Another four years of George?

[audio-kraut]

Never have heard it called that

Either you are really ignorant of what people outside of the US think of your policies or??

l Wrong about Saddam having WMDs????

Just a minute - do you still believe that saddam had WMD's - even now, even after bush himself admitted there were non? Even after your favourite english statesmen admitted to that? Even after CIA admitted there was the political will to find them even so there wre non?
Or am I misreading your statement?

In context of your other statements though - that would make perfect sense.

You see, I know what Reality is

Interesting.

 

[kingdaddy]

Just a minute - do you still believe that saddam had WMD's - even now, even after bush himself admitted there were non? Even after your favourite english statesmen admitted to that? Even after CIA admitted there was the political will to find them even so there wre non?
Or am I misreading your statement?

I believe the statement was to be understood as; Saddam at one time did have WMD and the world well knew it. They even had them counted at one time. The problem as I see it, was what happened to them.

 

[Cal Weldon]

It's run like Our PBS stations "Over Here", or in other words, it suckles off of Government subsidies/Grants. Like I said, it's just like/as Bad as Our "State" run PBS ****.

Who is being the Ignorant one here Skippy?

Well TS, Since your 'state run' PBS receives less than 20% of it's funding from state governments, I'm guessing you. By the way, do you subscribe/donate to it when they put on their pledge drives? You might want to consider it, they have some very educational programs.

[B You presume to speak of that which you know nothing about, and have the audacity to tell Me that I'm falling for Propaganda?!?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA![/B]

You do leave your guard down don't you?

Have a Wonderful Day! 🙄 [/B]

You too Skippy.

Oh, and while you're at it why not try understanding that there are others in the world as least as well educated as you that might have a differing opinion on things. Perhaps even a correct opinion.

Remember TS, some are wise, some otherwise.

Cal

 

[Cal Weldon]

To be fair, we should include the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and federal grants that combined with the state donations still totals only 1/3 of the total funding.

Cal

 

[rfbrw]

It's run like Our PBS stations "Over Here", or in other words, it suckles off of Government subsidies/Grants. Like I said, it's just like/as Bad as Our "State" run PBS ****.

Can't comment on PBS but I very much doubt that the Beeb is run in the same way and I would imagine the Beeb is considerably larger. It is funded by a license fee and emphatically not run by the state. The whole point of the Beeb is that it is funded by everybody and as such does not have to pander to the prejudices of its owners but I would imagine a news gathering organisation the does NOT have an axe to grind is an alien concept to you. The is little point in a news organisation like Pox when one can't tell its news broadcasts from a party political one.

So, Whom are It's shareholders?
Who is it's competition in G.B.?
IE:Who else runs their stations with the same financial arrangements?

This is the distilled essence of what is wrong you and your ilk. A complete inability to conceive anything in terms other than your own. i.e. It isn't done our way so it must be wrong.
I find it fascinating that you think the veracity of the information an organisation disseminates is somehow linked to whether or not it has shareholders or is in competition. Then again you have got Pox News so perhaps you have a point. Still just to be safe I best not trust the Met Office weather reports as they don't have shareholders or competition either.

Who is being the Ignorant one here Skippy?
Tall Shadow

The problem with you is that you are far too ignorant to know that you don't know.

 

[Tall Shadow]

Either you are really ignorant of what people outside of the US think of your policies or??

Not ignorant, I just find it laughable.

Why is it, that no matter what We (USA) do, it's wrong in someone's eyes? Yet at the first sign of ANY trouble,adversity, or disaster, We are the first called on to "Help or Fix" it?

I did, at one time, care what people outside the US thought of Our policies, but have grown tired of trying to be the Worlds Bank, Relief workers, First aid workers, Food Bank, and Police, while being criticized whatever We do.

I feel that We should do whatever We need to do to protect Our interests. Plain and simple. If the rest of the world wants to degrade into socialism, so be it.

