NationStates Jolt Archive

When the American Presidential election happened it seemed as if we were in the UK (and I dont doubt in other parts of the world too) that we were having American politics forced down our throats. Not that I myself wasn't interested but it did seem a little repetitive after a while. The suposed tension of the election almost being 50/50 split in poles and other places frankly bored me after a while. What I am interested to know is how much reporting other countries democratic processes get reported in you own nation. I am of the understanding that you dont get much international news anyway (except on CNN I am told) so I wonder, just how much do you hear about the General Election.

Truthfully? Aside from CNN, I've heard nothing about it. Even on CNN, I've heard about it... Once.

Truthfully? Aside from CNN, I've heard nothing about it. Even on CNN, I've heard about it... Once.

I think this kind of lack of reporting outside your borders is what gives America a certian xenophobic attitude.

American media? What American media?

I'm an American, and *gasp* there's an American media?

The media here only reports on superficial crap, like, (as my friends told me) that bride that went missing. All. Fucking. Day. Long. I've fired a massive I.G.N.O.R.E. cannon at the American media's existance.

I get my news primarily from the Internet.

I think this kind of lack of reporting outside your borders is what gives America a certian xenophobic attitude.

Got that right.

To tell you the truth, I have not heard of it at all. I do not watch CNN, so I have not seen it anywhere. The only elections I here about are American elections, and the recent elections in Afghanistan.

American media? What American media?

I'm an American, and *gasp* there's an American media?

The media here only reports on superficial crap, like, (as my friends told me) that bride that went missing. All. Fucking. Day. Long. I've fired a massive I.G.N.O.R.E. cannon at the American media's existance.

I get my news primarily from the Internet.

If I were you, I would listen to the BBC world service

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/

Ya, the American media is an interesting entity. It glazes over alot of international issues, but we are faced with hearing about kidnappings and the Michael Jackson trial for days on end.

I also get most of my news from the internet. Simpler, faster, etc.

And if our news media covered other countries' elections like we did ours, I would throw out my TV. :D

I'll die if I see another "poll."

If I were you, I would listen to the BBC world service

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/

Well, like I said, I use alternative sources. Including the internet(s).

Can I get streaming coverage?

I'd probably be more interested in streaming news from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, though. But, meh.

And, yes, I'll confess. I get some of my news (mostly on Saudi Arabia and OPEC) from al-Jazeera (http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage). You know the American media is in bad shape when al-Jazeera is more credible. :D :D :D

American media? Hmph. I get more worthwhile information from early 80s editions of the Red Star.

No, we don't get much international news -- only what relates to America or is really notable. We do get updates on notable things via CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc.

Of course, with the EXTREME Left-wing bias, it really is hard to make anything coherent out of the news.

Of course, with the EXTREME Left-wing bias, it really is hard to make anything coherent out of the news.

Funny, considering the Democratic party is right-wing.

A: The election was big stuff (although I'll admit, seeing all those polls was a bit boring and repetative, as was seeing biased news stations act like Kerry had a lot more than he really did).

B: Elections in Venezuela or New Zealand don't really mean much in America (but Great Britain does NOT fall into the same category as New Zealand, so i see your point. Personally, I have an interest in the British party clashes, but don't get much reporting on it).

Potaria, there really is no Right-wing at the moment -- everyone seems to be either Center-Left (Bush) or far Left (Kerry), but that's about it. These stupid statements the press makes about "the religious Right dominating the nation" is just propaganda....

Twleve more posts and I'll have 300 posts to my name.... Oh, isn't it thrilling?? :eek:

I know there's a Lib Dem party and.......well.....that's it. And I don't even know that from the media, I know that from a guy in Scotland. Across the Atlantic it's like we're all living in one huge cave.

Potaria, there really is no Right-wing at the moment -- everyone seems to be either Center-Left (Bush) or far Left (Kerry), but that's about it. These stupid statements the press makes about "the religious Right dominating the nation" is just propaganda....

Kerry, Far-Left? Haahaahahah. And Bush, Center? Please.

Of course, with the EXTREME Left-wing bias, it really is hard to make anything coherent out of the news.

The American media is biased towards whatever it thinks will raise advertising revenues. If the media truly had a liberal bias, Michael Jackson, the runaway bride, Terri Schaivo, the Popeathon, and all the other superficial (ok, so the Popeathon wasn't completely superficial, but still way overreported) crap that gets reported would be replaced by Tom DeLay, the Iraq quagmire, Bush's failed effort to rape Social Security, Jeff Gannon (google it), the bankruptcy bill that the Republicans passed a couple of weeks ago that was a massive giveaway to the credit card usury collecttrolls, the budget deficit, the falling dollar, the fact that two months ago, Alan Greenspan declared the budget deficit "unsustainable," Halliburton overcharges, Ohio "voting irregularities," et cetera.

Yet CNN spends hours reporting on a runaway bride. :rolleyes:

Sex sells. Celebrity crap sells. Liberalism doesn't.

-snip-

*hands you a cookie*

*hands you a cookie*

*gleefully accepts cookie* :D

I have no idea why you think Social Security can stand on its own as it is or why you mock the Pope, of all people, but yeah, you're right -- anything sells.

