EPTMedia Rant, Part II
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Excalibur_Z
United States12275 Posts
| ||
Klogon
MURICA15980 Posts
| ||
|
Mydnyte
3306 Posts
 | ||
|
Klogon
MURICA15980 Posts
| ||
|
Tien
Russian Federation4447 Posts
| ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
On May 27 2004 19:52 Tien wrote: do they have that speech on audio anywhere? I dont want to read a 20 page document. Makes my eyes hurt. c-span | ||
|
NewbSaibot
3849 Posts
Anyway, heres my take on it: 1) you are comparing the present modern day to 60 years ago, and think we are the same people just acting different. This is not the case imo. I believe back then, people were SCARED of being themselves, scared of being honest and saying what they really wanted. I mean, gays existed back then. Blowjobs existed. Prostitution existed. Incest existed. Yet if you were to try and talk about this 60 years ago people would pretend they had no idea what you were talking about. Nothing has changed, we just arent as restricted anymore. Even today, people still feel the need to bite their tongues and watch how they behave, but at least its nowhere near as restricted as it was back then. I dont think the media is trying to teach us morals. The only reason we seem to act morally different today is because we are allowed to. People thought and felt the same things about their leaders in the 50's, they just didnt voice their opinions as strongly as we do today. Bush is an awful awful man, as a person. And the more wild and eccentric he gets, the more people are starting to feel this way. We have good reason to hate his character and not just his politics. Because his character AFFECTS his politics, if not down right defines them. And that is a big no no in our country. You arent supposed to lead based off how you personally think and feel about something, that is selfish. You are supposed to lead for what is truely best for the society, so that we can make progress. Given that, you cant help but attack Bush personally when you question his governing abilities, because with him the 2 go hand in hand. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
 | ||
|
Commander{+}
United States2878 Posts
| ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12275 Posts
On May 27 2004 19:55 NewbSaibot wrote: 1) you are comparing the present modern day to 60 years ago, and think we are the same people just acting different. This is not the case imo. I believe back then, people were SCARED of being themselves, scared of being honest and saying what they really wanted. I mean, gays existed back then. Blowjobs existed. Prostitution existed. Incest existed. Yet if you were to try and talk about this 60 years ago people would pretend they had no idea what you were talking about. Nothing has changed, we just arent as restricted anymore. Even today, people still feel the need to bite their tongues and watch how they behave, but at least its nowhere near as restricted as it was back then. Why shouldn't it be restricted? Yes people knew these things existed but it was not celebrated openly by the media. It was not brought out into the public eye. Now that it is, look at the effects: increased teen pregnancy rates, increased divorce rates, increased infidelity, and so on. There is no reason for these things to enter a public square, where impressionable children can be affected and influenced. I dont think the media is trying to teach us morals. The only reason we seem to act morally different today is because we are allowed to. People thought and felt the same things about their leaders in the 50's, they just didnt voice their opinions as strongly as we do today. Bush is an awful awful man, as a person. And the more wild and eccentric he gets, the more people are starting to feel this way. We have good reason to hate his character and not just his politics. Because his character AFFECTS his politics, if not down right defines them. And that is a big no no in our country. You arent supposed to lead based off how you personally think and feel about something, that is selfish. You are supposed to lead for what is truely best for the society, so that we can make progress. Given that, you cant help but attack Bush personally when you question his governing abilities, because with him the 2 go hand in hand. The President is elected by the electoral college, which is comprised of representatives elected by the people. The President is supposed to lead based on his beliefs, that is the power of the executive branch. The people's beliefs are supposed to be echoed by the House and Senate, which have the true power of legislature and decision-making. Congresspeople in the "heyday of America" did not openly condemn the President, especially in a time of war, but they do now. Does that not promote divisive action? Is the true desire of Americans not to always stand together, despite disagreements of policy? We've fallen a long way from that time, with the help of the media's subjugation of morality and desire to push its own agenda, and the agenda of the left. | ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12275 Posts
On May 27 2004 20:02 Commander[SB] wrote: Excals always got beef with something. Liberals, potheads, now its sex and the city? If anyone could learn something from my post, it's you =] | ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
