so why one of the first things that the canadian conservative government did was close clinics where addicts would get their fix and pushed for increased jail sentences
Buy on AliExpress.com
US Presidential Elections thread - the fate of the world to be decided (180 Viewers)
- Thread starter Zlatan
- Start date
- Status
Buy on AliExpress.com
Vin,
democrats agree about that. The joke is obviously about the fact that it isn't a crime anymore when a conservative does the same.
But in no way was House committing a crime. He's saving lives FFS
. In any case, although I'm very fond of the show, that was just bollocks. Doctors can always get any prescription they want (unless they are intending to sell, because the amounts would be too high). If I would want a shot of morphine tomorrow and my mother would be willing to give it to me, I could very easily get to it without ever committing a crime.
democrats agree about that. The joke is obviously about the fact that it isn't a crime anymore when a conservative does the same.
But in no way was House committing a crime. He's saving lives FFS
. In any case, although I'm very fond of the show, that was just bollocks. Doctors can always get any prescription they want (unless they are intending to sell, because the amounts would be too high). If I would want a shot of morphine tomorrow and my mother would be willing to give it to me, I could very easily get to it without ever committing a crime.
Andy sent me this link by PM:
http://cw11.trb.com/news/local/newsatten/wpix-factfinderhome,0,2707029.htmlstory
I was replying to him when I thought why don't I just post it here.
Martin's critique of US media
"Fact Finders: Cops Caught Drinking On The Job"
I say "US media" because this clip is entirely characteristic of what I've seen on Fox News, CNN and assorted clips posted online. That doesn't mean every outlet is equally bad. It might also apply to Canadian media, but I can't say.
This video shows in a nutshell everything that's wrong with your media. First of all, and I know this is going to sound subjective, everything has to be sensationalized. Listen to these reporters for a minute and hear the tone in their voices. The tone is not merely serious and professional, it's kind of excited. That already creates a weird atmosphere. Where I come from (and currently live for that matter) news is not presented this way. It is just a statement of facts without emoting.
Then you have the story segment itself. Cops caught drinking and... not doing much else while standing on the street. Let me be the first to say: So fucking what? According to the reporter, they're not on duty, they're working for some private company at this time. So the only thing you could really hold against them as cops is that they're drinking in uniform, which makes for a bad image. If they hadn't been in uniform it would be nothing else than some random civilians drinking on the job and of course we know that neeeever happens right?
This is an example of the ridiculous moral crusade the media is waging. Did these cops cause any trouble? Did they harm anyone? No. The worst thing to come out of this is that cops get a bad image. Yes, image, because that's what really matters, isn't it? The guy they interview says he was "dumbfounded" by this video. I guess he's never seen anyone cross against the red light either. The reporter says "the video tape you're watching is stunning (...) and with each passing second it becomes more and more jaw dropping". Either he's a total drama queen or he's putting a ridiculous spin on this tape.
Then they interview the guy who shot this tape. They mention how he's been accused of being anti-cop. Then they table the same accusation some halfwits have made and ask him if he hates cops. What kind of a "news" program is this? News is supposed to be about facts, not people's feelings on assorted subjects. And where do you come off asking a guy who shot a tape of drunk cops if he hates cops? That's about as relevant as the color of socks he was wearing that day. HE is not on trial here, he did nothing wrong. But even if he had, they would still ask the same question. About his motives, not about breaking the law. Because we have a moral crusade to pursue and it's not gonna run itself.
Let's look at that scene from another point of view as well. The case is: off duty cops caught on tape drinking. Now listen to the questions this guy is being asked. "Do you hate cops?" "To people who would say 'you are anti-police and you wanna make cops look bad', you would say?" The guy made a fucking tape. "Do you hate cops?"??? The issue is getting completely washed out here. They're changing the subject to something that isn't even remotely the subject. If he were a guy who had turned in a black guy for robbing a bank they would have said "you've said that you like Whites, does that mean you hate Blacks?". Because everything has to be painted black and white. Democrat or Republican. Conservative or liberal. If you're not A, you must be B. There's no room for nuance left, everything is either good or bad. Drunks cops = bad. Shocking. Dumbfounding. Jaw dropping.
