News. Reality. Connect, please.

[D2Kvirus]

In a poll in The Times yesterday, a whole 19% of 1000 people polled thought that maybe Bush's little crusade against people with oil and/or turbans was a good, and justified, idea.

Why didn't the headline read "81% of people still think this genocidal maniac should hurry up and do a JFK, and save the world from his bullshit." But, of course, this is The Times, run by Rupert Murdoch, and therefore an exceptionally Conservative paper that happens to be very pro-US, just like his tabloid, The Sun. After all, you wouldn't want to lose citizenship and, therefore, the Fox Network for being right, would you?

[BinLadenmustdie]

At 3/11/03 12:55 PM, D2KVirus wrote: In a poll in The Times yesterday, a whole 19% of 1000 people polled thought that maybe Bush's little crusade against people with oil and/or turbans was a good, and justified, idea.

Why didn't the headline read "81% of people still think this genocidal maniac should hurry up and do a JFK, and save the world from his bullshit." But, of course, this is The Times, run by Rupert Murdoch, and therefore an exceptionally Conservative paper that happens to be very pro-US, just like his tabloid, The Sun. After all, you wouldn't want to lose citizenship and, therefore, the Fox Network for being right, would you?

Not sure where you get your facts, but two-thirds of the public approves of military action against Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power, about the same number as has supported action in every CBS News Poll conducted since last fall. Here's a link of a CBS poll that just came out yesterday if you don't believe me.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/10/opinion/polls/main543446.shtml

[JMHX]

Eh, if you believe everything you read in the New York Times, I have half a mind to kick you ass. People can buy the New York Times.

[CrustifiedOnCrass]

How can people actually beLIEve these corporate media monolopies?

Maybe you should look at February 15th, the worlds largest protest EVER? Yet still..3/4 of americans approve of the war? What about the rest of the world? Yes...there is a world outside of the u.s.a. incase you were wondering.

The media completly lied about the numbers in practically every city (especially in Seattle).

I was demonstrating in Seattle with about 30,000 other people, yet they called it a "6,000 person peace vigil". We took over the fucking city and they didn't even blink. Next time there won't be a march, next time the city WILL be shut down. Civil disobedience is a tactic that works, and Black Bloc protest tactics, geurilla protest tactics et cetera.

Wait until your fucking war gets started, see how the people will respond to that. Freepers can't stop the bloc.

[BinLadenmustdie]

At 3/11/03 02:38 PM, CrustifiedOnCrass wrote:

The media completly lied about the numbers in practically every city (especially in Seattle).

I was demonstrating in Seattle with about 30,000 other people, yet they called it a "6,000 person peace vigil". We took over the fucking city and they didn't even blink. Next time there won't be a march, next time the city WILL be shut down. Civil disobedience is a tactic that works, and Black Bloc protest tactics, geurilla protest tactics et cetera.

Wait until your fucking war gets started, see how the people will respond to that. Freepers can't stop the bloc.

Another young idiot with a "mob-rules" mentality. Don't get trampled while you're out there. I just don't think I could bear it.

[SolarisDX]

At 3/11/03 12:55 PM, D2KVirus wrote: In a poll in The Times yesterday, a whole 19% of 1000 people polled thought that maybe Bush's little crusade against people with oil and/or turbans was a good, and justified, idea.

Polling the opinions of only 1,000 people is not an accurate gauge to measure the people's support of Bush.

[D2Kvirus]

At 3/11/03 01:26 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Eh, if you believe everything you read in the New York Times, I have half a mind to kick you ass. People can buy the New York Times.

I don't see the words "New York" in my post ONCE, just "The Times." There is a reason for this - check my profile for a start, or notice I spell words like "centre" or "colour." Or want Tony Blair to be lined up against a wall and shot in the scrotum repeatedly.

Anyway, it was reported this morning through the usual affiliates and so forth. Anyway, as for the percentage of Americans that want to bomb some Arab country because they're all evil, how many of them actually know where Iraq is? All but 67% of 'em, statistically speaking.

[JMHX]

At 3/11/03 03:35 PM, D2KVirus wrote:

At 3/11/03 01:26 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote:

I don't see the words "New York" in my post ONCE, just "The Times." There is a reason for this - check my profile for a start, or notice I spell words like "centre" or "colour." Or want Tony Blair to be lined up against a wall and shot in the scrotum repeatedly.

I'm sorry if it came off as insulting to you. I wasn't intending that. I just meant that if people get all of their views from one source, then they're always going to be just a little off. Like how the various papers here say Iraq is anywhere 2 - 15% of the world's oil supply.

[Slizor]

I think we can all agree that pretty much every poll on the war is bullshit. All the polls disagree.

