Which unreliable news source do you prefer?

[sleepy1212]

CNN: 51% Democrats, 18% Republicans, 23% independents
MSNBC: 45% Democrats, 18% Republicans, 27% independents
Fox News: 33% Democrats, 39% Republicans, 22% independents

Source (http://www.alan.com/2008/08/17/fox-vs-msnbc-vs-cnn/)

[paladin]

What a bad website to site this kind of information from....


P2+ Total Day
FNC – 1,248,000 viewers
CNN – 395,000 viewers
MSNBC – 451,000 viewers
CNBC – 214,000 viewers
HLN – 275,000 viewers

thats what you need....

[=sw=warlord]

Where's the "none of the above" option?

[sleepy1212]

What a bad website to site this kind of information from.....

It's a Pew poll but still, there are lots of sources for viewership broken down lots of ways and they can be interpreted too many ways.

I chose the simplest demographic breakdown i could find...this one happens to be more relevant to a debate section since it's political.


Where's the "none of the above" option?

None of the above would imply you prefer an unreliable news source not listed ;)

Feel free to list any news sources you prefer

I typically listen to Conservative Talk Radio (http://www.wpgb.com/mediaplayer/?station=WPGB-FM&action=listenlive&channel_title=) 4 days a week including Quinn & Rose (Pittsburgh locals), Glen Beck, Rush, and Hannity ... although i prefer the first two because Rush and Hannity are too much like GOP cheerleaders and i'm not a big fan of the party anymore (reg Ind.).

On fridays i listen to the weekly broadcast Stimulated Boredom (http://www.live365.com/stations/bossmodel) with "Dano" a self proclaimed moderate who doesn't realize he's really a liberal. Good show though.

Occasionally I catch something on OnPoint (http://www.onpointradio.org/2004/12/the-ancestors-tale-richard-dawkins) with Tom Ashbrook (lib) but as you can see from my bookmark it's mostly the science podcasts i catch.

If i have to pick a Cable network it's FOX although it's rare that I bother to watch TV for news. I used to watch CNN every morning but they pretty much died when Wolf Blitzer was done covering Desert Storm. Plus i have more trust in a tobacco company than Time Warner.

[Cojafoji]

I really don't prefer either. But if I get shunted to something like MSNBC, or CNN, I'll check the opposing viewpoint on Fox or something else conservative.

World news:
Al Jazeera
BBC
AP
Reuters
NYT

US Liberal: Digg
US Conservative: Drudge Report

[paladin]

BBC


Best possible choice of anything.

AP over the years have started to have some bias, but are still mostly fair. NYT is joke... the past 5 years theyve lost 60% of their readership, I wonder why? Maybe because of the Sulzberger family.

[Dwood]

socialism.com should be on that list. :P

[Cojafoji]

Best possible choice of anything.

AP over the years have started to have some bias, but are still mostly fair. NYT is joke... the past 5 years theyve lost 60% of their readership, I wonder why? Maybe because of the Sulzberger family.
Their front page reporting is still pretty good. I get it free at school, so it's nice to have something like that to read.

[Warsaw]

Washington Post is ending up like the New York Times. They've lost a very large portion of their readers as well, and I'm sure it has something to do with the bias and the lack of editors.

[Cojafoji]

Not to mention that print media in and of itself is dying.

[paladin]

That is true

[sleepy1212]

Not to mention that print media in and of itself is dying.

You left out journalism is dead.

[rossmum]

I only like reliable news sources.

BBC, ABC (ours, not yours), SBS, Al Jazeera (surprisingly unbiased, although it has its moments). Fuck everything else.

[Cojafoji]

You left out journalism is dead.
No, it's really not. If you had any conceivable notion of what was going on in that area, you'd have never said that. That is possibly the most blindly ignorant thing I have ever heard.

Sorry for that, but it had to be said. Journalism is far from dead. It's merely transitioning from a traditional medium to one that hasn't been thoroughly explored. Blogs, independent news, eDistribution, all coming into their own in a very odd way. Give it time, and I'm sure you'll see a massive resurgence of combined media distribution. Think google news but fucking huge.

[paladin]

Journalism today isnt Journalism 50 years ago. Around the 70's, news went from factual information to factual commentary. Reason: opinion sells 10x better than fact. Why do you think CNN has such bad viewer ship and Fox has 5 fold on them? Fox has 2 or 3 news programs, but then has 5 hours of commentary that puts opinion on the news reports. Fox has the perfect model, it has news in the mornings, then in the afternoon with America Live, Studio B, and Your World. Then they have GB Program, Mr Oreally, Hannity, and Gretta that all comment on the news that has previously reports. CNN lacks commentary and is most true to the traditional form of news reports; thats why they have such low ratings. MSNBC has just god awful commentary and lack luster news reporting; thats why they have poor ratings.

[Bodzilla]

because fox tells ignorant gullible retards exactly what they want to hear.
Thats it.

[CN3089]

Al Jazeera English is the only news source you need



Well, I watch/read CBC too for Canadian stuff vOv

[sleepy1212]

No, it's really not. If you had any conceivable notion of what was going on in that area, you'd have never said that. That is possibly the most blindly ignorant thing I have ever heard.

