mongoose, can u send the link if you where to find it?
politics
Started by LT. DOWNSLAYER, Feb 11 2004 04:38 PM
57 replies to this topic
#2
MuDsHoVeLeR
-
- Project Team
-
- 350 posts
title available
Posted 11 February 2004 - 09:22 PM
Better yet, can you provide a firsthand account of this... rather than something that's official name is 'yahoo'.
#3
DrPietro
-
- Members
-
- 181 posts
Old timer from Origin
- Location:Inside memory address ACF67BH
Posted 12 February 2004 - 07:19 PM
Mongoose: But still found it's way onto the yahoo news.
Considering the Gov. filters EVERYTHING on the tele and on the internet!
#4
Mongoose
-
- Hosted
-
- 785 posts
TFH rOCks
- Location:Australia
- OMG I'M MEMBER NUMBER 189
Posted 10 February 2004 - 11:41 AM
that also sounds beliveabel. 
#5
LT. DOWNSLAYER
-
- New Members
-
- 38 posts
Posted 10 February 2004 - 03:02 PM
everybody believe what you want..i dont care if people dont believe what i show....
whatever the govt says is truth i guess!!! WRONG!!!
whatever the govt says is truth i guess!!! WRONG!!!
#6
DrPietro
-
- Members
-
- 181 posts
Old timer from Origin
- Location:Inside memory address ACF67BH
Posted 10 February 2004 - 05:18 PM
yur absolutly right LT.! The gov. lies! all the time! and Im P.Oed!!! 
#7
Guest_Korona_*
Guest_Korona_*
-
- Guests
Posted 04 February 2004 - 01:01 PM
Skull & Bones?? Oh no!! not an old rich boys club?! Forgive me if I'm being naieve but you'll tell us next that half the US presidents were members of the Yale fraternity!!!! Shock horror!!!
Here in Britain the Monarchy is a figurehead for the nation. However the only money they get from the government is the grant money for maintaining their historic buildings, such as Buckingham palace... just like anyone else would who owns a building of historic interestm, so no conspiracy there. The Queen pays taxes on her income just like everyone else. Her chief source of income is rent money from the land her family owns. The monarch has executive powers over any law passed, but can only approve laws made by Parliament, she can't create new ones. Theoretically she could veto a law, but, yes I'm sure I'm being naive again, but I think the Queen actually suppourts the idea of a democracy!!
The thing about the Media, at least over here is that they report of things like the attept to pass anti-terrorism legislation. You may feel that your website is impartial, but it reports things in a very inflamatory manner (much like a tabloid newspaper) and is not being objective. David Kelly's death was suspicious, which is why the government commisioned the Hutton report, which was utterly independant, to investigate it. If you truly believe that this was somehow influenced by Blair, then I am afraid it is you who is being naieve, and obviously want to believe the inflamatory reporting of your website rather than trying to actually understand how our independant commisions opearate. The Hutton report is availible for you to read, if you are actually interested in basing your opinions on fact, and you can see a comprehensive analysis of all the avalible evidence, but I am going to make an assumption and say that you are not, and instead are going to believe the consiracy theories you have read on the internet, making a mockery of the Hutton report at the same time.
Here in Britain the Monarchy is a figurehead for the nation. However the only money they get from the government is the grant money for maintaining their historic buildings, such as Buckingham palace... just like anyone else would who owns a building of historic interestm, so no conspiracy there. The Queen pays taxes on her income just like everyone else. Her chief source of income is rent money from the land her family owns. The monarch has executive powers over any law passed, but can only approve laws made by Parliament, she can't create new ones. Theoretically she could veto a law, but, yes I'm sure I'm being naive again, but I think the Queen actually suppourts the idea of a democracy!!
The thing about the Media, at least over here is that they report of things like the attept to pass anti-terrorism legislation. You may feel that your website is impartial, but it reports things in a very inflamatory manner (much like a tabloid newspaper) and is not being objective. David Kelly's death was suspicious, which is why the government commisioned the Hutton report, which was utterly independant, to investigate it. If you truly believe that this was somehow influenced by Blair, then I am afraid it is you who is being naieve, and obviously want to believe the inflamatory reporting of your website rather than trying to actually understand how our independant commisions opearate. The Hutton report is availible for you to read, if you are actually interested in basing your opinions on fact, and you can see a comprehensive analysis of all the avalible evidence, but I am going to make an assumption and say that you are not, and instead are going to believe the consiracy theories you have read on the internet, making a mockery of the Hutton report at the same time.
#8
LT. DOWNSLAYER
-
- New Members
-
- 38 posts
Posted 04 February 2004 - 03:18 PM
well, i mat be naive but i will always believe that the present"democratic govts" arounfd the world are nmot that democratic..as for the site, yes its like a tabloid, and i look for others to verify the stories...and if they are true then so be it..if not then so be it. i for one have a hard time believing what the govt tells me is the truth...if they wanted the truth to be told then they wouldnt be trying to stop a commitee from investigating bush here in america...seems odd to me if hes so truthful that he doesnt want the truth to be found out. just how i see it..
others see it differently.. but, why block the truth if you have nothing to hide...
others see it differently.. but, why block the truth if you have nothing to hide...
