CNN has crossed the line into propaganda-machine

[atlantabiolab]

The primacy of "individual rights in US society is largely rhetoric. It didn't stop you from having segregation or suppressing political freedom and diversity. I wouldn't want to have been or still be a communist in the USA.

Governments are imperfect forms of social cohesiveness, that doesn't mean that all are equal, since most fall short of their ideals. The argument that slavery demonstrates the failure of US philosophy is kind of ridiculous, since slavery was not a US creation but a worldwide institution, same for women's rights. Simply because intelligent men at one time thought that the world was flat does not argue that science is pure rhetoric.

I would not want to be a communist anywhere.

In New Zealand we value individuals rights. We have more of them than you do too. I'd love to see our government hold its citizens without legal representation for months as has occurred in the US since 9/11. This US is also the only developed country which still executes people - yet the US will preach about human rights! Nothing in social democratic ideology impeaches individual rights - quite the contrary. That is a right-wing American argument based on assertion more than fact.

Please list us what rights you have that the US does not have?

Do you really believe that New Zealanders would do anything more than the US people have done, if your country detained people without representation? I am against our government's action in this regard, but if you really believe that people will relinquish their modern day security to protest or march on the government, then you are deluded. A by-product of socialism is that people don't have a cohesive, collective culture to care about, only bickering factions, which prevents them from seeing abstract evils. They would come together if military rushed their shores, but not if government passed seemingly minor restrictions, that doesn't immediately affect the majority of the population.

As for the death penalty, your argument is specious. If you cannot differentiate between law-abiding citizens and their rights and murderous individuals, then there is no debate. There is no reasoning with moral relativism.

 

[buddy28]

Androgens are not corticosteroids. All steroids are not the same.

Didnt i just say that?

 

[HansNZ]

Governments are imperfect forms of social cohesiveness, that doesn't mean that all are equal, since most fall short of their ideals. The argument that slavery demonstrates the failure of US philosophy is kind of ridiculous, since slavery was not a US creation but a worldwide institution, same for women's rights. Simply because intelligent men at one time thought that the world was flat does not argue that science is pure rhetoric.

My point is this. The US was preaching against Russian tyranny. The US was preaching about how people come to the US for its "freedom". This all occured during a time when segregation existed and political persecution of communists was rife. This is what I mean by US rhetoric. It is typically American to make blind assertions such as: "we are the freest" or "we are the richest" (actually Norway is), regardless of what the facts are. That is why it is rhetoric.

I would not want to be a communist anywhere.[/B]

ESPECIALLY in the U S of A.

Communists here had (and still have) far more political freedom. In fact during the fifties, sixties and seventies the universities were overflowing with them. As in many other Western democratic countries (i.e. Scandavavian states ), this communist ideology operated within a democratic system. It was largely responsible for the creation of the welfare state, free and universal healthcare and education, as well as dramatically improved working and housing conditions.

Please list us what rights you have that the US does not have?[/B]

OK, where do I start. Well firstly my government can't execute me under ANY circumstances. It is your argument differentiating law-abiding citizens and criminals which is specious. In our laws all criminals enjoy basic human rights - no matter what their crime. Your argument can be used to basically justify any penalty. Saudi Arabia or Malaysia or China will make the same argument in favour of, say, caning or torture. Yet the USA will criticise such human rights abuses (esp. in countries they want to generate negative public opinion against).

Recently the FBI has enthusiastically swept up hundreds of innocent people, or those against whom they have insufficient evidence. More than 1200 people have "disappeared", in the USA as people do under Latin American military regimes. These people have been denied the normal proceedural rights and representation that they cannot be denied here. This isn't just foreign citizens, this has happened to Americans too.

Under the Patriot Act, which a supine Congress rushed through for Bush and effectively suspends the Bill of Rights, the FBI has the right to search the databases of public libraries and see what people are reading. Universities are told on the quiet to report outspoken students and their teachers. The connection has been spelt out - dissent, far from being a democratic right, is now part of an overall "security problem."

There are many more rights, not just those denied recently that we have which you don't. In order to get my facts straight I would need to look these up though. One other area that I do know about for sure is the fact the homosexuals in the USA lack basic rights and freedoms as well as constitutional protection which they have here.