And Potaria, Bush is not really a conservative leader. Do you call the war in Iraq fiscally conservative? I don't.

I have no idea why you think Social Security can stand on its own as it is or why you mock the Pope, of all people, but yeah, you're right -- anything sells.

Who in their right mind wouldn't mock the Pope?

And Potaria, Bush is not really a conservative leader. Do you call the war in Iraq fiscally conservative? I don't.

Is he not socially conservative? I'll leave you with that for now.

What is there to mock about the Pope? How was he not a good man or a worthy role-model?

Well, he's not a communist, if that's what you mean...

I mean I'm glad for the ban on partial-birth abortion, but there's more to being conservative than that...

What is there to mock about the Pope? How was he not a good man or a worthy role-model?

Tell me --- Does a "good man" wish to mold the entire world into one religion?

Well, he's not a communist, if that's what you mean...

Jumping the gun, are we?

Tell me --- Does a "good man" wish to mold the entire world into one religion?

AHA! AHAHAHAHAHAHA! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

AHA! AHAHAHAHAHAHA! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

*shakes head in disgust*

See, friends, this is one of the reasons I dislike my state so much.

Well, he too was no liberal, if that's what you're criticizing. But he certainly showed an interest in the church as well as showing an interest in those who follow the church. That's not trying to convert the world to Catholicism.

Well, he too was no liberal, if that's what you're criticizing. But he certainly showed an interest in the church as well as showing an interest in those who follow the church. That's not trying to convert the world to Catholicism.

You can't possibly tell me that his speech had mass-conversion undertones in it. Any intelligent person picked that up, easily.

I have no idea why you think Social Security can stand on its own

And diverting SocSec tax revenue to investment banker commissions is the way to do it? Oh, yeah, and there's also the couple trillion dollars in "transition costs" that we'll have to borrow to finance changing it... :rolleyes:

Were I in Bush's shoes, I would propose lifting the cap on earnings subject to SocSec tax but cap benefits, considering it was originally supposed to be a social insurance program.

as it is or why you mock the Pope, of all people, but yeah, you're right -- anything sells.

Meh. I didn't mock the Pope; I just said that the whole event received an oppressive amount of media coverage. I'm sure there were other newsworthy events going on that never got reported on because they were drowned out.

And Potaria, Bush is not really a conservative leader. Do you call the war in Iraq fiscally conservative? I don't.

Correct. But his political advisor, Karl Rove, is pretty damned good at fooling people.

What's all this about a runaway bride? Someone please tell me, as I have been surrounded by nothing but the General Election for what seems like the last millenium. You get a lollipop if you fill me in!

Well I assume that no one in their right mind would want gay marriage, partial-birth abortion, or human cloning for Stem-Cell research. :p

At any rate...

I agree with you about the Social Security issue; I think Bush is taking advantage of an awful situation and lifting caps would the best thing we've ever done, fiscally.

Well Potaria, he was a religious man. If you thought that everyone was going to burn in hell if they didn't believe what you believed, I think you'd be pretty interested in converting people too. But as for some Napoleonic dream of global theological conquest . . . I didn't see it.

Tell me --- Does a "good man" wish to mold the entire world into one religion?


Quite possibly. The thing about Christianity (not just Catholicism) is that we don't (or at least shouldn't) force people to follow our practices; they should come willingly. I'm well aware of the ex-Pope's policy on the Third World's use of contraceptives and don't overly agree with it, but abstinence (sp?) education is never a bad thing.

So in sum, yes a good man could wish to make the world one religion, but I don't see it as a case of dragging it kicking and screaming.

Tell me --- Does a "good man" wish to mold the entire world into one religion?

Quite possibly. The thing about Christianity (not just Catholicism) is that we don't (or at least shouldn't) force people to follow our practices; they should come willingly. I'm well aware of the ex-Pope's policy on the Third World's use of contraceptives and don't overly agree with it, but abstinence (sp?) education is never a bad thing.

So in sum, yes a good man could wish to make the world one religion, but I don't see it as a case of dragging it kicking and screaming.

Remember a little thing called the Crusades? No? How about the Inquisitions? If those weren't forcing people, then nothing was. And abstinence? Ugh.

Here is my main problem with social security:

the more you earn, the more you get in the end. donald trump can get social security when he is old enough. It is supposed to be to help out those who would struggle without receiving a paycheck because they can no longer work. I heard joe lieberman saying this was an important issue to him because his mother is currently getting it, and he is also nearing the age. I find it completely ridiculous that someone who doesn't need, takes.

Potaria, there really is no Right-wing at the moment -- everyone seems to be either Center-Left (Bush) or far Left (Kerry), but that's about it. These stupid statements the press makes about "the religious Right dominating the nation" is just propaganda....This is the USA we are talking about and you just said Bush is centre-left???? :headbang:

What's all this about a runaway bride? Someone please tell me, as I have been surrounded by nothing but the General Election for what seems like the last millenium. You get a lollipop if you fill me in!

