BBC Chief rips the US media

[FiveB247]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030425/media_nm/iraq_media_bbc_dc_4

[Bergalad]

I'm not really sure this is such a big deal. I mean, he singles out Fox News, which is the sister company of Sky News in Europe, the BBC's biggest rival. I thought this was interesting:
Dyke suggested the problem stemmed from the recent fragmentation of media, with no single network having the clout to stand up to the U.S. government.
So he thinks the best thing is to have one media outlet tell the populace what's happening? Very interesting. Oh and:
Dyke said, "For the health of our democracy, it's vital we don't follow the path of many American networks."
Guess that means we have an unhealthy, foetid democracy here in the US. This is all sour grapes. He's pissed that Sky News is expanding so well against the BBC and is trying to say they (Fox, therefore Sky) is biased and can't be trusted. Hell, he's saying those channels are destroying American society and threatening British democracy! Please.

[TheMojoPin]

Dyke suggested the problem stemmed from the recent fragmentation of media, with no single network having the clout to stand up to the U.S. government.


So he thinks the best thing is to have one media outlet tell the populace what's happening? Very interesting.

Wow, it's so completely obvious that's totally exactly what he said. Thanks, George.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Bestinshow]

I damn double posted again
<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

This message was edited by Bestinshow on 4-25-03 @ 11:32 AM

[Bestinshow]

I don`t know. msnbc and CNN did a pretty good job of standing up to the US government. Or were they being kind and we really did lose the war. I guess news has to be antiUS to be accurate because that never has a problem flying.

Agreeing with the gov=Bad
Pissing on the Gov=good

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

[LiquidCourage]

This guy's talking out of his ass.
The BBC is so biased it's ridiculious.
Even some of their own reporters were complaining that the BBC was not reporting things the way they were happening.
If you listened to them, you'd think that we were going to lose the war, with all that "fierce resistance" and all.

[FiveB247]

I don't think it's a matter of competition or something relative to business per say. I think he believes the US media is biased....but the BBC isn't much better either.

[HBox]

I don`t know. msnbc and CNN did a pretty good job of standing up to the US government. Or were they being kind and we really did lose the war. I guess news has to be antiUS to be accurate because that never has a problem flying.


You really need to stop buying cable from Earth 2.

[HBox]

Double post. Boo me.



This message was edited by HBox on 4-25-03 @ 2:54 PM

[Steels]

Give yourself a break. You lost a long time ago pal.


<img src=http://members.aol.com/vikorynotvengnce/images/steels2.gif>

[Bestinshow]

You really need to stop buying cable from Earth 2.

And you are going to tell me the media didn`t make it sound like the US military was the keystone cops and getting their ass kicked?
Or are you going to tell me I didn`t read your post again?

I don`t get my news from earth 2. You look at the world with shit colored glasses.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

[HBox]

And you are going to tell me the media didn`t make it sound like the US military was the keystone cops and getting their ass kicked?
Or are you going to tell me I didn`t read your post again?

I don`t get my news from earth 2. You look at the world with shit colored glasses.


Yes. That's exactly what I'm going to tell you. I think you need to stop overreacting to every piece of news that might shed a bad light on America. For a while there, we were getting more resistance than expected. It didn't last long, and when they got to Baghdad, every news station was all over the statue falling and Iraqis running through the streets praising Bush.

[TheMojoPin]

And you are going to tell me the media didn`t make it sound like the US military was the keystone cops and getting their ass kicked?

Yes.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Bergalad]

Wow, it's so completely obvious that's totally exactly what he said. Thanks, George.

No problem. Sorry I didn't have any of the cute pictures you use to make it clearer to you.

[Bestinshow]

Yes. That's exactly what I'm going to tell you. I think you need to stop overreacting to every piece of news that might shed a bad light on America. For a while there, we were getting more resistance than expected. It didn't last long, and when they got to Baghdad, every news station was all over the statue falling and Iraqis running through the streets praising Bush.


Yes.


Right. And of course both of you guys are so objective. After all, Iraqis in the street doing what they want is very common place. They should have suppressed it like the objective news that you watch. Wow, it must be great to know the right angle all the time. I guess the only way news can be good is if it says the Bush administration sucks and they Fucked up and we killed and brutalized thousands of civilians. And of course that is objective because that is the way you see it.



<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

This message was edited by Bestinshow on 4-25-03 @ 5:53 PM

[Bestinshow]

Just curious, I would love to hear your objective view of what should have been shown by our media to show they could stand up to the government. I can`t wait to hear this unbiased answer.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

[TooCute]

I can`t wait to hear this unbiased answer.

and by "unbiased" you mean "agreeing with me"

<img src=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/toocute2.gif>
!! 2% !!<font color=FBF2F7>

[Bergalad]

and by "unbiased" you mean "agreeing with me"
lol that's a good point...

