Do you hate Americans?

Watch
psychic_satori
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#2461
Report 14 years ago
#2461
(Original post by Bismarck)
That phrase means the exact opposite of what you think it means. It means that the identities of the past are given up in order to create a new Union. The Civil War ended whatever sovereignty states enjoyed. Now they have whatever power the federal government delegated to them.

Anyway, states have sovereignty, not individualism.
Or not, according to your statement two sentences back. :rolleyes:

Anyway, I chose to use the word "individualism," because I was meaning not only sovereign power, but ALSO the cultural identity of voters within different states and their ability to form a voting block. I'm sure that you are more than familiar with the phenomenon of referring to a group of voters by the constituency name--i.e. "Texas is a right-wing state." Obviously, it is impossible for a state, as a physical thing, to have any sort of political leaning, but we consider "Texas" to mean "the residents of Texas." There was no need to be petty about terminology, my dear.
0
reply
Douglas
Badges: 9
#2462
Report 14 years ago
#2462
(Original post by Bismarck)
Not a great believer in democracy, are you?
Huh ???


....
0
reply
Douglas
Badges: 9
#2463
Report 14 years ago
#2463
(Original post by Iz the Wiz)
How is the BBC's coverage "anti-American"? I'm an American & I don't feel that the BBC has attacked my country. .
There are more than a few well respected sources that claim the BBC is aggressively anti-American.
0
reply
foxo
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#2464
Report 14 years ago
#2464
(Original post by Bismarck)
You forget that reporters aren't supposed to provide their opinions.
Try telling that to The Sun.

Anyway, I occasionally read the BBC News website (however, I usually buy The Scotsman, The Times or The Independent, so rarely need to), and rarely watch it on TV, and it doesn't really seem opinionated to me. Care for an example?
0
reply
Bismarck
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#2465
Report 14 years ago
#2465
(Original post by foxo)
Try telling that to The Sun.

Anyway, I occasionally read the BBC News website (however, I usually buy The Scotsman, The Times or The Independent, so rarely need to), and rarely watch it on TV, and it doesn't really seem opinionated to me. Care for an example?
Sure. When there were protests in Uzbekistan recently, BBC made it a point to say "Uzbekistan is a key American ally" in every single story they did on the events there. Too bad that relations between the two countries have been less than friendly for the last year and Uzbekistan is hardly a US ally anymore; in fact Britain has been much less vocal in criticizing the regime than the US. But BBC still felt the need to connect America to one of the most oppressive regimes in the world, while downplaying the support that regime receives from Russia and China.

(Original post by Douglas)
Huh ???


....
You don't think people should vote; only states. How is that democratic? Democracy = rule by the people.

(Original post by psychic_satori)
Or not, according to your statement two sentences back. :rolleyes:

Anyway, I chose to use the word "individualism," because I was meaning not only sovereign power, but ALSO the cultural identity of voters within different states and their ability to form a voting block. I'm sure that you are more than familiar with the phenomenon of referring to a group of voters by the constituency name--i.e. "Texas is a right-wing state." Obviously, it is impossible for a state, as a physical thing, to have any sort of political leaning, but we consider "Texas" to mean "the residents of Texas." There was no need to be petty about terminology, my dear.
Are you really going to claim that there is a major cultural difference between states like South Carolina and Alabama or New Mexico and Arizona? Especially with the amount of times an average American moves from one state to another in their lifetime?

And since New York City has a different culture from the rest of New York State, does that mean we should have our own electors?
0
reply
Douglas
Badges: 9
#2466
Report 14 years ago
#2466
(Original post by foxo)
Try telling that to The Sun.

Anyway, I occasionally read the BBC News website (however, I usually buy The Scotsman, The Times or The Independent, so rarely need to), and rarely watch it on TV, and it doesn't really seem opinionated to me. Care for an example?
Here are a couple of interesting comments.

In January, criticisms made of the BBC in a report by an official commission set up by the U.K. government ("the Hutton enquiry") in regard to its Iraq-war coverage, were so scathing that both the chairman of the board of governors of the BBC and its director-general had little choice but to resign. Since then, the BBC has — for a while at least — been a little more adroit at disguising its prejudices. Instead much of its slant now lies in omission rather than in active distortion.
Using lavish public funding (courtesy of the British taxpayer) and an unprecedented worldwide news reach (its radio service alone, broadcasting in 43 languages, attracts over 150 million listeners daily), it is — in blatant breach of its own charter — virtually conducting its own anti-American and anti-Israeli foreign policy. Anyone who doesn't agree with its policies (Tony Blair, for example) finds himself at the mercy of BBC news coverage.
0
reply
Iz the Wiz
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2467
Report 14 years ago
#2467
(Original post by Bismarck)
You forget that reporters aren't supposed to provide their opinions.
Breaking this rule doesn't constitute anti-Americanism.

(Original post by Douglas)
There are more than a few well respected sources that claim the BBC is aggressively anti-American.
Who? What do they say? Do they, or don't they, conflate "America" with its political leadership?
0
reply
Douglas
Badges: 9
#2468
Report 14 years ago
#2468
(Original post by Iz the Wiz)
.Who? What do they say? Do they, or don't they, conflate "America" with its political leadership?
read post 2468


.....
0
reply
Bismarck
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#2469
Report 14 years ago
#2469
(Original post by Iz the Wiz)
Breaking this rule doesn't constitute anti-Americanism.
It does when the only times BBC reporters break this rule is to bash America and/or Israel.
0
reply
Iz the Wiz
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2470
Report 14 years ago
#2470
(Original post by Douglas)
read post 2468


.....
That post contained 2 totally unsourced quotes, the first of which does not mention "anti-Americanism" at all, and the second of which gives no examples (but certainly seems to be playing the usual game of "criticizing the White House = anti-Americanism.")
0
reply
Iz the Wiz
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2471
Report 14 years ago
#2471
(Original post by Bismarck)
It does when the only times BBC reporters break this rule is to bash America and/or Israel.
Again, what does this "bashing" consist of? Criticism of Bush and Sharon I bet.

