Yes and we got polar bear´s and penguins in the streets and snow and Ice all eyer round... Go to school and stay awake noobIRONCHEF wrote:
Isn't finland up in the north pole? Isn't that were all the hackers come from? Do they even have internets and news to manipulate in their igloos?
Last edited by znozer (2006-10-25 12:32:06)
My house:IRONCHEF wrote:
Isn't finland up in the north pole? Isn't that were all the hackers come from? Do they even have internets and news to manipulate in their igloos?
Balderdash.IRONCHEF wrote:
Isn't finland up in the north pole? Isn't that were all the hackers come from? Do they even have internets and news to manipulate in their igloos?
To bad. Well, now I'm of for some math and Jurassic Park II. See yaIRONCHEF wrote:
Its cool, us dumb americans also think Canadians live in igloos and never see sunlight.
Right cause when there's reasearch involved that didn't come form Fox it's liberal biased media.Kmarion wrote:
Wow it's french based, who would have thought(Reporters Without Borders). Those fuckers wouldn't have any borders if it wasn't for the US.
If you don't think the US has freedom of the press you are either under the influence of some kind of controlled substance or just delusional. The NY times rips this administration a new one every day. They published classified information for Christ sake.
And as you well know Kmarion, we'd all be British and paying taxes to the Queen if it weren't for "those fuckers".Kmarion wrote:
Wow it's french based, who would have thought(Reporters Without Borders). Those fuckers wouldn't have any borders if it wasn't for the US.
If you think that one dude in Tampa, FL has a better understanding of the relative freedoms of 180 of the world's national presses than do a pool of hundreds of career reporters, then you are either under the influence of some kind of controlled substance or just delusional.Kmarion wrote:
If you don't think the US has freedom of the press you are either under the influence of some kind of controlled substance or just delusional. The NY times rips this administration a new one every day. They published classified information for Christ sake.
Oops, Kmarion, what a hit you just received. I want to see an answer asap.The_Shipbuilder wrote:
And as you well know Kmarion, we'd all be British and paying taxes to the Queen if it weren't for "those fuckers".Kmarion wrote:
Wow it's french based, who would have thought(Reporters Without Borders). Those fuckers wouldn't have any borders if it wasn't for the US.
You seem to insinuate that the US scored low because the organization is based in France. Given that the Index is based on responses from reporters around the world, how could the fact that the organization is based in Paris have any bearing on the results? And given that "those fuckers" notoriously think that France is the greatest country on Earth, what does it say about their impartiality that France is way down at #35?If you think that one dude in Tampa, FL has a better understanding of the relative freedoms of 180 of the world's national presses than do a pool of hundreds of career reporters, then you are either under the influence of some kind of controlled substance or just delusional.Kmarion wrote:
If you don't think the US has freedom of the press you are either under the influence of some kind of controlled substance or just delusional. The NY times rips this administration a new one every day. They published classified information for Christ sake.
LOL, we pwn finland any day, they use old AKs as main rifles and drive around in T55s and shit.Viller-Valle wrote:
Haha, say no more, or we'll be blow into the air by the superior Finnish army. They have an army, we don't Thank the Finnish for keeping the border at east or, they kept the border. Let's hope it won't be necessary no more.Sh1fty2k5 wrote:
That's because we allow you to have freedom of press. Remember, Finland is still Sweden, unofficially.SpaceApollyon wrote:
Now why would you highlight Sweden at 4.00 and not FINLAND at 0.50?
We are SO ahead of the swedes!
LOL, SO offtopic.
We'll invade if you start making a mess
Hmm, 4.00, what gives us that high score?
Men de har fortfarande en massa gubbar som man får slåss mot. Tror de har +100 000 i soldater. Om nån finsk skulle läsa så kan ni ju rätta mig. Vi har bara ett fåtal anställda soldater, och de är utomlands Men jag hålle rmed om att vi äger Finland, vi vann ju Hockeyn!Sh1fty2k5 wrote:
LOL, we pwn finland any day, they use old AKs as main rifles and drive around in T55s and shit.Viller-Valle wrote:
Haha, say no more, or we'll be blow into the air by the superior Finnish army. They have an army, we don't Thank the Finnish for keeping the border at east or, they kept the border. Let's hope it won't be necessary no more.Sh1fty2k5 wrote:
That's because we allow you to have freedom of press. Remember, Finland is still Sweden, unofficially.
We'll invade if you start making a mess
Hmm, 4.00, what gives us that high score?