#9
Guest_Korona_*
Guest_Korona_*
-
- Guests
Posted 05 February 2004 - 04:07 PM
It's easy to see conspiracies everywhere, and the internet is absolutely full of them. If you are investing a lot of time and effort in looking for them, finding out that the story was actually quite boring would pretty much invalidate the search. It's good to question, but don't let it become an obsession, or it may be hard to accept that for the most part politics is boring, the people are uninteresting. Self-serving, and courrupt and tending to give tax breaks to their buddies who dontate to their campaign, most certainly. In charge of massive conspiracies? nah.
People cover things up, everyone does. For example you haven't filled in all the details in your profile - I haven't even bothered to register. However there is no real consiracy here. It is in fact more reasonable to assume that there isn't anything sinister. Governements lie, and many politicians are exposed for it, but it's always for something like sleeping with an intern or taking a bribe, or something else self-serving. The fact is humans are selfish, and its far more likely if someone in power is corrupt then they will be extorting money or something rather than trying to jepordize their coushy position by having people murdered or trying to take over the world.
This isn't to say it doesn't happen, but I say leave it to the professionals, as they have access to far more rescourses and have the time to do a propper job. Unless you want to be a journalist yourself then you will in the end have to take someone's word for what is being said, whether this is a mainstream journalist or some guy on the internet. However I don't see this as a massive problem. You can be assured that if any decent evidence of a conspiracy is uncovered then the nature of the modern media will mean it's reported as fast as it can be typed onto the internet. A good example of modern corportate courruption would be the current WorldCom thing. Even when there has been no proof offered, people are already hurling accusations at Bush, Chainey et al, I dunno if they are innocent or not, but I would rather wait for the facts. If anything mainstream journalism is over sensitive to conspiacies. If you want good quality unbiased journalism try,
http://news.bbc.co.u...rld/default.stm
BBC News in general is very good (and im not saying that becasue im British
) as the BBC have a vast budget coupled to a mandate to report objectivly, and with so many comerical rivals desperate to see them fail and thus constatnly watching for any slip-up this is ruthlessly maintained. The result is a massive network of very commited, extreemly compitant journalists worldwide, with none of the corporate sponsorship (and general clutter) of, say, CNN:
http://maddox.xmissi.../cnn_sucks.html
People cover things up, everyone does. For example you haven't filled in all the details in your profile - I haven't even bothered to register. However there is no real consiracy here. It is in fact more reasonable to assume that there isn't anything sinister. Governements lie, and many politicians are exposed for it, but it's always for something like sleeping with an intern or taking a bribe, or something else self-serving. The fact is humans are selfish, and its far more likely if someone in power is corrupt then they will be extorting money or something rather than trying to jepordize their coushy position by having people murdered or trying to take over the world.
This isn't to say it doesn't happen, but I say leave it to the professionals, as they have access to far more rescourses and have the time to do a propper job. Unless you want to be a journalist yourself then you will in the end have to take someone's word for what is being said, whether this is a mainstream journalist or some guy on the internet. However I don't see this as a massive problem. You can be assured that if any decent evidence of a conspiracy is uncovered then the nature of the modern media will mean it's reported as fast as it can be typed onto the internet. A good example of modern corportate courruption would be the current WorldCom thing. Even when there has been no proof offered, people are already hurling accusations at Bush, Chainey et al, I dunno if they are innocent or not, but I would rather wait for the facts. If anything mainstream journalism is over sensitive to conspiacies. If you want good quality unbiased journalism try,
http://news.bbc.co.u...rld/default.stm
BBC News in general is very good (and im not saying that becasue im British
) as the BBC have a vast budget coupled to a mandate to report objectivly, and with so many comerical rivals desperate to see them fail and thus constatnly watching for any slip-up this is ruthlessly maintained. The result is a massive network of very commited, extreemly compitant journalists worldwide, with none of the corporate sponsorship (and general clutter) of, say, CNN:http://maddox.xmissi.../cnn_sucks.html
#10
LT. DOWNSLAYER
-
- New Members
-
- 38 posts
Posted 05 February 2004 - 05:16 PM
CNN MOST DEFINETLY DOES SUCK!!over here in america BBC is known as "BETTER BUY CABLE" a joke of a name...i used to watch bbc when MR. BEAN was shown on a regular basis..MR. BEAN!!!!! 
#11
Guest_Korona_*
Guest_Korona_*
-
- Guests
Posted 06 February 2004 - 02:21 AM
Yeah Mr. Bean is quality, my next door neighbour used to get me the tapes when I was little. There were only a fairly small number of episodes, even if you include the unreleased ones. Unfortunatly the film they made a few years ago was utter crap. I'm not so sure about some of the other stuff broadcast on the BBC though. The news however is really good.
