Well, to be fair, Fox News does cover what mainstream media does not, though often in very biased views.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
And Then They Came For Me
- Thread starter Firestorm
- Start date
Well, to be fair, Fox News does cover what mainstream media does not, though often in very biased views.
Zero, I'm going to call up a few socialist/anarchist friends of mine (believe me, I've a few to choose from) and we're going to post any pictures of you we can find plus your more craptacular quotes on our websites/blogs/magazines/bedroom walls.
I look forward to your subsequent prompt declaration of your newfound dedication to furthering the cause of the proletariat, achieving global revolution, and (according to Deck Knight) blowing things up in the name of 'fighting the man'.
Thank you.
I look forward to your subsequent prompt declaration of your newfound dedication to furthering the cause of the proletariat, achieving global revolution, and (according to Deck Knight) blowing things up in the name of 'fighting the man'.
Thank you.
Er, Fox News is about as mainstream as it gets. They are one of the largest media corporations in the world. If you mean mainstream as in the stuff people watch, it's definitely up there. I'm seeing some older reports putting Fox News as having 50% of cable news watchers. That's what makes it so scary. Fox News is an organization set up to spread Republican propaganda and they do so with tremendous success.
This may be useful during Obama's reign as they will be watching him like a hawk, but there is also obviously the risk of them blowing simple issues out of proportion (endorsed by the New Party) or even spreading false information (oh god he's muslim oh wait what does that have to do with anything even if it was true WHO CARES JESUS HE'S MUSLIM). During Bush's time in office though, they were basically an arm of the US government.
For anyone even remotely interested in the study of journalism, I'd highly recommend checking out the documentary Outfoxed: Ruper Murdoch's War on Journalism.
http://www.outfoxed.org/
This may be useful during Obama's reign as they will be watching him like a hawk, but there is also obviously the risk of them blowing simple issues out of proportion (endorsed by the New Party) or even spreading false information (oh god he's muslim oh wait what does that have to do with anything even if it was true WHO CARES JESUS HE'S MUSLIM). During Bush's time in office though, they were basically an arm of the US government.
For anyone even remotely interested in the study of journalism, I'd highly recommend checking out the documentary Outfoxed: Ruper Murdoch's War on Journalism.
http://www.outfoxed.org/
Yes an no. I'm doing a joint major between the School of Interactive Arts & Technology and the School of Communication at my university. A lot of my communication courses focus on the study of media and it's something I find extremely interesting.
And I'm not sure what there is to convince people of here. I can see that trying to convince you that socialism wasn't invented by the devil is not going to work. However, I'm not sure what makes you think that the possibility of Obama is socialist wasn't covered during the election.
When people like me, in Canada, have heard about these allegations. When the comedy news circuit starts to make fun of how Obama is a socialist. You know that the issue has seen the spotlight. I don't know why you hold onto the idea that it hasn't. The people don't give a damn.
Could you at least link to the pages that the pictures you're finding are on rather than just the pictures? We need context.
As for convincing you that Fox News is mainstream, that should already have been done. I can't believe anyone would think Fox isn't mainstream. They are, as I stated, one of the largest media corporations in the world and have an enormous audience.
Oh, and although I doubt he'll do it, I fail to see the problem with gun control in the United States. You people need it.
Also, I found this pretty cool: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/
And I'm not sure what there is to convince people of here. I can see that trying to convince you that socialism wasn't invented by the devil is not going to work. However, I'm not sure what makes you think that the possibility of Obama is socialist wasn't covered during the election.
When people like me, in Canada, have heard about these allegations. When the comedy news circuit starts to make fun of how Obama is a socialist. You know that the issue has seen the spotlight. I don't know why you hold onto the idea that it hasn't. The people don't give a damn.
Could you at least link to the pages that the pictures you're finding are on rather than just the pictures? We need context.
As for convincing you that Fox News is mainstream, that should already have been done. I can't believe anyone would think Fox isn't mainstream. They are, as I stated, one of the largest media corporations in the world and have an enormous audience.
Oh, and although I doubt he'll do it, I fail to see the problem with gun control in the United States. You people need it.
Also, I found this pretty cool: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/
i lol'd
No I was just trying to show some people that he was. But you right, most people don't care. Rebuttal: Ignorance = blissey, yada, yada, ya, etc.
Yeah, I'll do that next time, but I'm done now. I just figured that, as long as it's not fabricated, a picture is a picture, you know?
Yeah, this was a mistake on my part, sorry.
Rebuttal: Texas, low (if not lowest, iirc) crime rates in US, becuase they use guns, yada, yada, ya, etc. And thanks for the link, it seems very interesting.
I just noticed this rather bizarre obfuscation
I recall watching this; it was rather humorous at times. If you want a more thorough indictment of American media in general, you could read Manufacturing Consent -- but I should beware lest Deck Knight accuse me for the umpteenth time of "getting all my information from Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn," whatever that is meant to imply.
guns." Are you so ignorant of policies and statistics that you think this is a valid argument, or do you merely take us all for fools?
