own media because they fuel the biases that you support; such is the nature of the human condition. The differences between you and I is that I admit such and recognize it - you choose to elevate yourself by telling me I don't get enough exposure to European media (nice assumption) and by putting down US (and UK) media. In the US Neo-con/Reps like Fox becuase it tells the story as they see it - therfore it has little bias. Libs/Dems like CNN or NYT because they tell the story as they see it - they notice little bias. US media tells the story as the US likes to see it - therefore there is little bias in their eye. French media tells it like the french see it - therefore the US media looks like propoganda and LeMonde looks like the most credible source in the world. Ofcourse the media that favors your veiw point appears "comparatively better". Your media looks no worse to Americans than theirs looks to you; the difference is that you "just know you are right"; as opposed to me who recognizes the diachotomy. My sense of dualism doesn't require two seperate things to be opposites nor needing to be seeking a superior. TO believe that French/German/ETC media doesn't "slant" to their perspective to the same extent of the average American station is an absolute JOKE.
Your previous statements about the Moore movie being almost (slightly short of; not quite; nearly) banned is a prime example. When in fact that in NO WAY is accurate; yet does however portray Americans in the manner which supports your epistemology / belief structure about Americans. I knew to what you refered the entire time - I also knew it was an incorrect and a BIASED belief.

For the next setup - Who runs/manages this "censoring and media control" in the US - Please explain what would prohibit a news outlet/media from reporting "item X" on this evenings news?[/quo

First of all, the fact that MPAA and FCC are the 2 only official bodies directly linked to the government does not allow them to ban directly a film such as 911. If they had done so they would most likely enhanced its reputation and, say, strength. It would also appear like a 'fascist' move so politically it wouldnt make any sense to do so.
I dont know about FCC but MPAA gave an initial R rating(instead of PG-13) to the film and persisted on it despite oppossition from the film's distribution company. Giving an R rating means the exclusion of a large part of the population under 17 from watching the movie. Isnt this a 'ban'? If we are talking about-just a guess,probably more- a few hundred thousand potential future voters then yes, this is a ban and a very strict one. But there is no reason to stick to the official bodies.

Lets take a look at Disney. Its CEO Michael Eisner, a Bush campaign contributor directed Walt Disney company to prohibit its Miramax division from distributing 911. The company is in close ties with Bush's brother, Jeb, who serves as a trustee for the state employees' pension fund. That fund owns about 7.3 million shares of Disney stock. Do you see any non-MPAA, non-FCC 'strict-scheme'on banning the movie? Well i do, but i guess i am hallucinating, blinded by my bias. (or its just another conspiracy theory)

Lets look what the right wing has done. The 'Move America Forward' movement (MAF) under Howard Kaloogian did everything possible to censor Moore by asking theaters across the country not to play the movie. This is just a sample of the right-wing efforts to ban the film. But i forgot...you are positive that MAF is independent and 'unrelated to any government action'. Sounds like a joke...

As for my 'own media'( Greek media) i know very well that the majority of them have a certain bias against USA. (and i know that very well due to my brief unfortunate 'relation' with 'my own media; unfortunate because i had to clash and resign from those media you are claiming to be fueling my bias.) However, most of them, especially GOVERNMENTAL television and radio networks and the majority of the newspapers project a more realistic and objective view of ANY american or non-american war, compared to what i see on the US media. If you like, they show more facts on the same subject plus the fact that criticism on government is more intense and diversified.

Now this one is good:(quoting you) "Fox...tells the story as they see it-THEREFORE IT HAS LITTLE BIAS"!!!!!????!!!!
But here comes the best: "US media tells the story as they see it-THEREFORE THERE IS LITTLE BIAS IN THEIR EYE".??!!
i guess its redundant to make any comments after that since you said it all. In any case what you are suggesting is that truth belongs to the eye of the beholder so everyone sees and reports his/her own version of the story...i m afraid your 'relativity theory' of truth stands on no ground. How contradictory to what you said about me choosing the media that support my arguments. Since there is no bias to my eyes there is no problem. (??)
What i think is: The event is right there...it can be recorded and reported and i choose this channel/media etc which reports the facts of all sides involved, or at least reports more than the rest!