The U.S. and Israel are not fascist or totalitarian countries. We don't hold that our leaders or our political parties embody our nation. They can be criticized & yet leave "America" none the worse.
0
reply
Bismarck
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#2472
Report 14 years ago
#2472
(Original post by Iz the Wiz)
Again, what does this "bashing" consist of? Criticism of Bush and Sharon I bet.

The U.S. and Israel are not fascist or totalitarian countries. We don't hold that our leaders or our political parties embody our nation. They can be criticized & yet leave "America" none the worse.
That's irrelevant. The point is that the BBC constantly portrays American in a bad light while ignoring the wrong committed by other countries (unless they're American allies of course).
0
reply
Iz the Wiz
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2473
Report 14 years ago
#2473
(Original post by Bismarck)
That's irrelevant. The point is that the BBC constantly portrays American in a bad light while ignoring the wrong committed by other countries (unless they're American allies of course).
Again, could you provide an example of "the BBC constantly portray[ing] American in a bad light"?

As I said before, I bet it will consist of the doctrine "criticizing the White House = anti-Americanism."
0
reply
Made in the USA
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#2474
Report 14 years ago
#2474
Anyone ever notice how the BBC always puts the word terrorist in quotes? They are talking about a bomb factory that is playing a role in suicide bombing attacks.

Gaining rare access to the Palestinian militias, Correspondent focuses on the nexus of "terrorist" street fighters in three West Bank towns. Hidden in the concrete warren of the Jenin refugee camp is a bomb-making factory where the suicide belts and the explosives are made. Reporter John Kampfner and Producer Stuart Tanner report.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...nt/1834452.stm
0
reply
Iz the Wiz
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2475
Report 14 years ago
#2475
Maybe they were just unsure whether the street fighters were the same people as the suicide bombers.
0
reply
JonD
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2476
Report 14 years ago
#2476
That's an improvement. I think "combatants" was the term they used to use to describe people who blow themselves up school busses.
0
reply
Made in the USA
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#2477
Report 14 years ago
#2477
(Original post by Iz the Wiz)
Maybe they were just unsure whether the street fighters were the same people as the suicide bombers.
How is it possible that they are always unsure in almost every single story they publish? They obviously have sympathy for the terrorists and feel that the word terrorist is a subjective word. It's their way of undermining our fight against terrorism.

Here is another link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4575267.stm

'Terrorists' behind Delhi bombs

The Indian defence minister has said that two week-end bomb attacks on cinemas in the capital Delhi appeared to be the work of "terrorists".
If the people behind this bombing aren't terrorists, what the heck are they?
I would be livid if my tax dollars were support this sorry excuse for a news outlet.
0
reply
Iz the Wiz
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2478
Report 14 years ago
#2478
(Original post by Made in the USA)
How is it possible that they are always unsure in almost every single story they publish? They obviously have sympathy for the terrorists and feel that the word terrorist is a subjective word. It's their way of undermining our fight against terrorism.

Here is another link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4575267.stm
Maybe they hold an honest belief that Israeli leadership calls people terrorists without always having due cause. In the story you quoted, there were suicide bombers on the one hand, and Palestinian street fighters on the other. How are you so sure they're the same people?

Don't worry, I somehow doubt our fight against terrorism, with its vast, unprecedented force of arms, can be "undermined" by a punctuation mark.



If the people behind this bombing aren't terrorists, what the heck are they?
I would be livid if my tax dollars were support this sorry excuse for a news outlet.
This is strange, but it shows (on your view) that the same "undermining" effort is being applied to India, doesn't it? And therefore that the BBC is "anti-Indian," not exclusively anti-American and -Israeli?
0
reply
psychic_satori
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#2479
Report 14 years ago
#2479
(Original post by Bismarck)
Are you really going to claim that there is a major cultural difference between states like South Carolina and Alabama or New Mexico and Arizona? Especially with the amount of times an average American moves from one state to another in their lifetime?

And since New York City has a different culture from the rest of New York State, does that mean we should have our own electors?
I have done more than enough domestic travel to safely say that there are distinct cultural differences between states.

As to the NYC question, it all factors into gubernatorial and senatorial elections.
0
reply
Bismarck
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#2480
Report 14 years ago
#2480
(Original post by psychic_satori)
I have done more than enough domestic travel to safely say that there are distinct cultural differences between states.
Are the differences large enough to warrant taking away the vote from individuals and giving it to these states?

As to the NYC question, it all factors into gubernatorial and senatorial elections.
Is that why we have a staunchly Republican governor despite ~70% of NYCers being Democrats?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

If you do not get the A-level grades you want this summer, what is your likely next step?

Take autumn exams (132)
46.32%
Take exams next summer (44)
15.44%
Change uni choice through clearing (69)
24.21%
Apply to uni next year instead (26)
9.12%
I'm not applying to university (14)
4.91%

Watched Threads

View All