PDA

View Full Version : Transparency in the media



mab
25th August 2008, 11:01 PM
What are your thoughts about transparency in the media?

Is it "controlled" or objective?

The coverage of the Georgian conflict seems one sided with no mention of the Georgians' firing first.

And the US elections: Run by the media, with a system that I hope will never see the light of day in Australia.

See it in action on this great independently made movie that you can download here (http://www.freeforall.tv/)


Thoughts'

Edit: I must admit SBS do seem to be more neutral, but hey they get the news from the same central sources.

Taezar
25th August 2008, 11:15 PM
In the great words of the fictional President Bartlett "post hoc ergo propter hoc."

NeoRicen
25th August 2008, 11:17 PM
Eh, just watch SBS.

Kensei
25th August 2008, 11:23 PM
In the great words of the fictional President Bartlett "post hoc ergo propter hoc."

Ah I see another West Wing fan :D

mab
25th August 2008, 11:30 PM
Eh, just watch SBS.

Problem: The population of a country that has a lot of power over others watches and takes as fact fox (faux) news. And in most cases AU news follows suit.

NeoRicen
25th August 2008, 11:33 PM
Problem is, the population of a country that has a lot of power over others watches and takes as fact fox (faux) news. And in most cases AU news follows suit.
Ugh, tell me about it, my brother watches Fox News, in Australia!

Kensei
25th August 2008, 11:36 PM
Problem: The population of a country that has a lot of power over others watches and takes as fact fox (faux) news. And in most cases AU news follows suit.

This is a very interesting segment regarding fox news and it's faux news entertainment.

t3kI8LNTqNo

mab
25th August 2008, 11:40 PM
At least someone has the balls


Kgi8GMZylyU


Except I do think the media has influence :)

Brains
25th August 2008, 11:42 PM
Transparency in the media has been essentially non-existent in the USA and most of the westernised world for over sixty years. If you are a journo you write what you're told to, say what you're told to, broadcast what you're told to, or you don't have a job.

mab
25th August 2008, 11:56 PM
Transparency in the media has been essentially non-existent in the USA and most of the westernised world for over sixty years. If you are a journo you write what you're told to, say what you're told to, broadcast what you're told to, or you don't have a job.

The win

Now how to get that out to the people?


Please

Brains
26th August 2008, 01:34 AM
Short of setting up your own print press and doing a city-wide letterbox drop with a pamphet explaining that YOUR TV AND NEWSPAPERS LIE TO YOU, it's virtually impossible. And even then, most of them are totally addicted to the idiot tube and the talking heads in the papers & on radio, if they stopped watching listening and reading what the media tells them to think, their brains will implode because they'd be empty.

Sad, isn't it.

mab
26th August 2008, 02:48 AM
Short of setting up your own print press and doing a city-wide letterbox drop with a pamphet explaining that YOUR TV AND NEWSPAPERS LIE TO YOU, it's virtually impossible. And even then, most of them are totally addicted to the idiot tube and the talking heads in the papers & on radio, if they stopped watching listening and reading what the media tells them to think, their brains will implode because they'd be empty.

Sad, isn't it.

Yes very. But what else is there really?

The choices are the main stream media or blogs and forums. Unfortunately the latter are influenced by the former

eg how many people in the US, or in AU for that matter got an full prospective on the past US elections?

How many have seen the doco I posted at the top of this thread? Its free to download and show, maybe SBS or ABC will show it (don't think so)

I'll post it again here (http://www.freeforall.tv). <-- please watch this you WILL be amazed

.

NeoRicen
26th August 2008, 04:50 PM
You people realise we're on the internet don't you? :p

The answer to the problem's right in front of us.

Brains
26th August 2008, 05:55 PM
Neo, the content (and real knowledge) is definitely out there, and only a few clicks away, but most people are so happily ensconsed in their media cocoons that they don't know of any other alternative. The trick is to be able to some how get this extra information in their faces, make them watch / read / listen, and try the impossible -- thinking for themselves for a change.

oddturtle
26th August 2008, 09:30 PM
Problem: The population of a country that has a lot of power over others watches and takes as fact fox (faux) news. And in most cases AU news follows suit.

