BF2S Forums Egypt Unrest.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Christ, you have to be trolling. You can't possibly be this stupid.

Nope.

There's many people out there with the view that the US needs to do everything within its power to keep the status quo. To keep certain people/countries where they belong. No matter what, as long as it keeps the US standing good. Which is fundamentally a reasonable (but crazy, evil, hellish) standpoint for someone in any country to have. It's more realistic for people in the US than most others, because it can do it.

All I'm saying is how it is for the people who hold opinions like that. It means war, lots of it. I don't know why you guys are getting so uncomfortable/defensive about it. That's how it is. You can't get your empire/hegemony without being crazy.

A) We don't have an empire so you can stop quoting Lenin. We don't fit inside of your Leninist world view. Sorry.

B) The primary reason any country anywhere in the world wishes to have stability is because stability is necessary for trade. The Middle East just happens to have the poor luck to be sitting on the worlds largest deposits of what we in the industrialized world require for our societies to function, oil. This doesn't make us evil. This doesn't make oil evil either. It's just a fact of life. If the price of oil were to fluctuate all over the place because of disrupted production or war or whatever else that also means the prices of every other good we purchase would fluctuate with it. You can't have economic growth without stability. They are reliant on one another. So, if that means my country promotes stability as its foreign policy I'm all for it. If the people living in the regions find their governments intolerable, they can either rise up like Egyptians and Tunisians did (neither of which possesses oil) or they can move. I'm not going to shed any tears for people living in oppressive nations because it's their own choice. They're adults and possess free will.

If we were empire building we would've invaded Venezuela and kicked out Chavez. Or we would've annexed Mexico or any number of other things. So fuck off with that imperialistic America bullshit. The only time we've ever been guilty of that is when we fought the Spanish in 1898 and took over the Philippines and Cuba (neither of which we possess today).

Cybargs wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

BBC is not controlled by the govt.
Fox is controlled by Murdoch.

See the difference?

Does BBC have a CEO?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ly … itician%29

AussieReaper wrote:

We Report. You decide.

http://nation.foxnews.com/culture/2011/ … hows-cairo

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

Whats the big deal, just another example of how much of a nanny state GB really is...Nothing to be ashamed for a proud socialist. move on.

If you're against big government/nanny states why are you fine with what amounts to a Government Run propaganda channel in Fox?

Didn't know my tax dollars are collected for the purposes of running fox news. See, I thought they had to generate income through competition and sponsorship of the shows it puts on.

AussieReaper wrote:

We Report. You decide.

http://nation.foxnews.com/culture/2011/ … hows-cairo

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

If you're against big government/nanny states why are you fine with what amounts to a Government Run propaganda channel in Fox?

Didn't know my tax dollars are collected for the purposes of running fox news. See, I thought they had to generate income through competition and sponsorship of the shows it puts on.

And the huge donations to the Republican party and free advertising is just coincidence.


Maybe you agree with Ann Coulter (at CPAC)when it comes to journalism?

"What is more important though to American values--being friends with Israel still or knowing there are jailed dissidents and journalists [in Egypt]?"

"What do you mean knowing that there are jailed journalists?" Coulter said. "I think there should be more jailed journalists." This prompted a huge round of applause from the crowd.


Lock up journalists and let the propaganda channels continue to run without biased facts getting in the way of a story.

Kmar wrote:

iirc Fox came into existence as a result of an already heavily saturated left wing media market. In fact the phrase "Fair and Balanced" is a reply to each of those other media outlets. The claim isn't that they alone are fair and balanced, but rather they offer opposing opinions.

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

Didn't know my tax dollars are collected for the purposes of running fox news. See, I thought they had to generate income through competition and sponsorship of the shows it puts on.

And the huge donations to the Republican party and free advertising is just coincidence.


Maybe you agree with Ann Coulter (at CPAC)when it comes to journalism?

"What is more important though to American values--being friends with Israel still or knowing there are jailed dissidents and journalists [in Egypt]?"

"What do you mean knowing that there are jailed journalists?" Coulter said. "I think there should be more jailed journalists." This prompted a huge round of applause from the crowd.


Lock up journalists and let the propaganda channels continue to run without biased facts getting in the way of a story.

You speak as if Fox news is the only biased network, as if MSNBC, CNN, etc. are not left wing biased. Why do you not have a hard on for ALL bias if you are going to bitch about it? Or are you just going to bitch about bias you don't agree with?

Fox is a corporation FREE to donate money to whoever it chooses. THat does not mean my tax dollars is funding Fox or the govt. is controlling revenues. (The point of not being govt. controlled) and the discussion. BIAS is not the topic.

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

My only problem with them is that they've become not so much the conservative voice, but the anti-Democrat voice. If Obama came out tomorrow and said he wanted to cut taxes, cut spending, and focus on fixing regulations Fox would come out with stories detailing the people that would lose their jobs because of his cuts and decry the increase in the deficit due to the tax cuts etc. They've morphed into a simple contradiction of whatever the Dems push instead of having a working ideology of their own. I read some of their articles and I just sit there scratching my head like 'wtf?'. To me it's fairly obvious why they and the Republicans came to be labeled the Party of No. They have no ideas or ideology, they simply represent the opposite of whatever the Dems are pushing today. It's pathetic really.

As if the democrats were the party of "YES" during the Bush era?  What you say is why NOTHING gets done in Washington. It is not  solely because the Republicans will not cooperate.

That really doesn't have anything to do with what I said. I said the Republicans lack a cohesive platform of their own. Half of them care about social issues above all else and the other half light a candle for Saint Reagan before bed. They don't stand for anything. At least with Bush you knew he was a neo-con and where he was coming from. The Republicans right now, today, are just an amorphous blob of populist talking points and no real agenda. As much as I disagree with liberals on issues like government scope and spending, at least you know where they stand. There's no William F Buckley alive today to lead the way, just talking heads that like to yell at their guests for ratings boosts. Hell, the majority of those that claim that they are fiscally conservative do so because it's supposedly part of their ideology without actually knowing what it means. They care more about forcing social conformity than anything else.