People in the rest of the world are watching what's going on in the US and we can't make head or tail of it. Bush is defending his Iraq policy without presenting any justification and we just can't believe he gets away with it. Then you have the media commentary that exonerates him because "god spoke to him" and "his heart was in the right place". Who the fuck cares? What he did was illegal, so arrest him already and put him on trial! But since the ultimate truth is the moral one, that is more important than the legality of a person's actions. And since everything is painted black and white, the details don't matter. So since "his heart was in the right place" and therefore what he did was mostly "good", it means it could not have been wrong, so he's in the clear. Nevermind the actual laws he broke.
These news programs are not news. I'll be kind and call them entertainment, although it's much more insidious than that. The news is emotional rather than factual. The reporter tells you that you're supposed to be stunned and your jaw is supposed to drop as you watch this blatant conduct. There is absolutely no room left for reporting just the facts, and letting the viewer make up his own mind. You're being manipulated into this mindset that there is good and bad in the world, no quibbling. Conservative or liberal. You're either with us or against us. I've been watching Hollywood movies since I was a kid, and they are almost always based on a fictional morality of "good guy" and "bad guy". As I started growing up I found that simplistic distinction troubling. But hey, it's just a movie after all. But when you see politicians and media pundits talk about "good guy" and "bad guy" it seriously makes my skin crawl. Those are concepts we use in fairy tales told to children, they have no equivalent in the real world.
And then people debate whether the media has a "liberal bias". What's the difference? When your standards of journalistic integrity have dropped to this level, it hardly stirs the pot.
http://cw11.trb.com/news/local/newsatten/wpix-factfinderhome,0,2707029.htmlstory
I was replying to him when I thought why don't I just post it here.
Martin's critique of US media
"Fact Finders: Cops Caught Drinking On The Job"
I say "US media" because this clip is entirely characteristic of what I've seen on Fox News, CNN and assorted clips posted online. That doesn't mean every outlet is equally bad. It might also apply to Canadian media, but I can't say.
This video shows in a nutshell everything that's wrong with your media. First of all, and I know this is going to sound subjective, everything has to be sensationalized. Listen to these reporters for a minute and hear the tone in their voices. The tone is not merely serious and professional, it's kind of excited. That already creates a weird atmosphere. Where I come from (and currently live for that matter) news is not presented this way. It is just a statement of facts without emoting.
Then you have the story segment itself. Cops caught drinking and... not doing much else while standing on the street. Let me be the first to say: So fucking what? According to the reporter, they're not on duty, they're working for some private company at this time. So the only thing you could really hold against them as cops is that they're drinking in uniform, which makes for a bad image. If they hadn't been in uniform it would be nothing else than some random civilians drinking on the job and of course we know that neeeever happens right?
This is an example of the ridiculous moral crusade the media is waging. Did these cops cause any trouble? Did they harm anyone? No. The worst thing to come out of this is that cops get a bad image. Yes, image, because that's what really matters, isn't it? The guy they interview says he was "dumbfounded" by this video. I guess he's never seen anyone cross against the red light either. The reporter says "the video tape you're watching is stunning (...) and with each passing second it becomes more and more jaw dropping". Either he's a total drama queen or he's putting a ridiculous spin on this tape.
Then they interview the guy who shot this tape. They mention how he's been accused of being anti-cop. Then they table the same accusation some halfwits have made and ask him if he hates cops. What kind of a "news" program is this? News is supposed to be about facts, not people's feelings on assorted subjects. And where do you come off asking a guy who shot a tape of drunk cops if he hates cops? That's about as relevant as the color of socks he was wearing that day. HE is not on trial here, he did nothing wrong. But even if he had, they would still ask the same question. About his motives, not about breaking the law. Because we have a moral crusade to pursue and it's not gonna run itself.