Do you really believe that New Zealanders would do anything more than the US people have done, if your country detained people without representation? I am against our government's action in this regard, but if you really believe that people will relinquish their modern day security to protest or march on the government, then you are deluded. [/B]

But this begs the question, why is the USA's security under attack and not NZ? It is because Americans fuck with other people's countries? We don't need to prtect our "security" because we don't go around bullying people in the first place! You can argue theoretical scenarios, but the fact remains that there is NO precedent in our modern history of anyone being detained without representation under any circumstances.

We continue not to fuck other countries over, even if there is a penalty in it for us. Unlike Australia, which has bowed to US arm-twisting, NZ says it wants nothing to do with your Iraq war. We will be punished by the USA as a result .

The USA will probably do this by excluding us from a free trade agreement which will include Australia. This will result in a HUGE run of capital from NZ to Australia. We've experienced such penalties before when we became anti-nuclear and the US sanctioned us because we wouldn't allow their nukes in our ports.

A by-product of socialism is that people don't have a cohesive, collective culture to care about, only bickering factions, which prevents them from seeing abstract evils.[/B]

Yikes! This is the first time i've ever heard this. This is merely a loaded ideological opinion. Definitely the sort of right-wing rhetoric that gets bandied about in the USA. I would tend to say that rampant individualism causes these issues and that socialism tends to bridge them. Once again we are down to ideology so don't make these assertions as if they are some form of empirical fact.

 

[ariolanine]

CNN is not left-wing. It has a multinational corporatist pro-american agenda.

Dubya is a right-wing extremist. The Democrats are centrists - and right of centre in economics. They are more akin to the British Labour party who have evolved as a centrist, not left wing party. In fact the US Democrats would still be to the right of Labour in ideology if not in practice.

The US does not have a left wing party due to its suppression of political freedom, the labour movement, and communism during the 1950s. Much of this political suppression remains. It is the exception rather than the rule to find professors teaching communist theory in "respectable" US universities. Even for non-communists, communism forms the most comprehensive system of analysis of liberalism and must be included in a well-balanced political environment.

The US population is by and large very conservative and right leaning. It is only in such an environment that Democrats can be considered a party of the left. Elsewhere in the world parties with a Republican agenda are classified as far FAR right.

Republican ideology is ridiculous and non-sensicle to most people outside the US who have a more social democtratic worldview. In other Western countries, far right extremists have minority appeal and aren't a major party like the Republicans are in the US.

Did you graduate high school? Everything except the last paragraph is completely false.

 

[Spartacus]

I'm all for wiping out Iraq. No problem there.

But I haven't been convinced we need to go bomb the shit out of him RIGHT NOW or something terrible will happen. The US government is pressing the hell out of everyone to support them... then scare the shit out of the American people by telling us we need to get prepared for a terrorist attack... as in THE ENTIRE COUNTRY needs to be prepared... how many times have we been attacked on our own soil? But conveniently, when America is doing everything possible to start the war, ALL Americans need to be prepared, because big bad Iraq and the 2 members still alive of the terrorist network just might be able to fuck us all up.

Sure... kill Hussein... fine. But don't do it at the expense of world-wide tension. That insignificant little fuck didn't attack us on Sept 11.

America needs to calm the fuck down. We sent too many troops over too fast, and now we don't want to have our bluff called, so we have to try to manipulate everyone into joining our cause... because what would the big bad US do if we sent all those troops over, and didn't attack?

This whole fuckin' thing is stupid to me.

........Right now, its about positioning and strength of hand. The United States with troops, planes and a naval base in Iraq allows the US to put alot of pressure on Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria.

Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria seems to be 3 of the biggest problems in the war on terrorism.

Lets see how fast the terrorists dry up in those places when the people in charge realize that there is one 9.11 type attack away from being overrun.

 

[HansNZ]

Did you graduate high school? Everything except the last paragraph is completely false.

Is that so? I'd like to hear your reasons why everything else is exremely false. The conservatism of American society is well recognised abroad. Perhaps you lack perspective?

The lack of objectivity and the manipulation of facts in favour of US interests is also well documented in the US media. CNN is considered a leftist news organisation by Americans, despite its blatantly corporatist, pro-american stance. But if you were to use other US media as a reference point it probably seems "hard-hitting".

The lack of credible information in the US about world issues, economic ideology, and the US's behaviour is probably the main reason why US public opinion is so often completely out of step with the rest of the world.

Perhaps you have been the victim of too much US propaganda yourself. Of course there is still some "freedom of the press" in the USA. It is usually only found in small independent publications though. Why don't you look for some and you might learn something. Your more objectively informed opinions might mean you become part of the solution rather than reflecting the monolithic brainwashed mentality of the American masses that is so much of a problem for our world.

