BBC tows the "company line" when it comes to police harassment
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Xmas Themes For Uploaded Photos
Next: Just out: 'Hot - Life in the Australian outback' - could use some help
From: Neil Harrington on 6 Dec 2009 11:59 "Paul Heslop" <paul.heslop(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:4B1B7013.46B34B0F(a)blueyonder.co.uk... > Bruce wrote: >> >> On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 22:41:59 GMT, Paul Heslop >> <paul.heslop(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >> > >> >Fox 'news' the single worst offender. >> >> Yes, it's atrocious. An insult to anyone with intelligence, but >> popular in the USA. Go figure, as they say. ;-) >> >> >Americans really do seem to swallow a lot of stuff about us >> >'socialists' >> >> Americans really do seem to swallow a lot of stuff. Period. > > I happened to flick through onto an item about the health bill and the > way Fox presented it you would think their president was a criminal or > something. Well, "criminal" is a rather specific legal condition, but "or something" certainly fits. Obama has done little but make promises and break them since he started running for president, and while it would be something of a stretch to call him a criminal he clearly has no compunctions about breaking the law, as witness his illegal firing of Inspector General Walpin. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Gerald-Walpin-speaks-the-inside-story-of-the-AmeriCorps-firing-48030697.html If you're that fond of Obama I wish we could send him to you. You'd love him because he regularly berates and apologizes for America, which attitudes must be high on your list of desirable qualities in a politician. He on the other hand does not seem particularly fond of Brits, so it's unlikely he could be induced to move there except by main force. > they also showed footage of obviously racist rednecks > opposed to the bill as if they were good nd sane people with a right > to be aggrieved... amazing. How "obviously racist rednecks"? Are you suffering from some really strange psychiatric condition? The health care bill is a 2000+ page monstrosity which would be ruinous to our existing health care system, greatly increase taxes and other costs especially for the elderly and the young, inevitably impose health care rationing and would still leave 25 million or so uninsured. It's an abopmination. Yes, we really are "good and sane people with a right to be aggrieved," and most of us (not just Fox News watchers as you seem to believe) are indeed aggrieved. The more Americans learn about the proposed health care bill the more they despise it, and despise Obama too. Whatever his continuing popularity in Europe he is increasingly unpopular here at home, as shown by poll after poll. He would never get elected today, even running against a flawed candidate like McCain. Of course 19 out of 20 blacks might vote for him again as they did a year ago, but no other demographic group would want him. Rasmussen Reports (our most accurate poll as far as actual voting predictions are concerned) shows Obama continuing at an all-time low. Here, look at the graphs. Enjoy! http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
From: Neil Harrington on 6 Dec 2009 12:33 "Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote in message news:WVXTjICQ13GLFAFr(a)phaedsys.demon.co.uk... > In message <mPGdnR6k1JZikIbWnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Neil > Harrington <never(a)home.com> writes >> >>"Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote in message >>news:U65jIDfrlvGLFAGQ(a)phaedsys.demon.co.uk... >>> In message <Xr2dnbGbMrDAXYfWnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Neil >>> Harrington <never(a)home.com> writes >>>>> >>>>> For all its flaws, and for all the pressure placed on it, the BBC is >>>>> still much nearer to the ideal of impartiality than any US TV news >>>>> channel. >>>> >>>>That would be much closer to being believable if the BBC had any >>>>competitors. >>> >>> It does ITN, C4 FIVE, CNN, Sky and all the news papers. +all the local >>> independent news stations. >>> >>>>When a single corporation has a national monopoly on TV news >>>>coverage it is pretty naive to imagine they are going to be a model of >>>>impartiality. >>> >>> I agree and the BBC has no monopoly. >> >>It is, however, a government-funded corporation, eh? Supported by taxes >>and/or license fees, rather than competition in a free market. > > > Which explains why on the few occasions when the Government has tried to > influence the BBC they have had to go to court to get a court order to > make the BBC do something. They loose more often than they win. > > You clearly have no understanding of things outside the USA. In previous > discussions I have had with you: You have proved to be very blinkered > and seem to believe a lot of US Republican propaganda. Propaganda is not necessarily false, as you appear to believe. Yes, of course there is Republican propaganda as well as Democratic propaganda, each side presenting its own viewpoint, and yes, I do (not entirely but for the most part) subscribe to the Republican viewpoint since I am a conservative. Facts are facts. Calling facts "propaganda" because you'd rather not look at them does not make them into something else. > > You mentioned Pravda and how it fed Propaganda to the USSR. A friend of > min in a good position to know (trains people at Brag and Hereford) said > some years a go that the difference between the General soviet > population and the USA populations was that the Soviet population knew > when it was being fed propaganda! Again, this seems to illustrate your misconception of what propaganda is. Most people "being fed propaganda" by the government probably are aware of that, whether they would use that term for it or not, since such propaganda is generally pretty obvious. If you mean "being lied to," that is something else. Obama has lied repeatedly to the American people. He lied when he assured Americans they would be able to keep their present health insurance if they wanted to. His intention all along has been to squeeze out private insurance plans and replace them with a "single-payer" (euphemism for all-government) system. He more or less said so years ago, but has kept quiet about that idea since running for president. Increasingly the American people know this now. Few people (if any) now believe Obama's oft-repeated promises that, for example, "no one earning less than $250,000 a year will have their taxes increased BY A SINGLE DIME!" This is not a matter of "propaganda," it's a matter of being lied to. See the difference?