Let's look at that scene from another point of view as well. The case is: off duty cops caught on tape drinking. Now listen to the questions this guy is being asked. "Do you hate cops?" "To people who would say 'you are anti-police and you wanna make cops look bad', you would say?" The guy made a fucking tape. "Do you hate cops?"??? The issue is getting completely washed out here. They're changing the subject to something that isn't even remotely the subject. If he were a guy who had turned in a black guy for robbing a bank they would have said "you've said that you like Whites, does that mean you hate Blacks?". Because everything has to be painted black and white. Democrat or Republican. Conservative or liberal. If you're not A, you must be B. There's no room for nuance left, everything is either good or bad. Drunks cops = bad. Shocking. Dumbfounding. Jaw dropping.
People in the rest of the world are watching what's going on in the US and we can't make head or tail of it. Bush is defending his Iraq policy without presenting any justification and we just can't believe he gets away with it. Then you have the media commentary that exonerates him because "god spoke to him" and "his heart was in the right place". Who the fuck cares? What he did was illegal, so arrest him already and put him on trial! But since the ultimate truth is the moral one, that is more important than the legality of a person's actions. And since everything is painted black and white, the details don't matter. So since "his heart was in the right place" and therefore what he did was mostly "good", it means it could not have been wrong, so he's in the clear. Nevermind the actual laws he broke.
These news programs are not news. I'll be kind and call them entertainment, although it's much more insidious than that. The news is emotional rather than factual. The reporter tells you that you're supposed to be stunned and your jaw is supposed to drop as you watch this blatant conduct. There is absolutely no room left for reporting just the facts, and letting the viewer make up his own mind. You're being manipulated into this mindset that there is good and bad in the world, no quibbling. Conservative or liberal. You're either with us or against us. I've been watching Hollywood movies since I was a kid, and they are almost always based on a fictional morality of "good guy" and "bad guy". As I started growing up I found that simplistic distinction troubling. But hey, it's just a movie after all. But when you see politicians and media pundits talk about "good guy" and "bad guy" it seriously makes my skin crawl. Those are concepts we use in fairy tales told to children, they have no equivalent in the real world.
And then people debate whether the media has a "liberal bias". What's the difference? When your standards of journalistic integrity have dropped to this level, it hardly stirs the pot.
I'm irritated because you added stuffs like "fucking chinamen". It's wrong generalization. It's the politicians who make decisions and you said "fucking chinamen" which is directed to all chinese regardless you meant it or not.
And don't say putting threats are evil things to do. Any politicians would do the same things when they have advantages.
In case you don't know, the official name of Taiwan is ROC (Republic of China).
And don't say putting threats are evil things to do. Any politicians would do the same things when they have advantages.
In case you don't know, the official name of Taiwan is ROC (Republic of China).
What does everyone think of the possibility of the Obama Bloomberg ticket? My only real concern with Obama is his stance on the economy. I am not sure its solid enough to help us get through all our financial troubles at the moment. The problem is that none of our candidates in any party McCain, Obama, or Clinton are really equipped to fix the issues of our economy. Clearly, they can hire staff that is capable of handling it but, Bloomberg is an expert in this area. Now that Bloomberg has taken himself out of the running for President officially. I think that would be the most amazing ticket. I was reading about in the Daily News today as a possibility and who is to rule it out since Bloomberg and Obama had their little breakfast meeting back in November/December that fueled all the rumors of him possibly being a running mate for Obama.
I didn't want Bloomberg to run for President on his own but I think he would be the best compliment to Obama. Who knows really. He has what Obama lacks: experience and economic credibility.
I didn't want Bloomberg to run for President on his own but I think he would be the best compliment to Obama. Who knows really. He has what Obama lacks: experience and economic credibility.
Edwards would be a good vice president but he still lacks the economic expertise that is really crucial right now. I do think he might have the vice presidency in mind since he didn't really back any of the democratic candidates. So that kind of keeps it open. Economy might not be everyone's main focus. We are concentrating more on securing our borders, terrorism, and health care. Our economy really needs attention and we need someone who has the knowledge of Bloomberg in the race. He is a proven expert.
