<!--QuoteBegin-BathroomMonkey+Nov 9 2004, 03:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Nov 9 2004, 03:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I don't know-- I'm beginning to believe that these stark, two color images are a really great way to represent reality.
I mean, look at this copy of the Mona Lisa-- the detail is so stunning and true. Don't you just feel like you're in the Louvre at this very moment?
Simply <i>Breathtaking</i>. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Do I sense a tone of sarcasm. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
No I agree with you. Plutocratic partisanship is really hurting the US. It's stupid that we have pratically 2 parties and even dumber that we have suddenly been reduced to one party contolling everything. Diversity is so much better.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Right, but each candidate didn't get 100% of the support in those counties. They got a percentage of the voting population. A slice of a slice of that figure. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It doesn't matter, it's about the electorial votes.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So Bush held a more narrow lead in more counties? This information seems incomplete without the number of counties won by more than five percentage points for both candidates. What's the source for this information? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, it's seems that most counties voted for their canidate by a large margin rather a small one.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Oh an btw, moultano's map is much better as no country is an all-or-nothing as the electoral college would like you to believe. Stop getting all your news from one highly biased source for once. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
His map is pointless because the electorial votes are what counts.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I got to back this guy up. He is not what you would call very liberal. Your scale is indeed off. I'm a neutral. I know this because I have issues with both extremes and when in an evenly balanced crowd I always break even. The only reason Bathroom Monkey seems to be "very" to you is because he is the only liberal active in this discussion forum. It makes it easy to single him out. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can disagree fully. I've lived in and around Massachusetts my whole life, I used to live directly in Boston. I saw Micheal Moores' masterpiece at Boston, the audience there is so brainwashed they stood up and applauded when it was over.
I also work a polling center here up at UNH, and we just did a ton of political surveys.
I have met more people than kids typically would of my age. I have seen all political views, I'm currently majoring in political philsophy and I'll tell you flat out right now:
Bathroom Monkey is more liberal than he would like to admit.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Believe it or not most US news is conservatively biased. CNN is one of the few one that is sort of neutral (but still leans to right), but try watching some from the other side. One of the most neutral and objective news sources in the world right now happens to be the BBC. If you want to see an actual equivalent contrast, why don't you watch Al Jazeera? Now that's quite a contrast! Why don't you read the newspapers from areas in Asia. Why don't you talk to some Europeans about the issues? This isn't planet US people, it's planet Earth!!! There are more people who live outside the US. All such comments really sound like "blah blah... I'm blissfully ignorant...blah blah...I hate for Jesus...Liberals are the devil...blah blah...I want everyone to conform to what I believe..." Seriously, do everyone a favor shut up.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can't attest to everything you say there, but I have read a bit of Al Jazeera (anti-americanism) and European (mix of extreme socialism and anti-americanism). Never read Asian newspaper. But asians in my experience live under oppressive governments. They are conservative by a viture of their upbringing if they go to America.
Meanwhile, American media is <b>definately</b> slanted towards the liberal side, there is no <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=74861' target='_blank'>denying</a> that.
the person who did it should include population too... so that more populated counties are brighter and the near-empty counties are near-black, because their color doesn't matter as much...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because population does not vote for our presidents!
It's all about our electorial voting system, which is a mixture of population <b>proportion</b> of states (counties, land) and population itself.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I don't know-- I'm beginning to believe that these stark, two color images are a really great way to represent reality.
I mean, look at this copy of the Mona Lisa-- the detail is so stunning and true. Don't you just feel like you're in the Louvre at this very moment?
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Nov 9 2004, 06:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Nov 9 2004, 06:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Oh an btw, moultano's map is much better as no country is an all-or-nothing as the electoral college would like you to believe. Stop getting all your news from one highly biased source for once. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
His map is pointless because the electorial votes are what counts. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> As far as the election is concerned yes. However, the point of these maps is to determine the actuall support, based on geographical location, that each candidate had.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I can disagree fully. I've lived in and around Massachusetts my whole life, I used to live directly in Boston. I saw Micheal Moores' masterpiece at Boston, the audience there is so brainwashed they stood up and applauded when it was over.
I also work a polling center here up at UNH, and we just did a ton of political surveys.
I have met more people than kids typically would of my age. I have seen all political views, I'm currently majoring in political philsophy and I'll tell you flat out right now:
Bathroom Monkey is more liberal than he would like to admit.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Or maybe Forlorn it's is you who are brainwashed. *gasp* Inconcievable! lol Furthermore, why do people continue to think liberal means no "moral values," it's quite the opposite imao. For someone who claims to be well versed in politics you are awfully prejudiced, exclusive, and narrowminded m8. So while you (not so much you as others; recoup for example) toss liberal around as an equivalent for "f-ck you," I think it could be a compliment. If he was extreme liberal he'd be just as close minded as extreme conservative.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->European (mix of extreme socialism and anti-americanism). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Um... from the point of view a conservative American. Are there some extreme socialists and anti-americans? Yes, but quite a minority. Again you are stereotyping. You can't tell me that the BBC is anti-american or extreme socialist.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Never read Asian newspaper. But asians in my experience live under oppressive governments. They are conservative by a viture of their upbringing if they go to America.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You know a government is only oppressive if the subjects view it as such. It's a subjective term.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Meanwhile, American media is <b>definately</b> slanted towards the liberal side, there is no <a href='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=74861' target='_blank'>denying</a> that.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No doubt huh? Just because the report is made "official" doesn't mean it was correct or unbiased. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteBegin-illuminex in said thread+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (illuminex in said thread)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The media can never be, and will never be, balanced.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I guess missed my point, FOX in general (different prgrams vary) caters to a conservative crowd. But is not what they are saying that is the problem for the most part, it's what they leave out.
Futhermore I'm sick and tired of hearing all this Michael Moore bashing BS. If you can't respect free speech then please, do us all a favor and leave the US. If I remember correctly some strongly conservative Republicans came back with a TV program that bashed Kerry. It's interesting how a nationally televised (versus having to pay to see it in a movie theater) story got far less attention than his film. Very interesting indeed. Regardless making death threats and using his name as if he's some sort of Hitler is totally out of line and immature. If you go one county south of where I am and say "Michael Moore is a great guy" you'll probably get shot. (likewise you'd also run a high risk of getting shot if your were ****, black, or muslim)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Or maybe Forlorn it's is you who are brainwashed. *gasp* Inconcievable! lol Furthermore, why do people continue to think liberal means no "moral values," it's quite the opposite imao. For someone who claims to be well versed in politics you are awfully prejudiced, exclusive, and narrowminded m8. So while you (not so much you as others; recoup for example) toss liberal around as an equivalent for "f-ck you," I think it could be a compliment. If he was extreme liberal he'd be just as close minded as extreme conservative. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, I think it's you who are off the mark.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Um... from the point of view a conservative American. Are there some extreme socialists and anti-americans? Yes, but quite a minority. Again you are stereotyping. You can't tell me that the BBC is anti-american or extreme socialist. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, I base my conservative views off my foriegn friends views who tell me these things.