I recall watching this; it was rather humorous at times. If you want a more thorough indictment of American media in general, you could read Manufacturing Consent -- but I should beware lest Deck Knight accuse me for the umpteenth time of "getting all my information from Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn," whatever that is meant to imply.
How does this rebut anything? EVERY state in the union "useZero7 said:
I've heard of Manufacturing Consent. I think I've read parts of it as parts of courseware packages for school, but never the whole thing.
Actually, no. Pictures taken out of context are very dangerous and can be used in a variety of ways that distort the original meaning. Even if they weren't fabricated or digitally altered in any way.Zero7 said:
Sorry, I was distracted by the amazing ignorance you have shown in previous posts. I suppose this is a bit like YouTube comments: You can never tell whether someone is serious.
http://www.theginblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/gay-romance-dancing-competition.jpg
I'll take the most famous example. The Iraqis taking down the statue of the Saddam Hussein after their "liberation" was one of the most well-staged photo-ops in the world. The video footage was played again and again across multiple stations.
Looks like all of Baghdad showed up, no? Here's a picture taken from a wider angle so you can get the entire area:
I must admit to not being familiar with the ins and outs of US media, but in Australia at least I find that the only media bias is towards what sells - whether that's inane criticism of the current (centre-left) government by the (centre-right) opposition or whatever meaningless photo opportunity the government has set up, or a cute picture of some baby kangaroos in a zoo. Look at the joeys, aren't they cute!
If Obama is currently very popular (which he seems to be), then what sells is praising Obama. Unless you're Fox and cater exclusively to hard-right nuts, then it's mindless criticism of Obama. And dear old Rupert gets rich anyway.
This would be why I get my news from the ABC, mostly (That's the Australian Broadcasting Commission, our equivalent of the BBC. Not the American ABC).
Nope.
If Obama is currently very popular (which he seems to be), then what sells is praising Obama. Unless you're Fox and cater exclusively to hard-right nuts, then it's mindless criticism of Obama. And dear old Rupert gets rich anyway.
This would be why I get my news from the ABC, mostly (That's the Australian Broadcasting Commission, our equivalent of the BBC. Not the American ABC).
Nope.
President Obama has known the person for more than 20 years, which is likely at least 8 years longer than you have been alive. If one of your friends randomly went off on a tangent, would you completely abandon him? I didn't think so. Also, for at least the 5th time, OBAMA PUBLICLY DENOUNCED THE COMMENTS, SAYING THAT HE WAS BOTH "SADDENED" AND "OUTRAGED". So yes, it doesn't mean anything now. Showing me a picture of Obama shaking Wright's hand doesn't mean anything, I already know that they know each other and I already know that Jeremiah Wright was not elected by a majority of Americans to lead our country, so your argument is still irrelevant.
Even if the Wright comments DID mean anything, Jeremiah Wright was not democratically elected to be our President. Barack Obama was.
Did you fall asleep for a decade or so and then wake up on January 21, 2009? How quickly you forget that President Bush had some of the highest approval ratings of any president ever after 9/11. There were talks of a permanent conservative majority. Just a little more than 4 years after that, they managed to squander their majority in Congress and then in the presidency. Believing that Obama will never fall out of the public favor just helps to reinforce that, and repeating it over and over just makes it more and more likely to be true. If conservatives keep harping over how Obama is portrayed as an all-knowing prophet, guess what people are going to think of him as? It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Instead of attacking his IMAGE, you should be trying to attack his SUBSTANCE. Namely, if you oppose his new budget, propose a new one (hopefully it will actually have numbers in it, unlike the one Congressional Republicans recently proposed). Make his policy appear ineffective if you don't want him to be president. I've seriously never heard of someone criticising a president for being TOO POPULAR.
And again, for at least the 5th time, Obama will not and can not ban guns. "Gun control laws" are specifically meant to reduce the asinine levels of violence in this country, not to oppress people. There is no evidence to believe that Obama will ever ban guns, period, and no fantasy world that you invent where Obama actually is a socialist tyrant is going to change that. End of story.
I am not scared of the truth, I am scared that you will respond to this post with even more ignorant dribble and embarass yourself further.
Can you even read your own sources? Obama wants to re-institute the ban on "ASSAULT WEAPONS". Not "institute a never-before-seen ban on ALL GUNS". Holder said that Obama wants to make "JUST A FEW GUN-RELATED CHANGES". Nowhere does that imply an intent to ban guns, it actually implies that he wants to keep guns legal. No matter what your personal feelings are on guns, you can not simply make things up like you are doing.
Reinstituting the ban on assault weapons is not banning guns, no matter how much you want it to be. Do you need an AK-47 to protect your home? Do you need an M-16 to hunt deer? Meanwhile, drug cartels in this country are using the cheap assault weapons to basically run Mexico into the ground....but youre so concerned that a devil socialist is going to hunt you down and steal your gun from you that you ignore reality =\. Supporting gun ownership is cool, but Obama has never given a reason to believe that guns are going to be banned, so can you please stop making things up?
