Which presidential candidate will you vote for?

Maybe there should be. In the interests of, you know. Fairness. And balance.

Clint Eastwood's appearance at the RNC

Clint Eastwood was the coolest guy a month ago now he is public enemy number one .. i fucking hate politics.

Clint has done more for me than any other politician, i don't care what his politics are, i enjoy his movies.

I'd like to see the DNC have a young woman as their special guest, to contrast with the GOP as the party for old angry men.

  On 8/31/2012 at 1:02 PM, azatoth said:

I'd like to see the DNC have a young woman as their special guest, to contrast with the GOP as the party for old angry men.

they would put up that young black HR as a counter to that. she's fine too..Mia Love I think her name was? Too bad she's an idiot.

If Mia Love isn't a porn star's name, call me Maxx Nut

The RNC were planning to have a hologram Reagan make an appearance but scrapped it because they thought it might upstage the Romney speech. Says something about how uncharismatic Romney is when a dead president could upstage him.

  On 8/31/2012 at 6:47 PM, azatoth said:

The RNC were planning to have a hologram Reagan make an appearance but scrapped it because they thought it might upstage the Romney speech. Says something about how uncharismatic Romney is when a dead president could upstage him.

Only further proves that the GOP is a bunch of nutters, increasingly irrational and out of touch with reality.

What this proves about the GOP is not news: they've had no new ideas since 1980.

  On 8/31/2012 at 10:32 AM, eugene said:

there are degrees of "biased" though, there's no us-sponsored russian language channel running 24/7 that tells russian citizens to murder its government (im exaggerating a bit...)

there are degrees, quite extreme ones that you've failed to recognize. You seem intent on denying the influence corporations have over government policy, and i'd take a wild guess and assume you dont think the runup to the iraq war in 2003 was directly coming from the government and being disseminated to nbc, cnn, abc, cbs, fox news, cbs, etc.

you call Russia Today selective, which is interesting since you on one hand seem to recognize propaganda when its coming from a country you don't like but not from anywhere on 'your team'. I'd be really surprised if you admitted that a great deal of the American and Israeli press was straight government propaganda. To single out RT is sort of ridiculous just from a monetary point of view. Even though they are Russian Government ran, they spend far less money on the network than the 'big 3' in the united states, which peddle for the most part manufactured corporate influenced and us government propaganda. So just from a resource perspective, Russia Today aint got shit on these other networks. I think part of you knows this, but you won't admit it.

  On 8/31/2012 at 6:47 PM, azatoth said:

The RNC were planning to have a hologram Reagan make an appearance but scrapped it because they thought it might upstage the Romney speech. Says something about how uncharismatic Romney is when a dead president could upstage him.

can you imagine the ratings if he did a Q&A with tupac?

r-r-r-r-rapping r-r-r-r-ronny r-r-reagan

edit: agreed that eugene calling something selective is fucking hilarious.

  On 8/31/2012 at 9:05 PM, Awepittance said:

  On 8/31/2012 at 10:32 AM, eugene said:

there are degrees of "biased" though, there's no us-sponsored russian language channel running 24/7 that tells russian citizens to murder its government (im exaggerating a bit...)

 

there are degrees, quite extreme ones that you've failed to recognize. You seem intent on denying the influence corporations have over government policy, and i'd take a wild guess and assume you dont think the runup to the iraq war in 2003 was directly coming from the government and being disseminated to nbc, cnn, abc, cbs, fox news, cbs, etc.

 

you call Russia Today selective, which is interesting since you on one hand seem to recognize propaganda when its coming from a country you don't like but not from anywhere on 'your team'. I'd be really surprised if you admitted that a great deal of the American and Israeli press was straight government propaganda. To single out RT is sort of ridiculous just from a monetary point of view. Even though they are Russian Government ran, they spend far less money on the network than the 'big 3' in the united states, which peddle for the most part manufactured corporate influenced and us government propaganda. So just from a resource perspective, Russia Today aint got shit on these other networks. I think part of you knows this, but you won't admit it.

i didn't deny the influence of corporations, just the evidence that's often brought as a proof to that here (see azatoth's pathetic attempts for example) i still have that book (republic lost) i haven't read that was recommended regarding the topic. but on the other hand chomsky's manufacturing consent (the film) which is also often brought as a proof has some serious factual issues (especially regarding east timor conflict) and the thesis itself is completely outdated. i can't say anything regarding the pre-iraq war us media workings, not something i delved into.

i don't just call RT selective, it's fucking horrible in every possible way, not just selective... what i recognize or don't recognize is irrelevant for this topic, unless it somehow proves that RT isn't owned by a modern day Stalin. russia sells gas to all of europe, you think it'll have problems funding RT when the need arises ? when they have people like your sister who'd gladly volunteer to indirectly promote russia's interests then it's obviously even better financially.

