Um ..... yeah - what he said ;) .

Seriously Cerek, you might see through Faux News (good for you), but there are thousands and millions who surprisingly enough - don't.

<font color=deepskyblue>A good example of my "seeing through" Fox in general can be summed up with Bill O'Reilly.

The first time I even heard of him, he had been scheduled to appear on the Today show, but refused to show up for the interview because Today refused to give a "free plug" for his new book. O'Reilly got angry because it IS pretty much S.O.P. to give the guests a free plug for their latest book or movie or whatever. Anyway, O'Reilly had his publicist appear in his place. As I listened to this guy explain why O'Reilly refused to show up, I though "Geez, what a JERK this guy must be." Then I found out that O'Reilly was a conservative instead of a liberal. During the War, I watched Bill O'Reilly's "No Spin Zone" fairly regularly. I did enjoy the way he attacked a lot of the B.S. Spin put out by the liberal side of the media, but the more I watched, the LESS enamored I became of him.

First of all, to call his show the No Spin Zone is akin to calling WWE "Rasslin" the International Greco-Roman Championships. He puts a hard, right spin on every aspect of the show. Even stories that weren't that "liberal" to begin with, still got a strong counter-spin from him. But the biggest problem I had with Bill O'Reilly is that he is sometimes nothing more than a big crybaby. He frequently calls liberals very harsh names and constantly tells any "guests" on his show to "Shut Up" if he disagrees with what they're saying and he wants to put his counterspin on their comments. He will shout them down, talk over them, and eventually tell them to "Shut Up" so that he can be heard without interference. That's all well and good, it IS his show after all. But when other people treat HIM the same way, he gets infuriated and threatens to sue them. I specifically find his ongoing war with they guy that wrote "Big Lies and the Liars that Tell Them" (or something to that effect). The author just happened to place Bill O'Reilly's picture on the cover next to the word "Liar". O'Reilly was <font color=red>livid</font> and the two have had an ongoing feud ever since.

I'm sorry, but if you're going to dish out that kind of grief, then you had dang sure be able to "take it" when the opposition retaliates.

I still like to listen to O'Reilly, but only from an entertainment aspect, not from an "informative" one. </font>

<font color=deepskyblue>I agree with you completely, <font color=orange>Grojlach</font>. The average citizen in most countries doesn't really care about politics - and that is true for those on both sides of the political spectrum. When they are "goaded into an opinion", they are going to look for sources they agree with for their information.

I'm guilty political apathy myself. I RARELY watch the news and hardly ever even read the local paper, much less a national one. As I said before, I get most of my information regarding Current Events off the internet. I find a good mix of CNN, AP, and Reuters will usually give me a fairly balanced view overall regarding a story or situation.

But despite my lack of interest in things political (and my staunch support of President Bush), I still knew there wasn't a strong connection (if any) between Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. I did believe Saddam had WMD's, though I didn't really feel the threat from these weapons was as "imminent" as President Bush implied. Still I supported the War and getting rid of Saddam Hussein on general principles because of the atrocities committed by him and his sons.</font>

For those interested, the trailer for the movie has been released - you can watch it here.

By arguing with the notion that Australians are human, you're asserting the notion that they're something else, in this particular case, super human. Defend against the argument or submit to the point that Australians are human, are subject to temptation, and can be just as bad as anyone else. If Australians are so good, why do you need big government?

First, I'd like to know how many Americans have moved there, and then I'd like you to prove that they moved there due to the crime rate. Remember, even if 300,000 people moved there a year, we can afford to lose that many, ten times over, and not even think about the flux.

So what? People are people, aren't they? Or did I miss the part where we vary more than we do from Chimps?

Don't be thick. Nationality is irrelevant. You're drawing comparisons where none exist. What's more, I don't theorize conspiracies. I mention theories others have constructed, and I give weight to them in arguments, to show different perpsectives or whatever, but I wouldn't call that theorizing. I've given weight to mathematical and physics theories in academic discussions, but I doubt you'd be willing to call me a Physics theorist. You're calling a trowel a spade.

Yorick posted:
Really? I had heard it was because for a time during the 80s and perhaps 90s Australia was offering FREE OR CHEAP LAND to Americans, much like the U.S. did when it was trying to draw people to the midwest (e.g. Kansas and Missouri) during Manifest Destiny. I may be wrong on this, but that was the rumor. No offense to Aussies or Aborigines intended, of course.

I've got a desert I can sell ya TL ;) . All the good land is pretty much taken around these here parts hombre [img]smile.gif[/img] .

I hear on the news that they got a distributor for the film - the Wienstein (sp) boys came through [img]smile.gif[/img]

Until you visit the place you're wasting your time writing words rooted in ignorance.

Go there and visit.

Go there and see for yourself.

I never argued Australians weren't human. Humans have different strengths and weaknesses. I am pointing out difference, not superiority. A nations land, position, climate and neighbors shape the COLLECTIVE PSYCHOLOGY of a nation.

The average American is remarkably ignorant of nations outside the USA for example. Stupid? No nothing to do with it. Uneducated? No, nothing to do with it. The collective psychology has shaped particular spheres of interest in individuals.

It has nothing to do with being super human or subhuman, but being different. A factor you would have understood if you went outside America.

Until you do it's pointless discussing this.

The average American is remarkably ignorant of nations outside the USA for example. Stupid? No nothing to do with it. Uneducated? No, nothing to do with it. The collective psychology has shaped particular spheres of interest in individuals.

at the same time, yorick, i would say that (in my experience living in europe) most people in europe are remarkably ignorant of USA and its people. there are so many people here who don't have a clue what america is like. try explaining to a german the idea that there is open land where you can hike fifty miles and never see anything man-made... they just don't get the differences in culture.

im not saying its one way, either. i had to "educate" a few tourists when they got huffy that there weren't lines to get on a boat, but a crowd instead. its something people dont realize, and that failure to understand runs both ways.