Furthermore BBC by definition is socialist; it's owned by the state.
TF1 in france is horrible to listen to as well; it's the #1 listened channel in France. It's state owned and controlled, and it pushes it's agenda of Chiraq down the throats of bewildered French citizens who do not know any better.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You know a government is only oppressive if the subjects view it as such. It's a subjective term.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, I can call it oppresive by comparing to my own country, which I hold very high standards too.
I mean, Saddam won with 100% of the votes, right? Okay.... no oppression there! Otherwise they'd just vote him right out.
China is oppresive. But wait, we don't know for sure, right...?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No doubt huh? Just because the report is made "official" doesn't mean it was correct or unbiased. wink-fix.gif<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It wasn't official, it was smart.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Futhermore I'm sick and tired of hearing all this Michael Moore bashing BS. If you can't respect free speech then please, do us all a favor and leave the US. If I remember correctly some strongly conservative Republicans came back with a TV program that bashed Kerry. It's interesting how a nationally televised (versus having to pay to see it in a movie theater) story got far less attention than his film. Very interesting indeed. Regardless making death threats and using his name as if he's some sort of Hitler is totally out of line and immature. If you go one county south of where I am and say "Michael Moore is a great guy" you'll probably get shot. (likewise you'd also run a high risk of getting shot if your were ****, black, or muslim)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Free speech entitles me to say Micheal Moore is full of crap
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I can disagree fully. I've lived in and around Massachusetts my whole life, I used to live directly in Boston. I saw Micheal Moores' masterpiece at Boston, the audience there is so brainwashed they stood up and applauded when it was over.
I also work a polling center here up at UNH, and we just did a ton of political surveys.
I have met more people than kids typically would of my age. I have seen all political views, I'm currently majoring in political philsophy and I'll tell you flat out right now:
Bathroom Monkey is more liberal than he would like to admit.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, it's time for the Natural Selection Discussion Forum drinking game!
Take a shot of irony: -every time Forlorn complains about how he's <i>totally</i> misunderstood -every time he proclaims to have someone he's never actually met <i>totally</i> figured out!
<bad coffee shop philosopher voice> Everyone is <i>so</i> easy to read. Except ME. I'm <i>deep</i>. </voice> <i>Honestly.</i>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Meanwhile, American media is definately slanted towards the liberal side, there is no denying that.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How did I know this was going to show up? At any rate, pay close attention to the ratio of posters skeptical about this paper to those who think it's an amazing(though unpublished) demonstration of clear cut, air-tight media bias.
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Nov 9 2004, 05:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Nov 9 2004, 05:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Meanwhile, American media is <b>definately</b> slanted towards the liberal side, there is no <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=74861' target='_blank'>denying</a> that.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> America's media is not slanted towards the left. It may be slanted towards the Democrats, but the Democratic party is right-wing compared to many of the parties in power across the world. If you read newspapers daily from across the world (necessary for any good poli sci student!), you'll see that most mainstream American media outlets are in fact far more conservative in comparison to their counterparts in Europe, Asia, South America, and Africa. American media may be biased towards the <b>American</b> left, but it is certainly not biased towards the what the <b>rest of the world</b> considers leftist.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I can't attest to everything you say there, but I have read a bit of Al Jazeera (anti-americanism) and European (mix of extreme socialism and anti-americanism). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Al Jazeera is not as anti-American as it is pro-Arab. It disagrees with America's foreign policy towards the Arab world, just like American media is pro-American and disagrees with the policies of North Korea and Iran. We all know there is no such thing as an unbiased media, but its important to get both sides every issue if you're going to form informed opinions about them. Therefore it is critical to get news both from Al Jazeera and conservative US media outlets if you're going to form and opinion about the invasion of Iraq.
I won't even refute your claim that European media is 'mix of extreme socialism and anti-americanism'. If you spend the time to actually read European newspapers you'll realize that this claim is silly.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Never read Asian newspaper. But asians in my experience live under oppressive governments. They are conservative by a viture of their upbringing if they go to America.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> 1 billion Indians don't live under an oppressive government. Neither do 500 million Japanese, Indonesians, Malaysians, or Bangladeshis. Perhaps you overlooked this particular half of Asia? Also, the only country here who's media has a decidedly conservative slant is Japan.
The moral of the story is: read newspapers from around the world. The internet makes this easy. <a href='http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldnewsguide/' target='_blank'>http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldnewsguide/</a> is a decent guide to mostly English world media outlets. Enjoy.
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Nov 9 2004, 07:29 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Nov 9 2004, 07:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You know a government is only oppressive if the subjects view it as such. It's a subjective term.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, I can call it oppresive by comparing to my own country, which I hold very high standards too.
I mean, Saddam won with 100% of the votes, right? Okay.... no oppression there! Otherwise they'd just vote him right out.
China is oppresive. But wait, we don't know for sure, right...?
{tiananmen picture} <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh I didn't say there wasn't oppression in certain parts. (and China isn't all of Asia btw) You misundertand me again. If you are the one who doing the oppressing for instance or you are in kahoots with them, then you'll be like "What oppression? There is no oppression! I order it!" You see what I mean? Saddam thinks he's a great guy. But everyone else knows he an **** dictator. Are you understanding what I'm trying to get across to you? Yes, oppresion is a subjective term. Think abotu it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Free speech entitles me to say Micheal Moore is full of crap<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> LOL! <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> You're right it does. Doesn't mean it's the truth, but you can certainly say that. <!--QuoteBegin-I don't remember who said this but I agree fully and mean it.+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (I don't remember who said this but I agree fully and mean it.)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sir, I may disagree with what you say with all my heart, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No, I think it's you who are off the mark.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Are you a woman? Because you <i>always</i> have to get the last word in, don't you? <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> hehe <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> And for the record, I and many others on this forum alone think it is you who are "off the mark." We can argue back and forth like this all day if you keep on feeling the need to get the last word in so I'll end it here.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I do not agree with a word that you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think it was Voltaire who said that, x5.
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Furthermore BBC by definition is socialist; it's owned by the state.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Our* current government isn't a true socialist one; it's New Labour, a weird marriage of left and right. If the BBC was truely a pawn of the state, then it would be pro-Bush. That's what Blair is, after all. Supposing Blair's meant to be left-leaning, it's odd that he gets on better with the Bush camp than the right-leaning opposition does.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ok, it's time for the Natural Selection Discussion Forum drinking game!
Take a shot of irony: -every time Forlorn complains about how he's totally misunderstood -every time he proclaims to have someone he's never actually met totally figured out!