There's no need for the tv channels though, use the BBC website, it's great for news and kept right up to date. They have a knack of reporting the facts and their implications while leaving it up to you to form your own opinions. The BBC contains some damn good journalists, despite what neo-conservative "sock-sniffers" like Bill O'Reilly want to say;
http://maddox.xmissi...?u=bill_oreilly
There's no need for the tv channels though, use the BBC website, it's great for news and kept right up to date. They have a knack of reporting the facts and their implications while leaving it up to you to form your own opinions. The BBC contains some damn good journalists, despite what neo-conservative "sock-sniffers" like Bill O'Reilly want to say;
http://maddox.xmissi...?u=bill_oreilly
#12
LT. DOWNSLAYER
-
- New Members
-
- 38 posts
Posted 03 February 2004 - 08:18 PM
looking at the presidential nominees is like a roster of americas elite..no matter if BUSH or JOHN KERRY wins SKULL AND BONES will still hold the presidency..
so i guess america will still be screwed over...
so i guess america will still be screwed over...
#13
Mongoose
-
- Hosted
-
- 785 posts
TFH rOCks
- Location:Australia
- OMG I'M MEMBER NUMBER 189
Posted 31 January 2004 - 12:32 PM
you may have like One or Two actual truthful things in you, but other than that, its all bullshit.+ Well im going to go walk around town, but ill put the gun that I CAN OWN away, go start a a protest, speak my mind, and i just may go vote for someone, and it wont be rigged. Damn, beeing an american sucks doesnt it, all this freedom.
your not the only one with freedom, we have that in other parts of the world. thats the problem with most yanks they don't see past there own land if they don't like it the try take over *HINT HINT* so just shut it trev.
#14
Mastermind
-
- Undead
-
- 7,014 posts
Server Technician
- Location:Cambridge, MA
- Projects:MasterNews 3
- The Man Behind the Curtain
Posted 31 January 2004 - 04:25 PM
We are the ones that have freedom. Our country is the longest lived democracy in the world. We've been living in our free society for over 200 years. We don't take over countries because we don't like them, we take them over because they need it. Saddam Hussein deserved to be removed from power, along with his Ba'ath party for all of the atrocities they committed in the past 20 years. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and can express it.your not the only one with freedom, we have that in other parts of the world. thats the problem with most yanks they don't see past there own land if they don't like it the try take over *HINT HINT* so just shut it trev.
<_<
Too cute! | Server Status: If you can read this, it's up |Well, when it comes to writing an expository essay about counter-insurgent tactics, I'm of the old school. First you tell them how you're going to kill them. Then you kill them. Then you tell them how you just killed them.
#15
flyby
-
- New Members
-
- 61 posts
Posted 31 January 2004 - 05:04 PM
Not sure where you're from ,Mastermind, but England is the longest lived democracy in the world. anno 1649, IIRC...
They were the first to have an elected parliament...
They were the first to have an elected parliament...
#16
Mastermind
-
- Undead
-
- 7,014 posts
Server Technician
- Location:Cambridge, MA
- Projects:MasterNews 3
- The Man Behind the Curtain
Posted 31 January 2004 - 05:13 PM
Ah, fine, I always forget about you guys. Your government hasn't been the same for the entire time, but close enough. I'm American.
Too cute! | Server Status: If you can read this, it's up |Well, when it comes to writing an expository essay about counter-insurgent tactics, I'm of the old school. First you tell them how you're going to kill them. Then you kill them. Then you tell them how you just killed them.
#17
Detail
-
- Hosted
-
- 7,767 posts
King Detail
- Location:Dayonic
- Projects:Dayvi.com
- Blu Spy
Posted 31 January 2004 - 09:26 PM
The Queen/King has power over Parlement. Parlement has power over the services (Army, Police, NHS, Rescue). The services have power over the people.
It's a dictatorship (monarchy) at the top. It's also a democracy because we can vote for which party we want.
The Queen does theif alot of money, but without her we would have no tourists.
It's a dictatorship (monarchy) at the top. It's also a democracy because we can vote for which party we want.
The Queen does theif alot of money, but without her we would have no tourists.
#18
trevor
-
- New Members
-
- 130 posts
Posted 31 January 2004 - 08:58 PM
ya England had the parliament long ago, but was still ruled by a dictator. And im not sure but is it still that the Queen gets money from everyone? Or has that passed? Cause they still have all that damn money.
#20
flyby
-
- New Members
-
- 61 posts
Posted 01 February 2004 - 12:47 AM
huh...I'm not even English ...Ah, fine, I always forget about you guys. Your government hasn't been the same for the entire time, but close enough. I'm American.
Just the basic history knowledge that all of our highschool kids get on the "old continent"
Been a "while" since I got that class, but I still remember. :bluch:
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