[Bestinshow]

and by "unbiased" you mean "agreeing with me"

If you are saying I think my view is unbiased you missed the whole point. My point is they are biased and if I understand your inference so are you. We all have our biases. But to say
the media doesn`t stand up to the government is ridiculous. When the media rips
the government, well thats news. Thats objective.When the media praises the government. They have no balls. You tell me
unbiased=agreeing with me? Wrong me

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

[FiveB247]

Whether conservative, liberal, radical, etc...most media outlets have some generic twist or viewpoint in their dictation to the public. Media was not always like this nor was the source of the general media in the US so generic and lacked different perspectives. Most international news is shortened, most business news is simply kissing ass of business's and accomplishments. The in-depth expo's, studies and researches that once helped further thought, perspective as well informing the public of important issues, have all been removed from print in generic places. You basically have to look out or take your own intiative to find such items (which most don't). It basically all comes down to the business and corporate effect of owning and running such things. It's all "shock and awe" nowadays.

"...The liberty of the press is called the Palladium of Freedom, which means
in these days, the liberty of being deceived, swindled, and humbugged by the press and paying hugely for the deception." - Mark Twain

[Bestinshow]

lol that's a good point...



Bergalad you turncoat. Last time I get in on your side of an argument

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

[Bestinshow]

Dyke suggested the problem stemmed from the recent fragmentation of media,


Wow, it's so completely obvious that's totally exactly what he said. Thanks, George.


definitely sounds like Dyke likes different views to me.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

[TheMojoPin]

Just curious, I would love to hear your objective view of what should have been shown by our media to show they could stand up to the government. I can`t wait to hear this unbiased answer.

It's not the cable news networks' duty to stand up to OR support the government. Their job is to report the news.

I just thought it was a little nutty that Berg took the BBC spokesman's comment to mean that he thought there should only be one, "1984"-esque news channel to tell the populace what they should hear.

Again, until reporting that US soldiers are facing "suprising, fierce resistance" (Which they did...why is this negative? When we were attacked, it was reported...when we won, it was reported) is actually "biased and anti-American", this is just personal preference. Like it or not, war is a shitty situation, and shitty things happen. Is it supposed to NOT be reported if something "bad" happens to or on our side?

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 4-25-03 @ 7:19 PM

[Bestinshow]

Dyke defended the BBC in the face of accusations -- some from the British government -- that the broadcaster had been soft on Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s government.


Much better than flag waving and American radio being patriotic. God forbid.



<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

[Bestinshow]

It's not the cable news networks' duty to stand up to OR support the government. Their job is to report the news.

Again, until reporting that US soldiers are facing "suprising, fierce resistance" (Which they did...why is this negative? When we were attacked, it was reported...when we won, it was reported) is actually "biased and anti-American", this is just personal preference. Like it or not, war is a shitty situation, and shitty things happen. Is supposed to NOT be reported if something "bad" happens to or on our side?

What happened to all the bullshit about our original plans weren`t working and they had to stop the fighting and go back to the drawing board and start all over.?What happened to all the bullshit about us not sending enough men? What "negatives" were left out because they didn`t have the "clout" to stand up to the government? Or do you just not like the postive side shown? Showing the bad is necessary but so is showing the good.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

This message was edited by Bestinshow on 4-25-03 @ 7:34 PM

[Doomstone]

What "negatives" were left out because they didn`t have the "clout" to stand up to the government?

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/stripped-iraqis.htm
You won't see this on Faux.

http://www.cjonline.com/stories/042403/bre_landonlec.shtml
War's sobering realities never reached American TV screens during the recent U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, according to NBC News correspondent Ashleigh Banfield.



This message was edited by Doomstone on 4-25-03 @ 7:45 PM

[Bestinshow]

As a journalist, I have been ostracized just from going on television and saying, 'Here's what the leaders of Hezbollah, a radical Moslem group, are telling me about what is needed to bring peace to Israel,'" she said.

Ashleigh is famous for being so unbiased.

I think you have to be a moron not to know what happens when bullets hit people and mortars hit cities. When we hit the restaurant where they suspected Hussein was they made no bones that there were civilians. But I guess you need to see the bodies and blood and flesh because otherwise we don`t know about it. Rumsfeld and all the generals never denied there are casualties. There always are in war. But you want to see each one as an atrocity because you are against the war. Noone said war was nice. We don`t have to see the blood to know its there. I thought that was the point, knowledge.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

[Doomstone]

Noone said war was nice. We don`t have to see the blood to know its there. I thought that was the point, knowledge.