[D2Kvirus]

Then why are they being touted as headline news? Would it be because they're easy to make a bold statement of a headline from, or is it to keep the journalists from journalism? To invert the old phrase, 1% of statistics aren't made up.

[TheEvilOne]

At 3/12/03 12:00 PM, D2KVirus wrote: Then why are they being touted as headline news? Would it be because they're easy to make a bold statement of a headline from, or is it to keep the journalists from journalism? To invert the old phrase, 1% of statistics aren't made up.

Polls are pretty much spin at its finest. You're going to find one poll that says one thing, and then you'll find another poll that asks the same question, but gives a different answer. Then, newspaper editors can just pick and choose which polls to give publicity to, and voila! The public miraculously supports the paper's position on the issue!

[D2Kvirus]

A full 22% of them. The other 78% don't count, obviously...

[JMHX]

At 3/12/03 12:43 PM, TheEvilOne wrote:

At 3/12/03 12:00 PM, D2KVirus wrote: Then why are they being touted as headline news? Would it be because they're easy to make a bold statement of a headline from, or is it to keep the journalists from journalism? To invert the old phrase, 1% of statistics aren't made up.

Polls are pretty much spin at its finest. You're going to find one poll that says one thing, and then you'll find another poll that asks the same question, but gives a different answer. Then, newspaper editors can just pick and choose which polls to give publicity to, and voila! The public miraculously supports the paper's position on the issue!

That's the proiblem with a New York Times Democracy. I relate to the New York Times for most of my poll discussion because they've been known to twist the statistics. If you want a certain answer one way, just polarize the options available. Like if you were pro-abortion, and were given a poll of "No, I am against abortion. It is murder of an innocent child." or "Yes, I am for abortion, the slaughter of helpless babies."

You'd choose the first to save face.

[D2Kvirus]

Yeah, that is lesson one in how NOT to compile a questionnaire (hey hey, I got a qualification in sociology too!), using loaded questions like that. It tends to corrupt your data rather badly, and gives you tainted results. Still, how many people read that, as opposed to something like "Gun related deaths up 33% in the UK in 2002." The grand total? 81. Damn, we're in a warzone here...

[panik]

At 3/11/03 12:55 PM, D2KVirus wrote: In a poll in The Times yesterday, a whole 19% of 1000 people polled thought that maybe Bush's little crusade against people with oil and/or turbans was a good, and justified, idea.

Why didn't the headline read "81% of people still think this genocidal maniac should hurry up and do a JFK, and save the world from his bullshit." But, of course, this is The Times, run by Rupert Murdoch, and therefore an exceptionally Conservative paper that happens to be very pro-US, just like his tabloid, The Sun. After all, you wouldn't want to lose citizenship and, therefore, the Fox Network for being right, would you?

Do you seriously only read the Times, you might as well subscribe to the National Esquire.
I think you are just a confused scared kid, who needs some guidence in your life. Try a mentor program or go hang out at the local boys and girls club or YMCA. And remember is alcoholism runs in your family you are more likly to be one also ....so strat drinking

[NEMESiSZ]

Don't just say "The Times," every city in the world has a newspaper called "The Times."

[OpIvy420]

Think about this. Has there ever been a small story, like something that happened in your hometown, something that you were eyewitness to or participated in? And did that thing ever get on the local news? And didn't the local news get a few facts wrong? I had the same thing happen to me on a larger scale. At the Feburary rally in San Francisco, CA, 200,000 people showed up to march for peace. 1,000 people seperated from that march and broke windows and frightened police horces in a pretty ineffective Black Bloc assault. The Fox News Channel reported the event like this: "200,000 people rioted in San Francisco today..." and showed nothing but the small group of dumb-asses throwing rocks and bottles at Acuras. None of the eloquent speakers, none of the hundreds of thousands of all-ages participants striving for a peaceful alternative to a bloody war in Iraq. Moral of this story? You can't trust a single thing you hear in the corporate media, since there's a 1 out of 4 chance that it's bullshit.
OpIvy

[NEMESiSZ]

No morons please, stay in general, newbie.

I think you are just a confused scared kid, who needs some guidence in your life. Try a mentor program or go hang out at the local boys and girls club or YMCA. And remember is alcoholism runs in your family you are more likly to be one also ....so strat drinking

Don't insult people unless you know how to spell.

[panik]

At 3/14/03 08:43 PM, FlattusMaximus wrote:

I think you are just a confused scared kid, who needs some guidence in your life. Try a mentor program or go hang out at the local boys and girls club or YMCA. And remember is alcoholism runs in your family you are more likly to be one also ....so strat drinking

Don't insult people unless you know how to spell.

yeah ok ummm......shut up...what are you the typo police or something level 2. God your like the assholes who submit crap movies because your bored. Blam

[OpIvy420]

At 3/14/03 08:28 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: No morons please, stay in general, newbie.