Sorry for that, but it had to be said. Journalism is far from dead. It's merely transitioning from a traditional medium to one that hasn't been thoroughly explored. Blogs, independent news, eDistribution, all coming into their own in a very odd way. Give it time, and I'm sure you'll see a massive resurgence of combined media distribution. Think google news but fucking huge.

Coja, journalism is dead. We are in an age where facts are taking a back seat to opinions. Everything has a slant, even the best sources available are merely the least bias. Journalism schools are filled with professors that are pushing their political and social ideals. The entire industry no longer digs up the truth but rather, digs up profit.

E: i mean, i wasn't talking about medium...

[rossmum]

journalism is not by any means dead, just good journalism is slowly being edged out. the legitimate news sources need one of two things: a way to reinvent themselves to garner more interest without compromising themselves, or for all the stupid people to disappear. we know the latter isn't going to happen any time soon (fuck, at the rate your average bogan reproduces it's the opposite case).

[Dwood]

because fox tells ignorant gullible retards exactly what they want to hear.
Thats it.

Whatever news source you listen to tells you exactly what you want to hear... You don't watch Fox because you don't agree with what they say on the station. Get over it and change the channel? People don't watch MSNBC because they disagree with the crap the station spews forth do they?

The only gullible persons, are those who say people (that watch stations which disagree with the other ones) are gullible, not only are those saying that gullible, but ignorant.

[paladin]

I watch Kieth Olbermann just make my self esteem go up. That guys a dunce

[FRain]

Stephen Colbert.

all the way

[paladin]

HAHA I love him

[sleepy1212]

Stephen Colbert

I love how some people think this is actually a news source :gonk:

fake E: inb4jonstewart

[sleepy1212]

Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/glenn-beck-historian-for_b_591353.html): Glen Beck is a PhD :allears:

[paladin]

He deserves it. If you think not, watch his show...

[CN3089]

Glenn Beck is insane and doesn't even deserve a GED


e: and I don't mean insane as in "generic insult for someone who disagrees with my opinions" I mean he really needs assistance from a mental health professional

[sevlag]

Stephen Colbert.

all the way
^
better source than faux news

[rossmum]

Glenn Beck is insane and doesn't even deserve a GED


e: and I don't mean insane as in "generic insult for someone who disagrees with my opinions" I mean he really needs assistance from a mental health professional
yeah from what i've seen, pretty much this

there's not agreeing with my (admittedly very sensible and well-informed!!!) opinions and then there's extreme paranoia to the point where i'm not sure he lives in the same world as the rest of us

[sleepy1212]

I listen to his radio show 4 day's a week, he's not as psycho as he's made out to be. That's just reverse rhetoric like "Obama wants to be a communist overlord". The only thing that actually scares his opponents is the fact that he strongly supports the message of the constitution and the ideals of the founding fathers. He does the historical research, he reads most of it on the air. He does cry too much, i can't take that, and don't really get it. But if you ask me if i agree with his point of view that government is out to control everything in our lives and in doing so they will (have already) ruin freedom and quality of life, I have to say yes.

I think the PhD thing is a joke. A school run by Falwell giving him a degree sounds more like cheerleading than recognition - even if he does a shit-ton more research and in-depth thought into what's going on than his peers. I wonder how many PhD's actually graduate from Liberty College. I'd also like to know how many Liberal Arts/Humanities majors (99% liberals) shit bricks when they heard the news LMAO!

[Dwood]

That article was okay at first but then it turned into another "I hate glenn beck" article. beck has more proffessionalism than that "Journalist".

[Anton]

That article was okay at first but then it turned into another "I hate glenn beck" article. beck has more proffessionalism than that "Journalist".
Professionalism.. So that's why he publicly mocked Malia, Obama's daughter. I don't care what your message is, but do not bring children into an argument to prove your point. He publicly apologized for it.. but does that really fix things? Hell no. Beck is literally going to loony-ville. I'm tired of the rhetoric that the media insists on using; especially conservative talk radio (national level). They're making their base, along with others, volatile. It's going to haunt this country for an extended period of time.

[paladin]

Just like passing irreversible reform that complete goes against our countries ideals...

[Dwood]

Just like passing irreversible reform that complete goes against our countries ideals...

There is no law that is irreversible. Even the constitution can be reversed.

[Anton]

We're talking about major news media outlets and their rhetoric, not legislation. I understand what you're saying, but please don't downplay my statements with a different topic. Your statement only applies to the last sentence I wrote , and if you want to discuss the health care legislation, then start another thread; although, there has been 3 so far, all of which have been locked. Thank you.

Edit- @ pali - ;p

[rossmum]

Just like passing irreversible reform that complete goes against our countries ideals...
a) not irreversible
b) unless the overwhelming majority believe it, and last i checked it's pretty divided, it's not your country's ideal
c) socialism owns you crack babies, embrace it
d) make your own thread about that, assuming there isn't one already, and leave politics out of this one

[paladin]

There is no law that is irreversible. Even the constitution can be reversed.

You and Ross need to look outside your US Politics Text book. Healthcare reform and the soon-to-be-passed Financial reform can never be reversed.


