Obama rocks 200,000 in Berlin (1 Viewer)

[sam04u]

Sam, take a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldwide_Press_Freedom_Index#Worldwide_Press_Freedom_Index_Ranking

*facepalms*

 

[Slidey]

*facepalms*

Wow, that's was some brilliant dialogue there, sam04u. Truly, I am left with no recourse but to concede defeat in the face of such eloquent and infallible logic.

Maybe next time you can actually provide some sort of rationale in your defence instead of enacting a cross between curling up into a foetal position and burying your head in the sand.

 

[bazookajoe]

Obama voted to save Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and voted yea for FISA.

Not good.

Dude, he sunk a fuckin three pointer in front of the troops

 

[sam04u]

Wow, that's was some brilliant dialogue there, sam04u. Truly, I am left with no recourse but to concede defeat in the face of such eloquent and infallible logic.

Sarcasm doesn't work well on the internet.

Maybe next time you can actually provide some sort of rationale in your defence.

I'm personally averse to polls or surveys which attempt to prove a point which is irrelevant to the argument, or is known to be untrue.

U.S journalists for instance were NOT ALLOWED to warn families there was CANCEROUS AGENTS in school milk.

Google "Monsanto Milk / Fox News scandal".

 

[Slidey]

I'm personally averse to polls or surveys which attempt to prove a point which is irrelevant to the argument, or is known to be untrue.

How is freedom of press "irrelevant to the argument"? Your argument was that "the media" (do you mean US media perhaps?) was a "neocon front". Now correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't press freedom particularly relevant to whether or not "the media" is controlled by an organisation with an vendetta?

"Known to be untrue" - what is "known to be untrue" about the Reporters Without Borders freedom of press index? I'm sure it's not perfect, but there are few rankings on there which one can logically find fault with. If you do, please go ahead and explain them.

U.S journalists for instance were NOT ALLOWED to warn families there was CANCEROUS AGENTS in school milk.

Google "Monsanto Milk / Fox News scandal".

Incorrect. Fox did not allow 2 journalists to report on the issue. How is this indicative of media bias for the whole of America's media? How is this not in line with the 48th Freedom of Press ranking given by RWB? Fox was motivated by fear of lawsuits, not neocon puppet masters.

Either way, you need to be careful. If you mean US media, say "US media" when you're ranting about "media bias". If you mean Fox media bias, say "Fox media bias".

 

[sam04u]

How is freedom of press "irrelevant to the argument"? Your argument was that "the media" (do you mean US media perhaps?) was a "neocon front". Now correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't press freedom particularly relevant to whether or not "the media" is controlled by an organisation with an vendetta?

Freedom of press firstly is highly subjective.
But Qatar being ranked lower than The United States? That's total bullshit. There are whole topics which can not be brought up in the United States, the press is literally in the back pocket of the government agencies. Where in the US media have you heard about the war crimes Bush has commited? You don't hear about the illegality of his wars, about his anti-terror laws. You're not even allowed to criticise Israel in the U.S media. Seriously. As you've said previously, all of the major US broadcasters, are openly biased - who use their status as a media source to pedal neoconservative propoganda.

"Known to be untrue" - what is "known to be untrue" about the Reporters Without Borders freedom of press index? I'm sure it's not perfect, but there are few rankings on there which one can logically find fault with. If you do, please go ahead and explain them.

Qatar - 79
United States - 48
Israel - 44

Honestly, it's enough to make you laugh.

Fox did not allow 2 journalists to report on the issue.

I think you'll find the guy who runs Faux news to run quite a few other stations. Good old Rupert Murdoch.

 

[ZabZu]

Where in the US media have you heard about the war crimes Bush has commited? You don't hear about the illegality of his wars, about his anti-terror laws. You're not even allowed to criticise Israel in the U.S media. Seriously. As you've said previously, all of the major US broadcasters, are openly biased - who use their status as a media source to pedal neoconservative propoganda.

I know a few US broadcasters that are very critical of Bush and his policies. Major broadcasters such as NBC, PBS, CNN and CBS. However, I admit that they did a poor job in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq but that was over 5 years ago.

