1
   

CNN is so lame!

 
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Jan, 2007 08:08 am
@z0z0,
You seem to direct alot of stuff twards people of faith. Jews and Christians. Just making a observation.

Quote:
What is it with you - is your only goal in this forum to counter everything that I have said?

Quote:
All you are doing is running from one of my comments to another being critical and using cheap personal attacks.

If you would like to go back and see again, you may see that what i am doing is mimicing your actions. If you do not answer, i do not answer. If you are courdial, i am cordial. If you commit a personal attack, i commit a personal attack.
Don't flatter yourself. My goal is to counter everything i disagree with. Which is usually the theme of a "debate forum."

Quote:
Running around like dog nipping at my heels is quite pathetic.

The only reason you feel this way is because you are the one being nipped. Funny you had no consideration for such things till now? Ever think you may be the reason, of course not. I'm just being mean right? If you don't like it, then you shouldn't do it.

Quote:
All I have done is give you the facts about media ownership. I stated that I found it curious that for a group of people that makes up 2% of the US population controls so much of the media.

No, you've given me what you believe to be facts. Of the 2% Jew populous, what percentage of the market to they share as far as media?
z0z0
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Jan, 2007 08:26 am
@Drnaline,
Drnaline;8847 wrote:

No, you've given me what you believe to be facts. Of the 2% Jew populous, what percentage of the market to they share as far as media?


What I believe to be facts? How could these be anything but facts?
If the information that I provided are not facts then what is it?
Or do you think that facts are only those pieces of information that feel are facts?


What does this mean? I don't really understand
" Of the 2% Jew populous, what percentage of the market to they share as far as media?"


The difference between us is that I am putting forward ideas. You just react to those ideas. You are reactionary. Put forth some actual ideas rather than being a critic.
markx15
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Jan, 2007 02:42 pm
@z0z0,
Do you think that being Jewish means anything to any of those guys? I bet you could make them call themselves Christian for 10 bucks. They lack religious morals, not to mention their obvious disdain for the american population.
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Jan, 2007 10:55 am
@z0z0,
z0z0;8848 wrote:
What I believe to be facts? How could these be anything but facts?
If the information that I provided are not facts then what is it?
Or do you think that facts are only those pieces of information that feel are facts?


What does this mean? I don't really understand
" Of the 2% Jew populous, what percentage of the market to they share as far as media?"


The difference between us is that I am putting forward ideas. You just react to those ideas. You are reactionary. Put forth some actual ideas rather than being a critic.

Quote:
What I believe to be facts? How could these be anything but facts?

So every thing you read and post is fact? Your very sure of yourself.
Quote:

If the information that I provided are not facts then what is it?

Propaganda.
Quote:
What does this mean? I don't really understand
" Of the 2% Jew populous, what percentage of the market to they share as far as media?"

Your statement was that a small minority (2% Jews) owned a large part of US media. I was wondering what percentage that market share represented? Considering all Main Stream Media? Like a pie graph.
Quote:
The difference between us is that I am putting forward ideas.

What ideas are you talking about? Conspiracy? I haven't seen you do much but "Dumb us Down!
Quote:
You just react to those ideas.

You do a fair share of reacting yourself. Isn't it fun?
Quote:
You are reactionary.

Some could say it takes one to know one.
Quote:
Put forth some actual ideas rather than being a critic.

I wonder if you could do the same? IMO i don't think so.
0 Replies
 
z0z0
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jan, 2007 08:48 am
@Drnaline,
I just watched a bit of CNN. I said it before and I will say it again - the "news" anchors are a bunch of dipshits. Maybe CNN is more about entertainment than about education?

Nicole Lapin was acting like a bubbly bouncy high school girl talking about the new Congress. She seemed more appropriate for Entertainment Tonight. Quite embarrassing for the US

CNN Programs - Anchors/Reporters - Nicole Lapin
http://i.cnn.net/cnn/CNN/anchors_reporters/images/lapin.nicole.jpg


Betty Nguyen - She is quite attractive and nice voice but her mannerisms are so "high school". Is this what America wants? A lot of hotties with no substance feeding them their "news"?