Just a minute - do you still believe that saddam had WMD's - even now, even after bush himself admitted there were non? Even after your favourite english statesmen admitted to that? Even after CIA admitted there was the political will to find them even so there wre non?
Or am I misreading your statement?

Saddam, Iraq, and the UN ALL stated that they did after the Gulf War!
Several Thousand Tones of them to be a little more precise. Everyone admits that they were there, but no one knows what happened to them, Well no one, save Saddam/Iraq.

They were asked, No answer.
They were given an ultimatum, No answer.
They were told what was coming, No answer.


There were numerous time when Iraq/Saddam had the opportunity to show that they had been destroyed or surrendered or whatever DID happen to them, but He/They chose not to.

Given his/Their support for anti-American groups Our government did what they had to do, They did what 10+ years of UN "Negotiations" could/would not. That is their job.

In context of your other statements though - that would make perfect sense. Interesting.

Yes, I'm the "Poor ignorant American" 🙄

If everyone admits that they (WMDs) existed and were there at one time, and NOTHING showed that they had been destroyed, disposed of, removed, or used. While UN inspectors were barred from inspecting, verifying, or disproving their(WMDs), status and if even a small quantity were used in/on a major city, tens of thousands or millions might be killed.

What is your solution?
More negotiations? After all, 14 years is just too soon to expect progress!
How about more "Food For Oil"? That worked out well (For Koffi's son!)
Sending "Really Mean" Postcards?
Party Hats?

They went SOMEWHERE.
You don't just put them out to the curb on trash day.


If you want to dismiss it as BS, that is your choice. We're not so inclined, so I guess We will keep doing what needs to be done.

Just like we always do.

Tall Shadow

 

[Lusso5]

....The whole point of the Beeb is that it is funded by everybody and as such does not have to pander to the prejudices of its owners but I would imagine a news gathering organisation the does NOT have an axe to grind is an alien concept to you. The is little point in a news organisation like Pox when one can't tell its news broadcasts from a party political one.

This is the distilled essence of what is wrong you and your ilk. A complete inability to conceive anything in terms other than your own. i.e. It isn't done our way so it must be wrong.

I'm guessing since I'm an American, I would be considered his "ilk."

What is amazing, is that someone would actually think the BBC is objective.

They hired Michael Moore for their election coverage:
And had George Soros, Sidney Blumenthal, Madeline Albright for commentary - Objective? Give me a break....
http://www.brandrepublic.com/mediabulletin/news_story.cfm?articleID=225935&Origin=MB25102004).

On one occasion, a BBC reporter told about how she cried when Yasser Arafat was flown to a French hospital - Objective? Give me a break.

The BBC also ran a series "The Power of Nightmares," that claimed Al Qaeda and terrorism was made up by neo-conservatives, so they could gain more power. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3755686.stm - Objective? Give me a break.

Here the BBC program "Who Runs America" interviews indivduals so they can reinforce negative stereotypes about Americans and America in General. They interview an FDA Dr. who says were all fat, a evangelist who says were all religous fanatics, the head of a car co. who says we love gas guzzlers and are killing the environment, a police commissioner who says our prisons are overflowing, and a FBI head who says were losing our freedoms due to homeland security.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/features/who-runs-america.shtml - Objective? - Give me a break.

Most Americans easily see our media biases, and we have a little bias on both sides. Just because the BBC is taxpayer-funded (and it is) doesnt mean they aren't biased.

 

[Tall Shadow]

To be fair, we should include the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and federal grants that combined with the state donations still totals only 1/3 of the total funding.
Cal

OK. But if it's "Programing" is of such value, Why shouldn't it be required to stand on it's own financially, like the other networks? If someone wants the "Programing" PBS provides, let them support it, totally. Not suckle off of My tax dollars to spew their propaganda laden garbage.

I'm all for free speech, and fully support their right to air whatever they'd like, just not with "Welfare" from My tax dollars.