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/04/30/wilbanks.found/index.html

The American Corporate Media has decided that this is more important than anything else. :rolleyes:

Remember a little thing called the Crusades? No? How about the Inquisitions? If those weren't forcing people, then nothing was.
This is true; but I don't believe that such a thing was in the spirit of Christianity, and at any rate is certainly not something that is even possible in today's world.

And abstinence? Ugh.
What's so abhorrent about not having sex? If the very idea revolts you, then I feel very sorry that sex is all you seem to have in your life.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/04/30/wilbanks.found/index.html

The American Corporate Media has decided that this is more important than anything else. :rolleyes:
Thanks :) *hands lollipop* I think I prefer the general election coverage...

Here we go with the Inquisition and Crusades thing again. . . . :rolleyes:

Anybody (even a very slow person) should understand that those events have absolutely nothing to do with modern-day Christianity. Although not a Christian myself, I recognize it easily. But to say that Christianity caused it is unfair and to say that it was in the spirit of Christianity is insane.

This is true; but I don't believe that such a thing was in the spirit of Christianity, and at any rate is certainly not something that is even possible in today's world.

True, but these things were still ordered by the Pope himself, thus my point.

What's so abhorrent about not having sex? If the very idea revolts you, then I feel very sorry that sex is all you seem to have in your life.

I don't even know where to begin with this one. Ehh.

Mold all the world into one religion? Wait, are we still talking about Bush or did we move on to the Pope? I kid, I kid.

But to address the subject of the thread, no, the American media doesn't cover jack about foreign elections, except possibly when theres some scandal involved that might get a few more viewers (the Ukraine elections got a little coverage, and a little more after the dioxin poisoning thing). The average American knows next to nothing about the world outside the US borders (and sometimes disturbingly little about the world inside them) because our media long ago stopped being an outlet for informative discourse on world events and turned itself into a vehicle for ad revenues.

Like others have said, the US media really doesn't have a right wing or left wing bias, it has a capitalist bias, as in it shows whatever brings in the most viewers and ad revenues. Usually thats some combination of violence, scandal, sex and celebrity. Occasionally an important story will slip through, although usually not without some inane celebrity commentator and accompanying opinion poll. Even our 24 hour news networks are clogged full of useless garbage and 'human interest' pieces. Mostly because 24 hours of actual, interesting newsworthy events doesnt happen in a day so they have to stretch things out to fill time and get viewers so they can sell ads.

Its really sad, because as a nation that likes to cast itself as at the forefront of global affairs and as a nation with a staggering amount of media penetration we are actually one of the least well informed and up to date. There is a television in virtually every home and yet 9/10th of Americans couldnt even name a single party in the General Elections. Thats a lot of wasted potential. We have comedy shows in the US that probably report as much actual news as the major networks, and probably have just as much credibility. Sad, isnt it?

True, but these things were still ordered by the Pope himself, thus my point.
I think that JP II, long serving as he was, couldn't have ordered those. Just because the Medival Papacy ordered it, it doesn't mean to say that the modern one would.

I don't even know where to begin with this one. Ehh.
Why do you not?

[QUOTE=Narsine][QUOTE=Potaria]Tell me --- Does a "good man" wish to mold the entire world into one religion?

Remember a little thing called the Crusades? No? How about the Inquisitions? If those weren't forcing people, then nothing was. And abstinence? Ugh.

Quite timeline, Potaria: 7th Century A.D. Muhammed invents Islam. Between then, and the 11th century, most of the former Roman Empire is converted-by-the-sword, and the Islamic empire was encroaching on what is now modern Austria (the Moors held Spain about the same time, btw.)
Roman Catholic Church declares first crusade to "Open the road to Jerusalem" (this also siphoned off thousands of fourth-sons of nobles, and other layabouts with no future and weapons training, preventing many local civil wars.)

Islam was headed north, and without the Crusades, likely would have expanded to include Italy (they already had Sicily), Romania was hanging by a thread (a thread at times named Vlad Tsepes-but that was later on...), and the only way to unite enough of the forces in Europe, it took the church-because unlike the Islamic empire of the time, the Europeans could not, and would not, unite effectively without it.

The Crusades may have used the banner of the Holy Mother Church, but they were purely an excercise in realpolitik.

the Inquisitions were the same-they were fundraising, 12th-14th century style, to support the vast sums the Vatican was blowing on many of the things Martin Luther nailed his treatises to the door over.

the only guys with any faith in either of those instances, were the poor bastards going to the front for God-on both sides.

Now, Christianity is an Evangelical faith-kind of like Communism, it's a beautiful dream that has perpetrated ugly and horrible realities in pursuit of a utopian pipe dream.

(Unlike the communists, the Christians have developed a distaste for conversion-by-the-sword, aka 'armed revolutionary struggle'.)

the Pope is, within his office, supposed to want to convert people. He's a frikkin' Priest, that's what they DO. (Unless they're into "Revolutionary Theology", in which case, they're just converting for a different faith than the one that anointed them...)

Has the idea of a state-funded TV station ever come up? In the UK that's (at least in theory) how the BBC gets around the populist problem.

