Printable View
America is the land of sue me sue you, foo you. It's a freakin joke. Negative, is your wife "gasp" conservative?
//edit The secret to making coffee is heat. Oh and maybe it's me, but most of those stupid lawsuits do tend to be driven by ultra liberals. Take John Edwards for instance. :) Oops there's a can-o-worms.
Where's my baseball bat, dude?
I'll take a shot at Moore.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/thi...p?story=540669Quote:
Moore had wanted to use Townshend's song, "Won't Get Fooled Again", on the soundtrack to his anti-Iraq War polemic, which took record box-office receipts for a documentary when it opened in Britain at the weekend.
When Townshend refused, Moore accused him of being in favour of the war.
http://www.petetownshend.co.uk/diary...=89&zone=diary
:cool:
Hey Hey,Quote:
Originally posted here by ImperialFlame
This pic about sums it all up...
Oh, and HT, blow it out your ass, you bigot! I'm getting tired of your drivel and diatribe. You sound like a mad, Canadian racist. I'd shoot you the bird, but it wouldn't mean nearly as much to me over the Internet.
Wow, such hostility over what has so far been a rather civil debate... these are the times when I feel that APs should be warrented in cosmo's.... this is an example of what still needs to be policed in here. Anyways for such a new member to make these comments... I'm going to have to say that Quad has a new reincarnation.... He's about the only one I know who has such direct hostility for me.
Peace,
HT
Taking the points from that:Quote:
a) It's out of date, the Freedom of Information Act (2000) is now law (as opposed to merely being a bill) and actually forces public organisations to hand over information (personal and non-personal) to anyone who requests it, providing of course it's not an official secret or confidential (e.g. I couldn't ask for someone else's medical records).
b) "In March, the Independent Television Commission suspended the license of Med TV, a Kurdish broadcaster, for breaching codes prohibiting incitement to crime or disorder." - This is a general law, as I pointed out before, not one merely aimed at the press. I can't see how anyone can say it's a gag on the freedom of the press to stop them from inciting people to commit criminal acts.
c) "In May, authorities shut down a web site containing the names of more than 100 secret intelligence operatives, posted by a former MI6 agent.." - That's a bad thing? Whoever posted that list was damn irresponsible and was putting lives at risk by publishing names of operatives who are still undercover. How on earth can you have "secret" operatives if their identities are in the public domain?
As I said before, you can publish what you want in the UK so long as it doesn't incite people to commit crimes, defame anybody or is classed as a breach of national security. All common sense measures, which don't infringe on people's liberties nor that of the press. We certainly do not have journalists spirited away because they publish something bad about the government. In terms of free speech/information, you can say almost anything you want and get almost any information you want from the government (mostly free of charge, you just ask for it and they'll send you stuff like the Treasury report etc.). Other than some legislation, there are no restraints (and on the flip side of the coin, there is legislation ensuring freedom of the press, so it works both ways) so quite frankly I don't know why the UK is so far down the list.
That really seems to bother you, pwaring :)
The UK isn't that far down the list, you know...
Here's a little more background from the full report:
Broadcasting Media
Law & regulations that influence media content: 4/15 (the lower, the better)
Political pressures and control on media content: 3/15
Economic influences over media content: 1/15
Repressive actions: 0/5
Total: 8/50
Print Media
Law & regulations that influence media content: 3/15 (the lower, the better)
Political pressures and control on media content: 3/15
Economic influences over media content: 6/15
Repressive actions: 0/5
Total: 12/50
Grand total: 20/100
You can clearly see where the "problem" is: economic influences over media content (as you already indicated, you can blame Murdoch for that).
The UK scores very well, I'd say. The truth is though that some other countries score better. Just look at the Iceland report for example, and tell me what you think of that compared to the UK situation:
The government fully respects the constitution’s guarantee of press freedom. A wide range of publications includes independent and party-affiliated newspapers. An autonomous board oversees the state broadcasting service which operates a number of transmitting and relay stations. There is both public and private television.
I haven't read this thread. Too long and too many opinions.
Although it's great to have a point of view and opinion-
American politics and buisness are so corrupt that it's too hard to pull the truth from anything anymore. If the president is lied to by his own goverment, then I don't trust any other source when it comes to this subject. Everyone in the media, goverment, and film industry has an agenda and will lean towards a "solution" because of the position they are in.
Some links people NEED to see before they start opinions.
About prisoner abuse-
http://www.prisonexp.org/
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/re...prisonexp.html
About social rank
http://www.unc.edu/~pmeyer/General_P...ons/Hitler.pdf
Sometimes it's good to understand human nature and social structure before you point a finger.
