Mr Bush vs Mr Kerry in Nature over Science.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nadval

Yer ok you have a point there, just the level of 'dodgyness' and the history of America seems to point to this. I may, of course, be wrong - but I don't think we should ignore the American government's tactics in the past, as they quite often repeat themselves.

Well, I wouldn't put much past the US government. However, conspiracies are actually fairly rare. Most of their worst atrocities are right out there in the open, on the public record.

One of the wonderful things about having an indoctrinated populace (from the point of view of the powerful) is you don't need to hide your sins.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Nadval

If it's old news then why do people still argue for Bush? And why is he about to win the next election? Or do people simply not care about justice anymore?

Edit - I said anymore... how silly of me.

bush didnt support saddam or the taliban (a lot of his gang did though), so its hardly all his fault isnt it? one could argue that bush only tries to correct the mistakes the us did in the past.

[Ste]

Originally Posted by Sunday8pm

I'm inferring the first wasn't legitimate, if every country that got invaded was going to get their ass whooped back by the US then africa would be a helluva different place. For some reason they made an exception with Kuwait which I think was ridiculous and a case of the UN at the time being blinkered. Had this happened now I do think other action would of been taken first.

Before the first gulf war Iraq was starting to become a threat. They had C&B weapons then.
There were better and more legitimate reasons for the first gulf war than the second.

I'm not arguing that it was moral. I'm not arguing that US policy at the time was the correct one.
I'm arguing that it was a different situation to the more recent (and current) conflict.

[Ste]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

bush didnt support saddam or the taliban (a lot of his gang did though), so its hardly all his fault isnt it? one could argue that bush only tries to correct the mistakes the us did in the past.

Bush = The Bush admnistration.
It's not* personal.



*not all anyway

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Nadval

I believe there WAS a conspiracy with the 9/11 incident, if you disagree could you support this with some sort of factual evidence?

Oh yeah, I mean they couldn't cover up Bill Clinton getting a blowjob from an intern or Nixon bugging people's offices but I'm sure that none of the mindbogglingly large number of people necessary to organise 9/11 and the following cover up would ever have a crisis of conscience or let something slip or anything like that.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Nadval

Actualy, it's a quick way of getting money from the tax payers pockets into the pockets of the rich corporations and capitalist pockets. This has been routine procedure by American presidents since WW2. Create a big threat, use it as an excuse to spend on military, this shifts money from the tax payer's pockets into the pockets of the rich capitalists.

You do know who pays the majority of the tax burden, right?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

You do know who pays the majority of the tax burden, right?

In most countries it's income tax payers, which any decent business man should avoid to a lesser or greater extent.

[Nadval]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Oh yeah, I mean they couldn't cover up Bill Clinton getting a blowjob from an intern or Nixon bugging people's offices but I'm sure that none of the mindbogglingly large number of people necessary to organise 9/11 and the following cover up would ever have a crisis of conscience or let something slip or anything like that.

You're right they aren't very good at covering these things up - which I guess is why we're discussing it now...

[Azof]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

One of the wonderful things about having an indoctrinated populace (from the point of view of the powerful) is you don't need to hide your sins.

I'm calling you out on this crap. There are several assumptions you make here and all of them are wrong.

The first is that the U.S. population *all* agree with each other, and agree with Bush. This is in fact, incorrect. Unlike the fairly homogenous views in Europe, the U.S. is deeply divided about not only current issues (ie Iraq War) but also past atrocities (ie Hiroshima and Nagasaki I know my spelling is bad). But when you insult 293 million people at once, I guess you have to make some assumptions.

The second is that 293 million people are indoctrinated and don't think about issues whatsoever. Guess what, the same percent of people over here form their own opinions as in Europe, the only difference is that European governments have different viewpoints than the U.S. governments. I already know what you will say, what about the British and Spanish governments, they supported the U.S. yet their population did not. The easy answer is that there were sufficient dissenting officials in the government and also some european nationalism leading to an overall dissenting view in Europe (overwhelming dissenting, even) . The point here, is that the same percentage of people think about issues everywhere, but you see fit to point out the ignorant people in the United States without realizing or understanding that people in the United States are much much much more independent than in Europe, and that both ignorant and intelligent people live in both places.

The final assumption I will point out (though there are several more...) is that the government is capable of indoctrinating 293 million people. The fact is, there is FAR FAR less corruption in the United States than even in Western European countries. The reason is that corruption in the U.S. is highly publicized and harshly punished. If any instances of corruption are able to be proven, the responsible people are forever disqualified from being put in a position to be able to be corrupt. I mention corruption because only corrupt governments can indoctrinate their people . Although you like to believe that Europeans have intelligent discussions and diferring viewpoints, the fact is that you do not. Most disagreements (not based off of ideology) are purely aesthetic.

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by Azof

I'm calling you out on this crap. There are several assumptions you make here and all of them are wrong.