Yeah technically he could hire someone to do that as I said. Although, to help get more of the independent vote and the actual support of a lot of people who are concerned about the economy he could get more support than having Edwards on the ticket. I don't really think Edwards totally compliments Obama in the way that Bloomberg could. The amount of confidence that people would have in the Obama Bloomberg ticket trumps the Obama Edwards ticket.
Shut up, dude. It was a joke, get over it.
If you actually knew anything about government bonds, you'd realize that basically anybody can buy them. If I wanted to blame our economic downturn on people buying government bonds, I'd have to blame a hell of a lot more people. The Chinese threatening to sell the bonds to spite us is a stupid assertion right now because NOBODY WANTS OUR CURRENCY RIGHT NOW.
If you actually knew anything about government bonds, you'd realize that basically anybody can buy them. If I wanted to blame our economic downturn on people buying government bonds, I'd have to blame a hell of a lot more people. The Chinese threatening to sell the bonds to spite us is a stupid assertion right now because NOBODY WANTS OUR CURRENCY RIGHT NOW.
Government incompetence? Your government is a little puppet of China, and if you ever lodged an official "we don't want to be China anymore" proposition, they will invade you and beat your heads in like dogs. So don't give me this government incompetence shit, tough guy. I think you better go drown some female babies or force more abortions, which the Chinese government does. So if you want to talk about government incompetence, go sniff up some of that blow. Oh, and saying Taiwan isn't China, if you wanted to argue that way, is like saying: "OHHHH, WE AREN'T THE USA! We're Hawaii!"
How is saying "fucking Chinamen" a generalisation? Are your politicians not Chinese? And of course saying "fucking Chinamen" is directed toward all the Chinese, because all the Chinese are FUCKING CHINESE, therefore they are FUCKING CHINAMEN...
So threats aren't evil? Threats are by definition evil, it's a fucking THREAT, joker.
How is saying "fucking Chinamen" a generalisation? Are your politicians not Chinese? And of course saying "fucking Chinamen" is directed toward all the Chinese, because all the Chinese are FUCKING CHINESE, therefore they are FUCKING CHINAMEN...
So threats aren't evil? Threats are by definition evil, it's a fucking THREAT, joker.
I watched the live report on that channel, and I'm fairly certain they stated that the officers were on duty. But that's not the point.
The point is, these officers were drinking on the street while children walked by. Moreover, they were"relieving" themselves in public, which is a crime. That's not setting a good example whatsoever.
I don't really pay attention to how stories are presented because I draw my own conclusions from the facts, unlike many others in this nation.
The point is, these officers were drinking on the street while children walked by. Moreover, they were"relieving" themselves in public, which is a crime. That's not setting a good example whatsoever.
I don't really pay attention to how stories are presented because I draw my own conclusions from the facts, unlike many others in this nation.
Yeah, I agree with that. What matters is hiring the right people to do the right job, something the Bush administration has probably never done. Most of the economic analysis wouldn't be completed by Bloomberg anyway, which is a good thing because he is probably biased towards Wall Street after working with Salomon Brothers in equity trading. That group isn't the most "trustworthy" of investment banks, that's for sure.
So I don't know how beneficial Mayor Bloomberg would be to economic analysis when the others will be doing the work anyway. Moreover, if he has a final say, it might be a little skewed towards Wall Street.
So I don't know how beneficial Mayor Bloomberg would be to economic analysis when the others will be doing the work anyway. Moreover, if he has a final say, it might be a little skewed towards Wall Street.
Fine, no need to derail the thread. Your joke is not funny though.
I'm not an economy expert, however I do know that to control amount of bonds, a government could either issue less bonds or lower the bonds interest rates to make it unattractive. By going to Iraq, your government needed more fund and one way to cover it is to issue more bonds. Who is to blame now?
I'm not an economy expert, however I do know that to control amount of bonds, a government could either issue less bonds or lower the bonds interest rates to make it unattractive. By going to Iraq, your government needed more fund and one way to cover it is to issue more bonds. Who is to blame now?
- Status