OK, the media obviously covered this stuff since we all know about it. Secondly, have you ever seen FOX news? Every day I hear someone on that network or being covered by that network calling Obama a socialist, advocating armed seccession from the union, wanting the President to fail etc.
The reason why the media hasnt covered "his socialism" or "his true relationship with Wright" is because, get this: people tend not to care about things that are false. On top of that, none of those things impact him being President. Every president has had questionable relationships, what is even shocking about this?
As I said before, since the disastrous turn our economy has taken during the Bush recession, Americans have become more interested in substance over style. When you are Barack Obama, enjoying approval ratings of 65% and higher, and you have already completed more than 11% of your campaign promises over only ~5% of your term, people will notice. Whether you disagree with him or not, he is doing the will of the majority. There are better ways to go against it other than crying wolf, since if socialism brings people out of poverty then they probably wont care if even the devil himself invented it. What do you think people are more concerned about: "what did Barack Obama's former preacher say?" or "what is Barack Obama going to do to get my job back so I can feed my family?"
And besides, since you're so dead set against socialism, would you mind answering a few questions?:
- When was the last time you drove on a public road?
- When was the last time you went to a public school?
- When was the last time you or someone you know collected social security? What about unemployment? Welfare? Food stamps?
- When was the last time you or someone you know had to call the Police in an emergency? What about an Ambulance? What about the Fire Department?
- Ever gone to a public library?
Thank a socialist. It completely boggles my mind that people who enjoy aspects of socialism every day of their life could be so dead set against it.
Considering that everyone is constantly pointing out the enormous amount of falsehoods in your posts and everyone except for you is saying that you are ignorant, this leads me to believe that I might not be in the wrong here.
Response to post that is 2 posts down so I dont have to post again:
The socialist movement did not directly lead to the creation of public roads, I did not mean to imply that. Thanks for the catch. I was simply stating that it is ridiculous for people to criticize the socialization of various governmental programs simply because they are socialized when things we use every day follow the exact same principle, everyone pitching in no matter how much you are affected. "Country first"
God. That article was the last thing I expected to see on a Smogon forum. I am Sri Lankan, and although I now live in Australia, I lived in Sri Lanka until 2 months ago.
The situation is indeed bleak. Media repression occurs, civil war rages in the North, bomb blasts in the South becoming regular occurrences. But, there are none of these so called concentration camps for Tamils (they're raped in them? Can you show me one piece of evidence for that allegation?). It is true that civilian casualties result in the aftermath of the war in the North. But where can a war be waged without collateral damage?
I have nothing but the utmost respect for Lasantha Wickramatunga. In fact, my father drew the portrait that was displayed at his funeral. I too feel that the hand of the government is mired in his assassination. But please, don't misrepresent facts that you have no way of seeing firsthand, just gleanings of Eelamist propaganda.
The situation is indeed bleak. Media repression occurs, civil war rages in the North, bomb blasts in the South becoming regular occurrences. But, there are none of these so called concentration camps for Tamils (they're raped in them? Can you show me one piece of evidence for that allegation?). It is true that civilian casualties result in the aftermath of the war in the North. But where can a war be waged without collateral damage?
I have nothing but the utmost respect for Lasantha Wickramatunga. In fact, my father drew the portrait that was displayed at his funeral. I too feel that the hand of the government is mired in his assassination. But please, don't misrepresent facts that you have no way of seeing firsthand, just gleanings of Eelamist propaganda.
If I may go off on a tangent for a moment, but these things are not the product of socialism. Public roads have existed for the longest time, public schools began in the mid 1800's, just before the socialist movement began, police and firemen have been around for ages as well. Public libraries are in the same realm of the public schools.
The only thing that is truly socialist is the Social Security, Food Stamps, etc. And besides the fact that many people actually dislike these programs and are against it >.>
Actually thanks, I was hoping to hear more about it from someone who wasn't getting the information from secondary sources like I was. The allegation was an exaggeration I was told it looks like. Although it goes without saying that both sides in the conflict are guilty of pillaging and raping as they are in most wars.
Further research shows that Tamil people are being registered in a list however and concentration camps are the plan for once the war is over.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-displaced-Tamils-in-concentration-camps.html
What area were you living in? Colombo? Personally, I am completely disgusted with both the LTTE and the Sri Lankan government. I'm also revolted with the way the demonstrations across Canada, the UK, and much of the world are being handled.
Just because they came before this "movement" of socialism doesn't mean they are not socialist in nature. If you want to go full-on capitalist, you'd privatize the roads and there would be a toll booth everywhere by the ones who own it, only the rich would be able to afford education as all the schools would be private (this would lead to a weaker country as a whole as you'd have a much less educated population), and I don't even see how a police or fire department would exist. I guess you'd need some sort of law insurance and get the police only respond if you have that insurance! Otherwise you'll pay out of your behind to pay for it.