CNN Programs - Anchors/Reporters - Betty Nguyen
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_reporters/images/anchor.nguyen.jpg
0 Replies
 
oleo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jan, 2007 10:25 am
@Drnaline,
Okay, ZoZo...

you have a point or two, but you're spouting as much blind Canadian propaganda
as people in the U.S. spout blind American propaganda. You're brief recount
of Candian history left out the warts and makes it seem as if you just sent
letters and were divinely granted statehood. That's not accurate, and other
factors contribute to the situations being different. Perhaps a "People's
History of Canada" is in order.

The difference between the BBC and CNN is that the BBC is operated by the
government (the CBC too, to some degree... right?) and CNN competes for
ratings. Unfortunately, when the bottom line is the bottom line news does
become entertainment, and the level of awareness for the general public
does suffer. America's print and broadcast media is aimed at a sixth grade
education level, because that is the average in the U.S. Man, does it pain
me to write that...

I work for the PBS system. It is somewhat funded by the government (though
if the Reps had their way it'd be history) and is aimed at people beyond the
average, as a sort of public interest service, which gets it branded elitist.

I am a graphic designer, and the history of graphic design as relating to printing
tells me that there is an ongoing little battle in this world to keep the "elites,"
the literate and educated, just a bit ahead of everybody else as far as
information goes which gives them the edge. For example, now that the
internet is widespread as a tool of spreading information, if you know anyone
who is pretty wealthy they probably get RSS feeds to their blackberries or
PDA phones. Just a little way of staying ahead... or business reports on satellite
radio. Ever wonder why the world would need satellite radio? Doesn't regular
radio work just fine? Satellite radio is pay, therefore selective. The history of
communication is like this, throughout all of human existence. It's how the
people on top retain their edge. Information is power, and those who have
information first get the power.

As for the declining state of American education, you're right about the fact
that it is declining. A big part of that is the unfortunate result of "political
correctness" aimed at enhancing inclusion of marginalized groups in our society.
That mindset, though meaning well, is wrong, because it is inherently racist
to exclude minority groups from sharing partial ownership in the triumphs
of human civilization... a case were liberals are actually selling those
they wish to help short. Can you really appreciate liberal democracy in
America when you've never read the theories it was based upon? When you
haven't read Plato and Machiavelli, Locke and Mill, Jefferson and Franklin?

The point with any media is to use it to get a starting point, and look further
into things on your own.

I know "liberals" who drive me as crazy as "conservatives" I know, and "libertarians"
who have the same effect on me, because they simply repeat shallow info
from whatever source they choose to believe, without thinking for themselves.

Oh, my girlfriend just gave me this book that's pretty brilliant. You should all
read it if you can. Lies My Teacher Told Me.
0 Replies
 
z0z0
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jan, 2007 12:54 pm
@Drnaline,
Oleo, Thank you for your response. You are correct on many points (virtually all).

As for Canada's independence the way we gained our sovereignty what much more civilized and less bloody than the way America gained independence - but then again Canada got its independence 90 years after the US. Fortunately we never had a civil war even though we still have a problem with the French in Quebec.

Maybe I am a bit naive or overly optimistic but I would like to see some social force to try to pull the populous from a sixth grade level to maybe a 9th grade level or even higher. The big question I have is "Why is the government (or invisible power-holders) OK with the dumbing down of American society?". If I was part of the intellectual power-holding elite I can think of many reason why I want a dumb population.

15 to 20 years ago CNN used to be my favorite source for news. Today I laugh at it. Sadly due to the entertainment value it lacks credibility. That is why I look to news from many different sources. Yes the CBC in Canada is government funded and for that reason I take what I hear with a bit of grain of salt (credibility filter).

PBS - I really enjoy watching WNED from Buffalo. Luckily I can get the station Over the Air in HDTV to my plasma. Just beautiful! I enjoy Discovery Channel and History Channel also.

I do not believe in polarization or "labeling" in thinking. In some areas I might be right-wing while in other areas I might have a left-wing leaning. For that reason I prefer not to label myself as anything (but I am more right leaning). By following a party line you stop thinking and just accept whatever your 'team' says you should accept. We should all be independent thinkers.