If you ask me though, America will always be hated. America is like the 4th grader with koala yummies at snacktime. If they share, they have to pick who to share with, which will cause problems (Globalization). If they keep it for themselves, then they can't trade with anyone else (Isolationism). So they are either the cool kid, or the snob. Globalization creates profit and better relations, Isolationism hurts the industries.
An overly simple way of looking at it, but thats what I think. We need to decide what the hell we want to do.
http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pb...ST13/406300332
'From Here to Eternity." Tora, Tora, Tora." "In Harm's Way." These are three films made about Pearl Harbor. There have been more than 20 films made about Pearl Harbor, and over 200 films made about World War II. These films inspire patriotism, courage, and nationalism. They tell us about the honor and bravery of the soldiers and the nation that supported them. Two and a half years after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the world watched American forces fight on D-Day. Two and a half years after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the world is watching Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11."
Moore's film is the first major motion picture about Sept. 11, 2001. This bears repeating. When future generations look back on the Sept. 11 massacre, their first impression, through the medium of film, will be a work in which the president and the government are blamed for the attacks, and the soldiers who are protecting this country are defamed. Instead of a film version of Lisa Beamer's book, "Let's Roll," or Richard Picciotto's "Last Man Down," we are presented with this fallacy. How could this happen?
It would be a colossal insult to insinuate that Franklin D. Roosevelt or the U.S. government were in any way responsible for the attacks on Pearl Harbor. Can you imagine the indignation of the men and women who lived during that period?
"Fahrenheit 9/11" is indicative of a nation that has become too apathetic, ignorant or deceived to face the enemy at the gate. America, where is your fury?
On Sept. 11, 2001, I stood across the Hudson River, watching the Twin Towers burn, knowing that if the plane had struck at 9:46 a.m. instead of 8:46 a.m., I would be dead. As a survivor and witness to the attack on the World Trade Center, I am more than insulted by this film. I am outraged. This film is based on conjecture, hearsay and propaganda. At a time when this country desperately needs to rally in support of our brave soldiers and our strong leaders, Moore is content to spread discord and divisiveness. The base of his argument is that the Bush administration had strong ties with the bin Laden family. However, sound facts are conspicuously absent from this "documentary."
The 9/11 commission did not indict President Bush. According to the report, the president's actions before, during and after the attacks are fully justified, including the military action in Iraq. The commission did not find a direct link between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. A similar commission in the 1940s would not have found a direct link between Hitler's Germany and the attack on Pearl Harbor. In both instances, the threat was imminent; the president and the military acted decisively.
Could we have been more prepared for a terrorist attack on Sept. 10, 2001? Certainly. Could we have been more prepared for an attack on Dec. 6, 1941? Most definitely. In the weeks and months following Pearl Harbor, there were reports and criticisms that the government and military should have been more prepared. The difference is that the people of the nation did not waste a lot of time pointing fingers at each other. Rather, they unified and engaged the enemy head-on. I guess that is why we call them "The Greatest Generation." How will future generations refer to us?
So, how do we explain Moore's film to future generations? I wonder. More than that, I wonder how I would explain this film to Nancy D., Jerome N. or Heather H. I am sure you don't know their names, but their faces haunt me day and night. How would I explain to them that a film was made accusing the president and vilifying the soldiers, the same president and soldiers who are attempting to avenge their murders and protect other citizens. Moore has not only insulted the nation, he has insulted the victims of the terrorist attacks.
During his acceptance speech at the Oscars, Moore said, "Shame on you, Mr. Bush." Well, I say, "Shame on you, Michael Moore." Shame on everyone who supports this travesty of a film. Shame on a society that allows this sham of a film. You have weakened the nation.
*ROFL* To think that you googled all that time about info for that. :)Quote:
Originally posted here by Negative
Don't know where you get that, so let's take a look at the only official agency that reports on freedom of press: the Reporters without borders.
Scandinavian countries (Finland, Iceland, Norway) traditionally have the most freedom of press, along with the Netherlands. That's the top-4 and guess who's number 5: Canada, sir.
France is #11, the US are #17.
You can find the complete list here.
China is one-but-last, North Korea is last - at least you got that right (the fact that there is no such country as Korea must have slipped your mind).
And trust me: kids in Canada, France, Germany, etc. learn a hell of a lot more about American history than American kids learn about any other part of the world.
And you might want to look up in your history book what France did for the Independence of the US.
How's that for "genuine" history
*correction* Typos in question "Korea" "N Korea"(letter N inserted) but, I guess whatever makes someone fill better about a situation.
Of course I know Canada has freedom of press I live close! I clumped the latter two China, N Korea with Canada for sarcastic reasons. : duh : I guess you have not been able to grasp american humor yet?
