|
On February 03 2010 09:31 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 08:36 fox[tail] wrote:On February 03 2010 08:08 .risingdragoon wrote:
Look, I know where you're going with that. I suggested BBC to laymen cus on average their reporting still contains traces of alternate perspectives, some actual interviewing at the source and with non-partial concerned, and a sense of skepticism like they've not made up their own minds themselves.
Yes they may spend 5 min at the end of a 45 min report on that, but it's still kinda sorta there, instead of this bullshit secret handshake thing where everyone in north american news is in on but nobody's directly verbalizing anything The sad fact is that they only do that to look like they are non-bias when in fact the way they present the news gives you the illusion that you can make up your mind about the matter without their influence, when in fact they give you only one option. The BBC is funded by the people, which means they have to listen to their government, they only care about being PC and 90% of the time report everything from a leftist angle, and we all know that the BBC is extremely biased towards china and uses every chance they get to connect them with negative things I can't think of a nicer way to say this than "you don't know shit". So here goes. You don't know shit about shit. Yes, the BBC is publicly funded. However it does not recieve money from the Government, nor is it affiliated with the Government, nor are BBC appointments made by the Government nor does it come under the influence of the Government. The BBC was given the legal right to raise taxes through the license fee. That is a fee it charges people for the ownership of a television (one fee per household). The Government cannot adjust the fee and while it could in theory reverse the law in question that would mean the destruction of one of the most important British institutions. If they actually made it to the next election after suggesting such an idea they'd be voted out by such a huge majority it'd be the destruction of the political party stupid enough to try it. The BBC is above the law in British politics. The Government cannot touch its funding and if the Government decided to go head to head against the BBC they'd find everyone in Britain knowing about it very quickly. The BBC is accountable only to its own internal watchdogs (which the Government also has no power over) which ensure balance, independence and accountable spending of public money. I don't know what corrupt shit goes on in your country but when the British make an independent public media body they don't make it the tool of whichever politician is in power at the time. For reference, a few years ago there was a leak about how Blair was making shit up in his Iraq dossier. The Gov leaked the name of the whistleblower, Dr David Kelly, who came under tremendous personal and public pressure and ended up committing suicide. The Government tried to gag everyone and the BBC refused.
lol @ suicide
Well I guess we'll find out with the autopsy and it's accompanying report... oh wait they've been sealed for 70 years by government order.
|
Isn't the Dalai Lama the leader of a certain sect of Buddhism? So why shouldn't Obama meet with him? I even read the Dalai Lama will probably be in the U.S. when he visits Obama so who gives a shit? China wouldn't hesitate to greet the Pope if he stopped by in Beijing, and the Catholic Church's track record isn't stellar either.
I realize there are politcal issues surrounding the Dalai Lama but China has freely used it veto power in the UN security council to go against U.S. interests before, so fuck them.
|
On February 03 2010 13:04 Masamune wrote:
Isn't the Dalai Lama the leader of a certain sect of Buddhism? So why shouldn't Obama meet with him? I even read the Dalai Lama will probably be in the U.S. when he visits Obama so who gives a shit? China wouldn't hesitate to greet the Pope if he stopped by in Beijing, and the Catholic Church's track record isn't stellar either.
I realize there are politcal issues surrounding the Dalai Lama but China has freely used it veto power in the UN security council to go against U.S. interests before, so fuck them.
Do you have no idea what's going on in Tibet, like none at all?
|
On February 03 2010 11:21 .risingdragoon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 10:49 Virtue wrote:On February 03 2010 10:45 synapse wrote:On February 02 2010 20:33 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On February 02 2010 20:28 Chen wrote:
The political reason is that by meeting with the Dalai Llama the US officially recognizes them and its seen as a show of support for that nation, which undermines the Chinese position.
