Europe

[Pistolero]

How can we explain that so many people alll over the planet would actually kill to have a visa to live in the US? Or Canada, for that matter


Many Europeans seem to forget that it was America (US, Canada, and to a very reduced part, Mexico) who delivered their butts from Nazi evil? "Europe is worth fighting for", in the immortal words of Tom Clancy. And if this is regarding the imminent war against Iraq, there are many protests, even by American citizens, who are not happy with the prospect of the US sticking its nose where it does not belong. The fact is that there is going to be war, whether you like it or not.

And once again, there are very few non-Americans who would not give their left arm to live legally in North America. And Canada is almost as attractive as the US to live when you are in a fucked-up third world country. ANd before the flames start to scorch me, I was not born in the US. And I would give my life for this country.

[Colonel Olrik]

How can we explain that so many people alll over the planet would actually kill to have a visa to live in the US? Or Canada, for that matter?

Or in the E.U, for that matter. It's hard no to want a visa to live in a place where prosperity and democracy are taken as granted as the air we breath. Specially when 5/6 of the world population have neither.

Many Europeans seem to forget that it was America (US, Canada, and to a very reduced part, Mexico) who delivered their butts from Nazi evil? "Europe is worth fighting for", in the immortal words of Tom Clancy. And if this is regarding the imminent war against Iraq, there are many protests, even by American citizens, who are not happy with the prospect of the US sticking its nose where it does not belong. The fact is that there is going to be war, whether you like it or not.

So, the fact that we were saved in ww2 from nazism makes us simple yes-men more sixty years after it. If the U.S were in immediate danger, or were attacked, all the European countries would rise in its defense. When that's not true, then allies have the right to disagree and criticize decisions, not simply play "follow the leader".

And once again, there are very few non-Americans who would not give their left arm to live legally in North America. And Canada is almost as attractive as the US to live when you are in a fucked-up third world country. ANd before the flames start to scorch me, I was not born in the US. And I would give my life for this country.

And again, the same can be said and is true about the E.U.

[The Great Unbearded One]

I know in other thread posts I have given quite a laying into (and sadly been proved wrong a few times) America, but that fact remains that out of most English people, there are only a few things that bother them about America.

One is most clearly WWII, but I wont go into that. Two is definatley the renaming of our national sport Football into the godawful word of soccer. Three is the way that Americans seemed to be cucooned into America and dont usually know about the rest of the world unless they infact leave America and then their views seem to change. Four is how the American government always pushes other countries about. Five is how you're just all so damn emotional...and then accuse the British of being cold. And then six (if you're my mate James) argue that the Americans didnt win the war of independance because they were still British at the time therefore the British won the war of independence. I think thats about it. Apart from those things that niggle at me, I like America. I went to Atlanta just over a year ago and I had a fabulous time. I'm going to Orlando in June/July time (fingers crossed) and I hope to be going to L.A. in the next six years. And the best thing for me about America is the film industry. I mean, not all American films are great, some are seriously cliche and unrealistic, but without Hollywood some of my favorite movies would not have been made. Terminator 2: Judgement Day. The Matrix. Silence of The Lambs. Training Day.

There is good and bad to everything, but with most things you only hear about the bad and never the good and so a 'Euro' (god that word stinks. I mean British are clearly different from the Germans who are clearly different from the Greeks and so on) to America only thinks bad things whereas a 'Yank' to 'Euros' only seems to think insignificant things. So I suggest that we stop these posts which clearly ignite the worst in all of us by unleashing our unrelenting patriotism and just call it quits and go back to taking the piss out of people who liked Star Trek: Nemesis.

[Perinquus]

Not so. Pundits have a massive influence on in the media. Furthermore, Goldberg is often cited as evidence for a liberal media since he's a liberal himself. It is only fair that the same tactic is used the other way around.

You are still missing the essential point. Yes pundits influence people's opinions, but when Americans perceive a bias in the media, it is not pundits that they blame for this. Why? because pundits and commentators, are expected to have an opinion. They are expected to advocate one side of an issue. It's what they do. The bias Americans perceive in the media comes from reporters slanting stories that are presented not as opinion pieces (which is what pundits write), but as straight news, which is supposed to be unbiased and objective.

Not a red herring. Your claims would be valid if pundits had no influence on the population and how they get their news. If you think that Limbaugh has had no influence over the politics of Americans, then you're smoking some bad shit. The fact is that the vast majority of pundits are conservatives, and this causes an imbalance.

The reason that there are so many conservative pundits, and the reason they have such a large and receptive audience, is that the newsreading public turns to them to get, as they see it, the other side of the news. Most Americans see a bias in the mainstream media, and they feel that Rather, Jennings, Brokaw, et al. are giving them only one side of most issues. They then tune into to talk radio shows like Limbaugh's to get the other side.

Sure there may be more conservative pundits, but there are even more liberal reporters, and there's where your imbalance is.

