Conquer Club

then again, we get our information about our government fomr the media as well. If you look at bias in media, state run news channels like BBC tend to be much less biased than our private ones like fox and CNN

happysadfun wrote:

qeee1 wrote:

happysadfun wrote:

qeee1 wrote:

happysadfun wrote: (hint- if you're not an American, please don't try to debate on American polotics)

yes, because not being an American makes your opinion less valid.

I'm saying that most of you don't know as much about american polotics as you do your own respective countries. I won't debate in your polotics threads, as I think it's rude to debate about a country you have never lived in and don't plan on living in.

If ignorance is really your problem then make the disclaimer regarding ignorance, as I've no time for your jingoistic generalisations.

OK, how is this ignorance: You do not live in America.What you "know" about America comes from your media, be it positive or negative. You can debate your own polotics, and form opinions on every action of your country's leader(s), if you so desire. You shouldn't form opinions on every little action of other nations' leaders, seeing as you do not live there, chances are that you never will, you only know what your media tells you about another country, and what you research from biased sources, all countries and sources and media is biased, all across the face of the earth. Make opinions about the laws and regulations of your country, and discredit the country you are fighting against. But don't make such statements about countries you don't know, and don't just get one of those prefabricated "I hate America because they are protecting their country and their people by making a war wihich I condemn because it is war and I hate war because I am a liberal and think that world peace is actually possible and that war is a violation of human rights" opinions. Those are absolute bull and you are completely ignoring the fact that people in other countries are a lot like you.

Marco................ polotics.

BBC is actually a pretty good source of news, and I'd rather watch it than most of News Corps in the States. There are a few others out there also, NPR on the radio, etc.


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:BBC is actually a pretty good source of news, and I'd rather watch it than most of News Corps in the States. There are a few others out there also, NPR on the radio, etc.


--Andy

I agree, Reuters is also pretty good.

If the Senator is incapable of carrying out the responsibilities of his office, I think there should be a special election to appoint a replacement. I don't like the idea of the governor appointing anyone he damn well pleases! Even though i'm an Independent Conservative and would like to see another republican in the Senate (although now that i think about it, the repubs controlled the Senate before the Election and didn't get Shit done!, I'm mainly referring to the Enforcement Only Immigration Bill that was unanimously passed by the House!) If there isn't a Special Election, the Governor should appoint an alternate candidate submitted by the Dem party. It's just the RIGHT thing to do!

If anyone has the least idea WTF HSF is trying to say, could they enlighten the rest of us plz. I expect hilarity to ensue.

I think he's trying to say, "typically foreign views don't fit in with my really really really narrow right wing point of view so I dont want them posting in here"

Regarding what ksslemp said about appointment from the same party...a few states require that the Governor must do that--Alaska, Arizona, and Hawaii. Utah and Wyoming require the Governor to select an new rep from a list of 3 canidates, from the party of the previous rep.

One thing to consider though...as it won't happen with the current issue at hand...which Governor gets to appoint the new rep to fill the vacancy if the Governor say lost his election, but is still in office until the new one is sworn in at the beginning of the next year. Would the new Governor that the state elected make the official decision, or would it be the last official act of the one leaving office? I don't think it is clearly stated anywhere what happens, if the situations arises.


--Andy

happysadfun wrote:ignorance........polotics

And there you have it.

cowshrptrn wrote:then again, we get our information about our government fomr the media as well. If you look at bias in media, state run news channels like BBC tend to be much less biased than our private ones like fox and CNN

From your mouth to stalins ears.

Spoken like a True Communist!

My God, ksslemp, you seemed almost to equate the BBC with Communists there.

The BBC may be state-run, but the state in this case (UK) is democratically-elected, so I think it's fair to say it might be more or less objective.

I think the question of privately-run media is a lot more important. Mr Murdoch is not democratically-elected, and he definitely has certain biases of his own, which are NEVER disclosed to his viewers/readers.

Fox News/Sun newspaper, anyone?

AndyDufresne wrote:One thing to consider though...as it won't happen with the current issue at hand...which Governor gets to appoint the new rep to fill the vacancy if the Governor say lost his election, but is still in office until the new one is sworn in at the beginning of the next year. Would the new Governor that the state elected make the official decision, or would it be the last official act of the one leaving office? I don't think it is clearly stated anywhere what happens, if the situations arises.


--Andy

Isnt' the sitting governor the official governor, so he would appoint the replacement. Just like how presidents who just got voted out of office pardon as many of their corrupt colleagues as they can before leaving office.

Perhaps how you may interpret it, but I don't think it's clearly defined anywhere, as such a case hasn't happened, that I can think of.


--Andy

Stopper wrote:My God, ksslemp, you seemed almost to equate the BBC with Communists there.

The BBC may be state-run, but the state in this case (UK) is democratically-elected, so I think it's fair to say it might be more or less objective.

I think the question of privately-run media is a lot more important. Mr Murdoch is not democratically-elected, and he definitely has certain biases of his own, which are NEVER disclosed to his viewers/readers.

Fox News/Sun newspaper, anyone?

You don't honestly believe that "Mr. Murdock" is involved in the day to day operations of Fox news, Do You?