We're talking about major news media outlets and their rhetoric, not legislation. I understand what you're saying, but please don't downplay my statements with a different topic. Your statement only applies to the last sentence I wrote , and if you want to discuss the health care legislation, then start another thread; although, there has been 3 so far, all of which have been locked. Thank you.

Rhetoric comes from ever outlet of media. One persons words can be turned into another's rhetoric by changing the tone of voice used. You're judging his character off one incident then? Setting his character aside, have you ever looked into anything he has said, or brought forward about what the administration is doing; watching MSNBC, aka the White House News Chanel doesn't count.




a) not irreversible
Yes, it is.
b) unless the overwhelming majority believe it, and last i checked it's pretty divided, it's not your country's ideal
please note where in the constitution and/or declaration of independence it states that the government is obligated to provide healthcare or subsides for those who can't afford it. Those two documents are MY countries Ideals, not shitty English criminal Australia
c) socialism owns you crack babies, embrace it
You're the one on crack if you believe an incentiveless society can produce and maintain and stable, productive, and prosperous economy, Greece? oh wait. Spain? Oh wait. Portugal? Oh wait. European Union? Oh wait.
d) make your own thread about that, assuming there isn't one already, and leave politics out of this one
How can you talk about major cable news and not talk about politics, let alone form uneducated opinions about a news and political commentator, that by far of any, researches and backs up his theories with fact, no matter how strange they may be? Have you ever fact checked Keith Olbermann, Ed Schults, Chris Matthews, even the dike Rachel Madow? Its amazing to think that people can actually listen to them and take them serious.

[rossmum]

hint i don't take any of them seriously i watch real news channels (i.e. ones without fucking retarded party bias) thanks for playing also i'm so glad you have such a thorough understanding of politics

*assumes something is evil and communist presumably because his parents say so* THATS NOT ARE VALUES FUCK THE POOR http://sae.tweek.us/static/images/emoticons/emot-patriot.gif

laters~

[=sw=warlord]

*assumes something is evil and communist presumably because his parents say so* THATS NOT ARE VALUES FUCK THE POOR http://sae.tweek.us/static/images/emoticons/emot-patriot.gif


I guess he's forgetting which country the US has been borrowing most from.
I bet if you looked real hard you would see a mark on the notes saying "made in china".
Ba dum tsh.

On topic, I much prefer to check the news from sites like the BBC or occasionally on my mobile phone.

[rossmum]

everyone borrows from china because china is generally safe to borrow from

of course if their perpetual boom turns into a bust (which is increasingly likely as they outproduce demand by a shitload), literally every country on earth is fucked

[Anton]

Rhetoric comes from ever outlet of media. One persons words can be turned into another's rhetoric by changing the tone of voice used. You're judging his character off one incident then? Setting his character aside, have you ever looked into anything he has said, or brought forward about what the administration is doing; watching MSNBC, aka the White House News Chanel doesn't count.
Again, you're making assumptions. My father has the living room television permanently on the Fox News Network. Don't give me that bullshit about watching MSNBC and being generally bias. I would give any perspective a chance in explaining their reasoning. I have never said that everything the Democrats do in congress is perfect, and I haven't said that everything the Republicans have done in congress is terrible. If you were to listen to Glenn Beck's radio show then you would know he has went off the charts when addressing certain issues. Don't even get me started on when he takes the occasional call-in. There are several events that involve him literally dominating someone verbally; some of which were warranted, but others were not. I watch my tongue, I don't usually blindly state something unless I have good reason to believe it's true. So please don't assume that I am a mindless zombie that just spews anti-conservative shit all over the floor.

[sleepy1212]

If you were to listen to Glenn Beck's radio show then you would know he has went off the charts when addressing certain issues. Don't even get me started on when he takes the occasional call-in.

Depends on POV. Most of the liberal callers are retarded, I'm starting to think they're screened for stupidity, or at least I hope so...

[Dwood]

You and Ross need to look outside your US Politics Text book. Healthcare reform and the soon-to-be-passed Financial reform can never be reversed.


I need link. How can it not be reversed? btw, if obama doesn't get a 2nd term, all the next guy has to do is not enforce/fund the bill. This is worse than "the new deal" by far, and will destroy more than it saves... but I don't see where it i irreversible.

[paladin]

Because of the parts of the Bill that took imediate effect. Whos gonna get support to over turn 'kids' under 26 staying on their parent's insurance. Whos gonna vote against policy limits? Whos gonna wote against denial of coverage because I smoked for 30 years without health insurance and expect one to cover me when I get lung cancer? It cannot be over turned because of how it was written and the order of legislation will be enacted.

Other things that took immediate effect: Medicare drug benefit, ending the pre-existing condition exclusion for children, and tax credits for small firms that provide insurance to their employees.

Also, even if Obama doesn't get a second term, there would still need to be a super majority until 2012 to get it past a veto.

[Bodzilla]

thats a little different saying to saying
IT"S IMPOSSIBLE ITS UNCHANGEABLE THERES NOTHING WE CAN DO WE"LL BE DOOMED.

Which is the basic gist that what your saying has been.

[Bhamid]

Just thought I'd like to say:

You're the one on crack if you believe an incentiveless society can produce and maintain and stable, productive, and prosperous economy, Greece? oh wait. Spain? Oh wait. Portugal? Oh wait. European Union? Oh wait.
What, like Sweden, Norway, Finland, France and Japan?