The more you rant, the more that it becomes obvious that you do not understand any of the issues in which you speak of at any in depth level. | ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12275 Posts
On May 27 2004 20:18 TeCh)PsylO wrote: Excalibur, what do you really know about the 1950's ? What do you really know about who is in control of the media? Do you really think the media "celebrates" prostitution and pedaphiles? The more you rant, the more that it becomes obvious that you do not understand any of the issues in which you speak of at any in depth level. Everything I said is true and relevant to my point. Don't start with "what do you REALLY know" like there's some deeper meaning, because there isn't. This is it. The media DOES celebrate prostitution, pedophilia, and sexual perversion - they are reported constantly and are the subjects of many prime-time shows. Perhaps it's just the media trying to be more controversial, but if that's true then they aren't realizing the collateral damage they are causing to children. The media also undermines the war effort - in the days of WWII, the media openly cheered on our soldiers while condemning the enemy. You surely remember seeing clips of the newsreels that had narration like "our brave boys captured the Kraut city of Munich today, take that Hitler!" Now it's the other way around. Now we have the Associated Press reporting an anti-American Muslim in Oregon as "a fiery Muslim cleric" and al-Sadr as "the fiery young Muslim leader" and reporting more about American prisoner abuse than the WMD Sarin gas discovery and Nick Berg's beheading. | ||
|
Commander{+}
United States2878 Posts
On May 27 2004 20:13 Excalibur_Z wrote: If anyone could learn something from my post, it's you =] Thanks Excal, but I prefer to sticking to being open-minded rather then becoming blindly patriotic. | ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
"on't start with "what do you REALLY know" like there's some deeper meaning, because there isn't" Of course theres no deaper meaning. The world is black and white. Good vs evil. Conservative vs liberal. That explains it all. | ||
Arbiter[frolix]
United Kingdom2674 Posts
and reporting more about American prisoner abuse than the WMD Sarin gas discovery A credibility-damaging comment, I am afraid. Prisoner abuse by British and American troops is a vital issue which the media should pursue vigorously. The difference between these acts and those of our 'enemies' is that we are directly responsible for them and can take immediate internal action to deal with them. They also impact directly on the credibility and moral standing of the 'coalition' which, after all, initiated the war in Iraq and needs to be above reproach. The 'WMD Sarin gas discovery' was a complete non-event, surprisingly given the short shrift it deserved by the media. I was anticipating that the media would be all over it as being some kind of support for the invasion. | ||
|
Tien
Russian Federation4447 Posts
We like to hear stories about prostitution, pedofils, violence, crimes, and war so that is exactly what it gives us. We like to hear things like prison abuse more than Nick Berg's beheading so that is what they give us. Americans are starting to doubt the Iraq war so they will give us more reason to do so, cuz thats what Americans want to see. The higher the ratings, the more they can charge the companies that want to advertize their products on a particular show. What makes you think they give a fuck about what they are teaching us, they only care about the ratings so they get paid more. Its as simple as that. | ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
| ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12275 Posts
On May 27 2004 20:36 TeCh)PsylO wrote: Is it not the media's job to be the watch dog?! "on't start with "what do you REALLY know" like there's some deeper meaning, because there isn't" Of course theres no deaper meaning. The world is black and white. Good vs evil. Conservative vs liberal. That explains it all. It's the media's job to report the news. There are thousands of stories in the world that they can report. Think about what they choose to report. It's also the media's job to provide entertainment. Think about the topics and the subject matter of those shows. Most of the information sent out by the media is driven by political correctness and sensationalism. And while some things are not black-and-white, many things are. It's kind of sad that you mockingly, sarcastically mention that, because I know liberals don't want to be judgmental. However why do they not denounce the enemy when the enemy strikes? Why do they not support the American effort against the enemy? This isn't just you I'm talking about, either. CAIR, the Center for American-Islamic Relations, said nothing condemning the beheading of Nick Berg. If they really represent mainstream Muslims, why are they not the first ones to speak out against such a horrendous evil act? The New York Times didn't print the 7 pictures of the wanted terrorists (or would-be terrorists) from the FBI. Why would they choose not to do that? | ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12275 Posts
On May 27 2004 20:46 TeCh)PsylO wrote: The Sarin gas has been shown to be from pre-1991 stockpiles. Surprised? Not really. That is irrelevant. Saddam said he destroyed ALL his stockpiles. That would include the ones before 1991. He lied. | ||
| ||