Can you imagine the outrage if the Chinese or Russian representatives met with Al Qaeda to broker a "peace"? extreme example obviously but that's partly what the Chinese government thinks. Al Qaeda -> 9/11, suicide bombs, extreme messages of murder, genocide etc Tibet/DL -> peaceful protests, extreme messages of independence, freedom and religious expression =same? I'd argue not. If by "peaceful protests" you mean acts of hatred towards Han Chinese in the tibetan area, then I would say you have your facts straight. It's funny that CNN and most other news sites showed Nepalese police beating buddhist monks as an example of "shows of force from the Chinese military." The pictures with actual Chinese police only show them defending themselves against thrown rocks, and in some cases, gunfire. Yeah but china is never gonna live down in the west the Tiananmen Square protests which were peaceful for the vast majority of it until the Chinese military came in and start basically shooting up the place  people don't forget that as a strong impression of what china is like to person freedoms. That's complete bullshit btw. My cousin-in-law was actually in it. He told me like 1/4 of the people there were serious idealistic marchers. The rest were opportunistic power-grabbing hooligans, came out for a show and up to no good.
I wouldn't say opportunistic power grabbing hooligans as much as very active in the political world. In fact, most people in the West would be surprised that MUCH of the Tiananmen student protesters would eventually become party members in their future. So in a way, it's quite ironic to both bash Chinese government yet support the protesters so much.
PS. I do admire the Tiananmen square students simply for taking a stand and being interested in the political future of China. here everyone just bitches but no one does anything.
|
The Dalai Lama is a bastion of peace. I think it's good that any leader of a nation involved in mutiple wars meets someone like that.
As for issues regarding tibet. If it were the 60's I'd be all for "Free tibet". Back then the culture of the place would've still been partly intact. These days however I think that would do more harm then good. Think about it. Around 70% (random ballpark figure from my head) of tibetans wouldn't have been alive before chinese rule. If the chinese were to suddenly withdraw this would have huge social and economic consequences for the region. The occupation has simply been going on too long for a change to the previous system to be desired. Sure there could be a revolution there and let's just say for argument sake that they could somehow hold the chinese military at bay. The culture of the previous tibet simply won't exist there so it would likely turn into a third system. Particularly if china has been suppressing religious freedoms
|
On February 03 2010 13:11 King K. Rool wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 13:04 Masamune wrote:
Isn't the Dalai Lama the leader of a certain sect of Buddhism? So why shouldn't Obama meet with him? I even read the Dalai Lama will probably be in the U.S. when he visits Obama so who gives a shit? China wouldn't hesitate to greet the Pope if he stopped by in Beijing, and the Catholic Church's track record isn't stellar either.
I realize there are politcal issues surrounding the Dalai Lama but China has freely used it veto power in the UN security council to go against U.S. interests before, so fuck them.
Do you have no idea what's going on in Tibet, like none at all?
I realize there are politcal issues surrounding the Dalai Lama but China has freely used it veto power in the UN security council to go against U.S. interests before, so fuck them.
|
On February 03 2010 13:24 Masamune wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 13:11 King K. Rool wrote:On February 03 2010 13:04 Masamune wrote:
Isn't the Dalai Lama the leader of a certain sect of Buddhism? So why shouldn't Obama meet with him? I even read the Dalai Lama will probably be in the U.S. when he visits Obama so who gives a shit? China wouldn't hesitate to greet the Pope if he stopped by in Beijing, and the Catholic Church's track record isn't stellar either.
I realize there are politcal issues surrounding the Dalai Lama but China has freely used it veto power in the UN security council to go against U.S. interests before, so fuck them.
Do you have no idea what's going on in Tibet, like none at all? I realize there are politcal issues surrounding the Dalai Lama but China has freely used it veto power in the UN security council to go against U.S. interests before, so fuck them.
Because China will nuke you. Something people should probably worry about.
|
Worldwide apocalypse aside, the U.S. and even the E.U. are much more fearsome than China.
|
One thing I want to add, China has a history of being exploited by foreign imperialist countries ever since the Opium War (including the US). It lost territories and sovereignty left and right for the few decades afterward, causing the unrest in the 1920s that led to the formation of the Chinese Communist Party. The fact that the CCP set expelling imperialist countries as its basis for existence back then probably contributes to why China is so against Tibetan independence.
|
On February 03 2010 13:42 Masamune wrote:
Worldwide apocalypse aside, the U.S. and even the E.U. are much more fearsome than China.