E: I'll add Denmark and Austria to that list. The reason why there are more 'socialist' countries in Europe is because there is more emphasis on social solidarity than there is in the US.

[rossmum]

The fact he called them incentiveless just goes to show he has literally no idea what he's talking about, never mind him

[paladin]

Look at the US from is founding until 1990. How many life-altering inventions have come from American Entrepreneurs? How many came from Sweden, Norway, Finland, France and Japan? You still haven't addressed the countries I listed. You can't ignore a bad apple. How can you justify what is happening in those countries without blaming entitlements? You can't. Oh wait, thats capitalisms fault.

[CN3089]

How many came from Sweden, Norway, Finland, France and Japan?

Quite a lot? Alfred Nobel was Swedish, for fuck's sake http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/CN3089/Emoticons/emot-psyduck.gif


I mean FUCK the USS Monitor was designed by a Swede this is a really stupid argument to make, you should know this

[rossmum]

Look at the US from is founding until 1990. How many life-altering inventions have come from American Entrepreneurs? How many came from Sweden, Norway, Finland, France and Japan? You still haven't addressed the countries I listed. You can't ignore a bad apple. How can you justify what is happening in those countries without blaming entitlements? You can't. Oh wait, thats capitalisms fault.
You know that general perception that Americans are immensely ignorant of literally everything that isn't American? Yeah... you're really not helping to disprove it.

[sleepy1212]

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand we hate the new some more

Bush = Al - Tipper (http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/cbs-blames-al-gores-failed-marriage-on-george-w-bush/)

oh CBS :lolugh:

[CN3089]

Is there anything that George W. Bush didn't ruin?

[EX12693]

Is there anything that Obama won't ruin?

[rossmum]

wasn't aware he was ruining anything sorry!!!

[Bhamid]

Is there anything that Obama won't ruin?
Israel, unfortunately.

[Warsaw]

wasn't aware he was ruining anything sorry!!!

He's ruining his presidency. Approval ratings are shit faster than they were for Bush on his second term. Granted he inherited a terrible economy and a couple wars, but if he were doing a good job turning stuff around they wouldn't be so low. So far he's been full of empty promises, just like everyone before him...except Kennedy and FDR. They were awesome.

[sleepy1212]

FDR

:shake:

[rossmum]

Yeah but see he takes responsibility for shit that technically isn't even his fault, and he cancels trips if anything goes wrong (much unlike our PM, Julia Gillard's probably spent more time in the PM's office than he has), and at least he seems to get what the fuck needs to be done. I think what you Americans somehow forget is that the President can say he'll do things all he likes, but if senators want to be obstructive fuckheads, none of it will go through. You're expecting change from a country in which a substantial portion of the population is somehow still deathly afraid of anything socialist, and where the 'fuck you, got mine' philosophy manifests itself so openly in things like HOAs and corporations basically doing whatever and not expecting any recourse for it. People elected Rudd for much the same reason - we'd been under Howard for as long as I've lived here, and a lot of people were getting sick of Liberal policy - but after the first week or two Rudd stopped getting shit done. The difference is that Rudd stopped getting shit done because he didn't want to get shit done. For all his promises, we have a government that has reneged on more promises than the Liberals even made last election and has done its utmost to hustle through immensely unpopular legislation nobody likes.

[EX12693]

I didn't want to start a debate guys...

All of our presidents suck IMO

[Bhamid]

I can't understand how change can really come about when a few people at the top change every few years, but the people who actually implement what they want don't - the only way that can happen is making the changes deeper, which probably won't happen.

Over here, everyone hates Gordon Brown, but he stopped the banks collapsing (the recession started in the first place because Lehman Bros collapsed), he stayed out of the Euro (Greece etc) and he stayed firm in Afghanistan. He did do some things wrong (too much money into the public sector) but I think he would have handled the recession much better than Cameron.

[Dwood]

Cameron as far as I'm aware, is what Britain needs, for the sole reason of removing the police state mentality. And I do agree Bhamid. The people implementing the policies haven't changed. Also Ross, don't comment negatively on a country that you don't live in and support.

[=sw=warlord]

Also Ross, don't comment negatively on a country that you don't live in and support.
Hah so basicly all you want to hear is people sucking up to your country while ignoring the flaws?

[Dwood]

Hah so basicly all you want to hear is people sucking up to your country while ignoring the flaws?

Most of the time people have no idea what they're talking about when living in different countries because of what each country teaches their citizens, one way or another, like a while back we had a guns argument, and those outside of the country that don't know about the second ammendment typically can't comment knowing the facts of the situation of gun laws in ovs 2nd Ammendment, or fairness doctrine vs free speech etc etc.


wasn't aware he was ruining anything sorry!!!

Basically he has no idea about the administrationl- Let me clarify, don't comment negatively when you have no idea on the situation and don't grasp what was in the bills that were signed and what they've done. Most other countries think "Oh, America's becoming more socialist, that's great!!

What they don't hear is the of how the bills got passed, that there's literally paying people off (by making their states exempt to the law?) to vote for the bills, and 12 million dollars (in said socialist bills) or whatever to the researching of snails. And don't forget the shutting down of a productive NASA, among other things.