Tall Shadow

 

[Tall Shadow]

Can't comment on PBS but I very much doubt that the Beeb is run in the same way and I would imagine the Beeb is considerably larger. It is funded by a license fee and emphatically not run by the state. The whole point of the Beeb is that it is funded by everybody and as such does not have to pander to the prejudices of its owners but I would imagine a news gathering organisation the does NOT have an axe to grind is an alien concept to you. The is little point in a news organisation like Pox when one can't tell its news broadcasts from a party political one.

A publicly funded (Welfare) Network, not having a bias?

Sure! and I'm sure that they give equally un-biased coverage to people who don't support their funding too!? I'll bet.

We here in the "States" can clearly see the Bias pushed by our "Old Guard" networks. It's obvious, their left tilt is so bad that Millions of Us have stopped watching them at all. Do other networks have their own bias, sure, everyone does. To think otherwise is only foolish.

Does this mean that we must go without news/information at all? no.

It just means that One must know "Whom" you are listening to, what their interests are, and how this will effect their reporting.

This is the distilled essence of what is wrong you and your ilk. A complete inability to conceive anything in terms other than your own. i.e. It isn't done our way so it must be wrong.
I find it fascinating that you think the veracity of the information an organisation disseminates is somehow linked to whether or not it has shareholders or is in competition. Then again you have got Pox News so perhaps you have a point. Still just to be safe I best not trust the Met Office weather reports as they don't have shareholders or competition either.

Your logic is......Incomprehensible.

Because I study that of which I speak, before I form an opinion. I learn as much as I can and then apply it to what information I receive through multiple sources, including people who are directly involved whenever possible, I somehow (In Your Mind) am somehow uninformed, foolish, or just unimportant.
While You site dubious sources, people, and just incorrect fact/points, somehow have a better grasp on "The World" than I, the lowly American.

The problem with you is that you are far too ignorant to know that you don't know.

"Yep, it's just us, those ignorant Americans."
"What the heck do those guys know anyway?"
"It's not like they have done more in the 228 years they have been around than all the other countries had in the previous 2000 or anything."

Have fun in your "Skippy's" version of reality.


Tall Shadow

 

[rfbrw]

I'm guessing since I'm an American, I would be considered his "ilk."

That wasn't my thinking but if the cap fits...

What is amazing, is that someone would actually think the BBC is objective.

So long as one is capable of telling an opinion piece from a news report, it is.

They hired Michael Moore for their election coverage:
And had George Soros, Sidney Blumenthal, Madeline Albright for commentary - Objective? Give me a break....
http://www.brandrepublic.com/mediabulletin/news_story.cfm?articleID=225935&Origin=MB25102004).

Michael Moore and the others mentioned were just SOME of the talking heads lined up. All sorts, of both political persuasions and none, were lined up including the usual mild mannered types from the Defence Policy Review Board.

On one occasion, a BBC reporter told about how she cried when Yasser Arafat was flown to a French hospital - Objective? Give me a break.

Given the spin you put on the Michael Moore story, in the absence of concrete proof, I'll assume you made that up.

The BBC also ran a series "The Power of Nightmares," that claimed Al Qaeda and terrorism was made up by neo-conservatives, so they could gain more power. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3755686.stm - Objective? Give me a break.

Well,well, opinion in an opinion piece. I saw that series and your description is, not unsurprisingly, extremely simplistic.

Here the BBC program "Who Runs America" interviews indivduals so they can reinforce negative stereotypes about Americans and America in General. They interview an FDA Dr. who says were all fat, a evangelist who says were all religous fanatics, the head of a car co. who says we love gas guzzlers and are killing the environment, a police commissioner who says our prisons are overflowing, and a FBI head who says were losing our freedoms due to homeland security.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/features/who-runs-america.shtml - Objective? - Give me a break.

There is nothing incorrect about those statements. Like it or not , none of the interviewees could be described as lefties.

Most Americans easily see our media biases, and we have a little bias on both sides. Just because the BBC is taxpayer-funded (and it is) doesnt mean they aren't biased.