Masamune, please don't turn this thread into a pissing concept. That's an incredibly pointless argument to try to have. And in general, having this "fuck them" attitude in politics is rather impractical. Bringing schoolyard mentalities onto an international forum would not work for any nation, so suggesting to do so doesn't really add anything meaningful.
And I think it's interesting Obama would take this route when he was all about multilateralism and smart diplomacy as a supposed contrast to Bush. Poking China in the eye for the sake of nothing more than rhetoric is stupidity in my opinion and I don't think it serves the USA's interests at all. Although, I'm from the school of thought that thinks cooperation with China would serve the country more than antagonism. There's a significant minority of America's leaders that thinks the opposite route should be taken.
|
On February 03 2010 15:15 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 13:42 Masamune wrote:
Worldwide apocalypse aside, the U.S. and even the E.U. are much more fearsome than China. Masamune, please don't turn this thread into a pissing concept. That's an incredibly pointless argument to try to have. And in general, having this "fuck them" attitude in politics is rather impractical. Bringing schoolyard mentalities onto an international forum would not work for any nation, so suggesting to do so doesn't really add anything meaningful.
Masamune didn't, it was Synapse who suggested that China would initiate nuclear holocaust.
|
On February 03 2010 09:31 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 08:36 fox[tail] wrote:On February 03 2010 08:08 .risingdragoon wrote:
Look, I know where you're going with that. I suggested BBC to laymen cus on average their reporting still contains traces of alternate perspectives, some actual interviewing at the source and with non-partial concerned, and a sense of skepticism like they've not made up their own minds themselves.
Yes they may spend 5 min at the end of a 45 min report on that, but it's still kinda sorta there, instead of this bullshit secret handshake thing where everyone in north american news is in on but nobody's directly verbalizing anything The sad fact is that they only do that to look like they are non-bias when in fact the way they present the news gives you the illusion that you can make up your mind about the matter without their influence, when in fact they give you only one option. The BBC is funded by the people, which means they have to listen to their government, they only care about being PC and 90% of the time report everything from a leftist angle, and we all know that the BBC is extremely biased towards china and uses every chance they get to connect them with negative things I can't think of a nicer way to say this than "you don't know shit". So here goes. You don't know shit about shit. Yes, the BBC is publicly funded. However it does not recieve money from the Government, nor is it affiliated with the Government, nor are BBC appointments made by the Government nor does it come under the influence of the Government. The BBC was given the legal right to raise taxes through the license fee. That is a fee it charges people for the ownership of a television (one fee per household). The Government cannot adjust the fee and while it could in theory reverse the law in question that would mean the destruction of one of the most important British institutions. If they actually made it to the next election after suggesting such an idea they'd be voted out by such a huge majority it'd be the destruction of the political party stupid enough to try it. The BBC is above the law in British politics. The Government cannot touch its funding and if the Government decided to go head to head against the BBC they'd find everyone in Britain knowing about it very quickly. The BBC is accountable only to its own internal watchdogs (which the Government also has no power over) which ensure balance, independence and accountable spending of public money. I don't know what corrupt shit goes on in your country but when the British make an independent public media body they don't make it the tool of whichever politician is in power at the time. For reference, a few years ago there was a leak about how Blair was making shit up in his Iraq dossier. The Gov leaked the name of the whistleblower, Dr David Kelly, who came under tremendous personal and public pressure and ended up committing suicide. The Government tried to gag everyone and the BBC refused.
Maybe I misworded my earlier post, when I say government I mean that the people of Britain put that government in power, which means that the majority of British citizens support/believe what their government is doing is right (Torrie and Labor government have the same foreign policy when it comes to China). The BBC like any other network these days only cares about making money. Reporting what the public does not want to hear (the truth) = said public switching to Sky News or whatever which in turn = less moneys for their directors and producers to spend on golden yachts
@mangomango
Yes I pasted it (and I only know see that i should have spoilered it)
|
United States44063 Posts
On February 03 2010 16:26 fox[tail] wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 09:31 KwarK wrote:On February 03 2010 08:36 fox[tail] wrote:On February 03 2010 08:08 .risingdragoon wrote:
Look, I know where you're going with that. I suggested BBC to laymen cus on average their reporting still contains traces of alternate perspectives, some actual interviewing at the source and with non-partial concerned, and a sense of skepticism like they've not made up their own minds themselves.