[Needles]

Shit I read it as which one you disliked the most and put fox. Fox is biased republican and makes up BS, even admitting they are not news at times. MSNBC is better but still biased democrat. CNN seems pretty neutral to me.

Especially glenn beck is bs. He makes up so much stuff, cries and tells people they are against their country when he's losing, is seemingly homophobic, and makes up conspiracies. Even worse one of the people I know at my school watches him. He's turned into a retard, calling all democrats socialist and he's even started saying stuff is wrong with 'fags', and all this disgusting shit.

Nothing about obama is socialist. Universal healthcare is actually normal. I guess trying to move forward is 'socialist', so lets just stay the way we are hoping for everything to get fixed.

[paladin]

Shit I read it as which one you disliked the most and put fox. Fox is biased republican and makes up BS, even admitting they are not news at times. MSNBC is better but still biased democrat. CNN seems pretty neutral to me.

Especially glenn beck is bs. He makes up so much stuff, cries and tells people they are against their country when he's losing, is seemingly homophobic, and makes up conspiracies. Even worse one of the people I know at my school watches him. He's turned into a retard, calling all democrats socialist and he's even started saying stuff is wrong with 'fags', and all this disgusting shit.

Nothing about obama is socialist. Universal healthcare is actually normal. I guess trying to move forward is 'socialist', so lets just stay the way we are hoping for everything to get fixed.

No

[rossmum]

Glenn Beck is possibly insane. I've watched maybe five minutes of him and never wish to repeat the experience. Anyone who believes a word that comes out of his mouth has serious problems of their own.


Cameron as far as I'm aware, is what Britain needs, for the sole reason of removing the police state mentality. And I do agree Bhamid. The people implementing the policies haven't changed. Also Ross, don't comment negatively on a country that you don't live in and support.
Since when do I not support the US? I have plenty of friends living over there and am toying with the idea of moving to Washington state or thereabouts at some point. I may not live there but I can guarantee I know more about the US and its history than any given American on this site knows about Australia or even Europe.


Most of the time people have no idea what they're talking about when living in different countries because of what each country teaches their citizens, one way or another, like a while back we had a guns argument, and those outside of the country that don't know about the second ammendment typically can't comment knowing the facts of the situation of gun laws in ovs 2nd Ammendment, or fairness doctrine vs free speech etc etc.
Oh, but see, I taught myself a lot about the world since (as you say) every country would rather focus on themselves and how the world relates to themselves. I might not know every little detail, but I'm not a total ignoramus.


Basically he has no idea about the administrationl- Let me clarify, don't comment negatively when you have no idea on the situation and don't grasp what was in the bills that were signed and what they've done. Most other countries think "Oh, America's becoming more socialist, that's great!!

What they don't hear is the of how the bills got passed, that there's literally paying people off (by making their states exempt to the law?) to vote for the bills, and 12 million dollars (in said socialist bills) or whatever to the researching of snails. And don't forget the shutting down of a productive NASA, among other things.
Paying people off to pass bills is nothing unique. It's not even surprising. Rudd attempted to bribe each state's Premier just a few weeks ago into going along with his healthcare reform; not everybody did, but nobody even tried to hide how he got some of the states to agree.

NASA has not been closed down. The Constellation program has, but there are other projects in the works which are arguably more suitable goals for the time being. There's nothing to say the project won't be restarted later... in fact, there's no doubt in my mind it will. Now just isn't the time, healthcare reforms or no - the world has too much on its plate to be worrying about a major space program.

[Dwood]

Glenn Beck is possibly insane. I've watched maybe five minutes of him and never wish to repeat the experience. Anyone who believes a word that comes out of his mouth has serious problems of their own.


That's one of the things also, in America, what Glenn Beck says makes sense and what... oh I don't know who to pick.... the guy before Cameron (lol sorry Britain) said makes/made absolutely no sense to us.



Since when do I not support the US? I have plenty of friends living over there and am toying with the idea of moving to Washington state or thereabouts at some point. I may not live there but I can guarantee I know more about the US its history than any given American on this site knows about Australia or even Europe.


By support I mean in taxes and such. And yes, it is probably true you know more about America than any other American knows about Aussie or Europe, which if you grew up in Australia, is the duty of any history teacher, to let you know the history of your country such that one feels bonded to it. If the teach didn't do the job and you learned on your own the history of your and other countries is a whole other deal.



Oh, but see, I taught myself a lot about the world since (as you say) every country would rather focus on themselves and how the world relates to themselves. I might not know every little detail, but I'm not a total ignoramus.


That is true, but what I'm trying to get at is that when one grows up in a country they get the mindsets of the people around them almost through osmosis. When you grow up in America, typically the "in the road" American is going to be more right winged than any "in the road" Brit, (or aussie for that matter) sure we're drifting to "the left" slowly but the right wing isn't going to fade away without a long and bitter fight.



Paying people off to pass bills is nothing unique. It's not even surprising. Rudd attempted to bribe each state's Premier just a few weeks ago into going along with his healthcare reform; not everybody did, but nobody even tried to hide how he got some of the states to agree.