So news agencies don't report certain things because the public already knows about them? Ok, I'm not following that. By presenting a sanitized view of real events, they are obscuring the truth. Media is supposed to represent the truth. Not their version of the truth, not the version of the truth that people want to hear. The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

[Bestinshow]

Right. the only way to give the truth is to show blood. That is very common during war. Show all the bodies. As a matter of fact, when someone dies in a car crash, they should put a picture of his bloody corpse on TV also. Maybe we will stop driving them. Truth is the truth.

By the way, that was a great source of news you got with the naked iraqis. The little piece you left out is this was suggested by locals who commonly make thiefs walk around with Ali Baba on their bodies which means thief. The Iraqis use this to punish thieves. Or do you prefer violence instead. Big story you broke.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

[FiveB247]

Any news media agent's job is to report news. Not a version or perspective on the news. That's the difference between biased and un-biased news.

[TheMojoPin]

What happened to all the bullshit about our original plans weren`t working and they had to stop the fighting and go back to the drawing board and start all over.?

To the best of my knowledge, the only person truly guilty of this kind of blatant editorializing was Peter Arnett, and he was fired within a few days of making those comments on IRAQI TV. It wasn't even on the American networks. Any other comments along those lines would have been made by the "millitary experts" that ALL of the networks had on, who basically were all guessing as to what might be happening or what we were able to see or what the news was indicating.

And your implication is that the "good" wasn't being shown, which is ridiculous. Every US advancement and victory was harped on again and again. Did you miss all the footage of Baghdad falling? Are you comparing the other networks to Fox, which is the ONLY network to have the gung-ho, "go US" sentiment that you seem to crave? Fox choosing to focus almost ONLY on the positive isn't any less "biased" than the other networks giving airtime to the "negative" or other views of the war...so if one is supposedly rampantly "biased," the other is just as guilty, just from a different perspective.

If you're covering war, you show war. The danger of having 24 hour news networks is that you have dead time to kill in these events, and the anchors start editorializing. Bias doesn't seem to be the most dangerous thing here...just boredom.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."



This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 4-25-03 @ 10:48 PM

[HBox]

What happened to all the bullshit about our original plans weren`t working and they had to stop the fighting and go back to the drawing board and start all over.?


Peter Arnett is not the spokesperson for the enitre world of journalism. And he got fired for those comments. So there.

[DarkHippie]

Here's another article about what the BBCchief said. It seems his main beef is with Clear Clannel, who actually used its stations to promote pro-war rallies--a blatant conflict of interests.
http://media.guardian.co.uk/iraqandthemedia/story/0,12823,943107,00.html

<IMG SRC=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/darkhippie2.gif>
<i>LABELS ARE FOR PRODUCTS, NOT PEOPLE! DON'T HUG A TREE, PLANT ONE!
</i><a href=http://www.freeopendiary.com/entrylist.asp?authorcode=A537085>Gonads and Strife: a journal</a>

[TheMojoPin]

Speaking of rally-coverage, during the war itself, I saw far more coverage on channels like CNN of the strictly "pro-troops" rallies than the "anti-war" ones, at least once they started in earnest...yet you listen to some people, they think CNN was practically screaming at you to run out and hippie-fy yourself...

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Bergalad]

Bergalad you turncoat. Last time I get in on your side of an argument
Sorry, but I had to agree with her comment. It made me laugh, what can I say? We are all biased in everything we do, from what we eat to what we watch on TV to what we believe politically. It's pretty much impossible to get an unbiased response from someone on here for anything, let alone politics. I know what you were trying to get across though. What you should have been more shocked at was that I agreed with something Too Cute said. That's real news there.

[Bergalad]

I just thought it was a little nutty that Berg took the BBC spokesman's comment to mean that he thought there should only be one, "1984"-esque news channel to tell the populace what they should hear.
That's an overexaggeration of what I said Mojo. The BBC is government-funded and didn't have any competition until Sky came on the scene. Now Rupert Murdoch (Sky, Fox) is trying to get more into radio in Europe, again BBC-controlled territory. This guy is taking a shot at Sky and Fox in an attempt to keep them controlled, that's what I am saying. If he was successful in labeling Sky as dangerous to the stability of England, then he could possibly limit their expansion. It's a business ploy in my opinion. I think this guy would like there to be only one TV and Radio company in England to tell people the news, and that would be the BBC. What business wouldn't like to have a monopoly?

[HBox]

they think CNN was practically screaming at you to run out and hippie-fy yourself...


In all fairness, ty-dye tee shirt sales have skyrocketed recently.

[TheMojoPin]

You're taking it to mean that he essentially thinks there should be a media monoply, I simply took it that the various news groups are more concerned with competing with each other/making the other look bad as opposed to actually reporting on or commenting on the news...BBC's quality has taken a huge plunge since they've had to resort to "shock" ratings tactics to compete with the sleazebags at Sky. Government-funding doesn't have to automatically mean "bad"...BBC has often been one of the most vocal critics of the British government out of all of the media outlets...