Yes they may spend 5 min at the end of a 45 min report on that, but it's still kinda sorta there, instead of this bullshit secret handshake thing where everyone in north american news is in on but nobody's directly verbalizing anything The sad fact is that they only do that to look like they are non-bias when in fact the way they present the news gives you the illusion that you can make up your mind about the matter without their influence, when in fact they give you only one option. The BBC is funded by the people, which means they have to listen to their government, they only care about being PC and 90% of the time report everything from a leftist angle, and we all know that the BBC is extremely biased towards china and uses every chance they get to connect them with negative things I can't think of a nicer way to say this than "you don't know shit". So here goes. You don't know shit about shit. Yes, the BBC is publicly funded. However it does not recieve money from the Government, nor is it affiliated with the Government, nor are BBC appointments made by the Government nor does it come under the influence of the Government. The BBC was given the legal right to raise taxes through the license fee. That is a fee it charges people for the ownership of a television (one fee per household). The Government cannot adjust the fee and while it could in theory reverse the law in question that would mean the destruction of one of the most important British institutions. If they actually made it to the next election after suggesting such an idea they'd be voted out by such a huge majority it'd be the destruction of the political party stupid enough to try it. The BBC is above the law in British politics. The Government cannot touch its funding and if the Government decided to go head to head against the BBC they'd find everyone in Britain knowing about it very quickly. The BBC is accountable only to its own internal watchdogs (which the Government also has no power over) which ensure balance, independence and accountable spending of public money. I don't know what corrupt shit goes on in your country but when the British make an independent public media body they don't make it the tool of whichever politician is in power at the time. For reference, a few years ago there was a leak about how Blair was making shit up in his Iraq dossier. The Gov leaked the name of the whistleblower, Dr David Kelly, who came under tremendous personal and public pressure and ended up committing suicide. The Government tried to gag everyone and the BBC refused. Maybe I misworded my earlier post, when I say government I mean that the people of Britain put that government in power, which means that the majority of British citizens support/believe what their government is doing is right (Torrie and Labor government have the same foreign policy when it comes to China). The BBC like any other network these days only cares about making money. Reporting what the public does not want to hear (the truth) = said public switching to Sky News or whatever which in turn = less moneys for their directors and producers to spend on golden yachts @mangomango Yes I pasted it (and I only know see that i should have spoilered it)
No, you still don't know shit about shit.
The BBC does not only care about making money. Know why I can be so sure about that?
Because it doesn't fucking make money. It's a publicly funded institution. It's free. It doesn't charge anything. They don't lose any ad revenue if I don't like the BBC news and switch over to Sky. Guess why? NO FUCKING ADS.
Seriously, I don't make up shit about Serbia, quit making up shit about Britain. You don't know anything and every Brit would find your posts amusingly nonsensical but someone who isn't familiar with the system might accidentally confuse you with a person who doesn't have their mouth and anus miswired.
|
On February 02 2010 20:27 emucxg wrote:
why Obama have to meet Dalai Lama?
Cuz Obama jacked his nobel peace prize.
|
On February 03 2010 15:15 StorkHwaiting wrote:
And I think it's interesting Obama would take this route when he was all about multilateralism and smart diplomacy as a supposed contrast to Bush. Poking China in the eye for the sake of nothing more than rhetoric is stupidity in my opinion and I don't think it serves the USA's interests at all. Although, I'm from the school of thought that thinks cooperation with China would serve the country more than antagonism. There's a significant minority of America's leaders that thinks the opposite route should be taken.