Okay, you have one example that favors your viewpoint. There are many, many more instances of rightward slanted reporting.

Well it would sure be nice if you provided some examples of it. Until then, you have nothing more than a bald, unsupported assertion.

Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi and company, cannot be called conservative by ANY stretch of the imagination. How do you stretch the word conservative to fit journalists who support and vote with these folks on just about every issue?

And yet, these journalists exhibit a conservative bias in their reporting.

Another bald, unsupported assertion.

You see, this is the problem with the bias in the media. The ones who are guilty of it do not see it as biased. These people do not lock themselves in smoke-filled (or given the political incorrectness of tobacco these days, maybe that should be smoke free) rooms, pull out a crumpled up copy of The Liberal ...

Red herring. Doesn't even contribute to your point.

Oh quit being ridiculous; it is exactly my point! There is a liberal bias in the media. This bias exists because the fundamental viewpoint of the people reporting the news is so tilted toward one side of the political spectrum that they slant the news unconsciously and automatically. They do this, because they see themselves as merely middle of the road, and do not realize the extent of their own bias.

Out of step has nothing to do with it. You have anecdotes, hearsay, and unsupported generalizations from Goldberg that come from his personal problems with Dan Rather.

Do you even know what hearsay is? I do. I know exactly, since as a cop it's the kind of thing I can't testify to in court. It's second hand evidence. When you are getting information from the individual who experienced it, it's not hearsay; it's a first hand account. When a man writes down his experiences, it's a first hand account. There is also statistical data (some of which I have cited). The generalization is your cavalier dismissal, without reading it, of everything Goldberg has to say as mere "personal problems with Dan Rather".

Yet again, not a red herring. It would be if punditry had no influence on the political views of Americans.

I repeat, the problem with bias is not the pundits. Pundits are supposed to advocate one side of an issue. People do not get upset when individuals do something they are expected to do and are supposed to do. What upsets them is people (reporters) doing something they are not supposed to do, which is let their personal bias slant their news reports. Most Americans perceive a leftward political bias in the maistream media. This perception does not come from the actions of pundits.

Sigh. The very fact that rightwing thinktanks are cited more often shows the bias. Not a red herring.

How about some evidence that they are cited more often. Looks to me like you simply have another bald, unsupported assertion. The mere existence of more conservative than liberal think tanks does not mean the media cites the conservative ones as sources more often.

Nixon's crimes were far more serious than a blowjob.

Were they more serious than pardons for money? Were they more serious than obstructing justice, which Clinton did during the investigation of Vince Foster's death?

Clinton gave misleading answers and evaded ridiculous questions. No perjury was committed. All legalities considered, he is innocent of the perjury charge.

Bullshit! Bullshit! BULLSHIT!

Bill Clinton lied while under oath! That's perjury. Period. Full stop. End of story. The law makes no provisions as regards to motive either. A lie, is a lie, is a lie. Under oath, all are equally illegal, whether the question asked is "ridiculous" or not. That's the law. Too bad if you don't like it, but that's the law. There is no 1st, 2nd, or 3rd degree perjury, it's just perjury. So any kind of "it's about sex" argument is out the window. If he lied under oath(regardless of why), he committed perjury. If he committed perjury, it's a felony, and impeachable.

He didn’t just “evade”. He LIED! Bill Clinton testified that he never touched Lewinsky, he only received oral sex. However, Lewinsky testified that he fondled her breasts on at least seven occasions, and "manually stimulated" her twice, once to orgasm. Tell me how those events don't satisfy the definition of sexual relations as defined by the court. You can't. Now, of course you can argue that Lewinsky isn't credible, and that she was just saying what Kenneth Starr wanted her to say in order to avoid prosecution. There are 2 major points to dispute that. First off, Lewinsky's immunity was "contractual immunity". That means it's only valid if she tells the truth, and it bears out as truth. So lying would have been no protection for her. Second, she was able to give dates, times, and name people that Clinton was talking to while she was performing her acts, and these times and people are independently confirmed by white house phone logs and visitation logs, giving her testimony almost airtight credibility. That doesn't even go into the fact that her opponent in the testimony is a man that's been proven to lie without a qualm over and over again.

Clinton was asked a question under oath; he was required to answer it honestly, or if the answer was such as to incriminate him, he should have taken the Fifth - that's why it's there. He didn't do that. He lied. Perjury. Quod erat demostrandum.

Name one liberal pundit that received corporate financial backing on the level of Limbaugh.

What you are describing as "corporate financial backing" has another name in the world of broadcasting: advertiser revenue. The reason no liberal has ever gotten as much as Limbaugh is that no liberal pundit has ever done as well in the ratings as Limbaugh has. No liberal has ever drawn the large audiences Limbaugh does. Advertisers back Limbaugh because he makes them money. They run their commercials during his show, listeners hear these commercials, and they buy the advertisers' products. When a liberal like Mario Cuomo tries to take his show on the air, and fails to draw a large audience, advertisers don't want to buy time on his show, because there are not enough listeners to hear those commericials and buy their products.