And let's not kid ourselves. Fox has some bright spots, but Sky is, and always has been awful. Their "news" segments spend just as much time having roundtable dissections of the pop charts as they do keeping track of world affairs. Truly the epitome of talk show-journalism.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 4-26-03 @ 1:43 PM

[LiquidCourage]

Mojo, do you have some massive satellite dish or something, or are you just trashing Sky cause their the sister network of Fox?

[HBox]

Sky TV, owned by News Corp. Fox News, owned by News Corp. NY Post, owned by News Corp. Rupert Murdoch, our generation's William Randolph Hearst.

[hillburt_spaess]

Having thieves or other petty criminals walk through the main street of a village or city naked as a form of punishment is a common occurence in the arab world. I lived in Egypt for 5 years and I saw it often. I bet those guys are alive and unlikely to steal anything anytime soon.

And being that Amnesty International thinks it resources are better spent looking over the shoulder of the US force and not trying to sort out the close to three DECADES of human rights horrors the regime meted out in its pursuit of absolute control, one has to wonder about the "apolitical" nature of said organization.

I think it serves a vital purpose in most cases, but naked theives - hurt feelings - GMAFB.




<p align="center"><img src="http://www.radiogenix.com/elem/signatures/sig_hs_001.jpg" width="299" height="140" border="0"></p>

- spaess out

[hillburt_spaess]

The BBC's news reporting is trustworthy for the most part. I watched them through the entire conflict and I still watch them today (DC, MPT- 6pm), But they have shows like "Newsnight" and other tabloidTV shows that are so far left and biased that it is comical. That stuffed shirt limey has some nerve, huh?

The problem is, in my opinion, the BBC's upper management has become infected with the European laissez-faire, self-important, f*ck the world, if they want to blow themselves up, let them, as long as we don't have to see it attitude about EVERYTHING political - some of the strongest agitants for joining the European Union come from the same place journalists do - the vaunted halls of English universities - yet it is fair to say that most Britons consider full membership in such a shaky and bureaucratically inhibited cooperative about as appealing as a stick in the eye.

Liberal media bias? Well, sure. I don't care, I am smart enough to form my own opinions.

And I think Fox sucks.

<p align="center"><img src="http://www.radiogenix.com/elem/signatures/sig_hs_001.jpg" width="299" height="140" border="0"></p>

- spaess out

[TheMojoPin]

Mojo, do you have some massive satellite dish or something, or are you just trashing Sky cause their the sister network of Fox?

I do, yes, have 800+ satellite channels, and I also grew up in countries where channels like CNN, Sky and BBC were the only english-speaking networks, so I spent MANY years watching them simply since there was nothing better on. And seriously, Fox comes of as a stellar bastion of journalistic integrity compared to Sky. With Fox there are SOME reporters and shows I can watch, but Sky is just pure and utter garbage. MTV News has more credibility than Sky. Al Jazeera has more credibility than Sky. Try and find a Sky feed online, sit back, and let the laughter flow. Or tears. I usually experience both.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Bergalad]

You're correct Mojo that Sky is miserable. When I was in Germany it was all there was in english, so not much I could do. It is second-rate TV though. For that guy's comments, I felt they were terribly self-serving really. The head of one channel ripping the rival station(s) is a business move and seeks to further his own station's influence and trustworthiness. I think it was more that then an honest assessment of present-day TV journalism standards.

[The Jays]

It seems his main beef is with Clear Clannel, who actually used its stations to promote pro-war rallies--a blatant conflict of interests.


How?

<font color="blue" face="Trebuchet MS" size=-2> Fuck what you heard.</font>
<font color="blue" face="Trebuchet MS" size=-2> That cab has a dent in it.</font> [center]
[center]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/morecoolestgroup/files/house.gif

[TheMojoPin]

For that guy's comments, I felt they were terribly self-serving really. The head of one channel ripping the rival station(s) is a business move and seeks to further his own station's influence and trustworthiness. I think it was more that then an honest assessment of present-day TV journalism standards.

I can see that. Good points, Berg...

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Bestinshow]

To the best of my knowledge, the only person truly guilty of this kind of blatant editorializing was Peter Arnett, and he was fired within a few days of making those comments on IRAQI TV. It wasn't even on the American networks. Any other comments along those lines would have been made by the "millitary experts" that ALL of the networks had on, who basically were all guessing as to what might be happening or what we were able to see or what the news was indicating.

It was on all the networks from the so called military experts to the retired generals. Tommy Franks, Rumsfeld and the other Generals were practically screaming it wasn`t true and still these analysis made the air. My point was that article by the BBC journalist stated the US networks didn`t have the clout to stand up to the government and that just proves his statement horseshit.

And your implication is that the "good" wasn't being shown, which is ridiculous.