 

[HansNZ]

........Right now, its about positioning and strength of hand. The United States with troops, planes and a naval base in Iraq allows the US to put alot of pressure on Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria.

Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria seems to be 3 of the biggest problems in the war on terrorism.

Lets see how fast the terrorists dry up in those places when the people in charge realize that there is one 9.11 type attack away from being overrun.

The pressure the US has applied is without doubt the reason why inspectors have returned to Iraq. Hardly any one diagrees with that. The problem is the perception of threat. Even Israel doesn't think Iraq is a major issue. People believe this whole WMD issue is just a pretext for other real reasons.

Saddam has been under immense pressure in Iraq for 12 years. If he was going to (or able to) do anything he would have done it already. Of course he's probably hiding something, but it is doubtful whether any of this is on a large enough scale to warrant so much attention. His neighbours undoubtably have far more nasties hiding in their military arsenals.

The problem with Saudi Arabia is that its government is a US ally - in fact it's government owes its existence to the US - but it isn't liked or wanted by the Saudi people. Putting pressure on the Saudi government is pointless really because they don't control the terrorists in their borders. The terrorists are equally hated by them.

Putting more pressure on other countries in the region or installing pro-american governments doesn't really work. Look what a failure the Shah of Iran was. In fact bringing these countries back into the US sphere of influence just aggravates the people who commit acts of terrorism.

The problem can only be solved at its source. The problem is the US's greed, blatant double standards and the resentment of people throughout the region.

 

[ariolanine]

CNN is not left-wing. It has a multinational corporatist pro-american agenda.

What agenda is that. CNN was 100% pro Clinton. When Gore lost the election to Dubya the anchors were visibly somber. You might think it is right wing because it is owned by a multinational news conglomerate, but that is false. Virtually all media in this country is left leaning, CNN in particular. It used to be run by a guy who married the biggest American traitor since Benedict Arnold.

[/QUOTE]Dubya is a right-wing extremist. The Democrats are centrists - and right of centre in economics. They are more akin to the British Labour party who have evolved as a centrist, not left wing party. In fact the US Democrats would still be to the right of Labour in ideology if not in practice.[/B][/QUOTE]

Dubya can't be a right wing extremist. He favors big government and immigration. That puts him at just right of center. No self respecting right winger would propose billions of dollars in aid to Africa or opening the flood gates of Mexico.

[/QUOTE]The US does not have a left wing party due to its suppression of political freedom, the labour movement, and communism during the 1950s. Much of this political suppression remains. It is the exception rather than the rule to find professors teaching communist theory in "respectable" US universities. Even for non-communists, communism forms the most comprehensive system of analysis of liberalism and must be included in a well-balanced political environment.[/B][/QUOTE]

We do have a left wing party called the Green party which is led by commie extraordinaire Ralph Nader. There was no supression of the labor movement. Union membership was higher in the 1950's than it is today. You obviously haven't been educated in America. Communist/Leftist theory is taught at every level. I had it in high school and college. The teachers unions try to indoctrinate everyone.

[/QUOTE]The US population is by and large very conservative and right leaning. It is only in such an environment that Democrats can be considered a party of the left. Elsewhere in the world parties with a Republican agenda are classified as far FAR right.[/B][/QUOTE]

The US population is about 50% right of center. But hardly any of those people are true right wing. The majority of Americans straddle the line on many issues. The proposals by the Democratic party in this country are very leftist. We escaped catastrophe in mid 90's when we elected a Republican Congress. If Bill Clinton was allowed to run free America would be in shambles right now. The leaders of the Democratic party are about as left wing as you can get. Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Barbra Streisand, George Clooney, Sean Penn, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton. These are all evil people who want nothing more than to turn the US into a third world country like most places in Europe.

[/QUOTE]Republican ideology is ridiculous and non-sensicle to most people outside the US who have a more social democtratic worldview. In other Western countries, far right extremists have minority appeal and aren't a major party like the Republicans are in the US. [/B][/QUOTE]

You are mostly correct. But right wing parties have made inroads in Austria, England, and France.

 

[Ffactor]

Here are some facts about the security council.

Permanent members
• United States
• Russia
• China
• Britain
• France

Elected members
• Angola
• Bulgaria
• Cameroon
• Chile
• Guinea
• Germany
• Mexico
• Pakistan
• Syria
• Spain

Right now everyone with the exception of the U.S., Britain and Spain are against military action.