You went to school in what state and you know what about the whole american education system? *sigh* Perhaps that was a public school you attended to in america which was it? I went to a private school and was taught extensively on world history.
Ok, as you may know, the FOX News Channel is/was not allowed in Canada. 2004
Is Canada the only "free" country which regulates it's citizen's television viewing?
The TV Canadians watch is only what the CRTC decides they will watch. It is not a free market. It is a fully state-regulated market. Unelected Canadian government bureaucrats decide what the people will see on TV, and what they will not be allowed to see.
"In response to their customers' demands, cable operators in Canada have tried unsuccessfully to be "allowed" to offer Fox News Channel to subscribers for a fee. But they have been refused. Cable companies cannot satisfy their customers' demand even by offering it to them for a fee."
Hahahah, we can even watch Al-Jazeera news if we want anything the world watches on TV we can get, land of the free beotch.;)
Maybe you should ask reporters without borders to update from 2002 we are comming up on 2005. That poll is notoriously known for it's miniscule facts on which it creates index polls. I guess one example is your not going to be able to show porn on a snickers commercial(regular) and cuss openly on public air waves though it can be done. Is that what puts a majority of countries over the united states in the poll? Maybe countries in the lower teens have more ethics and morals in the top 20. Basicaly we respect our women over here more than other countries. It's not cave man days we don't drag women by their hair anymore, america has matured more than other countries obviously. Why not, women make good money over here somtimes more than their spouse, what a blow to your ego that would be for a foreigner.
Back history and for the benefit of the Canadian,French,German and the ANTI-american spin ect.. kids, let's take a look at the record:
The foreign and defense policies of Ronald Reagan resulted in the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the freeing of approximately 122 million people in Eastern Europe.
The state of Israel would cease to exist if not for American protection, and about 5.5 million Jews would be in grave danger.
Nearly 23 million Taiwanese would be denied freedom if not for American protection. More than 48 million South Koreans would be living under a dictatorship if not for American protection. USA action led to the removal of the Serbian dictator Milosevic, who was responsible for the murders of hundreds of thousands of people in the Balkans.
The USA and Britain removed the Iraqi dictator Hussein, who was responsible for the murders of hundreds of thousands of people in the Middle East. And we have also removed the terrorist Taliban government in Afghanistan.
America is sending $15 billion to Africa to help victims of AIDS. We were unable to find out how much France contributes, if anything. To be fair, Canada sends $270 million, which is substantial.
American action in Central America, Grenada, and Haiti has kept millions of people out of totalitarian regimes. Of course, all of this has cost every American taxpayer big. And thousands of American servicepeople have lost their lives protecting people overseas.
The truth is that the USA has freed more human beings in 230 years than the rest of the world combined. France has freed almost no one. Ditto Canada. Pardon us as we object to the anti-American foreign press and bums like Chirac in France and Chretien in Canada.
Speaking of Chirac France opposes UN Sudan sanctions France says it does not support US plans for international sanctions on Sudan if violence continues in Darfur. *sigh* not helping them in times of ethnic cleansing, that's evil.
You still have not answered my list of moore questions which makes me believe that you either support the movie or you have never heard of moore untill now, which would make more sense.Quote:
Originally posted here by Negative
I couldn't care less about what !mitationRust thinks about Moore, but I'd be more than happy to read his comments on Moore's flick if for once they'd be based on facts. Screaming that "Moore is nothing but a liar" while basing your opinion on non-facts makes you look stupid, just like preaching about history while you get all your facts wrong does... :rolleyes: [/B]
Hey Hey,
While that's a very well written article Tedob1... it's a lot of propaganda. I have seen American made videos about Pearl Harbour with interviews with survivors and others. I've taken American history. Many of the people in those videos said there were several signs to the attacks, there were ways it could have been avoided and they could better prepared themselves, but they were too proud... they refused to acknowledge that anyone could launch an attack of that size against them. Pearl Habour was a real eye-opener to the US... it was the first time they saw that actions around the world could affect them.. that they weren't invincible.
Now for Mr. Rust.
So you are telling us that you are a young, rich, stuck-up snob... That would most definately explain your attitude.... Who says that private school education is any better than public school education. It's definately done no good for you... All that is discrimination between the classes in society.Quote:
I went to a private school and was taught extensively on world history.
You don't think American TV is regulated? You really do have your head in the sand. I've yet to see any references for your quotes. You don't think that maybe the FCC does many things similar to that of the CRTC... Also have you considered that Canadian law requires that the Majority of programming be Canadian in order to save our culture and not have us become entirely Americanized.Quote:
Is Canada the only "free" country which regulates it's citizen's television viewing?
