hakr100
Android Expert
Bush brought this country to its knees. Many of Obama's initiatives and choices were and are dictated by the mess left behind by Bush.
-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
Libs flunk econ 101
- Thread starter cjr72
- Start date
Bush brought this country to its knees. Many of Obama's initiatives and choices were and are dictated by the mess left behind by Bush.
Ok... here's a little trivia.
The people who determine how the BBC is run are the Executive Board. They are appointed by the BBC Trust. They are appointed by the Queen.
And you don't honestly believe that the Queen appoints people who see things the way she wants them to?
There is already a direct line of influence with those appointed to the Trust/Executive Board.
Your government already overtly influences the direction of the BBC.
Sorry to burst your bubble.
ElasticNinja
Android Expert
Yes I know.
Look at the appointees
They only really influence content
BBC reveals issues with government all the time, more than the section of the UK media which is alligned with the governing party
I'm Irish...
Our state broadcaster is RT
Obviously you have to take some of what people say at face value, and when arguing that there aren't shadowy dealings going on, it's like trying to prove or disprove God; neither side is going to believe the other because there simple is no evidence; but if you ever talk to, or listen to people who work for the BBC they are adamant that they love it because of it's unique freedom and independence from control of both government and a corporate owner. It is truly a Public service broadcaster.
To suggest that government had an overt control of either the overall direction, and especially of any editorial or creative content of the BBC would be... oh what's the word I'm looking for; asinine.
ElasticNinja
Android Expert
One World Government
EDIT: Hey I thought you were the fairy-tale believer [waits for TFool to accuse of hate-crime
]Nope, factually wrong, again, byteware. The government does not appoint those that make editorial or creative content.
Which isn't what you said earlier, and proves what I said was right. Thanks
Bob Maxey
Android Expert
Me Too. I would like to see are posts with examples that show Fox is wrong about something.
Bob "Faux" Maxey
Bob Maxey
Android Expert
Love the humor. You really think we would be better off if all of our news came from one source? As for Fox, provide examples of their being "full of crap."
Bob Maxey
E
electric monk
Guest
Here's one:
m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=h3hMODMyed8
m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=h3hMODMyed8
Bob Maxey
Android Expert
I followed the link and there are 4 videos. Title please, I'm not looking at all of them.
Bob Maxey
E
electric monk
Guest
Right at the top, Bob:
"Obama speech out of context, Fox News out of control [w/Sean Hannity]"
"Obama speech out of context, Fox News out of control [w/Sean Hannity]"
ElasticNinja
Android Expert
C'mon over to the British Isles some day
I think you will realise how our state broadcasters are un-biased and well-informing.
Personally, I'm finished with this, I have watched enough American media to tell for myself.
You've watched enough American media to know what goes on behind the scenes in your media?
I hate to break it to you... no one knows that, except those involved.
You don't know, so you prevent it from happening. That's what you do. You make it darned near impossible. Not give it a direct conduit for it to happen.
Trusting your government to look out for YOUR best interest is just plain naive.
I trust this system more than I would appointments to a privately owned media outlet, that didn't have as much oversight, transparency and accountability to the public than the BBC does. And I have spoken with people I know who work 'behind the scenes' at the the BBC, and while they may dislike the amount of oversight etc., they LOVE the BBC for the independence and integrity, I also know a newsreader/journalist at Channel Five in the UK, and they hate the fact that their news bulletins are all pre-recorded at least 30mins. earlier so they can be approved for broadcast.
I'm not as naive as you imagine me to be, but better naive and willing to learn, then prejudiced.
I've known people who work for Fox News who are extremely proud that their news is fair and balanced... what's your point?
However, you aren't willing to learn either.
And, secondly, I'm supposedly prejudiced because I don't trust governments?
Well, that's a leap.
Edited to add: I've heard of playing the race card to discredit your opponent, but never just random like this.
What's your point? Are you saying you don't trust the claim of the people you know at Fox News? Why not?
Aren't I? please explain how you've come to this conclusion, because you're wrong, and it might me help you to show you where your error is.