 

[HansNZ]

What agenda is that. CNN was 100% pro Clinton. When Gore lost the election to Dubya the anchors were visibly somber. You might think it is right wing because it is owned by a multinational news conglomerate, but that is false. Virtually all media in this country is left leaning, CNN in particular. It used to be run by a guy who married the biggest American traitor since Benedict Arnold.

Why does supporting Clinton indicate that CNN is left-wing? Clinton is not a left-winger - he is a centrist. In fact he supported NAFTA - how much more right wing could that be! To say that most media in the USA is left leaning is absolutely absurd. CNN is as left wing as it comes, and they are not even particularly left-wing.

Dubya can't be a right wing extremist. He favors big government and immigration. That puts him at just right of center. No self respecting right winger would propose billions of dollars in aid to Africa or opening the flood gates of Mexico.[/B]

Developed countries are obliged by international agreements to contribute a minimum amount of their GDP as aid - about 0.7%. The USA's aid budget was previously about 0.22% of GDP. So Dubya increasing the USA's chronically underfunded aid programme by giving more aid to Africa hardly indicates his left wing credentials. If he was increasing it beyond 0.7% then you might have a case.

Anyone who proposes massive tax cuts is hardly "big government". You are defining right-wing as exclusively libertarian. Immigration is frequently in the agenda of right-wing parties, often to keep their corporate cronies happy by filling skills shortages in the labour force. You are trying to imply that all right-wingers are nationalists. This is not so.

We do have a left wing party called the Green party which is led by commie extraordinaire Ralph Nader. There was no supression of the labor movement. Union membership was higher in the 1950's than it is today. You obviously haven't been educated in America. Communist/Leftist theory is taught at every level. I had it in high school and college. The teachers unions try to indoctrinate everyone.[/B]

Oh really? So how many seats in congress do they have? How many Green presidents have their been? NONE. I am sure there is every possible party that can be imagined existing in the USA. I am sure there is probably an extraterrestrial contact party. What is relevant is who gets into power. To achieve this you have to be part of the Democrat or Republican establishment. Only the super wealthy such as Perot can break in, but even then he hasn't lasted.

The political development of the USA has been retarded by the lack of dialogue between liberal and communist theories that has occured in the rest of the Western world. While I am not a Communist myself, I do recognise that Communism provides the main and most comprehensive critique of liberalism in history. It is essential for a balanced political dialogue to occur. Instead, over the last 60 years - even longer - the powers that be in the US - those who control the government and media - have devoted themselves to vilifying communism, and by extension socialist ideas.

Libertarian ideology has gone largely unchallenged in the USA - hence the remarkable prevalence of this thinking among Americans. Ideological premises such as "tax is theft/tax reduces economic growth", "get rid of regulation and the market balances","minmum wage legislation causes unemployment",
"free markets = freedom", and other such opinions - all of which are answered by socialist theory - go predominantly unchallenged at an ideological level in US political debate.

This is glaringly obvious to anyone exposed to US culture or visiting the US. The general public's wierd ideas about so many things: "socialised" medicine, the welfare state, government intervention, private ownership. The masses parrot ideas which aren't their own, but simply the product of propaganda designed to control them.

The US population is about 50% right of center. But hardly any of those people are true right wing. The majority of Americans straddle the line on many issues. The proposals by the Democratic party in this country are very leftist. [/B]

VERY leftist? Whatever!

We escaped catastrophe in mid 90's when we elected a Republican Congress. If Bill Clinton was allowed to run free America would be in shambles right now. The leaders of the Democratic party are about as left wing as you can get. Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Barbra Streisand, George Clooney, Sean Penn, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton. These are all evil people who want nothing more than to turn the US into a third world country like most places in Europe. [/B]

The USA is already partly thrid world. It reminds me of South Africa in its extremes. The standard of living of the average American is no higher than in Western Europe, despite the USA significantly higher GDP per capita.

Social statistics are the greatest indication of how "third world" a country is than anything else. The USA's are abyssmal in comparison to Western Europe.

Republicanism is a catastrophe. That party perpetuates an environmentally unsustainable ideology, aggravates social tensions and alienates the rest of the world.

You are mostly correct. But right wing parties have made inroads in Austria, England, and France. [/B]

Yes, but these are third parties, they are not one of the major parties like the Republicans are in the USA. They also are able to get into power because of the proportional representation structure of government in many European countries which doesn't exist in the USA. The USA has a first-past-the-post system which institutionalises establishment parties.