Actually it is political maneuvering. What most people aren't taking into account is how closely this followed the US arms deal with Taiwan. While Western media paints the picture that US isn't consenting to Chinese demands on the matter, it mentions little on the fact that actually MOST of the requests made by Taiwan in the negotiated deal was actually later reneged by the US after Chinese demands including several key components such as the Raptors. Meeting with the Dalai Lama is essentially the US's way of "saving face" themselves hence why I wasn't very surprised at the decision at all.
|
On February 03 2010 16:32 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 16:26 fox[tail] wrote:On February 03 2010 09:31 KwarK wrote:On February 03 2010 08:36 fox[tail] wrote:On February 03 2010 08:08 .risingdragoon wrote:
Look, I know where you're going with that. I suggested BBC to laymen cus on average their reporting still contains traces of alternate perspectives, some actual interviewing at the source and with non-partial concerned, and a sense of skepticism like they've not made up their own minds themselves.
Yes they may spend 5 min at the end of a 45 min report on that, but it's still kinda sorta there, instead of this bullshit secret handshake thing where everyone in north american news is in on but nobody's directly verbalizing anything The sad fact is that they only do that to look like they are non-bias when in fact the way they present the news gives you the illusion that you can make up your mind about the matter without their influence, when in fact they give you only one option. The BBC is funded by the people, which means they have to listen to their government, they only care about being PC and 90% of the time report everything from a leftist angle, and we all know that the BBC is extremely biased towards china and uses every chance they get to connect them with negative things I can't think of a nicer way to say this than "you don't know shit". So here goes. You don't know shit about shit. Yes, the BBC is publicly funded. However it does not recieve money from the Government, nor is it affiliated with the Government, nor are BBC appointments made by the Government nor does it come under the influence of the Government. The BBC was given the legal right to raise taxes through the license fee. That is a fee it charges people for the ownership of a television (one fee per household). The Government cannot adjust the fee and while it could in theory reverse the law in question that would mean the destruction of one of the most important British institutions. If they actually made it to the next election after suggesting such an idea they'd be voted out by such a huge majority it'd be the destruction of the political party stupid enough to try it. The BBC is above the law in British politics. The Government cannot touch its funding and if the Government decided to go head to head against the BBC they'd find everyone in Britain knowing about it very quickly. The BBC is accountable only to its own internal watchdogs (which the Government also has no power over) which ensure balance, independence and accountable spending of public money. I don't know what corrupt shit goes on in your country but when the British make an independent public media body they don't make it the tool of whichever politician is in power at the time. For reference, a few years ago there was a leak about how Blair was making shit up in his Iraq dossier. The Gov leaked the name of the whistleblower, Dr David Kelly, who came under tremendous personal and public pressure and ended up committing suicide. The Government tried to gag everyone and the BBC refused. Maybe I misworded my earlier post, when I say government I mean that the people of Britain put that government in power, which means that the majority of British citizens support/believe what their government is doing is right (Torrie and Labor government have the same foreign policy when it comes to China). The BBC like any other network these days only cares about making money. Reporting what the public does not want to hear (the truth) = said public switching to Sky News or whatever which in turn = less moneys for their directors and producers to spend on golden yachts @mangomango Yes I pasted it (and I only know see that i should have spoilered it) No, you still don't know shit about shit. The BBC does not only care about making money. Know why I can be so sure about that? Because it doesn't fucking make money. It's a publicly funded institution. It's free. It doesn't charge anything. They don't lose any ad revenue if I don't like the BBC news and switch over to Sky. Guess why? NO FUCKING ADS. Seriously, I don't make up shit about Serbia, quit making up shit about Britain. You don't know anything and every Brit would find your posts amusingly nonsensical but someone who isn't familiar with the system might accidentally confuse you with a person who doesn't have their mouth and anus miswired.
I'm curious about this. If the BBC makes no money, how does it pay it's workers? The very idea that it's a publicly funded institution dictates that the funds have to come from somewhere ...?
Edit: In fact, after wondering this, I looked up BBC funding and there's quite a few articles supporting foxtail's claims.
|
United States44063 Posts
On February 03 2010 16:37 KissBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 16:32 KwarK wrote:On February 03 2010 16:26 fox[tail] wrote:On February 03 2010 09:31 KwarK wrote:On February 03 2010 08:36 fox[tail] wrote:On February 03 2010 08:08 .risingdragoon wrote:
Look, I know where you're going with that. I suggested BBC to laymen cus on average their reporting still contains traces of alternate perspectives, some actual interviewing at the source and with non-partial concerned, and a sense of skepticism like they've not made up their own minds themselves.