The TV Canadians watch is only what the CRTC decides they will watch. It is not a free market. It is a fully state-regulated market. Unelected Canadian government bureaucrats decide what the people will see on TV, and what they will not be allowed to see.
"In response to their customers' demands, cable operators in Canada have tried unsuccessfully to be "allowed" to offer Fox News Channel to subscribers for a fee. But they have been refused. Cable companies cannot satisfy their customers' demand even by offering it to them for a fee."
Doesn't sound like your FCC officials are elected either.. but again... good try.Quote:
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal...ons_Commission
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States government agency, created, directed, and empowered by Congressional statute.
The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 as the successor to the Federal Radio Commission and is charged with regulating all non-Federal Government use of the radio spectrum (including radio and television broadcasting), and all interstate telecommunications (wire, satellite and cable) as well as all international communications that originate or terminate in the United States. The FCC took over wire communication regulation from the Interstate Commerce Commission. The FCC's jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions
The FCC is directed by five Commissioners appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for 5-year terms, except when filling an unexpired term. The President designates one of the Commissioners to serve as Chairperson. Only three Commissioners may be members of the same political party. None of them can have a financial interest in any Commission-related business.
As the chief executive officer of the Commission, the Chairman delegates management and administrative responsibility to the Managing Director. The Commissioners supervise all FCC activities, delegating responsibilities to staff units and Bureaus. The current FCC Chairman is Michael Powell, son of Secretary of State Colin Powell. The other four current Commissioners are Kathleen Abernathy, Michael Copps, Kevin Martin, and Jonathon Adelstein.
With a hacked C-Band Satelite?? We can do the same here.. That's not exactly legal... You think because you pick up satelite signals that we can't? Good try though... One of the Satelites is the Anik F1.. which is actually a Canadian Satelite.. but hey.... you like to through out random crap... so you made an attemptQuote:
Hahahah, we can even watch Al-Jazeera news if we want anything the world watches on TV we can get, land of the free beotch.
How about this for you as well
While there is talk in there of how two translations of the same broadcast are different, that's not the primary point.. I've bolded the paragraph I want you to read.. didn't want any misconceptions about what I was getting at. The US Government 'advised' (a nice way of saying ordered) networks 'to consider' (a nice way of saying they had to) delay of subsequent broadcasts to determine their actual 'news worthiness' (the government saying what is worthy of being reported and what is.... What happened to Freedom of the press?Quote:
Source: http://www.september11news.com/OsamaSpeeches.htm
On October 7, 2001, shortly after U.S. forces began retaliatory strikes against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan,
the controversial Arabic television news network A-Jazeera, based in Qatar, broadcast a statement by Osama
bin Laden. The statement was likely taped at least a day prior to the strikes. The statement is taped during
daylight hours, however the attacks began when it was already late evening and dark in Afghanistan.
We offer two versions of the translation of this statement. The first translation, as written by the Associated
Press, and reported by USA Today, appears to leave out some content. However this version appears to be an
easier read in English. The second version, as reported by ABC News, is more coarse in translation, even noting
inaudible portions. However, the ABC News version appears to be more complete.
Shortly after the Al-Jazeera broadcast, the US Government advised national news networks to consider
delay of subsequent broadcasts to determine their actual news worthiness. A White House spokesman called
the October 7th broadcast "propaganda, at best", and indicated that these statements may also contain
hidden messages to the terrorist network. The networks have agreed to be more prudent with future
broadcasts.
This is just a biased comment. You think the results are based on porn? Americans show a hell of a lot more porn than Canadians do... This means you have more respect?? No wait.. you meant it the opposite way... just had no clue what you were talking about.. It's seriously time you take your head out of the sand and grow up...Quote:
Maybe you should ask reporters without borders to update from 2002 we are comming up on 2005. That poll is notoriously known for it's miniscule facts on which it creates index polls. I guess one example is your not going to be able to show porn on a snickers commercial(regular) and cuss openly on public air waves though it can be done. Is that what puts a majority of countries over the united states in the poll? Maybe countries in the lower teens have more ethics and morals in the top 20. Basicaly we respect our women over here more than other countries. It's not cave man days we don't drag women by their hair anymore, america has matured more than other countries obviously. Why not, women make good money over here somtimes more than their spouse, what a blow to your ego that would be for a foreigner.