For a guy who promised Change, he's not very honorable in getting that change.(obama) Even though paying people off isn't unique, it's not the way a (2,000 page) bill that is so massive to America, (and therefore the world) should be passed. Just because it isn't unique shouldn't mean that it's any less despicable that a person has so little faith in his own bill when his OWN PARTY has the majority and could pass without the Republicans' votes no matter what... that means a lot of things, none of them are good.



NASA has not been closed down. The Constellation program has, but there are other projects in the works which are arguably more suitable goals for the time being. There's nothing to say the project won't be restarted later... in fact, there's no doubt in my mind it will. Now just isn't the time, healthcare reforms or no - the world has too much on its plate to be worrying about a major space program.

I say now would be a great time for a space program overhaul to help unify the world. We should be on our way to mars by now.

[=sw=warlord]

That's one of the things also, in America, what Glenn Beck says makes sense and what... oh I don't know who to pick.... the guy before Cameron (lol sorry Britain) said makes/made absolutely no sense to us.
Gordon brown only got into power because of a agreement between him and his predecessor, though I must say, at least he didn't go out of his way to rile as many people as he could, he was stubborn but not blindly ignorant.
May I introduce you to this video and ask you watch it's entirety before replying thanks.:ohdear:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1b9vqIL6Shc

By support I mean in taxes and such. And yes, it is probably true you know more about America than any other American knows about Aussie or Europe, which if you grew up in Australia, is the duty of any history teacher, to let you know the history of your country such that one feels bonded to it. If the teach didn't do the job and you learned on your own the history of your and other countries is a whole other deal.
So by your definition support is financial?
I always thought support meant much more than pure financial, it meant actual support not filling pockets.

For a guy who promised Change, he's not very honorable in getting that change.(obama) Even though paying people off isn't unique, it's not the way a (2,000 page) bill that is so massive to America, (and therefore the world) should be passed. Just because it isn't unique shouldn't mean that it's any less despicable that a person has so little faith in his own bill when his OWN PARTY has the majority and could pass without the Republicans' votes no matter what... that means a lot of things, none of them are good.
Let me get this straight, You're claiming Obama wasn't very honourable in maintaining his promises of change when he has substantial obstacles to achieve such changes and then when he pulls through but uses what you could call unorthodox methods he's despicable for it?
Although his party may have the majority of seats, it really doesn't help when politicians jump from one party to another just to stay on the winning side.
It's happened here, people from labour jumped to conservatives and visa versa when the odds were switched, so how exactly is it surprising that there is challenge within his own party?


I say now would be a great time for a space program overhaul to help unify the world. We should be on our way to mars by now.Or spend the money on better projects such as continue researching environmental habitats that would eventually lead to said mars missions?
Mars currently isn't the main priority, for all research intensive reasons, setting up a station on Luna would be better, you could start a process of producing materials on Luna such as food and water which would reduce the loads required to be sent up in shuttles.

I'm going to have to agree with rossmum on this one, take everything you hear, read and see with a grain of salt because for all it's worth, if you believed everything you were told you would start to think there's some NWO taking place.
Paying people off to get certain bills passed maybe unorthodox but it's no where near as despicable as what's been revealed over here in the past 18 months with the public expenses scandal that's been taking place.
The only real way to find out the truth is to read all sides of a news subject and find out what each one has in common and then make your own mind up.

[Bhamid]

Charlie Brooker's Screenwipe -> the definitive news analysis program :D

Dwood, when you talk about paying people off, are you referring to lobbying? (in reverse maybe?).

Also, about the guns laws, do Americans (esp. Hillbillies and the like) acknowledge there is a problem with the number of deaths around guns, but are in favor of them despite this or do they 'look past' this and defend their right to carry guns with the Constitution?

[Dwood]

Charlie Brooker's Screenwipe -> the definitive news analysis program :D

Dwood, when you talk about paying people off, are you referring to lobbying? (in reverse maybe?).

No, I'm not referring to honest lobbying (if there is such a thing). I am referring to congressmen including things in bills (such as exempting one state from the entire bill, which Massachusetts(or some other state I can't remember) is exempt) that benefit other congressmen in order to get them to vote for the bill, such as 12 million dollars or whatever it is set aside in the bill for the study of snails, among other things to get said congressmen to vote for the bill.



Also, about the guns laws, do Americans (esp. Hillbillies and the like) acknowledge there is a problem with the number of deaths around guns, but are in favor of them despite this or do they 'look past' this and defend their right to carry guns with the Constitution?

Refer to the following thread. http://www.modacity.net/forums/showthread.php?t=20191

Don't blame the weapon, blame the people. (if you wish to reply to that, reply to that in the gun thread)

[sleepy1212]

substantial obstacles

U.S. citizens?

I really don't see the point the video was trying to make, except for the fact that a lot of mindless kiddies can relate to a movie more than they can actual politics or real world events.

I'll address Beck's statements instead. Right's are endowed by the creator, according to US constitution. Beck takes that to be God (christian). At the time of this country's founding it was revolutionary - no pun intended? - to say that people are inherently entitled to certain basic rights. In all other governments at the time, and many today, there were no rights, only privileges granted by the government which is dangerous. Rights that come from the state can be taken away by the state, rights that are inherent to humanity cannot.