From: Paul Heslop on 6 Dec 2009 12:59 Neil Harrington wrote: > > "Paul Heslop" <paul.heslop(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message > news:4B1B7013.46B34B0F(a)blueyonder.co.uk... > > Bruce wrote: > >> > >> On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 22:41:59 GMT, Paul Heslop > >> <paul.heslop(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > >> > > >> >Fox 'news' the single worst offender. > >> > >> Yes, it's atrocious. An insult to anyone with intelligence, but > >> popular in the USA. Go figure, as they say. ;-) > >> > >> >Americans really do seem to swallow a lot of stuff about us > >> >'socialists' > >> > >> Americans really do seem to swallow a lot of stuff. Period. > > > > I happened to flick through onto an item about the health bill and the > > way Fox presented it you would think their president was a criminal or > > something. > > Well, "criminal" is a rather specific legal condition, but "or something" > certainly fits. Obama has done little but make promises and break them since > he started running for president, and while it would be something of a > stretch to call him a criminal he clearly has no compunctions about breaking > the law, as witness his illegal firing of Inspector General Walpin. > http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Gerald-Walpin-speaks-the-inside-story-of-the-AmeriCorps-firing-48030697.html > > If you're that fond of Obama I wish we could send him to you. You'd love him > because he regularly berates and apologizes for America, which attitudes > must be high on your list of desirable qualities in a politician. He on the > other hand does not seem particularly fond of Brits, so it's unlikely he > could be induced to move there except by main force. > and of course you would rather have Bush? > > they also showed footage of obviously racist rednecks > > opposed to the bill as if they were good nd sane people with a right > > to be aggrieved... amazing. > > How "obviously racist rednecks"? Are you suffering from some really strange > psychiatric condition? The health care bill is a 2000+ page monstrosity > which would be ruinous to our existing health care system, greatly increase > taxes and other costs especially for the elderly and the young, inevitably > impose health care rationing and would still leave 25 million or so > uninsured. It's an abopmination. > whatever your view on social welfare etc has nothing to do with the fact that the people on film that day were not anything more than racists. Of course it is easier to spot bigotry when you don't live within a society which still seems to accept that some of its states find the colour of someone's skin offensive. I can't recall the exact wording on the placards etc but there was little doubt to their thoughts on Obama. > Yes, we really are "good and sane people with a right to be aggrieved," and > most of us (not just Fox News watchers as you seem to believe) are indeed > aggrieved. The more Americans learn about the proposed health care bill the > more they despise it, and despise Obama too. Whatever his continuing > popularity in Europe he is increasingly unpopular here at home, as shown by > poll after poll. He would never get elected today, even running against a > flawed candidate like McCain. Of course 19 out of 20 blacks might vote for > him again as they did a year ago, but no other demographic group would want > him. > Hell, I would be shocked if you did support him. the very fact that he got in took me totally by surprise, but by heck I'd be more than shocked if he does get back in. There's little point in discussing this with you, you are coming across as one of my sadly prejudiced view of WASPS, sad because I allow it to colour my judgement of a country where doubtless there are millions of right minded and caring people, where social justice doesn't have to mean flying the communist flag. I wish you well and I hope you get the leader you really deserve. -- Paul (we break easy) ------------------------------------------------------- Stop and Look http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
From: Ray Fischer on 6 Dec 2009 13:10 Neil Harrington <not(a)home.today> wrote: > >"Paul Heslop" <paul.heslop(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message >news:4B1B7013.46B34B0F(a)blueyonder.co.uk... >> Bruce wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 22:41:59 GMT, Paul Heslop >>> <paul.heslop(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >>> > >>> >Fox 'news' the single worst offender. >>> >>> Yes, it's atrocious. An insult to anyone with intelligence, but >>> popular in the USA. Go figure, as they say. ;-) >>> >>> >Americans really do seem to swallow a lot of stuff about us >>> >'socialists' >>> >>> Americans really do seem to swallow a lot of stuff. Period. >> >> I happened to flick through onto an item about the health bill and the >> way Fox presented it you would think their president was a criminal or >> something. > >Well, "criminal" is a rather specific legal condition, but "or something" >certainly fits. Obama has done little but make promises and break them since You are a stinking liar and an obvious bigot. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Ray Fischer on 6 Dec 2009 13:12
Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote: > Neil Harrington <never(a)home.com> writes >>"Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote in message >>>>When a single corporation has a national monopoly on TV news >>>>coverage it is pretty naive to imagine they are going to be a model of >>>>impartiality. >>> >>> I agree and the BBC has no monopoly. >> >>It is, however, a government-funded corporation, eh? Supported by taxes >>and/or license fees, rather than competition in a free market. > >Which explains why on the few occasions when the Government has tried to >influence the BBC they have had to go to court to get a court order to >make the BBC do something. They loose more often than they win. > >You clearly have no understanding of things outside the USA. Arguably he has no understanding of things INSIDE the USA. All he seems to be capable of is parroting right wingnut hate and propaganda. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net |