The book "Lies My Teacher Told Me" sounds interesting. I will look for it in audio-book format. I enjoy listening to books while I am out doing things. I listen to more audiobooks now than I listen to music.

I look forward to reading more of your thoughts.

Question - "Has the War in Iraq become America's version of the Roman Coliseum"? With shows like "This Week at War" and "Wounded Warriors" is the Iraq War become a source of "Entertainment"? The "War Over There" takes people's attention "Over There" and people forget about what is happening "Over Here". People get distracted about local problems - such as the deterioration of freedom here.
0 Replies
 
markx15
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jan, 2007 06:59 pm
@z0z0,
Quote:
Question - "Has the War in Iraq become America's version of the Roman Coliseum"? With shows like "This Week at War" and "Wounded Warriors" is the Iraq War become a source of "Entertainment"? The "War Over There" takes people's attention "Over There" and people forget about what is happening "Over Here". People get distracted about local problems - such as the deterioration of freedom here.


That certainly seem to be what the war has become, the real question now is if it is working. I see the connection between this and the "dumbing down", such a conspiracy would be a virtually perfect plan, as it would incapacitate the general public, and give some politicians free reign over the world's greatest superpower. A very scary scenario to imagine people capable of such acts for power to actually have that power.
0 Replies
 
z0z0
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jan, 2007 10:50 pm
@Drnaline,
Is CNN part of the Modern Bread and Circuses
... along with Monday Night Football and whatever night Basketball is on
(I do not watch sports - what a waste of time)

From Wikipedia

Bread and circuses - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bread and circuses is a derogatory phrase which can describe either government policies to pacify the citizenry, or the shallow, decadent desires of that same citizenry. In both cases, it refers to low-cost, low-quality, high-availability food and entertainment, and to the exclusion of things which the speaker considers more important, such as art, public works projects, democracy, or human rights. The phrase is commonly used to refer to short-term government solutions for persistent, long-term problems.

It originated as the Latin phrase "panem et circenses" (literally "bread and circuses"), and was coined in the Satire X by Juvenal, a Roman satiric poet of the 1st century AD, to describe the practice of Roman Emperors who gave unlimited free wheat to the poor and costly circus games as a means of pacifying the populace with food and entertainment. Juvenal wrote: "Two things only the people anxiously desire -- bread and circuses." With this statement, Juvenal displayed his contempt for the declining heroism of his contemporary Romans.[1]
0 Replies
 
markx15
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Jan, 2007 10:56 am
@z0z0,
Quote:
Is CNN part of the Modern Bread and Circuses
... along with Monday Night Football and whatever night Basketball is on


If it is a puppet, who is on the other end of the strings?
0 Replies
 
oleo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Jan, 2007 11:14 am
@Drnaline,
CNN was once independently owned by Ted Turner, who is a notorious
maverick (does things his own way and screw you if you don't like it). He
sold the company to Time/Warner, I believe, and the "dumbing down" has
inevitably come with the mission changing to satisfy the portfolio of share
holders from a mission to supply accurate reporting.

The War in Iraq as entertainment? I don't think so... it doesn't take someone
who opposes the war or war in general to become sick of its images after
3 or 4 years, especially without seemingly gaining a tangible inch of ground.
The majority of Americans oppose the war.

As an outsider looking in I think you may have an exaggerated view of
"declining freedoms at home." Some things have happened that have put
things in place that could be used to diminish freedoms, but they haven't
been deployed to evil ends yet, and people are fighting them simply based
on the fact that they present an opportunity for abuse. Checks and balances
in our system still work, though Cheney in particular has sought to dismantle
those safeguards.

Truth is, Americans are distracted more by Britney Spears' cooter and this
weeks plotline on Lost than the War in Iraq, for the most part. They
also don't see much tht's different in their daily lives so mostly don't feel
compelled to participate in politics.
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Jan, 2007 07:48 am
@z0z0,
Quote:
The majority of Americans oppose the war.

No, the majority of Americans polled, oppose the war. It's all perspective right.
oleo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Jan, 2007 03:20 pm
@Drnaline,
Drnaline;9137 wrote:
No, the majority of Americans polled, oppose the war. It's all perspective right.