<bad coffee shop philosopher voice> Everyone is so easy to read. Except ME. I'm deep. </voice> Honestly.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd play that game, but only if it was a shot of vodka.. then by now I'd be totally smashed after reading this forum!
And lool, where did I EVER say I was 'totally' misunderstood? And what's the matter, you can't judge a person's political stance over the internet?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How did I know this was going to show up? At any rate, pay close attention to the ratio of posters skeptical about this paper to those who think it's an amazing(though unpublished) demonstration of clear cut, air-tight media bias.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually it seems to me it just preaches to it's own choir; the people who like it don't have to much to say and let me defend it.
HOWEVER - notice if you will how it got bumped when the link went dead?
Interesting, people seem to look up that thread again and again for research or informative purposes? <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->America's media is not slanted towards the left. It may be slanted towards the Democrats, but the Democratic party is right-wing compared to many of the parties in power across the world. If you read newspapers daily from across the world (necessary for any good poli sci student!), you'll see that most mainstream American media outlets are in fact far more conservative in comparison to their counterparts in Europe, Asia, South America, and Africa. American media may be biased towards the American left, but it is certainly not biased towards the what the rest of the world considers leftist. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
By left, of course, I mean towards left liberalism as we are all liberals.
Socialism dominates Europe, the middle east and India I believe to be still theocracies, and Africa... dictators?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Are you a woman? Because you always have to get the last word in, don't you? wink-fix.gif hehe biggrin-fix.gif And for the record, I and many others on this forum alone think it is you who are "off the mark." We can argue back and forth like this all day if you keep on feeling the need to get the last word in so I'll end it here.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You and many others does not concern me... hell if people here didn't disagree with me I wouldn't post here. If there weren't people who agreed with me, I wouldn't post here either...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Al Jazeera is not as anti-American as it is pro-Arab. It disagrees with America's foreign policy towards the Arab world, just like American media is pro-American and disagrees with the policies of North Korea and Iran. We all know there is no such thing as an unbiased media, but its important to get both sides every issue if you're going to form informed opinions about them. Therefore it is critical to get news both from Al Jazeera and conservative US media outlets if you're going to form and opinion about the invasion of Iraq.
I won't even refute your claim that European media is 'mix of extreme socialism and anti-americanism'. If you spend the time to actually read European newspapers you'll realize that this claim is silly.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1. You are right, it is pro-arab, my bad, but from our stance it's anti-americanism. Pro-arab right now means anti-americanism.
Pro-European means anti-americanism btw, but Pro-American does not mean anti-european. Funny, that.
2. By defition state owned is socialst, of course it's gonna be socialist. And I would contest it is extreme, one of my good friends is a huge critic of living there and he tells me all liberal media is surpressed in Europe as it gets no air time. (before some fool tells me "LOL YOU JUST SAID THEY WERE ALL LIBERAL..." liberal has two meanings, I'm just talking to a fellow poly sci student here. He should recognize the second defitiion by context.)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1 billion Indians don't live under an oppressive government<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe their government is similar to the mexican one with regards to oppresiveness, no?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Are you a woman? Because you always have to get the last word in, don't you? wink-fix.gif hehe biggrin-fix.gif And for the record, I and many others on this forum alone think it is you who are "off the mark." We can argue back and forth like this all day if you keep on feeling the need to get the last word in so I'll end it here.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hey man this debate isn't about how sexist you are...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Our* current government isn't a true socialist one; it's New Labour, a weird marriage of left and right. If the BBC was truely a pawn of the state, then it would be pro-Bush. That's what Blair is, after all. Supposing Blair's meant to be left-leaning, it's odd that he gets on better with the Bush camp than the right-leaning opposition does.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Blair does not own the media, the governemnt does... making it socialist.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Interesting, people seem to look up that thread again and again for research or informative purposes? wow.gif<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or, maybe it's because you link it every other post.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Pro-arab right now means anti-americanism.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The Saudi royal family and President Mubarak of Egypt are pro-Arab and pro-American.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Pro-European means anti-americanism<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No. You're saying this because most Europeans opposed the Iraq war. They opposed the war because it wasn't in their interests, not because they don't like the United States.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->By defition state owned is socialst<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Socialists believe that the means of production should be state-owned and distribution of wealth should be egalitarian. The BBC promotes neither. Sorry for being argumentative, but I thought I should clear that up.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Socialism dominates Europe, the middle east and India I believe to be still theocracies, and Africa... dictators?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Socialism does not dominate Europe (though it once did) and there is only one theocracy in the Middle East. India is a secular state, and Africa has 10 multiparty democracies and 23 partial democracies. You, my friend, need a course in comparative politics quick.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And lool, where did I EVER say I was 'totally' misunderstood? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's hyperbolic paraphrasing, but you've made some angsty comments about your relationship with 'society' in your time here-- of course, you also have 6500 frigging posts, so I'm certainly not searching for them. So in all fairness, everyone can consider this completely anecdotal and take it with a whopping grain of salt.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And what's the matter, you can't judge a person's political stance over the internet? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You sure can, but you shouldn't presume to be the authority on the subject . . .
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Actually it seems to me it just preaches to it's own choir; the people who like it don't have to much to say and let me defend it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right, because <i>certainly</i> that's a trend in these forums. When somebody sees an argument going on, they demonstrate support for their side by remaining respectfully silent <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->HOWEVER - notice if you will how it got bumped when the link went dead? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yep, once.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Interesting, people seem to look up that thread again and again for research or informative purposes? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, aside from the times you've bumped it or referenced it, it was bumped-- again-- once. 'Again and agin' seems pretty charitable.
<!--QuoteBegin-BathroomMonkey+Nov 10 2004, 12:45 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Nov 10 2004, 12:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->HOWEVER - notice if you will how it got bumped when the link went dead? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yep, once.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Interesting, people seem to look up that thread again and again for research or informative purposes? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, aside from the times you've bumped it or referenced it, it was bumped-- again-- once. 'Again and agin' seems pretty charitable. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The link only went dead once; of course it can only be bumped as a result of this once... :/
How often do you see other threads with dead links bumped? That is my point.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No. You're saying this because most Europeans opposed the Iraq war. They opposed the war because it wasn't in their interests, not because they don't like the United States. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When this book was released in France btw, it caused a huge storm of controversy, it was on the news; I mean can you imagine seeing a book on the news in the US?