Yes they may spend 5 min at the end of a 45 min report on that, but it's still kinda sorta there, instead of this bullshit secret handshake thing where everyone in north american news is in on but nobody's directly verbalizing anything The sad fact is that they only do that to look like they are non-bias when in fact the way they present the news gives you the illusion that you can make up your mind about the matter without their influence, when in fact they give you only one option. The BBC is funded by the people, which means they have to listen to their government, they only care about being PC and 90% of the time report everything from a leftist angle, and we all know that the BBC is extremely biased towards china and uses every chance they get to connect them with negative things I can't think of a nicer way to say this than "you don't know shit". So here goes. You don't know shit about shit. Yes, the BBC is publicly funded. However it does not recieve money from the Government, nor is it affiliated with the Government, nor are BBC appointments made by the Government nor does it come under the influence of the Government. The BBC was given the legal right to raise taxes through the license fee. That is a fee it charges people for the ownership of a television (one fee per household). The Government cannot adjust the fee and while it could in theory reverse the law in question that would mean the destruction of one of the most important British institutions. If they actually made it to the next election after suggesting such an idea they'd be voted out by such a huge majority it'd be the destruction of the political party stupid enough to try it. The BBC is above the law in British politics. The Government cannot touch its funding and if the Government decided to go head to head against the BBC they'd find everyone in Britain knowing about it very quickly. The BBC is accountable only to its own internal watchdogs (which the Government also has no power over) which ensure balance, independence and accountable spending of public money. I don't know what corrupt shit goes on in your country but when the British make an independent public media body they don't make it the tool of whichever politician is in power at the time. For reference, a few years ago there was a leak about how Blair was making shit up in his Iraq dossier. The Gov leaked the name of the whistleblower, Dr David Kelly, who came under tremendous personal and public pressure and ended up committing suicide. The Government tried to gag everyone and the BBC refused. Maybe I misworded my earlier post, when I say government I mean that the people of Britain put that government in power, which means that the majority of British citizens support/believe what their government is doing is right (Torrie and Labor government have the same foreign policy when it comes to China). The BBC like any other network these days only cares about making money. Reporting what the public does not want to hear (the truth) = said public switching to Sky News or whatever which in turn = less moneys for their directors and producers to spend on golden yachts @mangomango Yes I pasted it (and I only know see that i should have spoilered it) No, you still don't know shit about shit. The BBC does not only care about making money. Know why I can be so sure about that? Because it doesn't fucking make money. It's a publicly funded institution. It's free. It doesn't charge anything. They don't lose any ad revenue if I don't like the BBC news and switch over to Sky. Guess why? NO FUCKING ADS. Seriously, I don't make up shit about Serbia, quit making up shit about Britain. You don't know anything and every Brit would find your posts amusingly nonsensical but someone who isn't familiar with the system might accidentally confuse you with a person who doesn't have their mouth and anus miswired. I'm curious about this. If the BBC makes no money, how does it pay it's workers? The very idea that it's a publicly funded institution dictates that the funds have to come from somewhere ...?
It has the power to levy a private tax on all British tv owning households called the License Fee. This tax is independent of the Government.
The BBC dates back to when Britain was the foremost world power and was designed with idealistic notions of an impartial voice serving the public. It has it's own charter, internal checks and balances, financial accountability (to it's own watchdog) and absolute independence. It can and has clashed publicly with the Government. It's a well crafted legacy of a more idealistic age and it makes me angry to see a foreigner with no idea how it works making up lies about it.
|
On February 03 2010 16:38 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 16:37 KissBlade wrote:On February 03 2010 16:32 KwarK wrote:On February 03 2010 16:26 fox[tail] wrote:On February 03 2010 09:31 KwarK wrote:On February 03 2010 08:36 fox[tail] wrote:On February 03 2010 08:08 .risingdragoon wrote:
Look, I know where you're going with that. I suggested BBC to laymen cus on average their reporting still contains traces of alternate perspectives, some actual interviewing at the source and with non-partial concerned, and a sense of skepticism like they've not made up their own minds themselves.