The first is that the U.S. population *all* agree with each other, and agree with Bush. This is in fact, incorrect. Unlike the fairly homogenous views in Europe, the U.S. is deeply divided about not only current issues (ie Iraq War) but also past atrocities (ie Hiroshima and Nagasaki I know my spelling is bad). But when you insult 293 million people at once, I guess you have to make some assumptions.

The second is that 293 million people are indoctrinated and don't think about issues whatsoever. Guess what, the same percent of people over here form their own opinions as in Europe, the only difference is that European governments have different viewpoints than the U.S. governments. I already know what you will say, what about the British and Spanish governments, they supported the U.S. yet their population did not. The easy answer is that there were sufficient dissenting officials in the government and also some european nationalism leading to an overall dissenting view in Europe (overwhelming dissenting, even) . The point here, is that the same percentage of people think about issues everywhere, but you see fit to point out the ignorant people in the United States without realizing or understanding that people in the United States are much much much more independent than in Europe, and that both ignorant and intelligent people live in both places.

The final assumption I will point out (though there are several more...) is that the government is capable of indoctrinating 293 million people. The fact is, there is FAR FAR less corruption in the United States than even in Western European countries. The reason is that corruption in the U.S. is highly publicized and harshly punished. If any instances of corruption are able to be proven, the responsible people are forever disqualified from being put in a position to be able to be corrupt. I mention corruption because only corrupt governments can indoctrinate their people . Although you like to believe that Europeans have intelligent discussions and diferring viewpoints, the fact is that you do not. Most disagreements (not based off of ideology) are purely aesthetic.

Hear hear.

[Nadval]

Azof - care to back any of that up with fact? e.g. what makes Americans more independant etc.

Edit: I think most people outside America would agree that America has one of the most indoctrinated populace in the world. The only reason Americans don't think that is because they're taught not to think bad things about America.

[Ste]

Originally Posted by Azof

I'm calling you out on this crap. There are several assumptions you make here and all of them are wrong.

The first is that the U.S. population *all* agree with each other, and agree with Bush. This is in fact, incorrect. Unlike the fairly homogenous views in Europe, the U.S. is deeply divided about not only current issues (ie Iraq War) but also past atrocities (ie Hiroshima and Nagasaki I know my spelling is bad). But when you insult 293 million people at once, I guess you have to make some assumptions.

Ok, I'll give you that. The whole of the US didn't vote for Bush. In fact around 25% did. However, due to the absolutely shite political system that is used and allowed Bush to be elected despite getting less votes than his rival, his administration represents the US. And therefore gives us reason to generalise about the population.

The second is that 293 million people are indoctrinated and don't think about issues whatsoever. Guess what, the same percent of people over here form their own opinions as in Europe, the only difference is that European governments have different viewpoints than the U.S. governments. I already know what you will say, what about the British and Spanish governments, they supported the U.S. yet their population did not. The easy answer is that there were sufficient dissenting officials in the government and also some european nationalism leading to an overall dissenting view in Europe (overwhelming dissenting, even) . The point here, is that the same percentage of people think about issues everywhere, but you see fit to point out the ignorant people in the United States without realizing or understanding that people in the United States are much much much more independent than in Europe, and that both ignorant and intelligent people live in both places.

Look for statistics on US media compared to Western European media. What percent of the population watch/read/listen to it regularly? What does the 'news' consist of? How biased is the media? Who controls the media?
It makes for pretty depressing statistics if you're an American. Especially if you're an educated American who actually shows interest in what goes on outside your state.

The final assumption I will point out (though there are several more...) is that the government is capable of indoctrinating 293 million people. The fact is, there is FAR FAR less corruption in the United States than even in Western European countries. The reason is that corruption in the U.S. is highly publicized and harshly punished. If any instances of corruption are able to be proven, the responsible people are forever disqualified from being put in a position to be able to be corrupt. I mention corruption because only corrupt governments can indoctrinate their people . Although you like to believe that Europeans have intelligent discussions and diferring viewpoints, the fact is that you do not. Most disagreements (not based off of ideology) are purely aesthetic.

Less corruption? You must be joking! Are we talking about the same government?

Oh and please don't group 'Europeans' all together - we not only have different Foreign Policies but also different political systems, media, and general ideologies.

Can I just say you've made a typical American response. But not a really well thought out one.
(and I know my reply isn't great but I think I probably know more about the US than you do about the UK)

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Azof

But when you insult 293 million people at once, I guess you have to make some assumptions.

You're making the assumption that I'm only talking about the United States. I'm not. On a number of issues Europeans are far more indoctrinated than their American counterparts (e.g. on elementary freedoms). But the general trend exists across the "western" (i.e. industrialised) world. In some areas certain types of indoctrination are worse than others. Japan appears to be particularly bad on some things, for instance.