You're prejudiced because you don't trust them because they're governments.
You seem to not understand what random means; random would be an argument such as:
'Well obviously you like pears if you think the government controls the editorial output of a national broadcaster with layer upon layer upon layer of transparent oversight and checks and balances.'
It's not random to say you're prejudiced when you doubt the impartiality of a corporation because, despite the transparency of it's operation, it's responsibility to act independently ingrained in statute and despite the integrity and standing of the vast majority of the creative and editorial staff, because it's Trustees(who're duty-bound to represent the public) are approved by the elected Prime Minister; and ipso facto not trustworthy.
Interestingly I'm watching Question Time on the BBC, the previous Secretary of State for Culture, who had responsibility for Trustee appointments etc. The BBC editorial producer/director of tonights show just allowed a question regarding the funding of the BBC itself, the former Minister has been bemoaning the fact that the Government can't control directly enough the editorial/creative decisions of the BBC, due to it's independence management, but also saying that the BBC's independence is paramount. Bear in mind that the former Minister is now in opposition, so you would've thought that she'd be looking for way to attack any government mouthpiece.
I'm sorry if that point escapes you.
Read back through the thread. Or previous discussions we've had.
Yep. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
You might want to be a little clearer when you post. I've never heard of anyone anywhere claiming governmental prejudice.
So, no it didn't occur to me that you were claiming that I was prejudiced against governments.
Giving government (any government) control over your decisions, and/or information, and they end up controlling you.
Evasion.
Evasion.
Power corrupts? Always? I disagree; I know a few politicians, and in my experience they weren't corrupted by power. That's not to say it doesn't happen, but I think it's far from the default outcome.
Really? Because it clearly seems like it DID occur to you when you asked;
"I'm supposedly prejudiced because I don't trust governments?"
In the very next post to my mention of your prejudice. It didn't occur to you, but your very next post mentioned it; are you getting help with your responses from a person to which it did occur?
If only there was some way that to public could influence who they give this power too, ais? Maybe we should all post ideas as to how this could be done, and then we could implement the best one... but how to choose which the majority of us think is the best idea??? No, it's beyond me, I can't think of anyway the views and or preferences of a large number of people could be ascertained
The point was/is obvious. I'm sorry if that escapes you.
That IS the default outcome.
When it comes to government. You LEND your elected officials YOUR political power. Politicians in power believe that power is theirs to do with as they see fit. Power corrupts.
No, you simply mentioned that I was prejudiced in a discussion about not trusting governments.
If you would look at the REST of that statement, which you conveniently left out.
byteware said:
If only there was some way that to public could influence who they give this power too, ais? Maybe we should all post ideas as to how this could be done, and then we could implement the best one... but how to choose which the majority of us think is the best idea??? No, it's beyond me, I can't think of anyway the views and or preferences of a large number of people could be ascertained
So, because you think a Republic is the best idea... we must trust elected officials? That seems a rather idiotic choice.
You could have a Republic where you didn't trust your elected officials, and verified that they were doing a good job, and that they weren't corrupt, which would be what EVERY Republic TRIES to do.
It wasn't/isn't; but what is clear is that you've no interest in making your point clear, if there ever was a point.
You talk in absolutes, but I know people who've been in power, and they weren't corrupt. And while I can't prove it, I doubt that all politicians in power are corrupt; you of course will be able to prove your position to be true, which I guess means you win the argument... you CAN offer proof can't you?
So you're saying that you were posting about something that didn't occur to you??
We can place our trust in the officials as part of the wider system, as you say the system has checks and balances, and we trust that these either keep people from becoming corrupt, or exposes them if they are. If you have robust checks and balances in place, then you can take a neutral position of trust of an individual, until given reason to distrust them; surely a better position than one of pre judging them as corrupt or corruptable as you do?
ElasticNinja
Android Expert
MPW, I would really stop your debate
You make well thought out points and byteware responds with differing variations of "governments cannot be trusted"
You make well thought out points and byteware responds with differing variations of "governments cannot be trusted"