Eugene knows all about bias, just check his opinions on the I/P conflict and all the mess related to it.

And what is exactly your proof that corporations don't have a disproportionate influence on policy and media? That it always existed and hasn't had any influence in the big picture?

  On 8/31/2012 at 10:27 PM, eugene said:

  On 8/31/2012 at 9:05 PM, Awepittance said:

  On 8/31/2012 at 10:32 AM, eugene said:

there are degrees of "biased" though, there's no us-sponsored russian language channel running 24/7 that tells russian citizens to murder its government (im exaggerating a bit...)

 

there are degrees, quite extreme ones that you've failed to recognize. You seem intent on denying the influence corporations have over government policy, and i'd take a wild guess and assume you dont think the runup to the iraq war in 2003 was directly coming from the government and being disseminated to nbc, cnn, abc, cbs, fox news, cbs, etc.

 

you call Russia Today selective, which is interesting since you on one hand seem to recognize propaganda when its coming from a country you don't like but not from anywhere on 'your team'. I'd be really surprised if you admitted that a great deal of the American and Israeli press was straight government propaganda. To single out RT is sort of ridiculous just from a monetary point of view. Even though they are Russian Government ran, they spend far less money on the network than the 'big 3' in the united states, which peddle for the most part manufactured corporate influenced and us government propaganda. So just from a resource perspective, Russia Today aint got shit on these other networks. I think part of you knows this, but you won't admit it.

 

i didn't deny the influence of corporations, just the evidence that's often brought as a proof to that here (see azatoth's pathetic attempts for example) i still have that book (republic lost) i haven't read that was recommended regarding the topic. but on the other hand chomsky's manufacturing consent (the film) which is also often brought as a proof has some serious factual issues (especially regarding east timor conflict) and the thesis itself is completely outdated. i can't say anything regarding the pre-iraq war us media workings, not something i delved into.

 

i don't just call RT selective, it's fucking horrible in every possible way, not just selective... what i recognize or don't recognize is irrelevant for this topic, unless it somehow proves that RT isn't owned by a modern day Stalin. russia sells gas to all of europe, you think it'll have problems funding RT when the need arises ? when they have people like your sister who'd gladly volunteer to indirectly promote russia's interests then it's obviously even better financially.

good god not this again. Read the fucking BOOK, don't watch the film.

both claims about east timor and the thesis being "completely outdated" are of course completely bogus.

  On 9/1/2012 at 12:02 AM, azatoth said:

Eugene knows all about bias, just check his opinions on the I/P conflict and all the mess related to it.

 

And what is exactly your proof that corporations don't have a disproportionate influence on policy and media? That it always existed and hasn't had any influence in the big picture?

i don't remember that i claimed that they don't, i just get irritated by the bombastic claims and shit evidence brought as a proof that they do.

  On 9/1/2012 at 4:40 AM, Alcofribas said:

both claims about east timor and the thesis being "completely outdated" are of course completely bogus.

the films spends quite a chunk of its running time to claim how east timor conflict was under-reported compared to vietnam war. but if you compare the actual number of casualties in both conflicts and correlate them with the length of rolls of reports they used in the film you'll discover an almost identical correlation between casualties and reports in both conflicts (in other words 100 dead one report in both conflicts, for example), and that's when taking the the low estimate of vietnam war casualties.

regarding outdated thesis: it completely neglects human agency, something chomsky should be slapped for by every sociologist he meets, and obviously it has no way of explaining the post internet world media dynamics in which we live in.

so naturally i have no interest in the book with a film serving as such a lousy introduction

  On 9/1/2012 at 11:30 AM, eugene said:

  On 9/1/2012 at 12:02 AM, azatoth said:

Eugene knows all about bias, just check his opinions on the I/P conflict and all the mess related to it.