Obviously the idea of anti-americanism isn't just noticed by forum trolls like me.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Socialists believe that the means of production should be state-owned and distribution of wealth should be egalitarian. The BBC promotes neither. Sorry for being argumentative, but I thought I should clear that up.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But the BBC itself is a social entity; having that bias makes perfect sense to me.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Socialism does not dominate Europe (though it once did)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I politely disagree;
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->there is only one theocracy in the Middle East<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I say theocracy because muslim beliefs are highly intertwined with their poliitcal system, although yes it's technically not a theocracy.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Africa has 10 multiparty democracies and 23 partial democracies<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know nothing about Africa but then again I'm not trying to argue about it. ALthough I am not sure they are more to the left than us. I in fact highly doubt that, I in fact highly doubt that most of the world is more conservative than us because the US has some of the highest political freedoms for it's citizens allowing people to be more to the left. (Or, because our governement is not as oppressive as others, that makes us LESS leftish, as we have less reason to be anti-government... either way I have no research to support such claims.)
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Nov 10 2004, 01:39 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Nov 10 2004, 01:39 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Socialism does not dominate Europe (though it once did)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I politely disagree;
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> ...huh? Even parties like Britain's Labor Party (known by some as the Socialist Party) and France and Spain's Socialist Parties are capitalist, through and through.
Remember - just because they call themselves socialists does not mean that they actually put forth socialist ideals.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->QUOTE (milton friedman @ Nov 6 2004, 08:50 PM) During the 70's, many governments tried this by increased government programs with a oppressive progressive tax. What actually occurred was galloping inflation with an increases in unemployment, also known as stagflation.
Riiight, because the oil embargo and Nixon's prices controls had nothing to do with that, nothing at all.
QUOTE
I believe that marriage should be defined as a man and woman and should be encouraged. I’ve held that a relationship like that is the best for society and therefore requires a clear definition. You may find that reason stupid, but it’s a little hard to explain further on how i came to this conclusion. It has to do with the way I’ve been raised, life experiences and observations ive made throughout my life (i.e. looking at various models throughout the world and in the past/present. From France, the middle east to the Philippines).
That's fine for you to decide for yourself, but an instinct that you can't explain generally isn't sufficient reason to warrant restricting the freedoms of other people. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Did i say that nixon's price controls and the oil embargo had nothing to do with the economic woes of the 70's? While those did play a part in the ecnomic issues of the 70's Keyensian economics (which many derived demand side economics) was the way of the game at that time. The US isnt the only example of this. Look at europe during that time, strikes were rampant as the economy stagflated.
We restrict benifits on alternative lifestyles when it comes to domestic parterships (polygamy etc. You've heard them all). People decide an institution and sets the moral tone of this country, not judges trying to push their social agenda.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->QUOTE (Forlorn @ Nov 10 2004, 01:39 AM) QUOTE Socialism does not dominate Europe (though it once did)
I politely disagree;
...huh? Even parties like Britain's Labor Party (known by some as the Socialist Party) and France and Spain's Socialist Parties are capitalist, through and through.
Remember - just because they call themselves socialists does not mean that they actually put forth socialist ideals. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agreed. While it is undoubltly more socialist in european countries, former socalist parties (i.e. labor party in england) have laid off the core policy/beliefs many socalist had durring the 50's and preceeding decades. Instead of fighting markets, many former socalist parties are trying to use market forces to push for thier domestic agenda (healthcare, myriad of entitlements etc). Economic growth = more money for social programs.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The link only went dead once; of course it can only be bumped as a result of this once... :/<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right, but <i>one</i> person resurrected the thread looking for the paper, and from this you're projecting that <i>many</i> people must have silently followed suit?
Yet you're incredibly skeptical about the accuracy of <i>exit polls</i>? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Nov 9 2004, 10:29 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Nov 9 2004, 10:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Blair does not own the media, the governemnt does... making it socialist. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> How so?
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin-milton friedman+Nov 10 2004, 10:06 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (milton friedman @ Nov 10 2004, 10:06 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Did i say that nixon's price controls and the oil embargo had nothing to do with the economic woes of the 70's? While those did play a part in the ecnomic issues of the 70's Keyensian economics (which many derived demand side economics) was the way of the game at that time. The US isnt the only example of this. Look at europe during that time, strikes were rampant as the economy stagflated. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Keynesian economics failed to account for stagflation, but I haven't heard of any reason to believe that the fiscal policy associated with Keynesian economics was responsible for stagflation.
At any rate, the terms we are using are rather archaic. It isn't really sensible to lump things into "demand side" and "supply side." Just about every policy approach available is intended to have some effect on both supply and demand with scant few exceptions.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We restrict benifits on alternative lifestyles when it comes to domestic parterships (polygamy etc. You've heard them all). People decide an institution and sets the moral tone of this country, not judges trying to push their social agenda.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Why, according to your belief in the freedom of individuals to make contracts with one another, should the people be defining the "moral tone" of the country at the expense of the inviolability of individual contracts?
~~~ off-topic to somebody who must always get the last word in (take a guess) ~~~
lol! Oh Forlorn you silly person... you totally proved what I was saying by having to get the last word in, <i>again</i>. Let's recap: <!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-x5+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (x5)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Are you a woman? Because you always have to get the last word in, don't you? <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> hehe <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> And for the record, I and many others on this forum alone think it is you who are "off the mark." <b>We can argue back and forth like this all day if you keep on feeling the need to get the last word in so I'll end it here. </b><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You and many others does not concern me... hell if people here didn't disagree with me I wouldn't post here. If there weren't people who agreed with me, I wouldn't post here either...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Talk about missing the point... It was a lighthearted nod that you have a stauch and completely different point of view from the majority and that I wasn't going to play in your little game. Please work on your gammar. I know I can't really criticize on spelling since I make typos all the time but the illogical flow of your sentence thoughts is comming out much worse than what I think you intended: "You and many others does not concern me" --> I'm not concerned about what you and others think. "If there weren't people who agreed with me, I wouldn't post here either" --> If there were people who agreed with me, I wouldn't post here either (interesting either way because how you first had it actually is just a rewording of the previous sentence and correcting the gammar leaves a sentence where you show pride in being a forum troll. Which isn't suprising but still... Jeeze man. That's as bad as President Bush showing pride in the sociopolitcal division he has caused in the US)
Furthermore the <i>more</i> you make an incorrect generalization in public, the <i>more</i> you seem ignorant. That's not me being mean to you or trying to "feed the troll," but that's just the way it is.
<!--QuoteBegin-Bathroom Monkey+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Bathroom Monkey)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Yet you're incredibly skeptical about the accuracy of exit polls? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Takes a shot of irony <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><a href='http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1893554856/qid=1100067650/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/102-4764750-8059308?v=glance&s=books&n=507846' target='_blank'>Err Nope</a><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ok repeat the following out loud five times: THE ONE OR THE FEW DOES NOT REPRESENT THE MAJORITY
Are you aware <i>at all</i> how much you are stereotyping and generalizing people into catagories Forlorn? One author doesn't represent France. lol! You'd be quite the comedian if the subject matter wasn't so serious.
I'm ending the conversation now. Any further post of yours here will not be heard by me.
