speaking of real censorship

by **Colonel Ingus** » Wed Jul 21, 2004 10:57 am

Well said Keek.

Al Jazeera is the Arab CNN, however you view their slant, and you can catch CNN pretty much worldwide.

I especially agree with your last paragraph. I have a hard time reading one report on crap.com and running away with a story. I want to at least confirm thru several sources before I start putting credence in a story.

The day Kerry selected Edwards to be his running mate the NY Post ran a front page saying he selected Gephardt. City of over 8 million people getting a story like, not to mention web services, and look at the disinformation a mistake like that can make.

I'd say let Fox news in if for one reason only.

In Quebec it would probably be broadcast in French and I want to see that sanctimonious bastard O'Reily railing against the French and promoting embargo of French goods in French. That would be hilarious. I will pay Chacal or someone to tape it for me. I would burn copies and mail one into Fox everyday and consider it money well spent.

by **COL.BUKKAKE** » Wed Jul 21, 2004 11:50 am

Speaking of Billy O':

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/story/213670p-183826c.html

by **SavageParrot** » Wed Jul 21, 2004 11:59 am

Wow, saying Ronald Reagan policies were the ones that freed the people of the soviet union is possibly the most arrogant piece of american propaganda I've heard in a long time. I think that honour really ought to go to Gorbachev and his policies of perastroika and glazsnost (sp?), if you are going to pick individuals that is. Otherwise you could just say international and internal pressures or that it's time had come.

by **Evan** » Wed Jul 21, 2004 12:07 pm

Originally posted by SavageParrot
Wow, saying Ronald Reagan policies were the ones that freed the people of the soviet union is possibly the most arrogant piece of american propaganda I've heard in a long time. I think that honour really ought to go to Gorbachev and his policies of perastroika and glazsnost (sp?), if you are going to pick individuals that is. Otherwise you could just say international and internal pressures or that it's time had come.

It was mostly Reagan's hardlined policies towards the Soviet Union that led Gorbachev to adopt those policies.

by **Evan** » Wed Jul 21, 2004 12:07 pm

I can see poor countries being jealous of the US, but Canada isn't poor. Our standard of living is actually higher than yours. Our crime rates are lower. More people around the world have a warmer opinion of Canadians than they do of Americans.

Standards of living are higher in Canada? Heh. They are roughly about the same now in developed areas.

It's just that here in Canada, we're so damn diverse.

In my neighbourhood alone, there's like 20 other different ethnicities.

We pretty much have programming for every language pretty much now, all based in Canada.

Can the U.S. say the same about that? Probably not.

The United States is just as, if not more diverse. Just look at my school. We have a strong Asian population (Indian, Chinese, Filipino, etc.), a strong white population, strong African American, Hispanic, Western and Eastern European, and Middle Eastern.

by **RCglider** » Wed Jul 21, 2004 12:10 pm

Originally posted by SavageParrot
Wow, saying Ronald Reagan policies were the ones that freed the people of the soviet union is possibly the most arrogant piece of american propaganda I've heard in a long time. I think that honour really ought to go to Gorbachev and his policies of perastroika and glazsnost (sp?), if you are going to pick individuals that is. Otherwise you could just say international and internal pressures or that it's time had come.

Once again, the revisionist history professor gets it wrong.

by **JimmyTango** » Wed Jul 21, 2004 12:22 pm

Originally posted by Evan
It was mostly Reagan's hardlined policies towards the Soviet Union that led Gorbachev to adopt those policies.

That is only if you ask an American.

by **Evan** » Wed Jul 21, 2004 12:31 pm

Originally posted by JimmyTango
That is only if you ask an American.

True. I have a feeling if you brought this to the FPSCentral boards (where they have a lot of Russian patriots) you'd get some radical answers.

by **Pierce** » Wed Jul 21, 2004 12:31 pm

^lol, remind me of Michael Moore.

I wouldn't say Canada is necessarily jealous of the US, but I'm sure some third world countires are.