True, but these things were still ordered by the Pope himself, thus my point.

Huh? John Paul II ordered the Crusades and the Inquisition? Okay, that's an angle that I'm unfamiliar with. . . .

Well I assume that no one in their right mind would want gay marriage, partial-birth abortion, or human cloning for Stem-Cell research. :p

I agree, partial birth abortion should be outlawed.

Human cloning and stem cell research could prove to be very beneficial to fight diseases. My grandmother has Alzeheimer's and I want them to do anything to make her better.

And I think divorce is worse for "marriage" than a woman marrying a woman or a man marrying a man.

Has the idea of a state-funded TV station ever come up? In the UK that's (at least in theory) how the BBC gets around the populist problem.

Theoretically, we have PBS and NPR. But few Americans pay attention to either.

-snip-

Yes, I do know that it was a long time ago, when the Church had much more power. However, you're trying to say that because the Pope is a priest, it somehow makes it okay to do what they did.

I'll point to G.W. Bush, and leave on that.

Huh? John Paul II ordered the Crusades and the Inquisition? Okay, that's an angle that I'm unfamiliar with. . . .

Come, now... You can do a lot better than that. Can't you?

Well, an interesting question arises over the Stem-Cell research issue. Seeming miracles have been produced simply from studying cord Stem-Cells -- you don't have to harvest people for the purpose of finding a cure, at least I don't think so. With all the unexplored areas of Stem-Cell research, why bother with one that has shown very little positive results (granted, funding hasn't been constant) and shows no evidence of doing so? Yet no attention is paid to matters of real medical importance. . . .

While I understand that many people suffer from things that might be cured by Stem-Cell research, would it be moral to clone and harvest many people to save a comparative few?

Gee Potaria, I don't know. The way you originally put it makes me question your intent....

One more post away from 300. ;)

Theoretically, we have PBS and NPR. But few Americans pay attention to either.
Never heard of either. Do they get much funding? Or has American capitalism rotted the core of the government as well?

Gee Potaria, I don't know. The way you originally put it makes me question your intent....

Really...

The US Government only half funds a handful of public stations, and its cutting its funding there too. Anyways, we never really had anything quite like the BBC. Even NPR is more focused on cultural matters then the news of the world. My local NPR station carries the BBC world service at nights and the two simply dont compare. I can get more world news in an hour of the BBC world service then I can with 23 hours of NPR (not to mention the fact that NPR is hopelessly left wing and sometimes a very biased source). And PBS, at least my local PBS (KERA 13, one of the most watched PBS stations in the country) tends to focus itself more on educational television then on news reporting. edit: On the plus side, PBS invented Sesame Street, which is now shown worldwide and is a very effective teaching tool, so its not all bad.

And please, can we can the Pope stuff? The Catholic Church no longer wields a tenth of the power it used to and the opportunity for another Crusades or Inquisition just isnt there. And as time progresses and population problems become worse, even Catholics are starting to question some of the Church's 'life at all costs' stance.

And if we're going to go through the effort of putting in an amendment to the guiding principles of American government, can we please come up with one a little more important than gay marriage? Whats so wrong with gays wanting to marry? Theyre people, same as the rest of us. What I want is an amendment limiting executive power and doing away with executive orders that effectively let a President circumvent both congress and the judiciary.

The "person" they clone isn't gonna be your brother Jimmy, or the girl down the street. In fact, it isn't even a "person" at all. I believe your fear is that these "people" have a potential for being a productive member of society. This is not the case.

Never heard of either. Do they get much funding? Or has American capitalism rotted the core of the government as well?

PBS=Public Broadcasting System.

NPR=National Public Radio.

No, neither is funded the way BBC is; they receive a little bit of funding but have to grovel for private donations (PBS especially).

And yes, American capitalism has rotted the core of the government as well. I submit to you:

Exhibit A: Condoleeza Rice had an oil tanker named after her. (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1111/is_1814_303/ai_76134279)

Exhibit B: Dick Cheney.

Exhibit C: Florida.
'
Exhibit D: The Bush family.

What I want is an amendment that curbs activist judges in their "quest for justice." :rolleyes:

I don't know about you, but I don't want the Supreme Court justices looking overseas for their judicial inspiration; a judge's job is not to rewrite the law... good God, at least make it so they don't have life terms! Or that the Congress has to check 'em out every five years, or something, anything.

A: Condi Rice is hot; anything she does is okay with me.

B: I don't like Cheney . . . he reminds me of a flea I once knew.

C: Has a lot of nasty implications like possible acceptance of lies about the Bush/Gore election or maybe even the murder of Terri Schiavo. . . . Being a sensitive topic, I'll lay off. :)

The World Service seems to be something lacking here, to be honest. I'm not sure how it compares to the BBC's home news, but it always seems to be a paragon of how things should be done. I'm kinda proud of that, but I would want to check that out for myself.

And how did this judges comment happen? Or the Pope thing? Meh, the mysteries of going off-topic...