<!--QuoteBegin-BathroomMonkey+Nov 10 2004, 10:23 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Nov 10 2004, 10:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The link only went dead once; of course it can only be bumped as a result of this once... :/<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right, but <i>one</i> person resurrected the thread looking for the paper, and from this you're projecting that <i>many</i> people must have silently followed suit?
Yet you're incredibly skeptical about the accuracy of <i>exit polls</i>? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> There are always more lurkers than posters.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ok repeat the following out loud five times: THE ONE OR THE FEW DOES NOT REPRESENT THE MAJORITY<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->When this book was released in France btw, it caused a huge storm of controversy, it was on the news; I mean can you imagine seeing a book on TV in the USA?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->When this book was released in France btw, it caused a huge storm of controversy, it was on the news; I mean can you imagine seeing a book on TV in the USA?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Kitty Kelly comes to mind. But that is neither here nor there.
I look forward to... well really nothing. But I secretly hope it was the news of Bush's reelection that put Arafat over the edge <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Comments
I mean, look at this copy of the Mona Lisa-- the detail is so stunning and true. Don't you just feel like you're in the Louvre at this very moment?
Simply <i>Breathtaking</i>.
I mean, look at this copy of the Mona Lisa-- the detail is so stunning and true. Don't you just feel like you're in the Louvre at this very moment?
Simply <i>Breathtaking</i>. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do I sense a tone of sarcasm. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
No I agree with you. Plutocratic partisanship is really hurting the US. It's stupid that we have pratically 2 parties and even dumber that we have suddenly been reduced to one party contolling everything. Diversity is so much better.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It doesn't matter, it's about the electorial votes.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So Bush held a more narrow lead in more counties? This information seems incomplete without the number of counties won by more than five percentage points for both candidates. What's the source for this information?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselect...4/countymap.htm</a>
No, it's seems that most counties voted for their canidate by a large margin rather a small one.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Oh an btw, moultano's map is much better as no country is an all-or-nothing as the electoral college would like you to believe. Stop getting all your news from one highly biased source for once.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
His map is pointless because the electorial votes are what counts.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I got to back this guy up. He is not what you would call very liberal. Your scale is indeed off. I'm a neutral. I know this because I have issues with both extremes and when in an evenly balanced crowd I always break even. The only reason Bathroom Monkey seems to be "very" to you is because he is the only liberal active in this discussion forum. It makes it easy to single him out.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can disagree fully. I've lived in and around Massachusetts my whole life, I used to live directly in Boston. I saw Micheal Moores' masterpiece at Boston, the audience there is so brainwashed they stood up and applauded when it was over.
I also work a polling center here up at UNH, and we just did a ton of political surveys.
I have met more people than kids typically would of my age. I have seen all political views, I'm currently majoring in political philsophy and I'll tell you flat out right now:
Bathroom Monkey is more liberal than he would like to admit.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Believe it or not most US news is conservatively biased. CNN is one of the few one that is sort of neutral (but still leans to right), but try watching some from the other side. One of the most neutral and objective news sources in the world right now happens to be the BBC. If you want to see an actual equivalent contrast, why don't you watch Al Jazeera? Now that's quite a contrast! Why don't you read the newspapers from areas in Asia. Why don't you talk to some Europeans about the issues? This isn't planet US people, it's planet Earth!!! There are more people who live outside the US. All such comments really sound like "blah blah... I'm blissfully ignorant...blah blah...I hate for Jesus...Liberals are the devil...blah blah...I want everyone to conform to what I believe..." Seriously, do everyone a favor shut up.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can't attest to everything you say there, but I have read a bit of Al Jazeera (anti-americanism) and European (mix of extreme socialism and anti-americanism). Never read Asian newspaper. But asians in my experience live under oppressive governments. They are conservative by a viture of their upbringing if they go to America.
Meanwhile, American media is <b>definately</b> slanted towards the liberal side, there is no <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=74861' target='_blank'>denying</a> that.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> moultano's map is really interesting indeed...
the person who did it should include population too... so that more populated counties are brighter and the near-empty counties are near-black, because their color doesn't matter as much...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See, maps like these mean jack:
<img src='http://www.cast.uark.edu/local/catalog/national/images/maps/Population.dir/USpop1990.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
Because population does not vote for our presidents!
It's all about our electorial voting system, which is a mixture of population <b>proportion</b> of states (counties, land) and population itself.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I don't know-- I'm beginning to believe that these stark, two color images are a really great way to represent reality.
I mean, look at this copy of the Mona Lisa-- the detail is so stunning and true. Don't you just feel like you're in the Louvre at this very moment?
Simply Breathtaking. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
lol, point taken, yeah these maps can be taken too seriously but for the purposes of gloating I guess it's fun to look at them...
See the real question is, what will these maps mean in 4 years from now...
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
His map is pointless because the electorial votes are what counts.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
As far as the election is concerned yes. However, the point of these maps is to determine the actuall support, based on geographical location, that each candidate had.
I also work a polling center here up at UNH, and we just did a ton of political surveys.
I have met more people than kids typically would of my age. I have seen all political views, I'm currently majoring in political philsophy and I'll tell you flat out right now:
Bathroom Monkey is more liberal than he would like to admit.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or maybe Forlorn it's is you who are brainwashed. *gasp* Inconcievable! lol
Furthermore, why do people continue to think liberal means no "moral values," it's quite the opposite imao. For someone who claims to be well versed in politics you are awfully prejudiced, exclusive, and narrowminded m8. So while you (not so much you as others; recoup for example) toss liberal around as an equivalent for "f-ck you," I think it could be a compliment. If he was extreme liberal he'd be just as close minded as extreme conservative.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->European (mix of extreme socialism and anti-americanism). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Um... from the point of view a conservative American. Are there some extreme socialists and anti-americans? Yes, but quite a minority. Again you are stereotyping. You can't tell me that the BBC is anti-american or extreme socialist.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Never read Asian newspaper. But asians in my experience live under oppressive governments. They are conservative by a viture of their upbringing if they go to America.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You know a government is only oppressive if the subjects view it as such. It's a subjective term.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Meanwhile, American media is <b>definately</b> slanted towards the liberal side, there is no <a href='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=74861' target='_blank'>denying</a> that.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No doubt huh? Just because the report is made "official" doesn't mean it was correct or unbiased. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteBegin-illuminex in said thread+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (illuminex in said thread)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The media can never be, and will never be, balanced.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I guess missed my point, FOX in general (different prgrams vary) caters to a conservative crowd. But is not what they are saying that is the problem for the most part, it's what they leave out.