I dont want to get into the 'i know i am right', rather unfortunate comment of yours. I guess 'i know i am right' and you, based on your duality and perception of the dichotomy", you just know you are objective. In your world of relativity i am as much right as you are objective...and dual.

Now let me try to answer your questions.
1) Who runs and manages this 'censoring and media control' in the US?
here is a reasonable list:

-The governement directly in an 'underground' fashion i.e."independent" groups like MAF.
-The Federal Election Comission (FEC), (in the case of Moore)
-The government indirectly, via MPAA and FCC

2)What would prohibit "item-X" from being reported on this evening's news?

A phonecall from any of the involved agents mentioned above...

A final comment on your approach: I think you arguments on 'dichotomy' and 'relativity' were interesting and could have been persuasive if you had not given all your energy on those "attacking-the-person" fallacies. Based on that, i am blind, biased and i dont know what else...maybe the democrats are giving me a monthly paycheck to advocate Moore or maybe, through my epistemological approach of the American people, i am trying to attack them and create false biased impressions. If i have given you that impression, well...too bad.

Just to keep the flame: Do you really believe that MPAA and FCC are the only two bodies responsible for any censoring taking place?

[ibstolidude]

The event is right there...it can be recorded and reported
Then show me how the US almost BANNED this movie! All you have shown is the use of CONSUMER GROUPS! and the fact that a family entertainment movie company choose not to distrube under the Disney name (whose CEO also contributed to Dian Feinstein Democrat and various other Dems in the past to include Al Gore) is no reflection of banning =
To prohibit, especially by official decree - especially considering that the film was picked up by Lion's Gate.


Now let me try to answer your questions.
1) Who runs and manages this 'censoring and media control' in the US?
here is a reasonable list:

-The governement directly in an 'underground' fashion i.e."independent" groups like MAF. MAF has no government affiliation it is a consumer group as is ANSWER - consumer activism IS NOT BANNING - I guess the US "banned" McDonalds as I belong to a group that boycotts them and their subsidiares for what I deem as irresponsible consumer practices. I think it is excellant that they show their dissent to the film in this manner - I wish consumers would choose the option more often as it ALLOWS those who CHOOSE to participate in the act and therefore does not violate their rights - damn I love democracy
-The Federal Election Comission (FEC), (in the case of Moore) FEC NEVER tried to censor or ban the film. Never. To believe this would be failure to understand what issues that had been at hand - none of which involved the playing of the film.
-The government indirectly, via MPAA and FCC how did the FCC attempt to ban the film? How did the MPAA by giving it an R rating that is clearly in line with US films depicting violence, language, etc?

the movie was almost banned (To prohibit, especially by official decree) in America by "the strictest film-censoring schemes." - now that is a stretch.



2)What would prohibit "item-X" from being reported on this evening's news?

A phonecall from any of the involved agents mentioned above... Under what jurisdiction and by which laws? Certainly it must have happened before - where are the trials? Where are the censures? Or do you mean that Howard Stern can't say "****" on day time radio?


Amazing how your arguement has shifted from banning to pretty much banning to consumer and civil action groups trying to take action against Mr. Moore's film - IF anything you have shown the American system to work wonderfully - a civil action group attempted to seek censorship for a politically damning film of the Republican incumbant and the federal and entertainment agencies did nothing but allow the film to continue. I guess Mr. Moore is so powerful that all the "smoking men" had to allow it through less the proletariat rise and the inmates take over the asylum.

We can shoose to disagree - but the fact remains no governing body took ANY steps to BAN the film; nor should they have. I think your arguement lacks credability, and such is my opinion.

PS: on an unrelated note your posts quote function isn't working properly and if you choose can be fixed by adding a [/quote-] minus the dash; I think you happen to be deleting it inadvertently when you respond.