So the Beeb broadcasts thing you don't like. Well boo hoo. It broadcasts things I don't like but I do know when I watch the news as opposed to other types of programming, the news has not been spun to please the goverment or some large shareholder.
As for funding, all I can say is that it is as easy to find out how the BBC is funded as it is to remain ignorant. The choice is yours

 

[rfbrw]

A publicly funded (Welfare) Network, not having a bias?

Sure! and I'm sure that they give equally un-biased coverage to people who don't support their funding too!? I'll bet.

This statement only serves to demonstrate the extent to which your adherence to your public-bad private-good dogma has limited your perspective. If you had any idea about how the BBC is funded you would realise the stupidity of the latter part of your statement.

We here in the "States" can clearly see the Bias pushed by our "Old Guard" networks. It's obvious, their left tilt is so bad that Millions of Us have stopped watching them at all. Do other networks have their own bias, sure, everyone does. To think otherwise is only foolish.

Does this mean that we must go without news/information at all? no.

It just means that One must know "Whom" you are listening to, what their interests are, and how this will effect their reporting.

You just dont't get it do you. Your brain simply can't take it in. I am not in America nor am I an American. We do things differently over here. Not better, not worse, just different. Our expectations of the state are different. Our attitudes to public service is different. It is very likely that an organisation like the BBC and why it exists is simply beyond your comprehension

Your logic is......Incomprehensible.

Not really. I put it to you that you have a view of the world and are simply incapable of dealing with anything that falls out side it.

Because I study that of which I speak, before I form an opinion. I learn as much as I can and then apply it to what information I receive through multiple sources, including people who are directly involved whenever possible, I somehow (In Your Mind) am somehow uninformed, foolish, or just unimportant.
While You site dubious sources, people, and just incorrect fact/points, somehow have a better grasp on "The World" than I, the lowly American.

Alas there is more than enough evidence to the contrary. It would be more accurate to say you have a dogma you cling to and seek to make everything fit in. eg state = bad therefore state funded = bad.

"Yep, it's just us, those ignorant Americans."
"What the heck do those guys know anyway?"
"It's not like they have done more in the 228 years they have been around than all the other countries had in the previous 2000 or anything."

Have fun in your "Skippy's" version of reality.


Tall Shadow

If you must have company on planet ignorant there is no need to drag the whole US down with you. Just take your fellow travellers with you rather than tar an entire country with the same brush.

 

[Cal Weldon]

OK. But if it's "Programing" is of such value, Why shouldn't it be required to stand on it's own financially, like the other networks?

Well TS, if you didn't already know it's due in part to the lack of advertisements.

If someone wants the "Programing" PBS provides, let them support it, totally.[/B]

Do you feel the same way about a new road in Michigan that you may never get the chance to drive on? Do others not have a right to that new road? Both are avenues of access.

Not suckle off of My tax dollars to spew their propaganda laden garbage.[/B]

Propaganda laden garbage? Your're talking about the PBS here TS. 🙄

I'm all for free speech,[/B]

We've made a note of that.

and fully support[/B]

This is good

their right to air whatever they'd like, just not with "Welfare" from My tax dollars.[/B]

Oh, so what you mean is you don't support it.

Just what is it you study TS?

Cal

 

[audio-kraut]

It just means that One must know "Whom" you are listening to, what their interests are, and how this will effect their reporting.

That does not only appply to newspapers, it applies to politics as well.
So, have a closer look what interest are behind bush and cheney. If oil comes to mind, or more general energy production you will not be far from the truth.

Why is it, for instance, that halliburton went from #17 contactor to the US army to # 1 in only a few years? Quality of service or good connections?


BTW:

Several Thousand Tones of them to be a little more precise. Everyone admits that they were there, but no one knows what happened to them, Well no one, save Saddam/Iraq.

In case you missed it - when Hussein's son in laws fled to the US in the aerly 90's, they both confirmed to investigators that shortly after the gulf war saddam had destroyed any chemical and biological weapons. That is why neither UN investigators nor US ytroops were ever able to find any remaining weapons stock.