No, I saw plenty of positive coverage. I was merely stating that those who are against the war constantly piss on any coverage that shows something positive (I am talking in general, not you specifically) as "flag waving and overly patriotic". They want negative coverage but they don`t like the positive coverage. By the way, when did it become such a filthy word to be patriotic? ( Again Mojo, not refering to you)

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

[TooCute]

By the way, when did it become such a filthy word to be patriotic?

Probably around the same time a lot of patriots were called anti-american for not supporting the war.

<img src=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/toocute2.gif>
!! 2% !!<font color=FBF2F7>

[DarkHippie]

How?
We've spent how many threads discussing how it is wrong when media subtlely pushes its political agenda. How about when they blatantly push their agenda?

<IMG SRC=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/darkhippie2.gif>
<i>LABELS ARE FOR PRODUCTS, NOT PEOPLE! DON'T HUG A TREE, PLANT ONE!
</i><a href=http://www.freeopendiary.com/entrylist.asp?authorcode=A537085>Gonads and Strife: a journal</a>

[Bestinshow]

Probably around the same time a lot of patriots were called anti-american for not supporting the war.


So I guess that makes it okay.

Also, for your info, many protests were also sponsored by socialist antiAmerican groups such as ANSWER and NOT in OUR NAME. I personally feel that anyone who aligned themselves with those groups was anti-American.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

[TooCute]

Also, for your info, many protests were also sponsored by socialist antiAmerican groups such as ANSWER and NOT in OUR NAME. I personally feel that anyone who aligned themselves with those groups was anti-American.

Who said anything about protests?

<img src=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/toocute2.gif>
!! 2% !!<font color=FBF2F7>

[Bestinshow]

Who said anything about protests?


Just giving my view of which antiwar people were AntiAmerican. While I did not think it was unpatriotic and unamerican to be antiwar, I felt those who sided with those groups did fit those descriptions. This is a message board and I was giving my view.
<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>



This message was edited by Bestinshow on 4-28-03 @ 1:31 PM

[HBox]

I personally feel that anyone who aligned themselves with those groups was anti-American.


The KKK was in favor of this war. I personally feel that anyone who supports this war is in league with the KKK.

[Bestinshow]

The KKK was in favor of this war. I personally feel that anyone who supports this war is in league with the KKK.

This is the type of logic I have grown to expect from you. You see if you didn`t want to twist reality to agree with your halfbaked theories you would realize that would only apply to prowar protests run by the KKK which I am sure would get a small following and would be just as unamerican. But you don`t want to really debate with facts. You just want to be obnoxious.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

[FiveB247]

While I did not think it was unpatriotic and unamerican to be antiwar, I felt those who sided with those groups did fit those descriptions. This is a message board and I was giving my view.

Actually, voicing your opinion in any regards, even if against the US policy or action, is very patriotic. It's doing your duty as a citizen to be involved. It's just the perspective you hold which varies your particular version of those opinions.

[Bergalad]

Actually, voicing your opinion in any regards, even if against the US policy or action, is very patriotic.
As defined by Webster's:

Patriot: one who loves his country and supports its authority and interests.

Patriotic: benefiting or characteristic of a patriot.

So let's review. Five, you stated earlier you HATE Bush, who heads the US government (and is therefore the authority of America). Webster says a patriot supports his country's authority. Hmm. Since through your own admission conjoined with Webster definition you aren't a patriot, I guess you can't be patriotic either then, can you? And before you rail at me saying I called you unpatriotic...remeber it was Webster's.

Hey, it's a Monday. I needed something to do.



This message was edited by Bergalad on 4-28-03 @ 4:13 PM

[Bestinshow]

Actually, voicing your opinion in any regards, even if against the US policy or action, is very patriotic. It's doing your duty as a citizen to be involved. It's just the perspective you hold which varies your particular version of those opinions.

My problem isn`t with voicing your opinion, whatever opinion it is. My problem is with supporting those organizations that are antiamerican. Pick a different protest, one not backed by an antiAmerican organization or have a private protest not backed by any organization. Obviously, we are entitled to free speech.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

[East Side Dave]

Since you guys are the most serious can someone help me out with my taxes? I heard they might be due soon.

<img src=http://www.richstillwell.com/ESD.gif>
Big Ass Mafia

[Bestinshow]

Hey Berg, You are on your own. I am not going to back you and than you slip like an eel over to Five`s side.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

[Bestinshow]

Since you guys are the most serious can someone help me out with my taxes? I heard they might be due soon.

For Gods sake captain, I `m a CPA, not a miracle worker.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

[FiveB247]

As defined by Webster's:

Patriot: one who loves his country and supports its authority and interests.

Patriotic: benefiting or characteristic of a patriot.