Yes they may spend 5 min at the end of a 45 min report on that, but it's still kinda sorta there, instead of this bullshit secret handshake thing where everyone in north american news is in on but nobody's directly verbalizing anything The sad fact is that they only do that to look like they are non-bias when in fact the way they present the news gives you the illusion that you can make up your mind about the matter without their influence, when in fact they give you only one option. The BBC is funded by the people, which means they have to listen to their government, they only care about being PC and 90% of the time report everything from a leftist angle, and we all know that the BBC is extremely biased towards china and uses every chance they get to connect them with negative things I can't think of a nicer way to say this than "you don't know shit". So here goes. You don't know shit about shit. Yes, the BBC is publicly funded. However it does not recieve money from the Government, nor is it affiliated with the Government, nor are BBC appointments made by the Government nor does it come under the influence of the Government. The BBC was given the legal right to raise taxes through the license fee. That is a fee it charges people for the ownership of a television (one fee per household). The Government cannot adjust the fee and while it could in theory reverse the law in question that would mean the destruction of one of the most important British institutions. If they actually made it to the next election after suggesting such an idea they'd be voted out by such a huge majority it'd be the destruction of the political party stupid enough to try it. The BBC is above the law in British politics. The Government cannot touch its funding and if the Government decided to go head to head against the BBC they'd find everyone in Britain knowing about it very quickly. The BBC is accountable only to its own internal watchdogs (which the Government also has no power over) which ensure balance, independence and accountable spending of public money. I don't know what corrupt shit goes on in your country but when the British make an independent public media body they don't make it the tool of whichever politician is in power at the time. For reference, a few years ago there was a leak about how Blair was making shit up in his Iraq dossier. The Gov leaked the name of the whistleblower, Dr David Kelly, who came under tremendous personal and public pressure and ended up committing suicide. The Government tried to gag everyone and the BBC refused. Maybe I misworded my earlier post, when I say government I mean that the people of Britain put that government in power, which means that the majority of British citizens support/believe what their government is doing is right (Torrie and Labor government have the same foreign policy when it comes to China). The BBC like any other network these days only cares about making money. Reporting what the public does not want to hear (the truth) = said public switching to Sky News or whatever which in turn = less moneys for their directors and producers to spend on golden yachts @mangomango Yes I pasted it (and I only know see that i should have spoilered it) No, you still don't know shit about shit. The BBC does not only care about making money. Know why I can be so sure about that? Because it doesn't fucking make money. It's a publicly funded institution. It's free. It doesn't charge anything. They don't lose any ad revenue if I don't like the BBC news and switch over to Sky. Guess why? NO FUCKING ADS. Seriously, I don't make up shit about Serbia, quit making up shit about Britain. You don't know anything and every Brit would find your posts amusingly nonsensical but someone who isn't familiar with the system might accidentally confuse you with a person who doesn't have their mouth and anus miswired. I'm curious about this. If the BBC makes no money, how does it pay it's workers? The very idea that it's a publicly funded institution dictates that the funds have to come from somewhere ...? It has the power to levy a private tax on all British tv owning households called the License Fee. This tax is independent of the Government.
Correct me if I'm wrong (which I may very well be, I only just started looking things up about BBC) but isn't BBC's operations overseen by governors appointed by the Crown?
Also I should point out, Fox News clashes with the government too (especially current regime). However, you can hardly claim it is an unbiased or reliable source ... And I say this as a Republican!
|
On February 03 2010 16:32 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 16:26 fox[tail] wrote:On February 03 2010 09:31 KwarK wrote:On February 03 2010 08:36 fox[tail] wrote:On February 03 2010 08:08 .risingdragoon wrote:
Look, I know where you're going with that. I suggested BBC to laymen cus on average their reporting still contains traces of alternate perspectives, some actual interviewing at the source and with non-partial concerned, and a sense of skepticism like they've not made up their own minds themselves.