I also find the term "weapons of mass destruction" inapprobriate when it comes to fairly unreliable chemical or biological weapons. See test like in japan where even under optimum conditions the death toll was rather limited.
Weapons of mass destruction in the real term are nueclear weapons - and those alone.
One could use napalm or other incendiary bombs on towns to achieve a similar effect - as has been proven by the atacks on dresden - a city with no military facilities but a high influx of refuges when it was bombed and a firestorm swept through the city, causing a minimum of 50 000 death within one night - most of the victims were never counted, because being refugees nobody missed them or could tie them to this holocaust.
Results of a lower efficiency were obtained by bombing frankfurt and hamburg. Only hiroshima and nagasaki had a death toll higher in a shorter period.

Is it coincidence or does it have to do with the standing of the US in the opinion of the worlds population that so far in world history the only users of WMD's against a civilian population have been the USA? Not hitler, not stalin nor the japanese ever used anything anywhere in either world war 1 or 2.

Why is it then that the US is worried about WMD's in other countries while permitting israel for instance to surreptiously build an estimated several 100 warheads - deliverable - without interference

Why were pakistan and india permitted to develop their bombs without interference?

Do you not think that was the cause of uneasiness by saddam and is it of the present leadership in iran to go on the dangerous path for everybody to develop nuclear weapons.
Simply self protection to avoid blackmail by a state like Israel? Which has nothing at all to do with threatening the US - the consequences of doing so would be disastrous for the one attempting to do so, but it maybe would have any president striving for regime change in said countries to have thought or think twice.

The invasion of iraq really has brought to the attention of any foreign country the necessity to have the one weapon that could inflict serious harm to US citizens to prevent any US president from deciding when regime change is advised in foreign sovereign states.

 

[audio-kraut]

Just a foot note:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FL16Ak01.html

 

[Tall Shadow]

This statement only serves to demonstrate the extent to which your adherence to your public-bad private-good dogma has limited your perspective. If you had any idea about how the BBC is funded you would realise the stupidity of the latter part of your statement.

My views on "Public=bad & Private=good" are a little more complicated than your stereotypical portrayal.

I don't expect someone, like you, with your own prejudices to understand those of us who prefer self responsibility, self reliance, smaller government, and less "State" involvement in Our lives. We believe it is how Our founding fathers intended it to be in Our country.

You just dont't get it do you. Your brain simply can't take it in. I am not in America nor am I an American. We do things differently over here. Not better, not worse, just different. Our expectations of the state are different. Our attitudes to public service is different. It is very likely that an organisation like the BBC and why it exists is simply beyond your comprehension

Yes, My "Simple" little brain didn't grasp that you're not in the USA. Your condescending attitude, arrogance, and simplistic mindset didn't even show that you were not "From around these here parts" at all!
After all I've only been doing this whole "Computer thing" since the mid 1970's and, of course haven't yet grasped that the net goes beyond the borders of Our country. 🙄

Geesh! buy a clue!

That Our attitudes on "Public" service and it's personnel, are to put it mildly, worlds apart. Not beyond My (Our) comprehension, just beyond My (our) tolerance. This is one of the principle reasons My ancestors departed Europe, and settled here.

Not really. I put it to you that you have a view of the world and are simply incapable of dealing with anything that falls out side it.

It's not a problem of "Dealing" with it. Just a matter of what I find to be the reality of the situation. I am not a Neo-Conservative, religious or any of the other stereotypical "Tags" that others here have tried to place on Me. The simple fact that I make up My own mind on my beliefs is what you, and others here can't seem to grasp.

Trying to put me in the "He's a Conservative/hick/robot" box just does not work. I don't fit in to any of them. Your (and others here) attempts to continually do so only proves your lack of understanding, not Mine.

Alas there is more than enough evidence to the contrary. It would be more accurate to say you have a dogma you cling to and seek to make everything fit in. eg state = bad therefore state funded = bad.

Again, your views only reinforce My views on your arguments.

My views do not=(State=bad) or (Private=good).
Therefore, your other statements, about My views, are invalid.

