Watch Christopher Hitchens Get Waterboarded

[denuseri]

as for the water boarding,, we allready had a mile long thread on that topic in this section of the forums i dont mind thread drift myself paticularly when the original topic is covering well trod ground

as for journalisim: as they will teach you in any journalisim class ...all news period, regardless of source is ussually "tainted" by the people that write it if in no other way than on a subconsious level,,, even the "christian science monitor" whose reputation throughout its history in jouralisim is based on impartiality has news stories that present one sided views

the liberal biasised media , tree hugger left wing so******t comunist contention of the conservative side of politics is no less false than the liberal contention that conservatives are all big business right wing religious fanatics out to shoot everyone

the fact is that all political agendas are indeed fostered by the media as they report the news inadvertantly in some cases and directly in others

as for religion and politics
my mother was a lebanonese jew my father a lutheran

i am of the bahai faith, its considered an off shoot of islam, ive studied many religions and i havent found one yet whose rehtoric condons the violence and hate perpetrated in thier names against those that do not share the same faith

politicians throughout all known human history have allways used religion to thier own personal advantage just like they have used fear and any other manipulation tactic to sway we the massess to do thier bidding

the media (and randolf herst is a good example of bad media) alltough supposably expousing high standards ,
has its own agenda as well, often fixating on whatever gets them the most ratings or subscribers,(or if state controlled on whatever propoganda the state wants) which sometimes coincides and sometimes opposes individual politicians and or thier parties despite the best efforts of a handful of honest people that want to provide a truely impartial truth to the people

in effect the sophists that socrates claimed to not be a member of were in some ways right, at least when it came to observations of human behavior

like most people i dont follow my own political parties dogma to the core, i pick and choose my views based on my own feeling about the issues, for instance, i am a registered republican, and alltough an avid fan of my 2nd amendment rights: i am pro abortion and pro gay rights including gay marrige, I also think the war in iraq is wrong, but i see alot of things wrong with the other parties practice of its dogma so i stay where i am to have a vote in the primaries as opposed to going libertarian or something

unfortunately the media is used as much as it uses, like some kind of reactionary format, where it manipulates opinion as much as opinion manipulates it, which is why most people have no real idea what any individual politician is really about until they are actually in office

actions allways speak louder than words

[Virulent]

i am pro abortion

Me too; I hope "they" make it mandatory.

I don't have much affinity for politics personally. In America in particular, citizens have the luxury of choosing between any of the candidates that the capitalist politburo decides to field. Now available in multiple hues!

There is a reason why Ann Coulter and Dianne Feinstein are so hilarious - because they're in the entertainment business.

By the way John - both of your favorite news outlets are owned by governments and paid for by compulsory taxation?

[John56{vg}]

Me too; I hope "they" make it mandatory.

By the way John - both of your favorite news outlets are owned by governments and paid for by compulsory taxation?

The BBC IS owned by the government of the U.K. That does not change the fact that its reporting is objective and that its news deals in the truth. And paid for with taxes, what is inherently wrong with that?

And you talk about "favorite" news outlets. They ARE my favorite, yes, but because they are the most objective, deal in facts and tell the whole story. When THAT is the case, who cares who owns them or how they are funded?

[Virulent]

I am a journalist

When THAT is the case, who cares who owns them or how they are funded?

To be clear John, I'm sure you know an awful lot about journalism that I don't. Truth be told, arguments from authority are meaningless to me though - so please help me follow your logic.

Obviously the BBC and NPR do not cover 100% of news-worthy stories. Therefore, they must utilize a metric to determine which ones not to cover.

Is it completely irrelevant that they are funded by a government? Would it be irrelevant if they were funded by a corporation or church?

I always thought Noam Chomsky had it right, when he said that BBC anchors don't self-censor; they believe every word they're told to say... else, they wouldn't be BBC anchors.

[mkemse]

Me too; I hope "they" make it mandatory.

I don't have much affinity for politics personally. In America in particular, citizens have the luxury of choosing between any of the candidates that the capitalist politburo decides to field. Now available in multiple hues!

There is a reason why Ann Coulter and Dianne Feinstein are so hilarious - because they're in the entertainment business.

By the way John - both of your favorite news outlets are owned by governments and paid for by compulsory taxation?

I beg to differ, Anyone over the Age of 35, that is a Natural Citizen of The United States, by that it simply means any person Born in the United States and is born as a citizen and not Naturalized, can run for President which is 1 reason the Gov Of California could never run unlress the Constitution was changed , it is the American Electorae through Primaries that ultimately Decide which 2, 3 or 4 Perosn's actualy run in the gneral election, the Politcal Parties are simply an affiliation and do not dictate who runs in for thier Party, The Republican had countless Candidates which dwindeled down to a few as the Primary season continued, The Democrats the same scenrio, Neither Party dictated who would run, who could run or who could not run, this was decided by the Individuals and the Americna People utlimately decided who they wanted to run in each Party, so the Field of Contenders is based on who wants to Run andwho the American People decide to vote for, Neither the Repulican or Democratic Party make this decison til after the Coventions when the "Nonine In Waiting" is made offical, also if they can get enough support we have had many election with a Third Party Candidate not dictated by either Major Party
but you offer great comments