Yes they may spend 5 min at the end of a 45 min report on that, but it's still kinda sorta there, instead of this bullshit secret handshake thing where everyone in north american news is in on but nobody's directly verbalizing anything The sad fact is that they only do that to look like they are non-bias when in fact the way they present the news gives you the illusion that you can make up your mind about the matter without their influence, when in fact they give you only one option. The BBC is funded by the people, which means they have to listen to their government, they only care about being PC and 90% of the time report everything from a leftist angle, and we all know that the BBC is extremely biased towards china and uses every chance they get to connect them with negative things I can't think of a nicer way to say this than "you don't know shit". So here goes. You don't know shit about shit. Yes, the BBC is publicly funded. However it does not recieve money from the Government, nor is it affiliated with the Government, nor are BBC appointments made by the Government nor does it come under the influence of the Government. The BBC was given the legal right to raise taxes through the license fee. That is a fee it charges people for the ownership of a television (one fee per household). The Government cannot adjust the fee and while it could in theory reverse the law in question that would mean the destruction of one of the most important British institutions. If they actually made it to the next election after suggesting such an idea they'd be voted out by such a huge majority it'd be the destruction of the political party stupid enough to try it. The BBC is above the law in British politics. The Government cannot touch its funding and if the Government decided to go head to head against the BBC they'd find everyone in Britain knowing about it very quickly. The BBC is accountable only to its own internal watchdogs (which the Government also has no power over) which ensure balance, independence and accountable spending of public money. I don't know what corrupt shit goes on in your country but when the British make an independent public media body they don't make it the tool of whichever politician is in power at the time. For reference, a few years ago there was a leak about how Blair was making shit up in his Iraq dossier. The Gov leaked the name of the whistleblower, Dr David Kelly, who came under tremendous personal and public pressure and ended up committing suicide. The Government tried to gag everyone and the BBC refused. Maybe I misworded my earlier post, when I say government I mean that the people of Britain put that government in power, which means that the majority of British citizens support/believe what their government is doing is right (Torrie and Labor government have the same foreign policy when it comes to China). The BBC like any other network these days only cares about making money. Reporting what the public does not want to hear (the truth) = said public switching to Sky News or whatever which in turn = less moneys for their directors and producers to spend on golden yachts @mangomango Yes I pasted it (and I only know see that i should have spoilered it) No, you still don't know shit about shit. The BBC does not only care about making money. Know why I can be so sure about that? Because it doesn't fucking make money. It's a publicly funded institution. It's free. It doesn't charge anything. They don't lose any ad revenue if I don't like the BBC news and switch over to Sky. Guess why? NO FUCKING ADS. Seriously, I don't make up shit about Serbia, quit making up shit about Britain. You don't know anything and every Brit would find your posts amusingly nonsensical but someone who isn't familiar with the system might accidentally confuse you with a person who doesn't have their mouth and anus miswired.
I meant that they make that money from their paychecks, i mean ok, it's not enough for golden yachts but you get what I'm trying to say, Serbia also has a publicly funded state tv and they are government lapdogs. If the majority of Britain is paying £150 a year to listen to what they don't want to hear it creates problems and jobs are lost within the BBC
|
On February 03 2010 13:24 Masamune wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 13:11 King K. Rool wrote:On February 03 2010 13:04 Masamune wrote:
Isn't the Dalai Lama the leader of a certain sect of Buddhism? So why shouldn't Obama meet with him? I even read the Dalai Lama will probably be in the U.S. when he visits Obama so who gives a shit? China wouldn't hesitate to greet the Pope if he stopped by in Beijing, and the Catholic Church's track record isn't stellar either.
I realize there are politcal issues surrounding the Dalai Lama but China has freely used it veto power in the UN security council to go against U.S. interests before, so fuck them.
Do you have no idea what's going on in Tibet, like none at all? I realize there are politcal issues surrounding the Dalai Lama but China has freely used it veto power in the UN security council to go against U.S. interests before, so fuck them.
So which part are you talking about? The fact that China used the veto no more than 6 times during all say 50 years in UN? while United States used it no less than 40?
If you look even more closely, All China's vetoes are purely reactionary. They abstain most of their votes.
You and the west are conjuring an adversary relationship when historically there were none.
Like it or not, China has a voice. Deal with it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_veto_power
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