I actually think Fox news is a valuable counter balance in the US media, and its too bad we have nothing like that here. People who only watch Olbermann and MSNBC have a ridiculously skewed view of the world, and the only time they watch Fox news is a 'cleverly' (and most of the time I think smug) selected montage of clips edited together to parody Fox. Try watching in its original format and not an anti-fox youtube video before thinking you know you can see truth behind media lies (given that you are largely being influenced by a piece of blatant media propaganda anyway)

And those that go 'online' as if to breach this wall only go to the sites to find information they want to read anyway. I doubt you will look seriously into arguments put by political pundits that you have grown up to automatically distrust and believe to be dishonest.

NeoRicen
26th August 2008, 11:47 PM
I actually think Fox news is a valuable counter balance in the US media, and its too bad we have nothing like that here. People who only watch Olbermann and MSNBC have a ridiculously skewed view of the world, and the only time they watch Fox news is a 'cleverly' (and most of the time I think smug) selected montage of clips edited together to parody Fox. Try watching in its original format and not an anti-fox youtube video before thinking you know you can see truth behind media lies (given that you are largely being influenced by a piece of blatant media propaganda anyway)

And those that go 'online' as if to breach this wall only go to the sites to find information they want to read anyway. I doubt you will look seriously into arguments put by political pundits that you have grown up to automatically distrust and believe to be dishonest.
:thumbdn:

soul assasin
27th August 2008, 03:32 PM
Redacted.

cosmichobo
27th August 2008, 03:59 PM
It wasunt (sorry, just felt like spelling it that way today) until I saw BTN the other day, that I learned that Georgia attacked first. So, go ABC! (and on a side note, Ch10's version talks down so much to its audience...)

I had already heard the hypocracy of Mr Bush, in his statements against Russia invading a soverign state...

For the most part now I do my best to simply not watch or read any news... though that's not an ideal situation...

NeoRicen
27th August 2008, 05:35 PM
A couple of things:

Georgia attacked Georgia first, so it's hardly the same as Georgia attacking Russia first (I know that's not what you're saying, but saying Georgia attacked first and leaving it at that gives that impression). I don't think anyone here can say with a straight face that what Russia did was OK (or Georgia).
Is it just me or is Channel 7 News turning into a current affairs show?
soul assassin... I think you're taking things a bit too far. There's nothing wrong with rules or education, heck my English class in Year 11 or 12 (I forget :o) was all about the bullshit in the media, and how to view it sceptically, it's the most valuable thing I got out of school.

mab
27th August 2008, 10:32 PM
I actually think Fox news is a valuable counter balance in the US media, and its too bad we have nothing like that here. People who only watch Olbermann and MSNBC have a ridiculously skewed view of the world, and the only time they watch Fox news is a 'cleverly' (and most of the time I think smug) selected montage of clips edited together to parody Fox. Try watching in its original format and not an anti-fox youtube video before thinking you know you can see truth behind media lies (given that you are largely being influenced by a piece of blatant media propaganda anyway)

And those that go 'online' as if to breach this wall only go to the sites to find information they want to read anyway. I doubt you will look seriously into arguments put by political pundits that you have grown up to automatically distrust and believe to be dishonest.

Your kidding right? Next you'd say that you would vote McCain :)

oddturtle
27th August 2008, 11:30 PM
I would :)

mab
27th August 2008, 11:40 PM
I would :)

I know there is a smiley there. But are you serious? and if so I would like know why you would vote that way.

mab
27th August 2008, 11:58 PM
It wasunt (sorry, just felt like spelling it that way today) until I saw BTN the other day, that I learned that Georgia attacked first. So, go ABC! (and on a side note, Ch10's version talks down so much to its audience...)

I had already heard the hypocracy of Mr Bush, in his statements against Russia invading a soverign state...

For the most part now I do my best to simply not watch or read any news... though that's not an ideal situation...

Of course not the authoritative source of information but take a look at the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_South_Ossetia_war) on the subject

Silver
28th August 2008, 12:14 AM
I know there is a smiley there. But are you serious? and if so I would like know why you would vote that way.

I certainly wouldn't mind a McCain victory, because I like seeing the US weak and in recession. As a non-US citizen, who is keen to see the US stranglehold on the world eased, a McCain victory should continue the US on this path.

mab
28th August 2008, 12:17 AM
I certainly wouldn't mind a McCain victory, because I like seeing the US weak and in recession. As a non-US citizen, who is keen to see the US stranglehold on the world eased, a McCain victory should continue the US on this path.