Also, it'd be a mistake to presume that "indoctrination" is only carried out by the government (or the state more generally). It's not. In a capitalist society this function (along with healtcare, construction and even security in some instances) is outsourced. The large media conglomerates play a vital role in the indoctrination process. This is true across most of the industrialised world and does not only apply to the United States.

Don't automatically assume everyone is having a dig at America. I don't assume Americans are stupid and that wasn't implied in what I posted.

edit : Also you misunderstand what I mean by 'indoctrination'. Unless you live in a totalitarian state, divergances are expected (nay, welcomed). I can point you in the direction of some literature if this appears a difficult concept.

[Azof]

Originally Posted by Ste

Look for statistics on US media compared to Western European media. What percent of the population watch/read/listen to it regularly? What does the 'news' consist of? How biased is the media? Who controls the media?

This is self-contradicting. If you plan on making a point of the bias of U.S. media (I don't really believe this bias is more overt than for example BBC bias) then you can hardly also point out that less people watch the news in the United States. This is where statistics cannot help with the cultural aspect, people here discuss the news and read the paper far more than they watch international news on TV or look it up on the internet. (Both of those are mostly relegated to Local and State news)

Oh and please don't group 'Europeans' all together - we not only have different Foreign Policies but also different political systems, media, and general ideologies.

Excellent, don't group "Americans" all together.

Less corruption? You must be joking! Are we talking about the same government?

No I'm not joking, this is my personal opinion though. I feel that there is a constant witch-hunt for corruption in the United States, and this leads to it being fairly non-existant (backed up by the usually excellent Justice system)

Can I just say you've made a typical American response. But not a really well thought out one.

Wtf is that supposed to mean? Anyway, see previous response.

(and I know my reply isn't great but I think I probably know more about the US than you do about the UK)

You can hardly expect me to know lots about 200+ countries. Heck, I still hear about countries I have never heard of. But lets be realistic, the United States will have far more effect on these countries than they will ever have on the United States. But that doesn't mean I'm completely ignorant of Britain.

However, due to the absolutely shite political system that is used and allowed Bush to be elected despite getting less votes than his rival, his administration represents the US.

I think the poltical system (in the U.S.) could use some serious reforms, however, I believe that the Federal system of government is better than the rather unstable parlimentary system because the Federal system does not rely on coalitions. You also have to take into account that the United States is much much much larger than Britain, so our political system will have to be different.

[Azof]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

You're making the assumption that I'm only talking about the United States. I'm not. On a number of issues Europeans are far more indoctrinated than their American counterparts (e.g. on elementary freedoms). But the general trend exists across the "western" (i.e. industrialised) world. In some areas certain types of indoctrination are worse than others. Japan appears to be particularly bad on some things, for instance.

Ok, that was my mistake. Your post did seem like you were having a go at indoctrination in the United States, though.

Also, it'd be a mistake to presume that "indoctrination" is only carried out by the government (or the state more generally). It's not. In a capitalist society this function (along with healtcare, construction and even security in some instances) is outsourced. The large media conglomerates play a vital role in the indoctrination process. This is true across most of the industrialised world and does not only apply to the United States.

I'm not quite so pessimistic. I don't subscribe to that kind of Marxism, but you do have a point there. The difference is if it becomes too pervasive I know in the United States it can be limited through elections.

Also you misunderstand what I mean by 'indoctrination'. Unless you live in a totalitarian state, divergances are expected (nay, welcomed). I can point you in the direction of some literature if this appears a difficult concept.

I'm considering indoctrination (as it relates to your post) as unduely influencing with partisan viewpoints. If this is incorrect feel free to suggest literature.

[Ste]

Originally Posted by Azof

This is self-contradicting. If you plan on making a point of the bias of U.S. media (I don't really believe this bias is more overt than for example BBC bias) then you can hardly also point out that less people watch the news in the United States. This is where statistics cannot help with the cultural aspect, people here discuss the news and read the paper far more than they watch international news on TV or look it up on the internet. (Both of those are mostly relegated to Local and State news)

Fox news has been explicitly warned about the bias shown in it's reporting.
There are many problems in the US media. 5 companies owning 95% of it doesn't help.
During the Iraq war it was amazing how the US media reported compared to the rest of the world.
Please check out some independent news websites and compare them to the ones that most Americans read.
You're being told untruths and greatly spun reports.
Heh, we get news about your country that you don't even get!

Excellent, don't group "Americans" all together.

US is one country. One foreign policy. One leader.

No I'm not joking, this is my personal opinion though. I feel that there is a constant witch-hunt for corruption in the United States, and this leads to it being fairly non-existant (backed up by the usually excellent Justice system)

No matter what you think of Michael Moore, some of the questions brought up in his documentaries are 100% valid. And have not been dealt with.
The whole Florida election issue is insanely dodgy.
The links that the administration have with enormous companies like Halliburton and (when it exsted) Enron which led to them getting legislation that specifically benefits them is not being sufficiently investigated. Just look at the contracts they won for rebuilding Iraq!