Futhermore I'm sick and tired of hearing all this Michael Moore bashing BS. If you can't respect free speech then please, do us all a favor and leave the US. If I remember correctly some strongly conservative Republicans came back with a TV program that bashed Kerry. It's interesting how a nationally televised (versus having to pay to see it in a movie theater) story got far less attention than his film. Very interesting indeed. Regardless making death threats and using his name as if he's some sort of Hitler is totally out of line and immature. If you go one county south of where I am and say "Michael Moore is a great guy" you'll probably get shot. (likewise you'd also run a high risk of getting shot if your were ****, black, or muslim)
Or maybe Forlorn it's is you who are brainwashed. *gasp* Inconcievable! lol
Furthermore, why do people continue to think liberal means no "moral values," it's quite the opposite imao. For someone who claims to be well versed in politics you are awfully prejudiced, exclusive, and narrowminded m8. So while you (not so much you as others; recoup for example) toss liberal around as an equivalent for "f-ck you," I think it could be a compliment. If he was extreme liberal he'd be just as close minded as extreme conservative.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, I think it's you who are off the mark.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Um... from the point of view a conservative American. Are there some extreme socialists and anti-americans? Yes, but quite a minority. Again you are stereotyping. You can't tell me that the BBC is anti-american or extreme socialist. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, I base my conservative views off my foriegn friends views who tell me these things.
Furthermore BBC by definition is socialist; it's owned by the state.
TF1 in france is horrible to listen to as well; it's the #1 listened channel in France. It's state owned and controlled, and it pushes it's agenda of Chiraq down the throats of bewildered French citizens who do not know any better.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You know a government is only oppressive if the subjects view it as such. It's a subjective term.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, I can call it oppresive by comparing to my own country, which I hold very high standards too.
I mean, Saddam won with 100% of the votes, right? Okay.... no oppression there! Otherwise they'd just vote him right out.
China is oppresive. But wait, we don't know for sure, right...?
<img src='http://innerspace-unltd.net/images/cole--tiananmen.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No doubt huh? Just because the report is made "official" doesn't mean it was correct or unbiased. wink-fix.gif<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It wasn't official, it was smart.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Futhermore I'm sick and tired of hearing all this Michael Moore bashing BS. If you can't respect free speech then please, do us all a favor and leave the US. If I remember correctly some strongly conservative Republicans came back with a TV program that bashed Kerry. It's interesting how a nationally televised (versus having to pay to see it in a movie theater) story got far less attention than his film. Very interesting indeed. Regardless making death threats and using his name as if he's some sort of Hitler is totally out of line and immature. If you go one county south of where I am and say "Michael Moore is a great guy" you'll probably get shot. (likewise you'd also run a high risk of getting shot if your were ****, black, or muslim)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Free speech entitles me to say Micheal Moore is full of crap
I also work a polling center here up at UNH, and we just did a ton of political surveys.
I have met more people than kids typically would of my age. I have seen all political views, I'm currently majoring in political philsophy and I'll tell you flat out right now:
Bathroom Monkey is more liberal than he would like to admit.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, it's time for the Natural Selection Discussion Forum drinking game!
Take a shot of irony:
-every time Forlorn complains about how he's <i>totally</i> misunderstood
-every time he proclaims to have someone he's never actually met <i>totally</i> figured out!
<bad coffee shop philosopher voice> Everyone is <i>so</i> easy to read. Except ME. I'm <i>deep</i>. </voice> <i>Honestly.</i>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Meanwhile, American media is definately slanted towards the liberal side, there is no denying that.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How did I know this was going to show up? At any rate, pay close attention to the ratio of posters skeptical about this paper to those who think it's an amazing(though unpublished) demonstration of clear cut, air-tight media bias.
America's media is not slanted towards the left. It may be slanted towards the Democrats, but the Democratic party is right-wing compared to many of the parties in power across the world. If you read newspapers daily from across the world (necessary for any good poli sci student!), you'll see that most mainstream American media outlets are in fact far more conservative in comparison to their counterparts in Europe, Asia, South America, and Africa. American media may be biased towards the <b>American</b> left, but it is certainly not biased towards the what the <b>rest of the world</b> considers leftist.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I can't attest to everything you say there, but I have read a bit of Al Jazeera (anti-americanism) and European (mix of extreme socialism and anti-americanism). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Al Jazeera is not as anti-American as it is pro-Arab. It disagrees with America's foreign policy towards the Arab world, just like American media is pro-American and disagrees with the policies of North Korea and Iran. We all know there is no such thing as an unbiased media, but its important to get both sides every issue if you're going to form informed opinions about them. Therefore it is critical to get news both from Al Jazeera and conservative US media outlets if you're going to form and opinion about the invasion of Iraq.
I won't even refute your claim that European media is 'mix of extreme socialism and anti-americanism'. If you spend the time to actually read European newspapers you'll realize that this claim is silly.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Never read Asian newspaper. But asians in my experience live under oppressive governments. They are conservative by a viture of their upbringing if they go to America.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1 billion Indians don't live under an oppressive government. Neither do 500 million Japanese, Indonesians, Malaysians, or Bangladeshis. Perhaps you overlooked this particular half of Asia? Also, the only country here who's media has a decidedly conservative slant is Japan.
The moral of the story is: read newspapers from around the world. The internet makes this easy.
<a href='http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldnewsguide/' target='_blank'>http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldnewsguide/</a> is a decent guide to mostly English world media outlets. Enjoy.
No, I can call it oppresive by comparing to my own country, which I hold very high standards too.
I mean, Saddam won with 100% of the votes, right? Okay.... no oppression there! Otherwise they'd just vote him right out.
China is oppresive. But wait, we don't know for sure, right...?
{tiananmen picture} <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh I didn't say there wasn't oppression in certain parts. (and China isn't all of Asia btw) You misundertand me again. If you are the one who doing the oppressing for instance or you are in kahoots with them, then you'll be like "What oppression? There is no oppression! I order it!" You see what I mean? Saddam thinks he's a great guy. But everyone else knows he an **** dictator. Are you understanding what I'm trying to get across to you? Yes, oppresion is a subjective term. Think abotu it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Free speech entitles me to say Micheal Moore is full of crap<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
LOL! <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> You're right it does. Doesn't mean it's the truth, but you can certainly say that.
<!--QuoteBegin-I don't remember who said this but I agree fully and mean it.+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (I don't remember who said this but I agree fully and mean it.)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sir, I may disagree with what you say with all my heart, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No, I think it's you who are off the mark.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are you a woman? Because you <i>always</i> have to get the last word in, don't you? <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> hehe <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> And for the record, I and many others on this forum alone think it is you who are "off the mark." We can argue back and forth like this all day if you keep on feeling the need to get the last word in so I'll end it here.
I think it was Voltaire who said that, x5.
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Furthermore BBC by definition is socialist; it's owned by the state.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Our* current government isn't a true socialist one; it's New Labour, a weird marriage of left and right. If the BBC was truely a pawn of the state, then it would be pro-Bush. That's what Blair is, after all. Supposing Blair's meant to be left-leaning, it's odd that he gets on better with the Bush camp than the right-leaning opposition does.