You know Silver; the evil side of me thinks the same :) (and the evil side.. Well he may not be that evil)

oddturtle
28th August 2008, 01:09 AM
I know there is a smiley there. But are you serious? and if so I would like know why you would vote that way.

He will win the war, for starters. If people had listened to him from the start, it wouldn't have been so badly managed and dragged out. He supported the surge, and it has worked.

Economic policies - that is a no brainer for me - Mccain wants tax cuts and reduce public spending and pork barreling, he is a strong proponent of free trade and wants to lift the ban of offshore oil drilling (note the wording - that is important: lifting a ban is not the same as support oil drilling). Obama wants socialised health care programs, and wants to lift the minimum wage. He also thinks NAFTA was a big mistake.

Mccain is a republican, Obama is a democrat. I could go on... maybe it would be better to say why you think Obama is so much better than Mccain and I could rebut your arguments, given that you are probably like 99% of Australians who only listen to one veiwpoint of American politics, there are probably many arguments you have never heard before. I assume you have never actually watched Fox news, only the youtube or Daily Show parodies?

oddturtle
28th August 2008, 01:28 AM
I certainly wouldn't mind a McCain victory, because I like seeing the US weak and in recession. As a non-US citizen, who is keen to see the US stranglehold on the world eased, a McCain victory should continue the US on this path.

This is a very fashionable thing to say, but let's look at things more objectively - were the US not the super power it is, would the world be better, and who would take it's place?

It was the power of the US that stopped the Nazis, the Japanese, rebuilt the economies and transitioned the politics of the Axis powers to democracies, prevented South Korea from being communist, checked the power of communism during the cold war, kept west Berlin from being the shithole that was East Berlin, brought down the wall, and now it is fighting Islamic fascism.

I mean, do you think its a good thing that dictators should have more power and control than they do now, or would you rather a powerful, open society like the US to curb the influence of people like Mugabe, Saddam, Kim Jong Il, etc?

the fact is, that US foreign policy has been significantly been a net benefit to the world. Honestly, where would you rather live - the United States, or China? Which country would you rather be exporting its values - one is a prosperous, individualistic and free democracy, the other is militaristic, authoritarian communist country, the strength of which has only been relatively recently diluted from the influence of America.

So let's make the US weak - who do you want to take its place?

mab
28th August 2008, 01:43 AM
He will win the war, for starters. If people had listened to him from the start, it wouldn't have been so badly managed and dragged out. He supported the surge, and it has worked.

Why the fuck where they there in the first place?



Economic policies - that is a no brainer for me - Mccain wants tax cuts


But mainly for the rich
http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/kk272/hannahhassett/ObamasTaxPlan.gif




and reduce public spending and pork barreling, he is a strong proponent of free trade and wants to lift the ban of offshore oil drilling (note the wording - that is important: lifting a ban is not the same as support oil drilling).


OK, Even though I'm sure other people on this forum will show that the billions of dollars spent (and subsidised) chasing oil off shore could be better spent on renewable energy.



Obama wants socialised health care programs, and wants to lift the minimum wage.


And that's a bad thing?



He also thinks NAFTA was a big mistake.


Hasn't turned out to well. But it should work if managed properly I remember Keating backing that with Clinton.



the fact is, that US foreign policy has been significantly been a net benefit to the world. Honestly, where would you rather live - the United States, or China? Which country would you rather be exporting its values - one is a prosperous, individualistic and free democracy, the other is militaristic, authoritarian communist country, the strength of which has only been relatively recently diluted from the influence of America.


One seems to raising; how every slowly and the other seems hell bent on slipping down to meet them

But n the end, I think I would prefer to live under Communism rather than Fascism

oddturtle
28th August 2008, 02:05 AM
Iraq - who cares? Does Obama have a time machine? I don't think it was a good idea to go in, but it's not the worst idea in the world. Saddam is dead, and a democracy is being built. The aim isn't to spread democracy everywhere, but plant it somewhere and a region where the only options for governance are a secular dictatorship or a theocratic dictatorship, unless you live in Israel.