[achilles]

The event is right there...it can be recorded and reported
Then show me how the US almost BANNED this movie! All you have shown is the use of CONSUMER GROUPS! and the fact that a family entertainment movie company choose not to distrube under the Disney name (whose CEO also contributed to Dian Feinstein Democrat and various other Dems in the past to include Al Gore) is no reflection of banning =
To prohibit, especially by official decree - especially considering that the film was picked up by Lion's Gate.


Now let me try to answer your questions.
1) Who runs and manages this 'censoring and media control' in the US?
here is a reasonable list:

-The governement directly in an 'underground' fashion i.e."independent" groups like MAF. MAF has no government affiliation it is a consumer group as is ANSWER - consumer activism IS NOT BANNING - I guess the US "banned" McDonalds as I belong to a group that boycotts them and their subsidiares for what I deem as irresponsible consumer practices. I think it is excellant that they show their dissent to the film in this manner - I wish consumers would choose the option more often as it ALLOWS those who CHOOSE to participate in the act and therefore does not violate their rights - damn I love democracy
-The Federal Election Comission (FEC), (in the case of Moore) FEC NEVER tried to censor or ban the film. Never. To believe this would be failure to understand what issues that had been at hand - none of which involved the playing of the film.
-The government indirectly, via MPAA and FCC how did the FCC attempt to ban the film? How did the MPAA by giving it an R rating that is clearly in line with US films depicting violence, language, etc?

the movie was almost banned (To prohibit, especially by official decree) in America by "the strictest film-censoring schemes." - now that is a stretch.



2)What would prohibit "item-X" from being reported on this evening's news?

A phonecall from any of the involved agents mentioned above... Under what jurisdiction and by which laws? Certainly it must have happened before - where are the trials? Where are the censures? Or do you mean that Howard Stern can't say "f***" on day time radio?


Amazing how your arguement has shifted from banning to pretty much banning to consumer and civil action groups trying to take action against Mr. Moore's film - IF anything you have shown the American system to work wonderfully - a civil action group attempted to seek censorship for a politically damning film of the Republican incumbant and the federal and entertainment agencies did nothing but allow the film to continue. I guess Mr. Moore is so powerful that all the "smoking men" had to allow it through less the proletariat rise and the inmates take over the asylum.

We can shoose to disagree - but the fact remains no governing body took ANY steps to BAN the film; nor should they have. I think your arguement lacks credability, and such is my opinion.

PS: on an unrelated note your posts quote function isn't working properly and if you choose can be fixed by adding a [/quote-] minus the dash; I think you happen to be deleting it inadvertently when you respond.

Your interpretation of what i say, based on your relativity theory, is not neccessarily correct. Truth belongs to the eyes of the beholder right? lol i am just pulling your leg...
Let me conclude...i will not counter argue to what you said as to avoid stretching an already over-stretched argument.(although i am tempted by those misinterpretations/inconsistencies i see there ;) ) We can go on indefinitely!
Not to mention that its almost 6 o clock in the morning here and after a long night of typing stuff in Word i can barely see what i am writing...

Let me say just this...you focused the discussion too much on 911. I was trying to make a more general point that censoring in US is an issue. Your approach was to just try and refute me without actually providing any evidence for the opposite...anyways
Apologies for any linguistic slips but English is not my native language, and thanx for pointing out the quote thing.

[achilles]

and ibstolidude...i just couldnt help it...
Where are the trials? the convictions and all the rest? lol you sound like a judge...So let us stop worring about censoring in the US in the name of 'pressumed innocense' of those responsible for censoring? do we need trials, scandals, convictions or whatever to start thinking and criticizing what is sometimes self-evident?

Now just tell me this little thing in a nutshell:

Is there an overall censoring issue in the United States?

You can just say a yes or a no and start a new forum on the subject some other time or e-mail me

[mobster]

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v323/viewimage/osamabinkerry.jpg