*England's, that is.
Take a shot of irony:
-every time Forlorn complains about how he's totally misunderstood
-every time he proclaims to have someone he's never actually met totally figured out!
<bad coffee shop philosopher voice> Everyone is so easy to read. Except ME. I'm deep. </voice> Honestly.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd play that game, but only if it was a shot of vodka.. then by now I'd be totally smashed after reading this forum!
And lool, where did I EVER say I was 'totally' misunderstood? And what's the matter, you can't judge a person's political stance over the internet?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How did I know this was going to show up? At any rate, pay close attention to the ratio of posters skeptical about this paper to those who think it's an amazing(though unpublished) demonstration of clear cut, air-tight media bias.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually it seems to me it just preaches to it's own choir; the people who like it don't have to much to say and let me defend it.
HOWEVER - notice if you will how it got bumped when the link went dead?
Interesting, people seem to look up that thread again and again for research or informative purposes? <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->America's media is not slanted towards the left. It may be slanted towards the Democrats, but the Democratic party is right-wing compared to many of the parties in power across the world. If you read newspapers daily from across the world (necessary for any good poli sci student!), you'll see that most mainstream American media outlets are in fact far more conservative in comparison to their counterparts in Europe, Asia, South America, and Africa. American media may be biased towards the American left, but it is certainly not biased towards the what the rest of the world considers leftist.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
By left, of course, I mean towards left liberalism as we are all liberals.
Socialism dominates Europe, the middle east and India I believe to be still theocracies, and Africa... dictators?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Are you a woman? Because you always have to get the last word in, don't you? wink-fix.gif hehe biggrin-fix.gif And for the record, I and many others on this forum alone think it is you who are "off the mark." We can argue back and forth like this all day if you keep on feeling the need to get the last word in so I'll end it here.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You and many others does not concern me... hell if people here didn't disagree with me I wouldn't post here. If there weren't people who agreed with me, I wouldn't post here either...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Al Jazeera is not as anti-American as it is pro-Arab. It disagrees with America's foreign policy towards the Arab world, just like American media is pro-American and disagrees with the policies of North Korea and Iran. We all know there is no such thing as an unbiased media, but its important to get both sides every issue if you're going to form informed opinions about them. Therefore it is critical to get news both from Al Jazeera and conservative US media outlets if you're going to form and opinion about the invasion of Iraq.
I won't even refute your claim that European media is 'mix of extreme socialism and anti-americanism'. If you spend the time to actually read European newspapers you'll realize that this claim is silly.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1. You are right, it is pro-arab, my bad, but from our stance it's anti-americanism. Pro-arab right now means anti-americanism.
Pro-European means anti-americanism btw, but Pro-American does not mean anti-european. Funny, that.
2. By defition state owned is socialst, of course it's gonna be socialist. And I would contest it is extreme, one of my good friends is a huge critic of living there and he tells me all liberal media is surpressed in Europe as it gets no air time. (before some fool tells me "LOL YOU JUST SAID THEY WERE ALL LIBERAL..." liberal has two meanings, I'm just talking to a fellow poly sci student here. He should recognize the second defitiion by context.)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1 billion Indians don't live under an oppressive government<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe their government is similar to the mexican one with regards to oppresiveness, no?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Are you a woman? Because you always have to get the last word in, don't you? wink-fix.gif hehe biggrin-fix.gif And for the record, I and many others on this forum alone think it is you who are "off the mark." We can argue back and forth like this all day if you keep on feeling the need to get the last word in so I'll end it here.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hey man this debate isn't about how sexist you are...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Our* current government isn't a true socialist one; it's New Labour, a weird marriage of left and right. If the BBC was truely a pawn of the state, then it would be pro-Bush. That's what Blair is, after all. Supposing Blair's meant to be left-leaning, it's odd that he gets on better with the Bush camp than the right-leaning opposition does.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Blair does not own the media, the governemnt does... making it socialist.
Or, maybe it's because you link it every other post.
The Saudi royal family and President Mubarak of Egypt are pro-Arab and pro-American.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Pro-European means anti-americanism<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No. You're saying this because most Europeans opposed the Iraq war. They opposed the war because it wasn't in their interests, not because they don't like the United States.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->By defition state owned is socialst<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Socialists believe that the means of production should be state-owned and distribution of wealth should be egalitarian. The BBC promotes neither. Sorry for being argumentative, but I thought I should clear that up.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Socialism dominates Europe, the middle east and India I believe to be still theocracies, and Africa... dictators?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Socialism does not dominate Europe (though it once did) and there is only one theocracy in the Middle East. India is a secular state, and Africa has 10 multiparty democracies and 23 partial democracies.
You, my friend, need a course in comparative politics quick.
It's hyperbolic paraphrasing, but you've made some angsty comments about your relationship with 'society' in your time here-- of course, you also have 6500 frigging posts, so I'm certainly not searching for them. So in all fairness, everyone can consider this completely anecdotal and take it with a whopping grain of salt.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And what's the matter, you can't judge a person's political stance over the internet?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You sure can, but you shouldn't presume to be the authority on the subject . . .
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Actually it seems to me it just preaches to it's own choir; the people who like it don't have to much to say and let me defend it.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right, because <i>certainly</i> that's a trend in these forums. When somebody sees an argument going on, they demonstrate support for their side by remaining respectfully silent <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->HOWEVER - notice if you will how it got bumped when the link went dead?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yep, once.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Interesting, people seem to look up that thread again and again for research or informative purposes? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, aside from the times you've bumped it or referenced it, it was bumped-- again-- once. 'Again and agin' seems pretty charitable.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yep, once.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Interesting, people seem to look up that thread again and again for research or informative purposes? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, aside from the times you've bumped it or referenced it, it was bumped-- again-- once. 'Again and agin' seems pretty charitable. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The link only went dead once; of course it can only be bumped as a result of this once... :/
How often do you see other threads with dead links bumped? That is my point.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No. You're saying this because most Europeans opposed the Iraq war. They opposed the war because it wasn't in their interests, not because they don't like the United States.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1893554856/qid=1100067650/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/104-5432634-6239100?v=glance&s=books&n=507846' target='_blank'>Err Nope</a>
When this book was released in France btw, it caused a huge storm of controversy, it was on the news; I mean can you imagine seeing a book on the news in the US?