Rich tax cuts - yeah, everyone should get tax cuts, but giving them to rich people is actually a very good idea. Contrary to what most people think, rich people don't just use their cash for money fights - they actually invest and generally speaking, rich people make better economic decisions than poor people (how else did they get rich in the first place?) - instead of just taking the money from the rich and giving it the poor guy in the form of poorly planned economic decisions, let the rich guy make good economic decisions that benefit everyone to a greater extent.

healthcare/min wage - yes, it is a bad thing.

NAFTA - I have criticisms too of NAFTA in specific regards, but my beef with Obama is his ideological resistance to free trade. It's thinking along the lines of 'lets keep the high paying jobs in this country, and protect them from cheap overseas labour' - just populist, pro union crap that gets votes from people who don't understand how economics works.

oddturtle
28th August 2008, 02:13 AM
One seems to raising. how every slowly and the other seems hell bent on slipping down to meet them

But I think I would prefer Communism to Fascism

puh-leaze. Find out the number of Chinese who desperately want to live in the United States, compared to the number of Americans so desperate to live in China, ask them if they prefer communism to America's 'facism'.

If America is such a shitty country, you do have to wonder how it attracts so many people from all over the world, who all have nothing culturally in common with each other, yet would rather live next door to an American-Jew, Asian, Indian, African, European... instead of their fellow countrymen and the culture they grew up with.

oddturtle
28th August 2008, 02:22 AM
There is one reason I want Obama to win, and its to shut up all those self-critical americans, and everyone in the rest of the world who say 'oh Obama will never win, Americans are too racist'. Americans are not racist. Yes, racism exists in America, but so does Bird Flu in Asia - it doesn't mean the population is going to get wiped out any time soon. Racism is nowhere near the level people think it is, and it's certainly not enough to prevent a minority candidate from being elected.

mab
28th August 2008, 02:32 AM
Iraq - who cares? Does Obama have a time machine? I don't think it was a good idea to go in, but it's not the worst idea in the world. Saddam is dead, and a democracy is being built. The aim isn't to spread democracy everywhere, but plant it somewhere and a region where the only options for governance are a secular dictatorship or a theocratic dictatorship, unless you live in Israel.


probably thought the same during the crusades



Rich tax cuts - yeah, everyone should get tax cuts, but giving them to rich people is actually a very good idea. Contrary to what most people think, rich people don't just use their cash for money fights - they actually invest and generally speaking, rich people make better economic decisions than poor people (how else did they get rich in the first place?) - instead of just taking the money from the rich and giving it the poor guy in the form of poorly planned economic decisions, let the rich guy make good economic decisions that benefit everyone to a greater extent.


Problem is the rich people make decisions that help themselves and have no thought what so ever about the "little people". public good is the least of their worries and if need be they would move their money to India

And when the rich fuck up what do they do? Make the worker (someone that actually produces something) pay for their mistakes. eg the banks and mortgage companies. When times are good they will take the cash but when it all goes to shit what do they do? Take money from the tax payer to bail them out.



healthcare/min wage - yes, it is a bad thing.


Min wage I'm not sure on. But Health care should be something that any human would want for any other, I do realise that it would be fucked up in the US as people seem to be self centred (why should I put in for someone else). But hell the US spends more money on health care that any other country. They buy health care and then get hit for thousands of dollars when they use it. It's a no brainer come up with a reasonable system where everyone has basic health care and the ones that want extra pay for it.



NAFTA - I have criticisms too of NAFTA in specific regards, but my beef with Obama is his ideological resistance to free trade. It's thinking along the lines of 'lets keep the high paying jobs in this country, and protect them from cheap overseas labour' - just populist, pro union crap that gets votes from people who don't understand how economics works.

I'm all for free trade it's great in theory but I just can't see it happening any time soon there are just to many differences between countries, cultures and economies.

mab
28th August 2008, 03:06 AM
puh-leaze. Find out the number of Chinese who desperately want to live in the United States, compared to the number of Americans so desperate to live in China, ask them if they prefer communism to America's 'facism'.


This is just stupid. They are after the money probably after watching too many pirated US TV shows.

Or they what the US universities. and many of them will return after they have graduated



If America is such a shitty country, you do have to wonder how it attracts so many people from all over the world, who all have nothing culturally in common with each other, yet would rather live next door to an American-Jew, Asian, Indian, African, European... instead of their fellow countrymen and the culture they grew up with.


Probably the same as people living in say.... Tonga.
They see shit on TV and think thats the way it is. Or they think it's the place to make a million dollars. When they get there they may have a different idea. I know many people in the US that are looking to escape.