Refuting My statements by relying on what amounts to childish name calling, only show the weakness of your position(s).

If you must have company on planet ignorant there is no need to drag the whole US down with you. Just take your fellow travellers with you rather than tar an entire country with the same brush.

Oh, there are more than a few of your brethren here in the US. Mostly centered in Our so called"Blue" states.

Before you are prone to ask, I live in a blue state.

I have a plan, I think you should all get together!
We will even pay their ticket for their trip to join you!
It could be like a big family reunion.
Then you can tax & spend yourselves into an emotional bliss!


Tall Shadow

 

[SY]

so far in world history the only users of WMD's against a civilian population have been the USA?

The Kurds and Iranians might beg to disagree.

A few evenings reading Friedrich von Hayek's "Constitution of Liberty" might prove enlightening and refreshing.

 

[audio-kraut]

The Kurds and Iranians might beg to disagree.

In cas you did not read my posting completely - I do not consider - and I am definetely not alone - chemical and biological waepons due to their unreliability and difficulties concerning deliver NOT waepons of mass destruction. Their is only one WMD - nuclear.
Juts for clarification.


As I heard in an interview with some iraquis - the american liberated us - from our lives.
It is nice to think about liberty if you are relatively secure, but liberty is second when you live in a state of unsecurity - as even the legal reaction in the US after 9/11 has shown, by introducing the "patriot act".

 

[audio-kraut]

Then you can tax & spend yourselves into an emotional bliss!

You are so right - at least george bush only adheres to the second principle.

 

[Tall Shadow]

Well TS, if you didn't already know it's due in part to the lack of advertisements.

My point exactly. Why should I support it's operation? If it's "Message" has enough merit, it should be self supporting. If it is "Funded" by my tax dollars, then I should have a say in it's operation.

Do you feel the same way about a new road in Michigan that you may never get the chance to drive on? Do others not have a right to that new road? Both are avenues of access.

No, a road is there for the benefit of us, and has merit and value.
It is not something that can have a political, moral, social, or ethical agenda pushed from it. It is, for all intents, benign.


A newspaper, network, or radio station is there to disseminate information. What that information contains, is what makes it viable or not.
If you want to broadcast or publish something here, you may do so. It's survival will depend on it's financial success or failure. This will be based on it's income. This income will be from advertising or from subscriptions. Both of which are driven by it's appeal.
If it is popular, it will be appealing, and therefore generate revenue. If not, it will not and therefore fail.


Public Broadcasting has bypassed this by operating with funding provided by Our tax dollars. Yet they are not accountable to Our input. All the while they constantly show a HUGE bias. I find this unacceptable, yet have no say in their actions.

Propaganda laden garbage? Your're talking about the PBS here TS. 🙄

I find their agenda of normalizing homosexuality, Aids, single parent homes and other "Moral" issues, to be inappropriate in children's programing. If people want to teach these thing in their own homes, that is their prerogative. To push it in "Public" broadcasting is just wrong. I would not want to push a Conservative, Jewish, Muslim, Christian, or Pagan agenda on "Public" broadcasts either.

What ever happend to just teaching kids how to spell or their colors? Isn't that what PBS should be about

We've made a note of that.

This is good

Goodie! I'm in a note! Yeah!

Oh, so what you mean is you don't support it.

Why does it take My tax dollars for them to push their views?

If they want to express their views, let them support it!

Shout it from the roof tops or print it in a book, I just shouldn't have to pay for their views. They don't pay for mine.

Just what is it you study TS?

Cal

Well Cal, I study history, electronics, wood and metalworking, engineering, politics, aeronautics, wildlife and the environment, physics, mathematics, old movies, ballistics, computers, and any other subjects that arouse My interests. Why?

But hey! Thanks for asking.


Tall Shadow

 

[Tall Shadow]

You are so right - at least george bush only adheres to the second principle.

Wow! You actualy made a point! J/K

War (Blowing stuff up) is expensive !




Tall Shadow