Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=557746
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Nice link. I think a certain individual would not mind seeing this
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I read the page. What point is it supposed to prove? It's just a list of how often he said certain things. So what?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    I read the page. What point is it supposed to prove? It's just a list of how often he said certain things. So what?
    Did you really read it? Only the first part is a list of things he said.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sisyphus)
    Did you really read it? Only the first part is a list of things he said.
    Yes. I really read it. It's pointless and I hope it's not the sort of thing that you'd typically find in your newspapers.

    Those figures are meaningless unless you can compare and contrast them with those of another country, so you can tell how they are alike and how they are different. Otherwise, it's a total waste of ink and you can't conclude anything from it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Incomplete)
    been reading the guardian i see
    Yep and i even ordered the book
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    Yes. I really read it. It's pointless and I hope it's not the sort of thing that you'd typically find in your newspapers.

    Those figures are meaningless unless you can compare and contrast them with those of another country, so you can tell how they are alike and how they are different. Otherwise, it's a total waste of ink and you can't conclude anything from it.
    FYI, The Independent was a broadly left wing newspaper that was respected for its restrained outlook. Since the turn of the year, it has turned into a most rabid, liberal, anti-Bush, anti-Israeli, propaganda sheet. This is the most anti-American mainstream newspaper currently in Britain
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    FYI, The Independent was a broadly left wing newspaper that was respected for its restrained outlook. Since the turn of the year, it has turned into a most rabid, liberal, anti-Bush, anti-Israeli, propaganda sheet. This is the most anti-American mainstream newspaper currently in Britain
    Yes pay no attention Made In The USA it's just another crazy lefty paper
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BloodyValentine)
    Yes pay no attention Made In The USA it's just another crazy lefty paper
    do pay attention, read the editorials, read their reports on current affairs, but do so with some knowledge and context of their writing, i dont believe Made In USA is particular aware of the nature of our broadsheets in the UK.

    incidentally, in your opinion, what was the intent, motivation and/or goal of that particular article?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Virtually all of the mainstream papers have a 'left/right' slant, due to political manoeuvreing or any other reason. Anti-war articles are just as relevant as pro-war articles (as vienna pointed out on taking into account both perspectives). The single most frustrating fact I find is the argument of being unpatriotic for not backing the war. But I digress (this has been debated too much...!).

    In general the standard of the papers here is fairly good, though the tabloids can make it worse than most across the world!
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    do pay attention, read the editorials, read their reports on current affairs, but do so with some knowledge and context of their writing, i dont believe Made In USA is particular aware of the nature of our broadsheets in the UK.

    incidentally, in your opinion, what was the intent, motivation and/or goal of that particular article?
    We have liberal papers too, but they are much more subtle and you'll never see a hatchet job on another country like that

    I'm not sure if your question is directed at BloodyValentine or myself, but I think the intent, motivation and goal of that particular article would be making the Bush administration look incompetent.

    I'm not going to deny that we may have been complacent prior to the towers coming down, but I think the whole world was naive prior to that attack. We were complacent because a terrorist attack of that magnitude had never occurred on our soil, or on any other country's soil, for that matter.

    The writer is implying that Bush should have been after al-Qa'ida and Osama bin Laden prior to the attack. The writer fails to mention leaders of other countries. If he did, it would be very clear that almost no leaders were mentioning al-Qa'ida or Osama bin Laden in speeches prior to 9/11/01. We were all caught off guard and it was a wake-up call for all of us.

    The writer is singling out Bush for not being as aware as he should have been of the threat of terrorism, prior to September 11th, but weren't all world leaders not using an aggressive approach to combating terrorists at the time?

    ---Edit---
    I fixed some grammar mistakes I made when I typed this late last night.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    ... is a monkey. i can prove it:
    Attached Images
     
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    At least he doesn't look like he's melting.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by psychic_satori)
    At least he doesn't look like he's melting.
    Or a horse. The man looks like a horse from every angle. I don't know how he was able to marry two women in a row that are worth a billion dollars.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    I'm a supporter of Bush, however I do not think it will make a great deal of difference who is governing the United States..

    These apocalyptic images and ridiculous caricatures that surround Bush do not bode well for a reasonable, logical debate on his term in office, which has (like all his predecessors) been mixed...
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by englishstudent)
    I agree totally. It's not only this area which Bush has managed to be totally corrupt. He flew about 18 members of the bin Laden family out of the USA after 9/11 without them being questionned. This was at a time when all other plans were grounded. He has launched a war on terror which is a thin veil for an oil finding expedition. It's funny how he caught Saddam (who his daddy disliked) but not bin Laden (with whom the Bush family has close ties). :rolleyes:

    Bush is a tosser as are his cabinet members. If Kerry doesn't win this election, the world is in for 4 more years of tragedy.
    The Bin Laden family are a rich and noble arabic family with strong connections in America and Europe. Why is he not allowed to protect them from possible persecution in America?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Sorry to be slightly off-topic, but after watching Newsnight yesterday highlighting Bush's speech at the Republican convention and Kerry's response, they're just as bad as eachother and if I was American I'd probably vote for neither.
    Bush is often critised for just using repetitive punch catchphrases in his speeches without any actual real policies (other than that regarding national security). But Kerry did the same when responding. All the 2 seem to do is attack eachother's war record and make low remarks about eachother and such.
    Atleast in England, although few people may know entirely what their chosen party's policies are, there is more emphasis on policies, and conflict between parties is usually conflict in policies rather than making personal attacks.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    If you watched Bush' speech in full you would know that he made loads of domsstic pledges (although he also pledged lower taxs), he then went on to spend the rest of the speech on the war on terror. This is one of the major problems with 5 minute news slots!

    Of course... Not everyone wants to stop until 4am to see Bush speak!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    There are so many more important things than waging a so-called war on an enemy we have a very difficult time identifiying. For a start, Bush will NEVER eliminate terrorism. So long as people don't like something, they will rebel, and if they really don't like it, they'll take forceful action. There's no way you can make everybody happy. He just cannot win, I don't understand what he's trying to achieve... to strike fear into the hearts of terrorists?

    I'm not saying terrorism isn't a concern, of course it is. Nobody wants innocent people to be killed! But there are other important things besides engaging in military conflict.... it's almost like Bush will get bored or something if he doesn't have anything to do with his armed forces.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jamie Frost)
    Sorry to be slightly off-topic, but after watching Newsnight yesterday highlighting Bush's speech at the Republican convention and Kerry's response, they're just as bad as eachother and if I was American I'd probably vote for neither.
    Bush is often critised for just using repetitive punch catchphrases in his speeches without any actual real policies (other than that regarding national security). But Kerry did the same when responding. All the 2 seem to do is attack eachother's war record and make low remarks about eachother and such.
    Atleast in England, although few people may know entirely what their chosen party's policies are, there is more emphasis on policies, and conflict between parties is usually conflict in policies rather than making personal attacks.
    There are a lot of websites where you can stream the entire speeches. Try listening to the speeches in their entirety rather than have someone pick and choose which "highlights" they want you to hear. Virtually all of the speakers at the convention thanked Kerry for his service.
 
 
 
Poll
Are you going to a festival?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.