Silver
28th August 2008, 01:43 PM
Economic policies - that is a no brainer for me

"No brainer" is right. McCain has himself said numerous times that he doesn't understand economics, and relies heavily on advice. That's otherwise fine, but who was his chief advisor until very recently? Phil Gramm.

Phil Gramm is of course largely responsible for the deregulation that lead to the subprime mortgage crisis. He also prevented funding being used to police big financial interests, and excluding certain business, especially Enron, from having government oversight at all. His wife was on the Enron board, and profited heavily from the changes he made before it collapsed. (Whether or not regulation is a good thing, it was widely predicted the effects his changes would have, with the rest of the system existing as it did. Even if I were to accept that regulation is always bad, reckless deregulation is surely worse than good regulation.)

This is who McCain first turned to for economic advice.

As for tax cuts for the highest income earners, how well has that worked out for Bush? Even the richest people in the US are starting to think they are taxed too leniently. Warren Buffet recently said he pays a lower rate than any of his staff.

It's also worth noting that under Republicans US national debt climbs. Since Reagan, the only time the US national debt has decreased was under the Clinton administration. Albeit Bush senior did a reasonable attempt to decrease national debt.


Iraq... surge

Personally, I doubt the surge has had much to do with the stabilisation seen in Iraq.

Firstly, McCain doesn't even seem to understand what the "surge" was trying to accomplish, as he has sited examples from before the surge as evidence that it worked.

Indeed, it appears (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080701faresponse87413/colin-h-kahl-william-e-odom/when-to-leave-iraq.html) that the change in Sunni attitudes is more a result of the Democrat push for an impending pull out of the US, rather than the surge. Especially, as this change began before the surge even did. It also helped that the US became more careful in their counterinsurgency tactics; the rate of indiscriminate reprisals has decreased.


It was the power of the US that stopped the Nazis, the Japanese

A lot of the US power came as a result of the two world wars. The previous world powers were largely destroyed in the first world war, and the lead up to the second world war saw many of Europe's best minds move to the US were conditions were better. This is still at a time when blacks could not drink from the same water fountains as whites. The United States became a world power because its interests were not threatened by a European war (nor ever seriously by the Japanese), and as the only stable supplier to the Allies meant that rapid industrialisation put it in a fantastic position after the war ended.


rebuilt the economies and transitioned the politics of the Axis powers to democracies

Only after the rise of communism in the East. The United States was quite prepared to let thousands of German civilians die of starvation, as "punishment" or indifference after the war. (The French sector was also very bad, but then the French always pushed to "punish" the Germans after wars.) As the USSR grew in power, the Marshall Plan was pushed to cement US power, and also halt USSR expansion.

Don't get me wrong, though. The US has done good. However, especially recently, their actions have been to push agendas that are good only for the United States. Not anybody else.

I do not want to see any country replace the United States as a super power. I'd prefer a large collection of mid-to-high powers, with no country having a clear edge over most others.


Honestly, where would you rather live - the United States, or China?

Interesting that you bring up China. Many of the police state technologies that have been deployed in China have been developed by US companies, often with US government grants. Many of the technologies developed for control in China are starting to make their way back across the Pacific.


Which country would you rather be exporting its values - one is a prosperous, individualistic and free democracy, the other is militaristic, authoritarian communist country, the strength of which has only been relatively recently diluted from the influence of America.

China is prosperous these days, and the United States outspends China on its military. China owns a large chunk of US debt as well.

What really gets up my nose about the United States is its hypocrisy. Hypocrisy by itself isn't so bad, even expected, but when you couple that with the self righteousness it just gets too hard to swallow. Georgia, which this thread started with, is the most recent example. What Russia did in Georgia has many parallels with the United States and Iraq, yet the US government (and the Australian government, come to that) would label their actions evil.

Finally, McCain's campaign. Obama's is almost entirely positive, about what he wants to achieve. McCain's is almost entirely negative about what Obama would do. If McCain presented a good case for why he was a good candidate, I could at least respect him, and think that he at least had his heart in the right place. I don't particularly like Obama or his policies (he's far too central, and religious for my tastes), but I can respect him because he at least doesn't just attack McCain.

oddturtle
28th August 2008, 02:58 PM
Don't get me wrong, though. The US has done good. However, especially recently, their actions have been to push agendas that are good only for the United States. Not anybody else.