You can hardly expect me to know lots about 200+ countries. Heck, I still hear about countries I have never heard of. But lets be realistic, the United States will have far more effect on these countries than they will ever have on the United States. But that doesn't mean I'm completely ignorant of Britain.

heh.

I think the poltical system (in the U.S.) could use some serious reforms, however, I believe that the Federal system of government is better than the rather unstable parlimentary system because the Federal system does not rely on coalitions. You also have to take into account that the United States is much much much larger than Britain, so our political system will have to be different.

we don't rely on coalitions. And our political system isn't great. But the US one is just awful, and I've most americans I've met have agreed.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Nadval

You're right they aren't very good at covering these things up - which I guess is why we're discussing it now...

Your problem is you don't think outside the box. So what if the US government is conspiring to cover things up? Surely the giant purple bunny rabbit orbiting Pluto in a cloaked spaceship using his mega-psychic-ray to control the actions of the richest 100 people on the surface of the earth in order to keep the vast majority of the world's population suppressed and in despair so he can feed off their psychological emissions of pure anguish that leak into the ether which he sucks up using his mega-anguish-collector-ray is of far more importance?

[Nadval]

Originally Posted by Azof

This is self-contradicting. If you plan on making a point of the bias of U.S. media (I don't really believe this bias is more overt than for example BBC bias) then you can hardly also point out that less people watch the news in the United States. This is where statistics cannot help with the cultural aspect, people here discuss the news and read the paper far more than they watch international news on TV or look it up on the internet. (Both of those are mostly relegated to Local and State news)

Please tell me you aren't serious. American reporting is probably at one of the lowest standards you could find. It almost bears resemblance to the Iraqi reporting during the recent war - a lot of what's reported is just plain lies. Do you want me to dig up some of the unlimited examples over the last 40 years? British reporting isn't great, but it's probably still one of the best in the world. The BBC is actualy relatively unbiased, especially in comparison with most American stations.

[Nadval]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Your problem is you don't think outside the box. So what if the US government is conspiring to cover things up? Surely the giant purple bunny rabbit orbiting Pluto in a cloaked spaceship using his mega-psychic-ray to control the actions of the richest 100 people on the surface of the earth in order to keep the vast majority of the world's population suppressed and in despair so he can feed off their psychological emissions of pure anguish that leak into the ether which he sucks up using his mega-anguish-collector-ray is of far more importance?

I have no idea what you just said, so I'll just nod and smile

[Azof]

Originally Posted by Ste

Fox news has been explicitly warned about the bias shown in it's reporting.
There are many problems in the US media. 5 companies owning 95% of it doesn't help.
During the Iraq war it was amazing how the US media reported compared to the rest of the world.
Please check out some independent news websites and compare them to the ones that most Americans read.
You're being told untruths and greatly spun reports.
Heh, we get news about your country that you don't even get!
.

Do not patronize me. I read not only U.S. media but independent and foreign media also. All media is biased, but U.S. media bias isn't quite as bad as some make it out to be.

No matter what you think of Michael Moore, some of the questions brought up in his documentaries are 100% valid. And have not been dealt with.

Michael Moore contradicts himself. I don't hold very much stead in what he says. He is effective at being controversial though. (Which is good, it motivates people to talk about issues)

we don't rely on coalitions. And our political system isn't great. But the US one is just awful, and I've most americans I've met have agreed.

Uhh, when did I say the U.S. system is in good shape? But most poltical systems need reforms also so it is excusable.

The links that the administration have with enormous companies like Halliburton and (when it exsted) Enron which led to them getting legislation that specifically benefits them is not being sufficiently investigated. Just look at the contracts they won for rebuilding Iraq!

These are all being investigated. I don't hold much stock on conspiracy theories, you need evidence and speculation doesn't count.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Nadval

I think most people outside America would agree that America has one of the most indoctrinated populace in the world.

Perhaps they've just been indoctrinated to think that? In any event, wouldn't simply accepting the view of "most people" be just another form of indoctrination?

The only reason Americans don't think that is because they're taught not to think bad things about America.

I seriously doubt anyone is taught to think bad things about their own country (overall); at least not until college. Thinking Bad Things About Other Countries (Especially If They're Superpowers) is, of course, on everyone's curriculum.

[Nadval]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

I seriously doubt anyone is taught to think bad things about their own country (overall); at least not until college. Thinking Bad Things About Other Countries (Especially If They're Superpowers) is, of course, on everyone's curriculum.

I wasn't saying that us in Britain (for example) are taught to think bad things about Britain, but we're not taught NOT to think bad things about Britain, or atleast less than Americans. It's a mix between strong patriotism and indoctrination.