Obviously the idea of anti-americanism isn't just noticed by forum trolls like me.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Socialists believe that the means of production should be state-owned and distribution of wealth should be egalitarian. The BBC promotes neither. Sorry for being argumentative, but I thought I should clear that up.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But the BBC itself is a social entity; having that bias makes perfect sense to me.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Socialism does not dominate Europe (though it once did)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I politely disagree;
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->there is only one theocracy in the Middle East<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I say theocracy because muslim beliefs are highly intertwined with their poliitcal system, although yes it's technically not a theocracy.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Africa has 10 multiparty democracies and 23 partial democracies<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know nothing about Africa but then again I'm not trying to argue about it. ALthough I am not sure they are more to the left than us. I in fact highly doubt that, I in fact highly doubt that most of the world is more conservative than us because the US has some of the highest political freedoms for it's citizens allowing people to be more to the left. (Or, because our governement is not as oppressive as others, that makes us LESS leftish, as we have less reason to be anti-government... either way I have no research to support such claims.)
I politely disagree;
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
...huh? Even parties like Britain's Labor Party (known by some as the Socialist Party) and France and Spain's Socialist Parties are capitalist, through and through.
Remember - just because they call themselves socialists does not mean that they actually put forth socialist ideals.
During the 70's, many governments tried this by increased government programs with a oppressive progressive tax. What actually occurred was galloping inflation with an increases in unemployment, also known as stagflation.
Riiight, because the oil embargo and Nixon's prices controls had nothing to do with that, nothing at all.
QUOTE
I believe that marriage should be defined as a man and woman and should be encouraged. I’ve held that a relationship like that is the best for society and therefore requires a clear definition. You may find that reason stupid, but it’s a little hard to explain further on how i came to this conclusion. It has to do with the way I’ve been raised, life experiences and observations ive made throughout my life (i.e. looking at various models throughout the world and in the past/present. From France, the middle east to the Philippines).
That's fine for you to decide for yourself, but an instinct that you can't explain generally isn't sufficient reason to warrant restricting the freedoms of other people. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Did i say that nixon's price controls and the oil embargo had nothing to do with the economic woes of the 70's? While those did play a part in the ecnomic issues of the 70's Keyensian economics (which many derived demand side economics) was the way of the game at that time. The US isnt the only example of this. Look at europe during that time, strikes were rampant as the economy stagflated.
We restrict benifits on alternative lifestyles when it comes to domestic parterships (polygamy etc. You've heard them all). People decide an institution and sets the moral tone of this country, not judges trying to push their social agenda.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->QUOTE (Forlorn @ Nov 10 2004, 01:39 AM)
QUOTE
Socialism does not dominate Europe (though it once did)
I politely disagree;
...huh? Even parties like Britain's Labor Party (known by some as the Socialist Party) and France and Spain's Socialist Parties are capitalist, through and through.
Remember - just because they call themselves socialists does not mean that they actually put forth socialist ideals. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agreed. While it is undoubltly more socialist in european countries, former socalist parties (i.e. labor party in england) have laid off the core policy/beliefs many socalist had durring the 50's and preceeding decades. Instead of fighting markets, many former socalist parties are trying to use market forces to push for thier domestic agenda (healthcare, myriad of entitlements etc). Economic growth = more money for social programs.
Right, but <i>one</i> person resurrected the thread looking for the paper, and from this you're projecting that <i>many</i> people must have silently followed suit?
Yet you're incredibly skeptical about the accuracy of <i>exit polls</i>? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
How so?
Keynesian economics failed to account for stagflation, but I haven't heard of any reason to believe that the fiscal policy associated with Keynesian economics was responsible for stagflation.
At any rate, the terms we are using are rather archaic. It isn't really sensible to lump things into "demand side" and "supply side." Just about every policy approach available is intended to have some effect on both supply and demand with scant few exceptions.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We restrict benifits on alternative lifestyles when it comes to domestic parterships (polygamy etc. You've heard them all). People decide an institution and sets the moral tone of this country, not judges trying to push their social agenda.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why, according to your belief in the freedom of individuals to make contracts with one another, should the people be defining the "moral tone" of the country at the expense of the inviolability of individual contracts?
lol! Oh Forlorn you silly person... you totally proved what I was saying by having to get the last word in, <i>again</i>. Let's recap:
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-x5+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (x5)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Are you a woman? Because you always have to get the last word in, don't you? <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> hehe <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> And for the record, I and many others on this forum alone think it is you who are "off the mark." <b>We can argue back and forth like this all day if you keep on feeling the need to get the last word in so I'll end it here. </b><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You and many others does not concern me... hell if people here didn't disagree with me I wouldn't post here. If there weren't people who agreed with me, I wouldn't post here either...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Talk about missing the point... It was a lighthearted nod that you have a stauch and completely different point of view from the majority and that I wasn't going to play in your little game.
Please work on your gammar. I know I can't really criticize on spelling since I make typos all the time but the illogical flow of your sentence thoughts is comming out much worse than what I think you intended:
"You and many others does not concern me" --> I'm not concerned about what you and others think.
"If there weren't people who agreed with me, I wouldn't post here either" --> If there were people who agreed with me, I wouldn't post here either (interesting either way because how you first had it actually is just a rewording of the previous sentence and correcting the gammar leaves a sentence where you show pride in being a forum troll. Which isn't suprising but still... Jeeze man. That's as bad as President Bush showing pride in the sociopolitcal division he has caused in the US)
Furthermore the <i>more</i> you make an incorrect generalization in public, the <i>more</i> you seem ignorant. That's not me being mean to you or trying to "feed the troll," but that's just the way it is.
<!--QuoteBegin-Bathroom Monkey+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Bathroom Monkey)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Yet you're incredibly skeptical about the accuracy of exit polls? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Takes a shot of irony <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><a href='http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1893554856/qid=1100067650/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/102-4764750-8059308?v=glance&s=books&n=507846' target='_blank'>Err Nope</a><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok repeat the following out loud five times:
THE ONE OR THE FEW DOES NOT REPRESENT THE MAJORITY
Are you aware <i>at all</i> how much you are stereotyping and generalizing people into catagories Forlorn? One author doesn't represent France. lol! You'd be quite the comedian if the subject matter wasn't so serious.
I'm ending the conversation now. Any further post of yours here will not be heard by me.
Right, but <i>one</i> person resurrected the thread looking for the paper, and from this you're projecting that <i>many</i> people must have silently followed suit?
Yet you're incredibly skeptical about the accuracy of <i>exit polls</i>? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
There are always more lurkers than posters.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ok repeat the following out loud five times:
THE ONE OR THE FEW DOES NOT REPRESENT THE MAJORITY<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->When this book was released in France btw, it caused a huge storm of controversy, it was on the news; I mean can you imagine seeing a book on TV in the USA?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->When this book was released in France btw, it caused a huge storm of controversy, it was on the news; I mean can you imagine seeing a book on TV in the USA?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Kitty Kelly comes to mind. But that is neither here nor there.
I look forward to... well really nothing. But I secretly hope it was the news of Bush's reelection that put Arafat over the edge <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->