 

And what is exactly your proof that corporations don't have a disproportionate influence on policy and media? That it always existed and hasn't had any influence in the big picture?

i don't remember that i claimed that they don't, i just get irritated by the bombastic claims and shit evidence brought as a proof that they do.

 

  On 9/1/2012 at 4:40 AM, Alcofribas said:

both claims about east timor and the thesis being "completely outdated" are of course completely bogus.

the films spends quite a chunk of its running time to claim how east timor conflict was under-reported compared to vietnam war. but if you compare the actual number of casualties in both conflicts and correlate them with the length of rolls of reports they used in the film you'll discover an almost identical correlation between casualties and reports in both conflicts (in other words 100 dead one report in both conflicts, for example), and that's when taking the the low estimate of vietnam war casualties.

 

regarding outdated thesis: it completely neglects human agency, something chomsky should be slapped for by every sociologist he meets, and obviously it has no way of explaining the post internet world media dynamics in which we live in.

 

so naturally i have no interest in the book with a film serving as such a lousy introduction

So basically you are saying you didn't read the original, but rather "introduced" yourself to a completely different version on a completely different media with little to no peer-review community, with little input from Chomsky and Hermann themselves, in which you cannot see the ridiculously conclusive and wide range of source material used for said book, nor nearly enough focus on numerous and thorough examples of journalistic bias beyond the East Timor conflict.

If I was talking to a student and say said they thought Adam Smith was full of BS, and then followed up that statement by saying they had watched an A&E biography rather than reading any of his material, Id be tempted to throw them out a window.

I guess i don't really see Putin as a modern day Stalin unless you're talking in the hyperbolic paradigm where you would consider Bush as some kind of modern day Hitler. As far as i'm concerned the USA is a lot worse on a global scale in terms of body count. There are many other factors we can look at, but Russia hasn't caused almost 1 million deaths in the last decade.

  On 9/1/2012 at 12:18 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

  On 9/1/2012 at 11:30 AM, eugene said:

  On 9/1/2012 at 12:02 AM, azatoth said:

Eugene knows all about bias, just check his opinions on the I/P conflict and all the mess related to it.

 

And what is exactly your proof that corporations don't have a disproportionate influence on policy and media? That it always existed and hasn't had any influence in the big picture?

i don't remember that i claimed that they don't, i just get irritated by the bombastic claims and shit evidence brought as a proof that they do.

 

  On 9/1/2012 at 4:40 AM, Alcofribas said:

both claims about east timor and the thesis being "completely outdated" are of course completely bogus.

the films spends quite a chunk of its running time to claim how east timor conflict was under-reported compared to vietnam war. but if you compare the actual number of casualties in both conflicts and correlate them with the length of rolls of reports they used in the film you'll discover an almost identical correlation between casualties and reports in both conflicts (in other words 100 dead one report in both conflicts, for example), and that's when taking the the low estimate of vietnam war casualties.

 

regarding outdated thesis: it completely neglects human agency, something chomsky should be slapped for by every sociologist he meets, and obviously it has no way of explaining the post internet world media dynamics in which we live in.

 

so naturally i have no interest in the book with a film serving as such a lousy introduction

 

So basically you are saying you didn't read the original, but rather "introduced" yourself to a completely different version on a completely different media with little to no peer-review community, with little input from Chomsky and Hermann themselves, in which you cannot see the ridiculously conclusive and wide range of source material used for said book, nor nearly enough focus on numerous and thorough examples of journalistic bias beyond the East Timor conflict.

 

If I was talking to a student and say said they thought Adam Smith was full of BS, and then followed up that statement by saying they had watched an A&E biography rather than reading any of his material, Id be tempted to throw them out a window.

lol exactly.

  On 9/1/2012 at 12:18 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

If I was talking to a student and say said they thought Adam Smith was full of BS, and then followed up that statement by saying they had watched an A&E biography rather than reading any of his material, Id be tempted to throw them out a window.

lol

vermin supreme

  On 9/1/2012 at 12:18 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

  On 9/1/2012 at 11:30 AM, eugene said:

  On 9/1/2012 at 12:02 AM, azatoth said:

Eugene knows all about bias, just check his opinions on the I/P conflict and all the mess related to it.

 

And what is exactly your proof that corporations don't have a disproportionate influence on policy and media? That it always existed and hasn't had any influence in the big picture?

i don't remember that i claimed that they don't, i just get irritated by the bombastic claims and shit evidence brought as a proof that they do.