This is simple free market economics at work. I shouldn't be suprised that you seem unable to comprehend this, since liberals almost never do. They see "conservative conspiracies" in what is simply the market economy at work. Liberals always seem to believe in socialist-type, regulated economies, they never seem to believe that a free market economy, which is essentially self regulating, can exist. There simply must be some controlling individual or group running things.

Look, you really ought to understand this. Cuomo bombed and Donahue is bombing, not because there is some conservative conspiracy; they're bombing because people are not tuning in. That's just all there is to it.

Liberals don’t compete well in the free marketplace of ideas, because their values do not reflect those of average Americans. They dominate the mainstream media where most reporters are liberal, editors are liberal, and they control what goes on the air. But when it comes time to interact with the audience and the show is not scripted, they just don’t attract the viewers or listeners.

Baseless claim, and doesn't further your argument.

Baseless claim my ass. It’s borne out by the facts. Liberal talk shows, especially on the radio, are conspicuous by their absence. They are so rare because every time somebody attempts to air one, it tanks in the ratings, just like Cuomo’s did when it went national, just like Donahue’s is doing right now on TV. Liberal shows don’t draw the audience, this is an objective fact, and I just explained to you why.

Sigh. If you're going to blast me for appeals to authority, don't do it yourself.

Sigh… Look, I’ll spell out the difference for you. I blasted you for appealing to authority because that’s exactly what you did. You said “there’s no liberal bias in the media, see, Pat Buchanan says so". In that example you offered nothing more than someone else’s opinion that something does or does not exist.

I, on the other hand, am not contesting the existence of the fairness doctrine's repeal or even the fact that prominent conservatives support it (which you contend they do). I am merely pointing out that prominent liberals do also, which means it's hardly a conservative issue. Suppose you tell me how else I’m supposed to point that out, other than by quoting them when they say it. Telepathy perhaps?

Besides, his logic is faulty. If the press is free of regulation, corporate entities will buy everything up and promote their views and stifle the opinions of others.

That presupposes all corporations share the same views, and are working to stifle the rest. AOL/Time Warner owns CNN, and this is not exactly an organization renowned for its strong conservative stance on issues.

It was intended to allow both sides of the issue to be reported. The very fact that corporations own the media is more evidence of conservative bias.

Leap in logic. Just because a corporation owns something, how does it automatically follow that they will dictate news content? And again, this presupposes that every media outlet is owned by a corporation that not only has a conservative philosophy, but actively and successfully forces its views on these media outlets, in spite of the proven, overwhelming majority of liberals among reporters and editors.

[Rob Wilson]

Oh and in general, this thread has been pretty much negative in regards to the influences it has had.

Before reading this thread I felt no animosity towards america, after reading this thread and comments like the ones from Tycho I feel annoyed and insulted and now it's linked subconsciously to america, so now I have alot more negative emotions linked in with the subject of america.

Ofcourse I understand that this is a false impression and that it's not linked towards a nation, but a person, but it's still there, annoying, in the background.

I feel this is a very bad result for a thread.

I give it an F-

Which is covered in A3 on my list.

[Admiral Piett]

Name another country in the world that has given out as much aid as we have.

Having the biggest single economy in the world of course there are not many others countries which give in aid as much in absolute terms.In relative terms however the US donates less than the most of the european countries do.
The USA gives in aid the 0.1% of the GNI,while Belgium percentage,for example is 0.31% and some others countries,such as Sweden, gives 0.80% or even higher.
It is noteworthy that even in absolute terms Japan gives in aid more than the USA with (data of 1999) 15 billions versus the 9 billions of the USA.

Our soldiers died to defend Kuwait,

Or rather its oilfields?
Never mind that the US leaded a coalition that included practically everyone else.We had to endure the pleasure of watching on TV one of our pilots that had been captured by the iraquis.Never mind that the US soldiers had probably less chances of dying from iraqui fire there than crashing with their cars on saturday evening back in the US.
Never mind that the US,well the politicians at least, have become so casualties obsessed that they had pulled out from Somalia after 18 dead and that during the Kosovo air war force protection was put above mission accomplishment.

We have doctors in Africa helping to fight against HIV.
But, really, do you see any other countries like that?

Well I will have to tell to my compatriots which are doing precisely that that they do not exist

We have been at the frontline of civil rights and women's rights for decades

Sure,with the Ku Klux Klan running the show in the south well into the 60's.
I will concede that decades ago you fared better than apartheid South Africa,of course.

Because it's a much better place than the rest of the world.

Explain it to the immigrants coming here in the EU.

Those European snobs can go fuck themselves.

Boy,you are so clueless that I am sorry for you.

[The Great Unbearded One]

.

Those European snobs can go fuck themselves.

Boy,you are so clueless that I am sorry for you.

I'm with the Admiral on this one!