And America is very diverse and probably just as diverse as Canada.

by **COL.BUKKAKE** » Wed Jul 21, 2004 12:37 pm

Originally posted by JimmyTango
That is only if you ask an American.

Lets put it this way, if Jimmy Carter won the '80 election, would the Soviet still be the biggest power in the World.

This lady seems to think so:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/11/thatcher.transcript/

by **Colonel Ingus** » Wed Jul 21, 2004 12:38 pm

I have to agree with that about Reagen. He did defeat the Soviet Union thru outspending them. Check the deficit if you don't believe.

Reagen set-up situations that devalued Soviet Exports (mainly oil and gold by raising production from indiginous sources and getting other nations that produced such products to increase their exports i.e. South Africa and Saudi Arabia)

He also increased military spending to a point that the Soviet Union couldn't match. Towards the end of the Cold War the US was spending 6% of its GNP on Defense and the Soviet Union was spending 25%! With which they couldn't even achieve parity Their economy could not support that and thats what forced Gorbachev to change the system.

I didn't like Reagen, I'm not going to talk good about him now that he died when I spent the last 25 years bashing him. But I do have to give credit where credit is due. This is the one issue he did get right.

by **JimmyTango** » Wed Jul 21, 2004 1:07 pm

Originally posted by Evan
True. I have a feeling if you brought this to the FPSCentral boards (where they have a lot of Russian patriots) you'd get some radical answers.

No, not radical. In the US we hear how RR's policies forced communism out of Russia! Gorbachev himself even says otherwise(and is a RR friend), and stated it on the History channel during a RR tribute show after his death. The USSR was already moving away from 'communism' as most in the government were realizing it was not working.

The only thing RR's policies did was speed it up by about 5 years, and made the poor in that country poorer and still poor to this day. In exchange for all this good, our country grows ever close to what happened to the USSR: bankruptcy.

by **Colonel Ingus** » Wed Jul 21, 2004 1:34 pm

WOW!

Way to rationlize into guilt there JimmyT! That was amazing!
I mean it! Completly denying facts and finding something to blame the US for!

Moving away from Communism? Forced away from Communism. Moving away from Communism didn't involve round the clock 3 shift production of SS-18 missiles. Or the Akula and Typhoon class submarines. The development of an Aircraft Carrier (which cost them billions as a concept craft) Yeah they figured wth! Who needs the money anyway! We are becoming capitalists. You don't need capital to be capitalists!

Quick check here, you can do your own research. How many Premiers while Reagen was in office? Why was Gorbachev selected (I'l cheat and give you the answer. He was selected because he was moderate and they thought he could help ease a transition. A transition needed because they couldn't carry on the way they were going. And why was that? Find the date though for your own education)

Hint: Yuri Andropov ( I know you can use a search engine)

I can't overstate how much your leap there impresses me Jimmy. Absolutely amazing!

by **Evan** » Wed Jul 21, 2004 1:36 pm

Originally posted by JimmyTango
No, not radical. In the US we hear how RR's policies forced communism out of Russia! Gorbachev himself even says otherwise(and is a RR friend), and stated it on the History channel during a RR tribute show after his death. The USSR was already moving away from 'communism' as most in the government were realizing it was not working.

The only thing RR's policies did was speed it up by about 5 years, and made the poor in that country poorer and still poor to this day. In exchange for all this good, our country grows ever close to what happened to the USSR: bankruptcy.

Radical as in two extremes or sides of the coin. Not radical in the sense you're thinking Jimmy

by **shockwave203** » Wed Jul 21, 2004 2:19 pm

Originally posted by Face
what is to say a left or right radical one day lead Canada, and they ban your favorite news channel. I am surprised from some of you guys that you can't see the dangerousness of that. Oh well, I guess Canadians are more into "it doesn't involve me, so I don't care" than I thought they would be.

gee, you're right! It's like saying a radical political party could take power up here, and institute the patriot act and suspend our civil rights! Wouldn't that be a scary thing... :roll:

speaking of real censorship

Who is online