Try not to confuse a Bond movie with reality please!

What I am saying is a Free Press is ALWAYS better than a gov't sponsored one. Its the notion that the Gov't will provide that's is Communist.

But i would agree that a gov't news org, where the gov't is Democratically- Elected would be more objective than one from a state like lets say N. Korea.

The BBC is neither state run nor state funded. It 's viewpoint is far more independent than any Murdoch propaganda operation will ever be.

mightyal wrote:The BBC is neither state run nor state funded. It 's viewpoint is far more independent than any Murdoch propaganda operation will ever be.

I agree with the second part, but I can't see how you could say it's anything other than a state broadcaster. The government appoints its board, and it's paid for with the licence fee, which is set by the govt, and it has a charter it follows, which is also set and can be changed by the govt. Even if it is (generally) impartial, that doesn't mean it ain't a state operation.

ksslemp wrote:What I am saying is a Free Press is ALWAYS better than a gov't sponsored one. Its the notion that the Gov't will provide that's is Communist.

I think the existence of Fox News, World Weekly News, New York Post, The (British) Daily Mail, The (British) Sun, Sky TV definitely disproves the idea that independent media is always better than state media. As long as the state media is free to criticise the govt, there shouldn't be a problem.

The notion the govt will provide isn't Communist, it's civilised.

ksslemp wrote:You don't honestly believe that "Mr. Murdock" is involved in the day to day operations of Fox news, Do You?

Try not to confuse a Bond movie with reality please!

What I am saying is a Free Press is ALWAYS better than a gov't sponsored one. Its the notion that the Gov't will provide that's is Communist.

But i would agree that a gov't news org, where the gov't is Democratically- Elected would be more objective than one from a state like lets say N. Korea.

Its this funny thing called hiring people who have similar ideologies, murdoch hires conservatives, and there is a LOT of pressure to only hire conservatives for fox, if you look at countless cases, Fox sides withthe president on EVERYTHING, until iraq got soo bad that even conservatives didn't like him. Its hardly fiar and balanced if they never ever criticized bush during the 2004 election, and railed on Kerry, also they still use the word liberal like it was a bad thing, how is that "fair and balanced"

mmmm

English garbage
English Grbage

Isn't it racist to say anyone not american should not comment I'm taking this to lack whoever made this thread shall be banned

EDIT: I missed out the

max is gr8 wrote:mmmm

English garbage
English Grbage

Isn't it racist to say anyone not american should not comment I'm taking this to lack whoever made this thread shall be banned

exaclty how old are you?

jsut because someone says something that you interpret as offensive (he meant that foreigners don't have as much knowledge about US government, which is a reasonable assumption since they've got their owng gov. to worry about) doesn't mean you go crying to the teacher cus johnny said a bad word. If you read most of the thread you'd know that we've informed HSF of how this assumption coudl be wrong, and he's not anti-british

I am not anti- any civilzed country. I believe that we should be carpet bombing Syria back to the Stone Age and at war preventing Iran from getting nukes. I believe that Americans know more about American government than they do, say the British or Irish of Brazilian systems. And since the British and Irish and Brazilian systems don't affect them, they shouldn't go on arguing about them. And Irish shouldn't argue about British of American or Brazilian politics, because it doesn't affect them. If it doesn't affect you, you tend to not really see it as how it is, but a little skewed. For example, I have no idea what the Oireachtas has the right to decide, or how many there are, or anything. Plus, it doesn't affect me, so I shouldn't argue about it. I can learn, such as I just learned that there are three tiers, but I still shouldn't argue about it. On the other side of the equation, Qeee1 shouldn't argue about Congress, because he probably doesn't know much about Congress, and probably doesn't want to. It doesn't affect him, so why should he even care? You can care about it, such as how I oddly keep track of the Canadian parliament, but I still shouldn't argue about it because I don't live there and it doesn't affect me.

Now let's get back on subject. Americans: Will the Dems lose control?
What do you think of Operation Surrender, being plotted by the Dems?
Ann Coulter vs. George Steph?

happysadfun wrote:Now let's get back on subject. Americans: Will the Dems lose control?

Who cares? They both serve the same PACs.

What do you think of Operation Surrender, being plotted by the Dems?

Hubba-wha?

Ann Coulter vs. George Steph?

George is cute, but I'd still rather get at Ann. I'd let George get to second base.

On a positive note, at least this reminds people that South Dakota exsists, because I know alot of people tend to forget.

happysadfun wrote:Ann Coulter vs. George Steph?

Ann Coulter would win hands down. If she didnt scare him to death with that horse-face, the acid spewing from her mouth would!

I would like to see Ann Coulter and Nancy Grace in a cage-match...and hope they end up killing each other! I have never seen two nastier women.

happysadfun wrote:I am not anti- any civilzed country. I believe that we should be carpet bombing Syria back to the Stone Age and at war preventing Iran from getting nukes.

And then with all of our army elsewhere we can endanger the rest of our citizens with no one here to protect them, or if we get attacked by someone else like say north korea no one to protect us over there..


Now do you see how preemptive attacks hurt us?