That's fine, they should be acting in their best interests. Every country in the world does. My point is that what the US represents - freedom, individualism, capitalism and democracy - if those are the values that are being promoted over all the other crappy ideologies out there, then that is a good thing. Countries that are 'good' are those that move away from what they were originally, toward something closer to the US.

So if these are the effects of US foreign policy - the end of Nazism, communism, Islamic facism... I'd say the US acting in their interests has been a pretty good deal for the rest of the world too.

Silver
28th August 2008, 04:09 PM
By US interest, I more specifically meant US big business' interest. The interest of the big corporations in the United States are not necessarily those of the people of the United States, or indeed the world. Forcible searching of laptops at Airports is just one example of this.

Nazism collapsed by a joint effort of many countries. Elements of the extreme right-wing fascism it represented have returned, even within the US. Witness that there was even a discussion over whether water boarding is torture or not.

Communism collapsed under its own weight, because it was unsustainable.

"Islamic fascism" is largely a made up term. It is endemic of a larger problem with religiosity. The United States indeed makes this problem worse by continuing to paint itself as a Christian country, thus making the Middle East conflict a religious war. (Europe doesn't help much either, by not standing up to intimidation). Religion itself is at fault here, and Christianity is just as vicious as Islam. Death threats are as readily sent from Catholics in the United States as Fatwas are issued by Muslims in Europe. (Considering the birth and immigration rate of Muslims, Europe would be well advised to ensure that religion cannot be used to dictate policy at a constitutional level.) A simplistic "US-And-Them" approach to Islam is largely responsible for the divide that exists today.

The point is the United States has repeatedly provoked Muslims. That they want to defend themselves is hardly surprising. Iran, while never a beacon of freedom, was relatively stable and religiously free until the West, particularly the United States thought it was a good idea to mess around there. Before Iran fell out of US favour, the United States was happy to support an Iranian nuclear program.

There is some evidence that Saddam thought he would have US support in his invasion of Kuwait in the first Gulf War, certainly he was given tonnes of US aid to fight the Iranians.

There is also reasonable evidence that the US encouraged the Georgian president to crush the uprising to provoke Russia.

The point being, that the US has no problems with causing havoc in other countries, friendly or not, if it thinks there is some mileage to be had out of it. That this creates resentment and enemies is hardly surprising. Eventually, that kind of behaviour is no longer tolerated.

NeoRicen
28th August 2008, 04:40 PM
Maybe it's time for a new title for this topic, or to move to a new one. The word media hasn't been used in 17 posts.

Rasta
28th August 2008, 05:01 PM
Rich tax cuts - yeah, everyone should get tax cuts, but giving them to rich people is actually a very good idea. Contrary to what most people think, rich people don't just use their cash for money fights - they actually invest and generally speaking, rich people make better economic decisions than poor people (how else did they get rich in the first place?) - instead of just taking the money from the rich and giving it the poor guy in the form of poorly planned economic decisions, let the rich guy make good economic decisions that benefit everyone to a greater extent.

healthcare/min wage - yes, it is a bad thing.

NAFTA - I have criticisms too of NAFTA in specific regards, but my beef with Obama is his ideological resistance to free trade. It's thinking along the lines of 'lets keep the high paying jobs in this country, and protect them from cheap overseas labour' - just populist, pro union crap that gets votes from people who don't understand how economics works.

I've managed to avoid these debates, but oddturtle... in this post you've hit the nail on the head..... :)

NeoRicen
28th August 2008, 06:29 PM
healthcare/min wage - yes, it is a bad thing.
Complete and utterly disgusting.

Typical conservative bull, that property rights are more important than the health and safety of other human beings. :thumbdn:

And how can anyone say with a straight face that McCain/Bush's economic policies are good, given the state of the US economy. It's so bad we're feeling the effects. All because of their voodoo economics.

The last time the US had the economic policies of the Democrats/Barack Obama, they had the longest period of economic expansion in the American history. Then, Bush got in, and the economy has gone to hell.

oddturtle
28th August 2008, 07:51 PM
Complete and utterly disgusting.

Typical conservative bull, that property rights are more important than the health and safety of other human beings. :thumbdn:

And how can anyone say with a straight face that McCain/Bush's economic policies are good, given the state of the US economy. It's so bad we're feeling the effects. All because of their voodoo economics.