So let's review. Five, you stated earlier you HATE Bush, who heads the US government (and is therefore the authority of America). Webster says a patriot supports his country's authority. Hmm. Since through your own admission conjoined with Webster definition you aren't a patriot, I guess you can't be patriotic either then, can you? And before you rail at me saying I called you unpatriotic...remeber it was Webster's.

Hey, it's a Monday. I needed something to do.

I hated Bush when he was Governor of Texas...before he was President..where does that fit into your logic?

I've heard you criticize Clinton and other officials to some extent (at one point or another)....so I guess you'd be "Un-patriotic" too right?

Some who is un-patriotic (according to your definition) / anti-american believes and acts at all costs that the US is always wrong, does no good and should basically be ended. When Bush is out of office, will I still dislike the President? Obviously it won't be Bush, so your logic is off.

I never claim to hate the US as you say it...I do not agree with many of its actions, polcies, etc. It's far from unpatriotic.

If everyone were a patriot as the definition you wrote (and then kinda twisted to fit the role), citizens wouldn't exisit. We'd all be mindless Yes men.

"For in a republic, who is the "the country"? Is it the Government which is for the moment in the saddle? Why, the government is merely a servant- merely a temporary servant: It cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn't. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them. Who, thenis "country"?...In a Monarchy, the king and his family are the country: In a republic it is the common voice of the people. Each of you, for himself, by himself and on his own responsibility, and not to lightly to be flung aside at the bullying of the pulpit, press, government, or empty catch phrases of politicians. Each must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong, and which course is patriotic and which isn't....To decide against your convictions is to be an unqualified and inexcusable traitor, both to yourself and to your country, Let men label you as they may. If you alone of all the nation shall decide one way, and that way be the right way according to your convictions of right, you have done your duty by yourself and by your country - Hold up your head. You have nothing to be ashamed of." - Mark Twain

This message was edited by FiveB247 on 4-28-03 @ 5:05 PM

[travis151]

Five has the right to say what ever he wants. Who cares if he doesn't like Bush that doesn't make him Un-American. So what he disagrees with the Bush policies. I just wish that you Five try to put your political views to the side for a minute and just admit that what has happen in Iraq has been a good thing for not only America but the Iraqi's also. Yes, you can point out how for now Iraq has a little chaos going on but in time you must admit things will hopefully return to a normal society. We all have to admit the Media can and will always spin to their on agendas for both the Left and Right of politics. Just as I can find plenty propoganda against the Right equally I can find it for the Left. I guess you can say I lean to the "Right" what ever that means.

Red Sox=More Better

[Bestinshow]

I hated Bush

What selfrespecting man can feel this way? You need a one way ticket to the sausage factory.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

[FiveB247]

Do I think that the freeing of the Iraqi people was a good thing and that the removal of a evil dictator was good? Of course. But I do not agree with the reasons and intentions of why the US did it They could have done the same a long while ago if their intentions were as noble as they claim. The US does not past, present and future, go around freeing the world from dictators (in fact they've done quite the opposite). What will happen in post Saddam Iraq remains to be seen. If you want to take such ideas of believes them to be anti-American...you can..but they aren't. I wish good things for our nation as well as others.

What selfrespecting man can feel this way? You need a one way ticket to the sausage factory.

I like my women clean shaved. Ie..no Bush.

[Bergalad]

I am not going to back you and than you slip like an eel over to Five`s side.

Five's side? Oh you KNOW that's not gonna happen!
Who cares if he doesn't like Bush that doesn't make him Un-American.
I was commenting (not entirely seriously mind you) on his comment that rallying against the goverment somehow makes you more patriotic than those who supported the war. And anyway, it's what the dictionary said, not me, so go yell at those guys.
The US does not past, present and future, go around freeing the world from dictators
First, let me say...huh? Interesting Nostradamus. As far as freeing the world from dictators, I seem to remember something from history class about the US removing one...it'll come to me...wait...oh yeah, I think his name was HITLER! Maybe some Mussolini guy too.

[high fly]

BERGALAND-- were you just kidding with the dictionary def. or something?
Or did you use it to say that everyone who didn't support Dumbya is unpatriotic?
And what if they supported him on the war, but not on his tax program?


" and they ask me why I drink"

[HBox]

This is the type of logic I have grown to expect from you.


I'm glad sarcasm and satire isn't lost on you. I was, of course, completely serious. It wasn't at all an attempt to try to get you to realize the idiocy of your comment.

They were anti-war rallies. Their only purpose was for people to voice their dissent to the war. Everyone had different reasons why they opposed the war. Not everyone of them hate America. Are the protestors supposed to research who is organizing rallies, and then if that organization isn't to their liking, just not go and let their voice be silent?

As for your reply, look up irony in the dictionary.

[FiveB247]

First, let me say...huh? Interesting Nostradamus. As far as freeing the world from dictators, I seem to remember something from history class about the US removing one...it'll come to me...wait...oh yeah, I think his name was HITLER! Maybe some Mussolini guy too.