What I want is an amendment that curbs activist judges in their "quest for justice." :rolleyes:

I don't know about you, but I don't want the Supreme Court justices looking overseas for their judicial inspiration; a judge's job is not to rewrite the law... good God, at least make it so they don't have life terms! Or that the Congress has to check 'em out every five years, or something, anything.

There is this little thing called "international law," and we're signatory to a very big chunk of it.

If you read the Constitution closely, you will notice that it puts treaties on a damn near equal footing to the Constitution itself.

Should the courts consider what Tony Blair thinks about the case at hand? Probably not. But they should absolutely consider something like the Geneva Conventions (which we signed and ratified).

Woohoo! 302 posts! Boom, baby! Uh-huh! Oh yeah! [Play Star Wars theme.] [Swings lightsabre through the air while commanding a battalion of 302 Jedi to give me glory in the battlefield.]

[Transports self back to ancient Rome, where I am am crowned a Roman Emperor, celebrating the accumulation of my first 302 slaves!]

[Becomes Napoleon Bonaparte, when he makes his first 302 francs, all of which he blows on a hooker in Paris that he thinks he's in love with.]

[Becomes Brad Pitt, who celebrates Angelina Jolie being in his bed a total of 302 times!]

[Becomes....

Oh, nevermind. :p

Should they consider what Tony Blair thinks about the case at hand? Obviously not. But the Geneva Convention (already having been violated) is very different. I wasn't calling it into question.

Judges have life terms in order to free them from political constraints. Or at least, that was the original idea. Instead of a judiciary constantly concerned with re-election and partisan politics (like, say, Congress, where endless pork and bloated budgets to ensure the next election are commonplace. Or the Presidency, where campaigning for the next election starts the day after you take office) they were supposed to focus solely on the law. However judges are living a lot longer these days and some of them are starting to loose touch with daily life and should probably step down to make way for new blood.

Originally though, the judges didnt even have the power of judicial review. They siezed that for themselves and have done fairly well with it for the past 200 years. But recently it seems like the judges are trying to play congress and get laws they think should be enacted passed through judicial fiat. I think a slow and unresponsive congress is partially to blame for the increased judicial activism. Congress doesnt actually get anything done, and when they do manage to do something, its so riddled with faulty language, loopholes, and riders that the judiciary feels they have to take it on themselves to 'straighten things out' as it were.

That and judges tend to be brighter than right wing nutjobs and realize that mandating morality is a dangerous thing and rightly strike down stupid laws that serve no purpose then to try and impose some idiots view of morality on the public.

Terry Schiavo is the perfect example of what is wrong with the American media. I go to work, and people are talking about it there. I come home and won't even watch the news anymore because of the stories. The fact is, Terry Schiavo should have never been a name I heard. It is none of my business what is going on in the Schiavo family. Their disputes should not be put up for everyone in the country to give their opinion... let alone congress. It is not news... it is entertainment. News doesn't sell, so you have to spice it up with the latest Scott Peterson/Micheal Jackson trial which IS NOT news. It seems like everything started to turn with OJ.

We have a lack of privacy in this country that is completely appauling to me. And it is only getting worse. Everyone has skeletons in their closet. We don't need to drag everything out in the open for all to see, that is why we put them in the closet damnit.

I don't know if Southern Combine's post meant by "supporting some idiot's idea of morality," but if it meant imposing modern liberalism and all of its harsh philosophical trappings of relativism, then I cannot agree.

However I do agree with the statement about judicial review. They have held on to that for a long time and will continue to do so. But the reason that judges were exempt from political pressures is because they weren't intended to BE political in the first place.

Frankly, I've never heard of the thing, General Elections. The fact is most Filipino's dont know, except a few like me, who surf the internet alot and study in the British International school, which is here. All British teachers ;p.

This has helped alot, I am quite aware of U.K. and its politics.

Terry Schiavo is the perfect example of what is wrong with the American media. I go to work, and people are talking about it there. I come home and won't even watch the news anymore because of the stories. The fact is, Terry Schiavo should have never been a name I heard. It is none of my business what is going on in the Schiavo family. Their disputes should not be put up for everyone in the country to give their opinion... let alone congress. It is not news... it is entertainment. News doesn't sell, so you have to spice it up with the latest Scott Peterson/Micheal Jackson trial which IS NOT news. It seems like everything started to turn with OJ.

We have a lack of privacy in this country that is completely appauling to me. And it is only getting worse. Everyone has skeletons in their closet. We don't need to drag everything out in the open for all to see, that is why we put them in the closet damnit.

How can anyone say something like this? How 'bout I go slice a few people up with hatchets and then put their bodies in my closet? Will that work?

Obviously the Schiavo case was of importance, not because of the "skeletons in their closet," but because a legal and moral question was at stake. And by the way, not only was it made a public issue the moment it was brought into the courts, but I would rather appeal to a half-awake Congress than a very devious (or sound asleep) judiciary.

By the way, I have that right. So does every American citizen. And this was not a violation of states' rights, either...

But the reason that judges were exempt from political pressures is because they weren't intended to BE political in the first place.

Im pretty sure thats what I said. And the only reason judicial appointments today are political is because our political parties have made them so. Washington was right, Lord save us from political parties.