This is why liberalism is so threatening to American conservatives. Liberal is literally the level of interpretation of the constitution, i.e., the constitution is not to be taken literally - which means basic rights are not literally inherent to mankind which means they can, if interpreted so, be taken away by the state.

Beck is saying that is what is happening; the government is slowly taking our basic rights away. His statements stand as a political point of view even if they are colored in a christian hue; he just happens to be a christian. You could replace that with atheism and it wouldn't make any less sense. Obviously, most of Beck's critics have a problem with Christianity and therefore ignore/hate everything he says, which is fallacious. However, even if he were Wiccan and claimed rights came from tree spirits it wouldn't make any difference. The fundamental belief does not change: Rights do not come from the state.

I understand how it makes people uncomfortable but as a formerly religious person i know that many find it acceptable to wear their faith on their sleeve. Most religions are like that. As much as i cringe a little when Beck goes into a "God rant" the basic message is something i can agree with and I wouldn't hold it against him if it weren't for the knee-jerk-anti-religion crowd totally missing the point.



when you talk about paying people off, are you referring to lobbying? (in reverse maybe?)?

What Dwood is talking about is sometimes called "piggy-backing". It means before a bill is passed a number of unrelated mandates are included. They're usually pork or handouts to lobbyists.

[Bhamid]

What Dwood is talking about is sometimes called "piggy-backing". It means before a bill is passed a number of unrelated mandates are included. They're usually pork or handouts to lobbyists.
Why are completely unrelated clauses allowed to be included in a Bill then? On a personal note, I have no idea why lobbying is even allowed (I might be missing a huge thing here, other than the fact that loads of money ends up in the politician's pockets) - an entire state might be against Bill X being passed, but if Company Y 'gives' (bribes?) the MP/Representative etc then s/he is going to favor them.

Also on the note of religion, if the US constitution says that the State (including the education system) should be separated from religious movements, the how come Creationism is taught in some schools? <off topic>

[Dwood]

Its not. If it is, its not a public school.

[rossmum]

Charlie Brooker's Screenwipe -> the definitive news analysis program :D

Dwood, when you talk about paying people off, are you referring to lobbying? (in reverse maybe?).

Also, about the guns laws, do Americans (esp. Hillbillies and the like) acknowledge there is a problem with the number of deaths around guns, but are in favor of them despite this or do they 'look past' this and defend their right to carry guns with the Constitution?
I'm a left as fuck Canadian who was raised in Reading and then came to Australia, and I think gun control is fucking ridiculous. Instead of treating them as some kind of scary death totem that kills anyone who goes near them, we should simply rebuild the process of obtaining a licence around psychiatric health and common sense. Stop stupid people or unstable people getting them, don't stop anyone else and don't restrict what they can get. Criminals will find a way to get them anyway - the very idea that they (or the black market sellers) will give a flying shit about laws banning or restricting guns is so illogical and ridiculous it boggles the mind. Of course, it's no help at all that the politicians in charge of gun control measures literally would not know one end from the other and have zero shooting or law-enforcement experience, nor that the media love nothing more than to scare the shit out of the general ignorant public by calling anything with a scope a 'sniper rifle' and anything that looks scary an 'assault rifle' and then saying they shoot heat-seeking cop-killer bullets.

Arguing that less guns means less gun deaths is fucking retarded as well, by the way. If there were less cars, there'd be less road deaths. If there were less pools, there would be less drowning deaths. If there were less children, there would be less accidental child deaths. If there were less humans, there would be fuck all deaths and the world would be a lot better for it. Everything I just listed, along with knives, severe weather, electrical outlets, and probably even trees cause more deaths per year (in developed nations, anyway - including warzones would skew the stats) than guns do, but there's never any call to ban any of those. The reason? Because the general public, aside from being collectively stupid as all fuck, are constantly being brainwashed by scare tactics laid down by the media and politicians alike. I have easy access to automatic weapons and explosives (since, you know, they kind of go with my job) and I own a rifle; I'm not about to go on a shooting spree and nor am I about to leave one laying about loaded. If the government focused on properly regulating who can legally obtain what in terms of firearms, there would be a lot less bullshit murder sprees and a more-or-less unchanged amount of gang shootouts or whatever. Why? Because no amount of gun control will influence how prolific they are among criminals, but the current measures do nothing to keep them out of the hands of generally law-abiding yet incredibly irresponsible/unstable citizens. Wake up to the real problems.

Sleepy, religion and politics should be so far divided they should have nothing to do with each other. Shit, the separation of church and state is one of the tenets the US was founded on, but I'll be damned if that has ever actually happened. Overly preachy religious people are bad enough with their ridiculous political opinions, let alone overly religious nutbars like Beck who try and stir the paranoid everything-phobe inside their target audience.

[sleepy1212]

Sleepy, religion and politics should be so far divided they should have nothing to do with each other. Shit, the separation of church and state is one of the tenets the US was founded on, but I'll be damned if that has ever actually happened. Overly preachy religious people are bad enough with their ridiculous political opinions, let alone overly religious nutbars like Beck who try and stir the paranoid everything-phobe inside their target audience.