That was WWII....a world war that the US was thrust into due to Pearl Harbor. Japan (a nation that actually attacked American soil) aligned with Germany and Italy. We didn't just decide to attack Germany to free the Jews, or we didn't happen to attack Italy to remove Mussolini.

The US attacked Iraq in order to remove Saddam. You comparison isn't even close to relevant.

If you know history...you would see a long history of the US removing evil tyrants and replacing them with other dictators which fall in line with US policies. It's gone on for decades and decades, mostly in South and Central America as well as South East Asia, not even to mention the Middle East. The US's long history of supporting dictators is clear and has very little to do with freeing suppressed citizens as well as trading off development and democratic values for some sense of stability (which I might add doesn't and hasn't held).

Many times you seem to base your arguments around or back to the fact of what the US did during WWII compared to now. Quite honestly, it doesn't hold or compare. Pre-WWII US wasn't a world power compared to Post-WWII US was one of 2 Superpowers in the world. The US became the nation we are today due to the economic, political and social ramifications that we gained from most of Europe being left in ruins while our nation began to thrive.

[DarkHippie]

Why would you consider answer and not in our name anti-american? Please enlighten me, I'm literally dying to hear this.

oh, and please give me sources (this is what we do in this forum, in case you forgot. you are still new. we don't make ridiculous accusations without backing them up)

<IMG SRC=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/darkhippie2.gif>
<i>LABELS ARE FOR PRODUCTS, NOT PEOPLE! DON'T HUG A TREE, PLANT ONE!
</i><a href=http://www.freeopendiary.com/entrylist.asp?authorcode=A537085>Gonads and Strife: a journal</a>

[Bergalad]

That was WWII....a world war that the US was thrust into due to Pearl Harbor. Japan (a nation that actually attacked American soil) aligned with Germany and Italy. We didn't just decide to attack Germany to free the Jews, or we didn't happen to attack Italy to remove Mussolini.
Germany and Japan allied to attack the US? What war are you talking about? The last thing Germany wanted was for Japan to attack the US. We weren't headed anytime soon into conflict with Germany (public opinion was against it) and FDR used Pearl Harbor as the impetus to answer the call of Churchill. Anyway, you have taken your own thread massivly off-topic.

[FiveB247]

Germany and Japan allied to attack the US? What war are you talking about? The last thing Germany wanted was for Japan to attack the US. We weren't headed anytime soon into conflict with Germany (public opinion was against it) and FDR used Pearl Harbor as the impetus to answer the call of Churchill. Anyway, you have taken your own thread massivly off-topic.

The US entered WWII after being attacked in Pearl Harbor. Before that, they helped supply Britain and others with weapons, food and similar items. Japan attacked the US, after that happened, the US declared war on the empire of Japan. When the US did that, Germany and Italy declared war on the US and the US reciprocated. That's how it became the Axis vs the Allies.

Your version of these occurrences seem to leave out the connection between the two groups as well as the fronts in which they battled. The US did not want to get involved in fighting originally even with Churchill's pleads.

If you also recall, Germany sank various US vessels via submarines due to transport of goods to Britain and others. Once Pearl Harbor occurred, they were thrusted into the war.

Sorry bout that...got my wars mixed for a sec.

This message was edited by FiveB247 on 4-29-03 @ 9:06 AM

[TheMojoPin]

Mexico also received the "Zimmerman telegram" from Germany which gave the US reason to believe Germany was a threat attempting and calling for Mexico to invade the US.

That was WWI.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[TheMojoPin]

The KKK was in favor of this war. I personally feel that anyone who supports this war is in league with the KKK.

But that's not what Bestinshow was saying. He was saying that many of the anti-war groups/rallies are run and organized by communist and socialist radical groups, and he feels that those who are very aware of this and still directly ally themselves WITH those groups are "anti-American." There are countless protestors that are unaware of this, and as such, are seperated from those that are in his eyes. And odds are, he's probably right. I STOPPED going to as many protests as I had used to, for both anti-war and anti-globalization when I found out over a year ago that these groups sponsor, fund and organize many of these rallies and often use them as a platform for their own particular politics. Consider it my silent protest to their own protests. Your example would only hold water if pro-war people chose to support the war directly through the same channels as the KKK, which is hardly true for most of the everday war in Iraq-supporters. Just because you share a common goal doesn't automatically make you "one of them"...

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[HBox]

Just because you share a common goal doesn't automatically make you "one of them"...


But that's what he was saying. He was trying to equate all protestors with these allegedly "socialist" groups and calling them unamerican. In his eyes, anyone who is showing up to these protest is unamerican. That's wrong. Those protests were because of opposition to the war. And that is why people were showing up, not neccessarily because they believed the ideology of the organizing group or the hated America. I'm sick of everyone trying to equate all protestors with the most extreme elements. That's exactly what he was trying to do.