You're next section was a whole shitload of 'stats' again with no sources... How about you quote some sources next time. The US is also responsible for a lot of death. Would you like to factor that in to obtain a saves vs. kills ratio? Maybe that would be more accurate. Would you like to take into account the innocent lives that the US took when they bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Again you are only quoting facts to help you... making you no better than Moore. It's another example of misreprenting the truth... You take certain facts while ignore their counter parts. Have you considered the number of Lives that Canadian Soldiers saved in the world wars ... in the first years of both Wars... when the US sat on their ass... Canada was there from the start to help out... Where was your precious USA then? Canadians won many battles that kept Europe from falling to the Germans... Historic battles that earned Canada a respect that is still appreciated today.
I think this is the last point I'll reference. I've already pointed out many places where Canadians have saved numerous lives... so that point is null and void... As for your 230 years... That's bullshit... Everything you quoted was the last 50-75 years... however you made a good attempt, yet again.... I guess that private school really didn't teach you much....Quote:
The truth is that the USA has freed more human beings in 230 years than the rest of the world combined. France has freed almost no one. Ditto Canada. Pardon us as we object to the anti-American foreign press and bums like Chirac in France and Chretien in Canada.
Anyways actual reason for addressing the last quote was your comment about Chretien in Canada... How can you argue about a country when you don't even know their Prime Minister? A google search for 'Canadian Prime Minister' would have returned http://www.pm.gc.ca/ as the first result. After you select English (or French would also work) the first thing you see is a picture of Paul Martin along with the worlds 'Paul Martin Prime Minister of Canada'. We know that Bush is your leader, couldn't you at least learn the name of our leader?
Peace,
HT
Quote:
Why is it that Canada does not have freedom of press? Why because the Canadian GOV filters out what it wants Canadians to see, it's like that in france too, don't you think that's kind of childish.
It's beyond me why you even brought up Canadian freedom of press.Quote:
Of course I know Canada has freedom of press I live close! I clumped the latter two China, N Korea with Canada for sarcastic reasons. : duh : I guess you have not been able to grasp american humor yet?
Why is it that Canada does not have freedom of press? Of course I know Canada has freedom of press...
Ah... the humor of private school-environments will always be beyond me.
I went to school in Belgium from when I was 3 until I was 22. We don't have states in Belgium ;)Quote:
You went to school in what state and you know what about the whole american education system? *sigh* Perhaps that was a public school you attended to in america which was it? I went to a private school and was taught extensively on world history.
Now you just insulted the millions of Americans who got a great education at a public school, though.
And maybe you should ask the board of the school you went to to add some logic classes to their courses.
Dish Network doesn't offer it. DirectTV doesn't offer it. Cable definitely doesn't offer it. You were saying?Quote:
Hahahah, we can even watch Al-Jazeera news if we want anything the world watches on TV we can get, land of the free beotch.
BTW: Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabya are (legally!) available to almost all Europeans via satellite.
It's the only study available, it's being used by Amnesty International, the UN,... "notoriously known for it's [sic] miniscule facts on which it creates index polls"? By whom? By what?Quote:
Maybe you should ask reporters without borders to update from 2002 we are comming up on 2005. That poll is notoriously known for it's miniscule facts on which it creates index polls.
I fail to see what the treatment of women has to do with freedom of press...Quote:
I guess one example is your not going to be able to show porn on a snickers commercial(regular) and cuss openly on public air waves though it can be done. Is that what puts a majority of countries over the united states in the poll? Maybe countries in the lower teens have more ethics and morals in the top 20. Basicaly we respect our women over here more than other countries. It's not cave man days we don't drag women by their hair anymore, america has matured more than other countries obviously. Why not, women make good money over here somtimes more than their spouse, what a blow to your ego that would be for a foreigner.
I'll leave your comments about the treatment of women in other countries entirely at your own responsibility.
BTW: I'm a foreigner, I wasn't allowed to work until a couple of weeks ago, so my wife definitely makes more than I do ;)
Not a blow to my under-educated-coming-from-a-country-that-treats-its-women-with-no-respect-public-school-educated ass at all...
Nice c&p from a Canadian website, which c&p'd it directly from the Fox website. The rest of your post is a direct c&p from Fox as well.Quote:
Is Canada the only "free" country which regulates it's citizen's television viewing?
The TV Canadians watch is only what the CRTC decides they will watch. It is not a free market. It is a fully state-regulated market. Unelected Canadian government bureaucrats decide what the people will see on TV, and what they will not be allowed to see.
Your set of "questions" isn't worth my time. I'll stick to facts.Quote:
You still have not answered my list of moore questions which makes me believe that you either support the movie or you have never heard of moore untill now, which would make more sense.
The longer this discussion goes on, the more "facts" that are actually only opinions you throw in. I'm sure even the ones in your "camp" can see that. At least the others are posting with sense.