 

[bigboyjames]

The idea that McCain could be wrong or clueless about any aspect of foreign policy "does not compute" for the mainstream media. Therefore, it must be removed and shoved down the memory hole which has been evident in his recent gaff with his interview on CBS where they didn't air his fucked up replies.

 

[Slidey]

Freedom of press firstly is highly subjective.
But Qatar being ranked lower than The United States? That's total bullshit. There are whole topics which can not be brought up in the United States, the press is literally in the back pocket of the government agencies. Where in the US media have you heard about the war crimes Bush has commited? You don't hear about the illegality of his wars, about his anti-terror laws. You're not even allowed to criticise Israel in the U.S media. Seriously. As you've said previously, all of the major US broadcasters, are openly biased - who use their status as a media source to pedal neoconservative propoganda.


Qatar - 79
United States - 48
Israel - 44

Honestly, it's enough to make you laugh.


I think you'll find the guy who runs Faux news to run quite a few other stations. Good old Rupert Murdoch.

It seems your judgement is as clouded on this issues as it is regarding Israel, so I'll respectfully bow out of such a debate.

 

[zstar]

Obama scares me sometimes.

On one hand he comes off as this nice guy and a maverick politician who wants peace but there are times he sounds like another Neo Con.

For example his speech as AIPAC(The Israeli Lobby in America)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cOJNC2EuJw

If you can't be bothered listening to all that he basically says a few things that indicate that he is a bit of two face.

- He mentions that Jerusalem belongs to Israel and is a Jewish city
- He also indicates that he might consider military intervention in Iran's nuclear program
- He says that Israel has every right to do what they're doing in Gaza

So it makes me wonder how honest he actually is and whose side he plays for.

 

[Slidey]

Obama has never been 'against' Israel, and in his speech in Berlin, he again mentioned the possibility of military intervention in the Middle East (including Iran), so I fail to see how that makes him two-faced?

 

[Snaykew]

But still, that doesn't make him my ideal candidate. Gravel, Kucinich, (Heck - even Ron Paul betters him in some of his policies). What makes him the "best" candidate though, is he has a chance of winning, and he is the lesser of the evils.

Is this the same Kucinich who wants to bring back the manufacturing industry to the US, essentially downgrading the American workforce to a bunch of unskilled labourers? The same clueless twat who talks as if he knows anything about economics but really doesn't? >=(

 

[Aryanbeauty]

Freedom of press firstly is highly subjective.
But Qatar being ranked lower than The United States? That's total bullshit. There are whole topics which can not be brought up in the United States, the press is literally in the back pocket of the government agencies. Where in the US media have you heard about the war crimes Bush has commited? You don't hear about the illegality of his wars, about his anti-terror laws. You're not even allowed to criticise Israel in the U.S media. Seriously. As you've said previously, all of the major US broadcasters, are openly biased - who use their status as a media source to pedal neoconservative propoganda.

Typical Arab Lies.

If the Press is controlled by US government, President Bush will be proclaimed as a saint.

Qatar - 79
United States - 48
Israel - 44

Honestly, it's enough to make you laugh.


I think you'll find the guy who runs Faux news to run quite a few other stations. Good old Rupert Murdoch.

The acid test of press freedom is whether they can criticise Prophet Muhammad or not. Most Islamic countries, including Qatar failed.

 

[sam04u]

Obama has never been 'against' Israel, and in his speech in Berlin, he again mentioned the possibility of military intervention in the Middle East (including Iran), so I fail to see how that makes him two-faced?

I listened to the speech, it scared the shit out of me to be honest. Just a warning Slidey, don't be a hard cunt. Do you understand what military intervention in Iran would mean? Fortunately he didn't say that, he said "Iran must abandon it's hopes....", etc. He didn't say "We're going to disable Iran's nuclear capability" which Iran is legally entitled too. Iran has a right to develop nuclear energy.

The acid test of press freedom is whether they can criticise Prophet Muhammad or not. Most Islamic countries, including Qatar failed.

If that was the acid test, Qatar did pretty good. I should read it in reverse in that case!

 

[sam04u]

Is this the same Kucinich who wants to bring back the manufacturing industry to the US, essentially downgrading the American workforce to a bunch of unskilled labourers? The same clueless twat who talks as if he knows anything about economics but really doesn't? >=(

Are you being sarcastic? or are you plain retarded? I'm sure the U.S (which has a lower national IQ than China for instance, with a manufacturing industry) is doing great right now.
A service based economy is bound to crumble under national debt.