The last time the US had the economic policies of the Democrats/Barack Obama, they had the longest period of economic expansion in the American history. Then, Bush got in, and the economy has gone to hell.

So we should have public healthcare because health and safety is important? What about houses - its hard to be healthy if the government doesn't give you a house. Or your food - should we have socialised food distribution? Do you find it disgusting that I can't just walk into Woolies and demand to be fed?

NeoRicen
28th August 2008, 08:44 PM
So we should have public healthcare because health and safety is important? What about houses - its hard to be healthy if the government doesn't give you a house. Or your food - should we have socialised food distribution? Do you find it disgusting that I can't just walk into Woolies and demand to be fed?
That's what the minimum wage and welfare are for. :rolleyes:

There's too much choice to be had in food and housing, there isn't any for healthcare, it's very very simple.

I'm not sure if you've said, but are you American or Australian? In either case you do realise we have public healthcare in this country and it's doing us just fine don't you? We're doing better than the States.

Being against health care is one thing, but being against the minimum wage is another thing all together. Opposing the minimum wage is saying time time and effort of people is worth nothing. That's what the minimum wage pays for, the time an employer is taking away form time the employee could be spending with their family, friends, or just generally being free. Combined with welfare it ensures all people have the opportunity to survive and succeed, sure they can fail, but everyone deserves the opportunity. Excluding opportunity from those without a privileged upbringing is just a return to the aristocracy.

oddturtle
28th August 2008, 08:50 PM
There is plenty of choice in US health providers.

I don't think the public healthcare is good, that is why I have private insurance.

NeoRicen
28th August 2008, 08:53 PM
There is plenty of choice in US health providers.
You're completely missing my point. It's not a choice between chicken or beef, Sydney or Melbourne. Those a matters of preference, being healthy is not.

And what about people who cannot afford health care from the private providers? Screw em? Not all of us can afford it. So just scrap the system so you don't have to pay for it?

This is the fundamental problem with conservatives... they just don't care.

oddturtle
28th August 2008, 08:56 PM
Being against health care is one thing, but being against the minimum wage is another thing all together. Opposing the minimum wage is saying time time and effort of people is worth nothing. That's what the minimum wage pays for, the time an employer is taking away form time the employee could be spending with their family, friends, or just generally being free. Combined with welfare it ensures all people have the opportunity to survive and succeed, sure they can fail, but everyone deserves the opportunity. Excluding opportunity from those without a privileged upbringing is just a return to the aristocracy.

So if my value to an employer is only worth $4 an hour (as many people are), even though I would be willing to work for that amount, you would rather forcefully prevent me from getting a job? How does that give me an equal opportunity to succeed if you don't let me work?
Companies can't be forced to employ me at $10 an hour, they will just not employ me at all.

oddturtle
28th August 2008, 09:01 PM
You're completely missing my point. It's not a choice between chicken or beef, Sydney or Melbourne. Those a matters of preference, being healthy is not.

And what about people who cannot afford health care from the private providers? Screw em? Not all of us can afford it. So just scrap the system so you don't have to pay for it?

This is the fundamental problem with conservatives... they just don't care.

Wtf? Eating isn't a preference. Surely everyone should have access to quality food then, if you think they should access to quality healthcare.

If you are so concerned about these people, why don't you pay for their healthcare? You are happy to pay that amount as taxes now, why don't you do it voluntarily if you think its such an unalienable right.

NeoRicen
28th August 2008, 10:30 PM
If you are so concerned about these people, why don't you pay for their healthcare? You are happy to pay that amount as taxes now, why don't you do it voluntarily if you think its such an unalienable right.
.....What?

oddturtle
28th August 2008, 11:08 PM
.....What?

you asked what would happen to people who can't afford private healthcare if public healthcare was removed, and accused me of not caring. My answer is why don't you continue to support a voluntary free healthcare plan for those people? There is nothing stopping you from giving the tax money you would not have to pay anymore to these people, or better yet, actually choose the best form of helping out other people in need, according to your values and judgement, instead of relying on Kevin Rudd to get your choices exactly right.

NeoRicen
29th August 2008, 06:13 PM
EDIT: This stuff is probably better of in this topic
http://forums.mactalk.com.au/10/56970-mccains-vp-choice-race-now.html