Last edited by Viller-Valle (2006-10-25 14:26:25)
It is not just some "dude" from Tampa who believes there is an American free press. This is just adding to the paranoia propaganda that the government has complete control over every aspect of American minds.The_Shipbuilder wrote:
You seem to insinuate that the US scored low because the organization is based in France. Given that the Index is based on responses from reporters around the world, how could the fact that the organization is based in Paris have any bearing on the results? And given that "those fuckers" notoriously think that France is the greatest country on Earth, what does it say about their impartiality that France is way down at #35?[/quote ]
As if they are are nonpartisan and objective. How many people in these forums have actually heard of this organization? How about finding some mainstream media reporting this. hat group has agenda written all over it and it not freedom of the press.If you think that one dude in Tampa, FL has a better understanding of the relative freedoms of 180 of the world's national presses than do a pool of hundreds of career reporters, then you are either under the influence of some kind of controlled substance or just delusional.Kmarion wrote:
If you don't think the US has freedom of the press you are either under the influence of some kind of controlled substance or just delusional. The NY times rips this administration a new one every day. They published classified information for Christ sake.
Last edited by Kmarion (2006-10-25 14:45:05)
Last edited by PBAsydney (2006-10-25 15:03:12)
I like your sources. First, I'm not even going to try to debunk anything from that globally-recognized bastion of thought-leadership venezuelanalysis.com, they are bulletproof.Kmarion wrote:
It is not just some "dude" form Tampa who believes there is an American free press.
I challenge you to name one media source which IS universally accepted.Wikipedia wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporters_Without_Borders
The impartiality of RWB is not universally accepted.
According to the source cited in that charge, the 19% comes from:Wikipedia wrote:
A significant amount of funding (19% of total) comes from certain western governments and organizations. However, RWB has openly criticized Western countries for their treatment of reporters (e.g. the United States' occupation of Iraq).
A clever taunt! I'll have to write that one down.Kmarion wrote:
http://www.voltairenet.org/article127688.html
French NGO Reporters without borders, dedicated to the defense of press freedom, is today at the center of a controversy. To some people, it is an efficient vector for freedom in the world, but to others – and we are among those – it has evolved into a transmission cable for the State Department, and it is instrumenting a cause to support the United States’ strategy. Salim Lamrani, researcher at the Sorbonne university, looks into the details of accusations and answers, before unveiling the extent of the deception.
Check the crap you drag into these forums. It like bringing a dead animal in the house, it just stinks. RWB is a tainted organization that has proven it's ability to be subject to manipulation.
I didn't dodge your question before, nor am I doing it now. If anything aside from directly answer your question in the way it was phrased is confusing to you, fine.Kmarion wrote:
Now do me a favor and try not to dodge it this time. How is it there are so many newspapers with a large circulation that spill propaganda far left, right, and up the middle? How can it be all over the place if reporters feel "threatened" on what they report? What a joke.
Last edited by The_Shipbuilder (2006-10-25 15:57:21)
I want ringside pls.The_Shipbuilder wrote:
I like your sources. First, I'm not even going to try to debunk anything from that globally-recognized bastion of thought-leadership venezuelanalysis.com, they are bulletproof.Kmarion wrote:
It is not just some "dude" form Tampa who believes there is an American free press.
The wikipedia quote is interesting though:I challenge you to name one media source which IS universally accepted.Wikipedia wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporters_Without_Borders
The impartiality of RWB is not universally accepted.According to the source cited in that charge, the 19% comes from:Wikipedia wrote:
A significant amount of funding (19% of total) comes from certain western governments and organizations. However, RWB has openly criticized Western countries for their treatment of reporters (e.g. the United States' occupation of Iraq).
* French government ministries: Prime minister’s office, ministries of foreign affairs, culture and communication.
* Other public body: The Intergovernmental Agency for French-Speaking Countries.
* European Union: A project funded (until 2004) by the European Commission to defend journalists imprisoned in Asia and ACP countries.
One of your apparent arguments against RWB is that it takes a significant amount of funding from Western governments, yet it openly criticizes Western countries and rates France itself quite low relative to all of Europe. Are you trying to prove me right or wrong here, Kmarion?A clever taunt! I'll have to write that one down.Kmarion wrote:
http://www.voltairenet.org/article127688.html
French NGO Reporters without borders, dedicated to the defense of press freedom, is today at the center of a controversy. To some people, it is an efficient vector for freedom in the world, but to others – and we are among those – it has evolved into a transmission cable for the State Department, and it is instrumenting a cause to support the United States’ strategy. Salim Lamrani, researcher at the Sorbonne university, looks into the details of accusations and answers, before unveiling the extent of the deception.