But no, mainly I was commenting on the right wingers who want to ban gay marriages (why? whats the point? are they hurting you? corrupting people with their gay rays? Studies have shown that children raised in a gay household are no more likely to identify themselves as gay as anyone else. In fact, Texas is currently shooting itself in the foot by declaring gays ineligible to foster children. CPS is throwing a fit because gays made up over 1/10th of foster homes and they didnt have enough to begin with.) take a 'life at all costs' stance (Terri Shiavo should have been allowed to die with peace and dignity. I have a living will precisely to stop that kind of nonsense, but Im afraid the pro-life community might still challenge it, and abortion is a womans choice (although Im strongly in favor of fathers rights as well)) or want to dictate morality in any other way to me. The US was founded on religious freedom. I neither want nor need some religious version of morality crammed down my throat. The very idea that anyone could even remotely consider altering the Constitution, the single most important document in the nation, to support some anti-gay agenda - which has jack all to do with the governance of the people - shows just how out of hand its gotten.

Those are the people I was talking about.

How can anyone say something like this? How 'bout I go slice a few people up with hatchets and then put their bodies in my closet? Will that work?

Obviously the Schiavo case was of importance, not because of the "skeletons in their closet," but because a legal and moral question was at stake. And by the way, not only was it made a public issue the moment it was brought into the courts, but I would rather appeal to a half-awake Congress than a very devious (or sound asleep) judiciary.

By the way, I have that right. So does every American citizen. And this was not a violation of states' rights, either...

It is only important to you because, and I am going out on a limb here, because you a religious person, and the right wing, conservative, christian media knows what to say to make you push the pedal. They use words like murder, and evil, and you say, "Yeah that evil bastard is murdering her."

It is only important to you because, and I am going out on a limb here, because you a religious person, and the right wing, conservative, christian media knows what to say to make you push the pedal. They use words like murder, and evil, and you say, "Yeah that evil bastard is murdering her."

Hahahaha! You're making wild assumptions about my philosophical principles, my friend. And regardless of what any extremists are screaming, I would always attempt to be not only logical and rational, but entirely objective about any situation.

and abortion is a womans choice.

Murder is only a woman's choice? Interesting...

By the way, as to your last post, all laws make moral statements, be they objectively moral or immoral. When you make a law, you mandate morality.

Hahahaha! You're making wild assumptions about my philosophical principles, my friend. And regardless of what any extremists are screaming, I would always attempt to be not only logical and rational, but entirely objective about any situation.

We are probably more similar than I have gathered from your posts. I would say, we definately like to argue... err I mean... debate. I would say we do have differences in the fact that you seem to care about people, and I could just want them to leave me alone.

I went back and read your posts and saw you are not christian. My bad.

Abortion isnt murder because the fetus is not alive nor viable outside the womb. Its purely the mother keeping it alive and allowing it to grow, and if she chooses (with input from the father, if available) not to support the fetus, thats her choice. Maybe some day we'll have cheap, reliable artificial wombs which will change the equation drastically, but until then I support a woman's right to abortion. And really, which is preferable, the abortion of a fetus before it comes into the world, or a life of neglect and abuse at the hands of a mother who really didnt want/couldnt support the child to begin with?

And adoption is not the solution. At least not until we clear out the foster homes and ophanages we already have. And because I know you'll bring it up, I dont support third trimested abortions because I feel that by that time, the fetus is a viable life that can survive outside the womb. Anyways by then the mother has had six months to decide.

I also happen to hold the same belief for the end of life. When a life is no longer viable - either through irrepairable brain damage, chronic illness, or other issues that reduce quality of life to where each passing day is agony - that life should be allowed to end. I firmly believe in quality of life over quantity. Funny that they didnt hook John Paul up to respirators and machines and kept his near lifeless body going in perpituity in accordance with Catholic doctrine, but thats probably just me being snarky.

To your point on morality: Generally, its a commonly held version of morality everyone can agree on. Most of the ten commandments are good ideas in any religion (mainly excepting the 'no God before Me' and the one about idols) and things we can all agree on. Trying to write an amendment banning gay marriage is just silly and someones very specific view of morality they are trying to enforce on us.

Now, what makes it really amusing is this is coming out of a nation that issues concealed weapon permits. You can carry a hidden weapon in public, so long as you dont try to marry someone of your own sex, because thats dangerous. Heh.

A very strange and revealing thing has happened on this thread. Americans have entered, declared they don't get international news and then have mostly (not all) gone way of thread to discuss those things they do see in their media rather than the thread subject.
You appear to be victims (and willing ones at that ) of your own medias failings.
A useful thing here would be to discuus your media, how it fails and what you can do about it rather than slagging/defending the pope.
'praps if you demostrated an interest in wider world events the rest of the world would begin to respect you more.

Well back to the first original question. How much of overseas elections do people see.

Well I can tell you now, in Australia, we are seeing quite a lot of the British Elections. And the reason has to do with Lynton Crosby, also it has to do with the fact that our system politically is much more aligned with the British Westminster system then the US Political System, which is why Michael Howard went to Australia to hire some conservative talent to help them get their act together.