Just because I haven't brought up my level by spending my meaningless life blamming deserving flash movies in the portal doesn't mean that I don't deserve an opinion. I have put a lot of thought into how I feel, and though it must be hard to realize that other people don't think exactly the way you do, you're just going to have to accept that.
Asshole.

At 3/14/03 08:53 PM, panik wrote: yeah ok ummm......shut up...what are you the typo police or something level 2. God your like the assholes who submit crap movies because your bored. Blam

I am sorry, I don't speak Russian, please rephrase the above statement in English.

[JMHX]

At 3/14/03 09:35 PM, OpIvy420 wrote:

At 3/14/03 08:28 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: No morons please, stay in general, newbie.

Just because I haven't brought up my level by spending my meaningless life blamming deserving flash movies in the portal doesn't mean that I don't deserve an opinion. I have put a lot of thought into how I feel, and though it must be hard to realize that other people don't think exactly the way you do, you're just going to have to accept that.
Asshole.

If you can't handle it, go back to General. They can't form insults there. All they seem to have is a defective brain stem.

[NEMESiSZ]

At 3/14/03 09:35 PM, OpIvy420 wrote: Just because I haven't brought up my level by spending my meaningless life blamming deserving flash movies in the portal doesn't mean that I don't deserve an opinion. I have put a lot of thought into how I feel, and though it must be hard to realize that other people don't think exactly the way you do, you're just going to have to accept that.
Asshole.

Please...you make it too easy.

Go back to general, you're not needed here.

THE POLITICS COUNCIL HAS SPOKEN

[JMHX]

At 3/14/03 10:52 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote:

At 3/14/03 09:35 PM, OpIvy420 wrote:

Please...you make it too easy.

Go back to general, you're not needed here.

THE POLITICS COUNCIL HAS SPOKEN

That's what we need! A politics council! A board of five regular, respected members of the politics forum with the ability to restrict horrible posters to maybe...1 post a day...or ban them from the forums. Yeah, that would be great and democratic.

[Commander-K25]

At 3/11/03 12:55 PM, D2KVirus wrote: In a poll in The Times yesterday...

Ahhhh....The smell of unproven, unfounded ranting.

[D2Kvirus]

At 3/14/03 06:21 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Don't just say "The Times," every city in the world has a newspaper called "The Times."

No, The Times is The Times, as www.timesonline.co.uk will point out to you. I guess because they came up with it first.

And like I read it anyway. Why would I want to give a fracion of my hard earned to Rupert Murdoch? Just because it's a prestige paper, it gets reported ahead of anything else. Please, stop and think before typing, it saves so much space.

[NEMESiSZ]

Oh, sorry I didn't automatically know which of 10,000 "times" you were talking about.

Stop assuming the world revolved around your shitty puppet state, it doesn't. England hasn't mattered since WW2, and that was only because they were getting the crap beaten out of them.

[D2Kvirus]

At 3/16/03 10:23 AM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Oh, sorry I didn't automatically know which of 10,000 "times" you were talking about.

Stop assuming the world revolved around your shitty puppet state, it doesn't. England hasn't mattered since WW2, and that was only because they were getting the crap beaten out of them.

Please, can you explain to me in one paragraph or less why you feel the need to mask your ignorance about any nation other than your by throwing hissy fits at everybody else?

And once more the Predictible Retort Machine is back in force. Obviously the fact that before your lot bothered to show up, Britain had:

1. Won the Battle of Britain.
2. Bombed Berlin.
3. Liberated several African nations.
4. Survived well enopugh because of our merchant Navy - WITHOUT any of your ships bothering to protect them from U Boats, even in US waters.
5. Survived The Blitz.
6. Sunk the Bismarck - the most dangerous naval threat they had.
7. Sheepishly admitted that Churchill's worries back in 1937 were well founded.
8. Watched as Hitler's ego saw him march into Russia, which ultimatly cost them the war.

Crap beaten out of us? How mature and well researched your opinions are. Just because Blair has always played "bestest friend" to the US since he arrived (both Clinton and Bush have had him bounding around like a Yorkshire Terrier) doesn't mean we agree with him. In fact, our news reporting (except the BBC, since the Government have always had the ability to pull the plug on them, so they toe the line out of self-preservation) has criticised him for years. Oh, britain sucks, tell me something I don't know - obviously I said "insignificant little speck" as a term of affection. However, "My country's better than yours" is a line of argument I haven't heard since Primary School, ie when I was TEN YEARS OLD.

If you're going to lash out at everybody who disagrees with you, would you mind showing up to an Anti-War rally? The entertainment of you breaking down because so many people will see you as a robot that can't accept views other than your own will be hilarious.

[NEMESiSZ]

Britain had not:
Liberated France

Thank you, come again.