... and the majority of Americans who voted in the last election...
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Jan, 2007 11:11 pm
@oleo,
oleo;9141 wrote:
... and the majority of Americans who voted in the last election...
"The majority of Americans oppose the war." Is a bold statement. What do you have as proof? A poll? All the people you talk too? The web sites you visit? The swing in voters came from media biased slant. Or as you called it, "perspective."
z0z0
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 08:26 am
@Drnaline,
What he is saying is that:

1. It takes a majority of votes for a person to become President
2. George Bush who is for the war won the election
3. Since Bush won the election that means that the majority of Americans that voted supported the war.
4. The people that voted are a statistical representation of the population overall.
5. If people were against the war and found it to be an important issue then they would have voted against Bush.
6. Therefore the conclusion is that only a minority is truly against the war.

Logic is wonderful when you know how to use it.
oleo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 08:27 pm
@Drnaline,
Drnaline;9166 wrote:
"The majority of Americans oppose the war." Is a bold statement. What do you have as proof? A poll? All the people you talk too? The web sites you visit? The swing in voters came from media biased slant. Or as you called it, "perspective."


I was speaking of a wide array of polls.

If scientific polls don't reveal anything then we have no way of knowing anything.

The last election, where the party of the President and the biggest supporters
of the War lost control of both houses seem to confirm that the polls are correct
for the most part, including the ones from FOXnews that said the election was
all about Iraq.

How do you know the majority of Americans support the war in Iraq?
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Jan, 2007 12:21 pm
@z0z0,
z0z0;9171 wrote:
What he is saying is that:

1. It takes a majority of votes for a person to become President
2. George Bush who is for the war won the election
3. Since Bush won the election that means that the majority of Americans that voted supported the war.
4. The people that voted are a statistical representation of the population overall.
5. If people were against the war and found it to be an important issue then they would have voted against Bush.
6. Therefore the conclusion is that only a minority is truly against the war.

Logic is wonderful when you know how to use it.
Nice to know your finally getting the hang of it.
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Jan, 2007 12:31 pm
@oleo,
oleo;9182 wrote:
I was speaking of a wide array of polls.

If scientific polls don't reveal anything then we have no way of knowing anything.

The last election, where the party of the President and the biggest supporters
of the War lost control of both houses seem to confirm that the polls are correct
for the most part, including the ones from FOXnews that said the election was
all about Iraq.

How do you know the majority of Americans support the war in Iraq?
Quote:
How do you know the majority of Americans support the war in Iraq?
By the amount they say they support the troops. I've hardly ever met some one who says they do not supportthen and there effort. Do you? Would you be willing to throw away every effort they have given to this new government to be free, at the cost of a pull out? By pull out it would have to come at the hands of politicians withdrawing funds for action. Is that supporting the troops? Depriving them of what they need for the fight that they believe in, so you force the administration to retreat? That's not any kind of support i've ever seen. So do you support the troops? If you do how can you not support there action they are ingauged in. Regardless of Administration?
tumbleweed cv
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Jan, 2007 12:37 pm
@Drnaline,
Sounds like flawed logic to me. A majority of voters are not in favor of the war, and even less support Bush.:cool:
oleo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Jan, 2007 01:36 pm
@Drnaline,
Drnaline;9209 wrote:
By the amount they say they support the troops. I've hardly ever met some one who says they do not supportthen and there effort. Do you? Would you be willing to throw away every effort they have given to this new government to be free, at the cost of a pull out? By pull out it would have to come at the hands of politicians withdrawing funds for action. Is that supporting the troops? Depriving them of what they need for the fight that they believe in, so you force the administration to retreat? That's not any kind of support i've ever seen. So do you support the troops? If you do how can you not support there action they are ingauged in. Regardless of Administration?


I very much support the troops not being I.E.D. fodder.

This war is insanity. It will never end the way it is going.

Either it deteriorates further, and a lot of American G.I.'s get killed, or it
deteriorates further and we pull the troops out so that they don't get killed.

Those are the options.
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » CNN is so lame!
  3. » Page 4
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/19/2024 at 09:16:54