Although I can tell you now, that playing the immigration card only works once. Anyone who tries to play it a second time gets politically shot down.

Personally I hope the Liberal Democrats Win, or get the balance of power, I reckon that would be sweet. But I'm totally against the war in Iraq, because it wasn't backed up by the UN and the Liberal Democrats were the only real british party against the war.

I apologize for letting myself get derailed. I started out trying to talk about the American media, but let myself get caught up elsewhere, although I think thats more a function of the internet in general than any specific American thing. Thread derailments are just one of those things, especially when half the posters are from the same region of the world and have differing ideas on the same thing.

Goodness... why does everything in this country seem to have to go back to the stupid abortion issue? That's another symptom of our lazy, corrupt media... that they buy into that being the most important issue in all of the USA - well it's not! It distracts from whether we can actually feed that child, ensure the child is loved, educate that child, and not send that child off to war to get killed as soon as they turn 17 or 18 (oh and it's okay to go serve our country but for goodness sake... don't let them drink until 21!!)

Nations are the strangest places, aren't they?

Personally I prefer to get my news from Jon Stewart (The Daily Show)... at least he admits his news is fake - and often the fake news is 10 times more enlightening and global than any "real" news shows I've seen in ages! I also login to salon.com.

I apologize for letting myself get derailed. I started out trying to talk about the American media, but let myself get caught up elsewhere, although I think thats more a function of the internet in general than any specific American thing. Thread derailments are just one of those things, especially when half the posters are from the same region of the world and have differing ideas on the same thing.
It happens to us all. :) At least you're big enough to spot it and apologise.
But look at the post just after yours :rolleyes:
I would hope that us internet geeks having better access to international news would be better informed but Yahoo news is as bad as bad as any other news coverage. Check some of the international Yahoo sites and you'll see the news that you don't get at home. I'd recommend it. Very revealing.
Try
http://uk.yahoo.com/
http://au.yahoo.com/

to start and some of the non english sites if you ave the language skills.

Should they consider what Tony Blair thinks about the case at hand? Obviously not. But the Geneva Convention (already having been violated) is very different. I wasn't calling it into question.
I have a major problem with this post, and that is that you put the words "thinks" and "Tony Blair" in the same sentence, without a negation.

Remember a little thing called the Crusades?

The Crusades, as I have stated many times were territorial conflicts.

Except for CNN's website, I've never seen a bit of it on T.V.

No, we don't get much international news -- only what relates to America or is really notable. We do get updates on notable things via CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc.

Of course, with the EXTREME Left-wing bias, it really is hard to make anything coherent out of the news.
Yeah, the US media was relentlessly pushing Ralph Nader to be elected! So biased!

Potaria, there really is no Right-wing at the moment -- everyone seems to be either Center-Left (Bush) or far Left (Kerry), but that's about it. These stupid statements the press makes about "the religious Right dominating the nation" is just propaganda....
What is your idea of "right-wing"? It's probably better of that you don't get foreign news. If you think Bush is centre-left, you would think that the entire world outside America is ruled by communism.

A: Condi Rice is hot; anything she does is okay with me.
:eek: How old are you?

I don't know if Southern Combine's post meant by "supporting some idiot's idea of morality," but if it meant imposing modern liberalism and all of its harsh philosophical trappings of relativism, then I cannot agree.
How is letting people do what they want imposing anything? No wonder some liberals are going crazy, constantly confonted by hateful right-wing conservatism like this.

There is some truth that most of the news media in America does not cover international news unless it dierctly pertains to the US. I do find it ironic that there is very little news coverage around the British General Elections, which concerns our "brother in arms" in the Iraqi invasion, Tony Blair but there was tons of coverage of Prince Charles marrying Camilla Parker Bowles including what she was wearing and how she would be address should Charles inheirit the throne. I remember the Saturday it happened because all three of the major networks carried it with lots of analysis and commentary.

There were however some people I read in other posts that resented the extensive coverage of the death of John Paul and the installation of Benedict XVI as they were not Catholic and felt that this did not have any impact on them. I did not exactly feel that way although it got obnoxious when shows like "Access Hollywood" and "The Insider" starting adding their two cents about it. ET listed celebrity Catholics.

I don't about other parts of the United States but in Boston BBC world News comes on PBS albeit at 12:30AM, a time slot not unlike 5:00AM which familiar to people of color since it is a common time to air alternative news. There is Lehrer news Hour also on PBS that comes on earlier and covers world news. There is also NOW with another host that is not Bill Moyers which admittedly covers more US news but has covered topics outside of it.
Charlie Rose and sometimes Tavis Smiley (again on PBS) have international guests on their shows-not just movie stars promoting their upcoming movies.

I do think that age has something to do with it. Most people under a certain age do get their news from slternative sources such as the internet. News is now more about ratings-witness the series of unfortunate events that led to Dan Rather's ouster. There is a conventional wisdom that younger people care about the celebrity news.

I think that there are many Americans that are aware of what is happening in other countries if for no other reason that many of them are not that far removed from their country of origin.