Check the crap you drag into these forums. It like bringing a dead animal in the house, it just stinks. RWB is a tainted organization that has proven it's ability to be subject to manipulation.
What you don't seem to understand is that the accusations against RWB is that it is manipulated by the United States. That's clear in the examples that you provided. So you seem to believe that the RWB is tainted by money from the US and France and are rating the countries too high.I didn't dodge your question before, nor am I doing it now. If anything aside from directly answer your question in the way it was phrased is confusing to you, fine.Kmarion wrote:
Now do me a favor and try not to dodge it this time. How is it there are so many newspapers with a large circulation that spill propaganda far left, right, and up the middle? How can it be all over the place if reporters feel "threatened" on what they report? What a joke.
1) How is it there are so many newspapers with a large circulation that spill propaganda far left, right, and up the middle?
There are many points of view, and many different types of people running these newspapers.
2) How can it be all over the place if reporters feel "threatened" on what they report?
I know that conservatives have problems with nuance and prefer to think in binary, but please do me a favor and try to understand this: the study makes an attempt to rank countries RELATIVE TO EACH OTHER. This study does not say that the American press is NOT FREE. Nor does it say that it is 100% FREE.
Perhaps a sports analogy would facilitate your understanding. Currently, Florida State is not listed in the BCS college football rankings. Does their non-ranking mean they are a 100% shitty football team? NO. But how can they not be ranked highly when I go to their practices and see that they have really great players on the team? BECAUSE THE RANKINGS ARE RELATIVE. Regardless of how great they might seem, it is very possible that there are football teams better than FSU. And if we look at the rankings, the experts clearly believe there are plenty of better teams out there.
Doesn't take much.THESAVAGE1 wrote:
Keep on googling wikipedia and keep us smiling.
Reuters, Associated PressI challenge you to name one media source which IS universally accepted.
Perhaps since it has become so obvious they are trying to distance themselves by criticizing? I do not know the motive. The point is the are able to be manipulated. The direction does not matter once this ahas been accepted since it discredits them in any sense.One of your apparent arguments against RWB is that it takes a significant amount of funding from Western governments, yet it openly criticizes Western countries and rates France itself quite low relative to all of Europe. Are you trying to prove me right or wrong here, Kmarion?
See my previous reply. They may be reporting in this manner to try and regain some credibility. It doesn't matter which way the lean once you know it is tainted. As far as motives go the sky is the limit once you have conceded them untrustworthy or unreliable.What you don't seem to understand is that the accusations against RWB is that it is manipulated by the United States. That's clear in the examples that you provided. So you seem to believe that the RWB is tainted by money from the US and France and are rating the countries too high.
Admittedly I need to educate myself more on this organization. The only relevant information I could dig up aside from what on their site is all the controversy surrounding it. From what I have gathered so far they send out questionnaires to journalist. That's about it. I have no idea what these questions are , who the journalist are that receive them, and how the calculations are done. I'm sure it's on their site and when I have the time I will of course look more into it. I couldn't help but add to this topic all the controversy that surrounds them. It's all over the place.I know that conservatives have problems with nuance and prefer to think in binary, but please do me a favor and try to understand this: the study makes an attempt to rank countries RELATIVE TO EACH OTHER. This study does not say that the American press is NOT FREE. Nor does it say that it is 100% FREE.
Perhaps a sports analogy would facilitate your understanding. Currently, Florida State is not listed in the BCS college football rankings. Does their non-ranking mean they are a 100% shitty football team? NO. But how can they not be ranked highly when I go to their practices and see that they have really great players on the team? BECAUSE THE RANKINGS ARE RELATIVE. Regardless of how great they might seem, it is very possible that there are football teams better than FSU. And if we look at the rankings, the experts clearly believe there are plenty of better teams out there.
The only thing about me you know is what my fingers and this keyboard decide to tell you. Group me in some massive conservative category and I can only assume you have non desire to find out. Pretending to tell me you have my brain pattern figured out is the first ignorant thing I have heard you say. This forum has enough people telling other people how they feel or think. Wanna know? Ask.I know that conservatives have problems with nuance and prefer to think in binary
lolIRONCHEF wrote:
Ok, so our press isn't the "freest." But at least we can feel safe and sound in our homes, on the phone, on the internet, and not have our privacy invaded or be taken from our homes and imprisoned without charges...oh wait, we don't enjoy those freedoms anymore either. But at least we can petition our captors for our false imprisonment...oh wait, can't do that either. Aha! At least we can freely assemble and peacefully protest..oh wait, that's gone too..at least when Bush isn't in town driving around.
I was expecting to be near 100...53 ain't that bad... *puts gun to head*