 

[Slidey]

I listened to the speech, it scared the shit out of me to be honest. Just a warning Slidey, don't be a hard cunt. Do you understand what military intervention in Iran would mean? Fortunately he didn't say that, he said "Iran must abandon it's hopes....", etc. He didn't say "We're going to disable Iran's nuclear capability" which Iran is legally entitled too. Iran has a right to develop nuclear energy.

I think it's pretty implicit that Obama wouldn't support some willy nilly invasion of Iran unless there was hard evidence it were an imminent threat. He's not Bush.

On the other hand, I completely support his stance on Afghanistan; the Taliban were fucked up, and I'd expect even Muslims to agree with that.

 

[Aryanbeauty]

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US White House race tightened Saturday after new opinion polls suggested Barack Obama's shine was wearing off and Republican John McCain was gaining ground in several important states.

The Illinois Democratic senator was greeted like a rock star by some 200,000 people in Berlin, as he continued his week-long foreign tour visiting crucial hotspots and important allies, demonstrating his foreign policy credentials in the race to be the next US president.

But voter polls inside the United States showed McCain chipping away at Obama's lead in the race, which remains between one and six points.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080726/pl_afp/usvote_080726070534;_ylt=AsrwIcDGIJnmtZv3O23muppbbBAF

Americans don't give a flying fuck about what eurotrash think of who American president should be.

 

[sam04u]

I think it's pretty implicit that Obama wouldn't support some willy nilly invasion of Iran unless there was hard evidence it were an imminent threat. He's not Bush.

I agree to that atleast. Considering his voting record. We'll just have to wait and see though, and more importantly hope nothing goes wrong while Bush is in power.

On the other hand, I completely support his stance on Afghanistan; the Taliban were fucked up, and I'd expect even Muslims to agree with that.

The Taliban were fucked up.
But the way the Americans and allies executed that war was an utter failure. They accomplished nothing with it. Now, under U.S occupation, more opium is being grown and exported than ever before. More are dieing. No progress has been made. Civilians have taken up arms to defend their nation, and when they're killed they're classified as "Taliban", which simply isn't true.

The Afghanistan war failed, and because of it many Afghanis had to suffer, more than they ever had under the Taliban. And I know you know this as well as I do, it was a war of retribution, against a system they put into place. Afghanistan had a progressive socialist government, and the U.S would not stand for it.

 

[sam04u]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080726/pl_afp/usvote_080726070534;_ylt=AsrwIcDGIJnmtZv3O23muppbbBAF

Americans don't give a flying fuck about what eurotrash think of who American president should be.

McCain was on the Conan O'Brien, and he looked like a human for once. That probably got him a litle support, it'll wear off.

It's hilarious that the U.S presidency is based on T.V appearances lol!

Obama will time an Oprah/The View appearance, right before the elections and nail it.

 

[Slidey]

I agree to that atleast. Considering his voting record. We'll just have to wait and see though, and more importantly hope nothing goes wrong while Bush is in power.


The Taliban were fucked up.
But the way the Americans and allies executed that war was an utter failure. They accomplished nothing with it. Now, under U.S occupation, more opium is being grown and exported than ever before. More are dieing. No progress has been made. Civilians have taken up arms to defend their nation, and when they're killed they're classified as "Taliban", which simply isn't true.

The Afghanistan war failed, and because of it many Afghanis had to suffer, more than they ever had under the Taliban. And I know you know this as well as I do, it was a war of retribution, against a system they put into place. Afghanistan had a progressive socialist government, and the U.S would not stand for it.

Europe and America implicitly supported the Taliban in power inititially because they thought it would be better than the insane levels of chaos, corruption and banditry which the various warlords were inflicting on the country. They were wrong. It doesn't justify the existence of either the warlords or the Taliban.

There was no 'progressive socialist government'.

Interesting theme, BTW. It's a shame the Cold War fucked up the first and last true example of communism (the Soviet union) and spawned the corrupt little entities you see claiming to be communist today (China, North Korea, Turkmenistan...). I'm not sure if communism (in the true Marxist sense) could have worked, because it was never really given a chance.