How is letting people do what they want imposing anything? No wonder some liberals are going crazy, constantly confonted by hateful right-wing conservatism like this.

I said imposing a philosophy.

And really, which is preferable, the abortion of a fetus before it comes into the world, or a life of neglect and abuse at the hands of a mother who really didnt want/couldnt support the child to begin with?

Who are you to decide the quality of life necessary before someone can be graciously allowed to continue living?

Who are you to decide the quality of life necessary before someone can be graciously allowed to continue living?
Who are you to deny that decision?

Who are you to deny that decision?

A fellow human being who thinks life is a fairly important thing....

Remember a little thing called the Crusades? No? How about the Inquisitions? If those weren't forcing people, then nothing was.

Hold your horses. How long ago were the Crusades and the Inquisitions again? You certainly can't be blaming the Catholic church for things it's former leaders did hundreds of years ago. If you are, then how about we blame everyone else for everything their ancestors have done?

Let's blame all white men for slavery (oh yeah, some people do that...)

Let's blame all Hispanics for the destruction of the Mayan, Incan, and Aztec civilizations (oh yeah, some people do that too...)

Let'e blame all Germans for WWI, WWII, and the Holocaust (oh yeah, LOTS of people do that...)

How about the United States' genocide of the Native Americans? Or the Japanese concentration camps in WWII? Should the entire populace of the United States of America be punished for American imperialism over a hundred years ago?

Well?

And abstinence? Ugh.

*chaste and FLIPPING PROUD OF IT*

Tell me --- Does a "good man" wish to mold the entire world into one religion?

There's a difference between wishful hoping that the world will join you in your beliefs and forcing them on others.

The British General election? I certainly got a goodly bit about that, chiefly from CNN and the newspapers. In fact, there were some particularly enjoyable editorials about it in the papers...espescially the NY Times and USA Today did a pretty good job. I also saw some nice coverage in US News and World Report if I remember correctly.

Or are you talking about another election?

Potaria, there really is no Right-wing at the moment -- everyone seems to be either Center-Left (Bush) or far Left (Kerry), but that's about it. These stupid statements the press makes about "the religious Right dominating the nation" is just propaganda....

Wow, what dream world are you in? Can I visit this Bizaaro US? That's like the total opposite of the current political makeup of the US. With the Democrats (center) and the Republicans (right, far-right) with the media being in the center.

Now the individual journalists might be left-wing MAYBE, but the news organizations are businesses. What do businesses do? They make money. So they do what they have to to get more viewers and thus make more money.

This is why they had the CBS/Dan Rather situation. There is no bias. There was a news corporation that got a story. The story looked like a huge smoking gun. Out of fear that another station would air the story before them, they aired the story before they checked the facts. It's as simple as that. It's a shame that people with agendas try to spin things like these as proof of a bias in the media.

It's a damn shame.

How come we never get to hear about affairs in Andorra or Monaco? Or San Marino? It's xenophobic I tells ya! XENOPHOBIC.

I almost never watch the news on TV. I tend to find the news about whatever I want via the net. The only exception is the Daily Show. 'Cause..c'mon.It's funny.

As a Canadian I have always boggled at Americans who state that their media is far left, or John Kerry is far left, or George Bush is centre-left (splutter, choke). Any one of those are far far right to me. However, I saw a clue in one of your posts. Somebody said you couldn't call the military expenditures in Iraq "conservative".

Is this what you all mean when you speak of liberal or conservative? You are talking about spending habits? Spending liberally or conservatively? Your democrats spend liberally and your republicans are frugal with the tax dollars? Because if that is how you are using the terms I suddenly understand the demonization of "liberals" given the economic devastation in your country.

In Canada we tend to speak more in terms of social policy, so the Liberals and the Conservatives may spend exactly the same amount of tax dollars but on different things. Our Liberals are the ones who have fixed the economy with balanced budgets, for example.

As a Canadian I have always boggled at Americans who state that their media is far left, or John Kerry is far left, or George Bush is centre-left (splutter, choke). Any one of those are far far right to me. However, I saw a clue in one of your posts. Somebody said you couldn't call the military expenditures in Iraq "conservative".

Is this what you all mean when you speak of liberal or conservative? You are talking about spending habits? Spending liberally or conservatively? Your democrats spend liberally and your republicans are frugal with the tax dollars? Because if that is how you are using the terms I suddenly understand the demonization of "liberals" given the economic devastation in your country.

In Canada we tend to speak more in terms of social policy, so the Liberals and the Conservatives may spend exactly the same amount of tax dollars but on different things. Our Liberals are the ones who have fixed the economy with balanced budgets, for example.


That's exactly right, here in the US the most common use of the words Liberal and Conservative are entirely based upon spending. They are used for social policy as well, but not as often.

Regarding a statement the the US Conservatives are "center-left" and Liberals are "far-left"... that is funny at best, uneducated and stupid at worst. Note I'm not trying to insult anyone, but in the grand scheme of world politics, Liberals are "center-left" at most, and Conservatives are anywhere from "right" to "far-right".