Not only does the Declaration literally say "endowed by our creator" but the "separation of church and state" has and had a very clear meaning, which is easy to recognize in context of the climate in which it was written. The only reason it is there is to support the clause: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. In other words, there is to be no state religion like there was with the Church of England. Obviously tax cuts and various other legislation violate this principle. However, concluding that religion and government be entirely separate is incorrect. Government should represent all of its citizens. That means that representatives, if so inclined, can be religious or not religious and no legislation should ever be passed to interfere with either their choice or their right to participate in government on the basis of that religion. This also includes civil servants, government contractors, and soldiers.

[Dwood]

Basically what sleepy said- School can't force you to pray, unless it's private.

[rossmum]

Not only does the Declaration literally say "endowed by our creator" but the "separation of church and state" has and had a very clear meaning, which is easy to recognize in context of the climate in which it was written. The only reason it is there is to support the clause: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. In other words, there is to be no state religion like there was with the Church of England. Obviously tax cuts and various other legislation violate this principle. However, concluding that religion and government be entirely separate is incorrect. Government should represent all of its citizens. That means that representatives, if so inclined, can be religious or not religious and no legislation should ever be passed to interfere with either their choice or their right to participate in government on the basis of that religion. This also includes civil servants, government contractors, and soldiers.
This, by extension, means the government should not pass laws based on the beliefs of one religion or another; ergo trying to legislate against gay marriage, abortion, etc. flies in the face of this. The latter has at least some grey area but from any standpoint the former is entirely based on religion; any attempt to argue it's "immoral" is, as we all damn well know, only "immoral" because certain religions says so. Politicians should either have no religious beliefs or be able to keep their beliefs the fuck out of their decisions. At no level should any religion, no matter how prevalent or who supports it, be involved in government affairs. Religions have the right to regulate themselves (and by extension their devout followers), but they have absolutely no right whatsoever to try and force their views upon an entire nation.

I was brought up in a moderately religious family (my parents pretty much don't care but my grandmother more than makes up for both of them) and throughout my time at primary school (K-6) both in the UK and here I had scripture lessons. I'm still religious on the level of "well all this science shit is fucking sweet, but I wonder who/what started it all off", but that's pretty much it. I'm getting more and more fed up of overly religious people from any religion harping on like they own the place; in a way I'm glad we technically don't have a right to free speech here because it means fuckheads like your Westboro Baptists are refused entry to the country and skinheads can't go about preaching hateful bullshit.

By the way, notice it says "our creator" and not "the Lord God". I'll bet you there's a very good reason for that, and you've both completely missed it.

[sleepy1212]

Politicians should either have no religious beliefs or be able to keep their beliefs the fuck out of their decisions.

While i agree completely that government should not legislate morality (gay marriage, cigarettes, etc ...abortion is grey i agree) that sounds a little like DADT.


By the way, notice it says "our creator" YEP and not "the Lord God". I'll bet you there's a very good reason for that, and you've both completely missed it. NOPE

It's pretty clear why "creator" was used instead of "God". Religious freedom. If they had said "God" it would have been oxymoronic for them to then write the 1st Amendment wouldn't it? Also, notice "creator" is clearly not "The State". Now maybe you were going to say they were atheists and that's why. Maybe. It doesn't matter. The drafters of the Constitution and Declaration knew exactly what they wanted in their new country. If they were atheists then at least they saw the value in letting others decide on their own what to believe, unlike modern atheists who seem pretty intent on forcing their beliefs on everyone else.

also, I feel pretty much the same ~ science and maybe a god.

[rossmum]

I was thinking more that they put it there to avoid any religion or possibly even atheists bitching, since 'creator' could also imply the universe itself.

Also, since you bring it up, DADT is a fucking retarded policy and just because it allows gays to serve in the closet it doesn't make it any less ridiculous. We don't have it and nor do several other militaries, we have had absolutely no trouble whatsoever (except the Navy, but hey... it's the NAVY, what the fuck do you expect). The only reason it's still being enforced (or, for that matter, ever was put into place) is because the religious nutbars would sperg out hardcore and create a massive shitstorm. Here, they'd just be told to shut their fucking mouths and deal with it. I don't doubt we had our own fair share of religious nutbars or just plain homophobes who bitched about it, but the thing is, the Government can and will tell them to fuck off and keep out of everyone else's business. It seems to me that over there, even the most progressive politicians have to pander to the holies if they want to get anywhere, and that is wrong on so many levels it's not funny.

[sleepy1212]

It seems to me that over there, even the most progressive politicians have to pander to the holies if they want to get anywhere, and that is wrong on so many levels it's not funny.

That's the problem with democracy, there can be majorities. It frustrates me too. We can't have a party conservative on the constitution without the Christian right-wing. Because of that, good conservative arguments automatically get shot down by knee-jerk-atheist-left-wingers. It's hard to make a stand against social-justice, redistribution of wealth, and big government when the party is overrun with religious people. Religious people who, actually, are just as, if not more progressive than Liberals. Essentially what it boils down to is a choice between two masters, when it should be a choice of freedom. Which is why i registered Independent and started voting for Libertarians when they pop up - unfortunately they're rare in this country even though that's pretty much what our founders were.