 

  On 9/1/2012 at 4:40 AM, Alcofribas said:

both claims about east timor and the thesis being "completely outdated" are of course completely bogus.

the films spends quite a chunk of its running time to claim how east timor conflict was under-reported compared to vietnam war. but if you compare the actual number of casualties in both conflicts and correlate them with the length of rolls of reports they used in the film you'll discover an almost identical correlation between casualties and reports in both conflicts (in other words 100 dead one report in both conflicts, for example), and that's when taking the the low estimate of vietnam war casualties.

 

regarding outdated thesis: it completely neglects human agency, something chomsky should be slapped for by every sociologist he meets, and obviously it has no way of explaining the post internet world media dynamics in which we live in.

 

so naturally i have no interest in the book with a film serving as such a lousy introduction

 

So basically you are saying you didn't read the original, but rather "introduced" yourself to a completely different version on a completely different media with little to no peer-review community, with little input from Chomsky and Hermann themselves, in which you cannot see the ridiculously conclusive and wide range of source material used for said book, nor nearly enough focus on numerous and thorough examples of journalistic bias beyond the East Timor conflict.

 

If I was talking to a student and say said they thought Adam Smith was full of BS, and then followed up that statement by saying they had watched an A&E biography rather than reading any of his material, Id be tempted to throw them out a window.

wasn't i clear enough that im talking about the film and its problems (where chomsky's mug occupies pretty much every frame and features many direct interviews with him so it's hard to suspect it of misrepresenting his thesis) when replying to alcofribas ?

what's the point of your post exactly ?

actually, let's make it more interesting: find me one example where chomsky distances himself from the film. go !

  On 9/1/2012 at 7:36 PM, eugene said:

  On 9/1/2012 at 12:18 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

  On 9/1/2012 at 11:30 AM, eugene said:

  On 9/1/2012 at 12:02 AM, azatoth said:

Eugene knows all about bias, just check his opinions on the I/P conflict and all the mess related to it.

 

And what is exactly your proof that corporations don't have a disproportionate influence on policy and media? That it always existed and hasn't had any influence in the big picture?

i don't remember that i claimed that they don't, i just get irritated by the bombastic claims and shit evidence brought as a proof that they do.

 

  On 9/1/2012 at 4:40 AM, Alcofribas said:

both claims about east timor and the thesis being "completely outdated" are of course completely bogus.

the films spends quite a chunk of its running time to claim how east timor conflict was under-reported compared to vietnam war. but if you compare the actual number of casualties in both conflicts and correlate them with the length of rolls of reports they used in the film you'll discover an almost identical correlation between casualties and reports in both conflicts (in other words 100 dead one report in both conflicts, for example), and that's when taking the the low estimate of vietnam war casualties.

 

regarding outdated thesis: it completely neglects human agency, something chomsky should be slapped for by every sociologist he meets, and obviously it has no way of explaining the post internet world media dynamics in which we live in.

 

so naturally i have no interest in the book with a film serving as such a lousy introduction

 

So basically you are saying you didn't read the original, but rather "introduced" yourself to a completely different version on a completely different media with little to no peer-review community, with little input from Chomsky and Hermann themselves, in which you cannot see the ridiculously conclusive and wide range of source material used for said book, nor nearly enough focus on numerous and thorough examples of journalistic bias beyond the East Timor conflict.

 

If I was talking to a student and say said they thought Adam Smith was full of BS, and then followed up that statement by saying they had watched an A&E biography rather than reading any of his material, Id be tempted to throw them out a window.

 

wasn't i clear enough that im talking about the film and its problems (where chomsky's mug occupies pretty much every frame and features many direct interviews with him so it's hard to suspect it of misrepresenting his thesis) when replying to alcofribas ?

what's the point of your post exactly ?

you also immediately stated that because of the film you lend no creedence to the research and source material in the book.

You can have direct interviews with multiple people and end up creating something different from what they intended. How do you not understand this?

  On 9/1/2012 at 7:42 PM, eugene said:

actually, let's make it more interesting: find me one example where chomsky distances himself from the film. go !

nice try dodging the original issue. You disregard the man's most critically and academically acclaimed manuscript because you watched a movie about it. Explain to me why this shouldn't be laughable.