[FiveB247]

https://secure.adbusters.org/orders/calendar/06-tn.gif

[TheMojoPin]

But that's what he was saying. He was trying to equate all protestors with these allegedly "socialist" groups and calling them unamerican.

No he wasn't. It was clear, to me at least, that he was equating those who were actively aware of exactly who was organizing the rallies and still went anyway fell into that group. And to a degree, I agree with him. The majority of protestors had no clue who organized many of the rallies, and as such, were pretty much there because they knew it would be a place to air their grievances in public. But there were also plenty who were very aware, yet still directly supported not just the cause, but the organizations organizing these certain rallies, and I find issue with that as well.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Bergalad]

The US entered WWII after being attacked in Pearl Harbor.
Could you possibly state anything more obvious? "Next on Five's report: water is wet". Good lord.
Before that, they helped supply Britain and others
Those others included Germany by the way, just so you know.
That's how it became the Axis vs the Allies.
Thank you Milton Bradley.
Your version of these occurrences seem to leave out the connection between the two groups as well as the fronts in which they battled. The US did not want to get involved in fighting originally even with Churchill's pleads.
What the hell are you trying to point out to me? You said:
Japan (a nation that actually attacked American soil) aligned with Germany and Italy.

To which I said:
The last thing Germany wanted was for Japan to attack the US.
There was no grand alliance or plot, so what could you possibly be lecturing me on here? All you are showing me is your tenuous grasp on WWII. What does any of this have to do with the BBC?

[FiveB247]

Ehh Berg...Eat a bullet.

[Bergalad]

clever.

[Bestinshow]

No he wasn't. It was clear, to me at least, that he was equating those who were actively aware of exactly who was organizing the rallies and still went anyway fell into that group. And to a degree, I agree with him. The majority of protestors had no clue who organized many of the rallies, and as such, were pretty much there because they knew it would be a place to air their grievances in public. But there were also plenty who were very aware, yet still directly supported not just the cause, but the organizations organizing these certain rallies, and I find issue with that as well.

Mojo,Thank You for saving me the aggravation of explaining myself again.

I'm glad sarcasm and satire isn't lost on you. I was, of course, completely serious. It wasn't at all an attempt to try to get you to realize the idiocy of your comment.

Call it what you want. I call it the same tiresome bullshit as usual. You can look up Bullshit in the dictionary. But I am sure you have it memorized.

They were anti-war rallies. Their only purpose was for people to voice their dissent to the war. Everyone had different reasons why they opposed the war. Not everyone of them hate America. Are the protestors supposed to research who is organizing rallies, and then if that organization isn't to their liking, just not go and let their voice be silent?

Yes, protestors should research who the organizors are. Any prowar protestors at a KKK rally deserves to be shot. If you knowingly
back an antiamerican organization you are antiamerican.Duh. I find it hard to believe its difficult to organize an antiwar march without these groups.

But that's what he was saying. He was trying to equate all protestors with these allegedly "socialist" groups and calling them unamerican. In his eyes, anyone who is showing up to these protest is unamerican. That's wrong. Those protests were because of opposition to the war. And that is why people were showing up, not neccessarily because they believed the ideology of the organizing group or the hated America. I'm sick of everyone trying to equate all protestors with the most extreme elements. That's exactly what he was trying to do.

And you accuse me of not reading your posts.

My problem isn`t with voicing your opinion, whatever opinion it is. My problem is with supporting those organizations that are antiamerican. Pick a different protest, one not backed by an antiAmerican organization or have a private protest not backed by any organization. Obviously, we are entitled to free speech.


That was my post. Maybe you need a dictionary. Maybe you need a reading lesson.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

[Bestinshow]

Why would you consider answer and not in our name anti-american? Please enlighten me, I'm literally dying to hear this.

oh, and please give me sources (this is what we do in this forum, in case you forgot. you are still new. we don't make ridiculous accusations without backing them up)

You know what, if you are unaware of this, than go to their sites and draw your own conclusion. But I `ve read your posts. What a remarkable amount of sources, references and footnotes. You are a regular internet library.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

[Bestinshow]

Berg, he is trying to point out we entered WW2 because of Pearl Harbor, not Hitler which was your original point. You made it sound(intentional or not) like we entered WW2 to overthrow Hitler because he was a dictator. Infact, unfortunately, we ignored Hitler, the nazis and the concentration camps for years, basking in our own isolationism, and even turned away a boatload of Jews from Nazi Germany, which helped fuel Hitlers propaganda.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

[Bergalad]

Oh, I know. The original thing he said was we have never overthrown any dictators, and I just named some we had defeated, not the reasons why we did it. I could also have added Noriega (not a dictator in the purest sense, I know) and a few others, but lost interest.