I believe Bill O'Reilly wants to Abolish Internet and Freedom of Press

[Eki]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,246290,00.html

"But here's a big negative. Sixty-three percent believe the moral and ethical climate in America is declining. And it is. The Internet and an irresponsible media have hit traditional values hard."

And he's laughing no more:

"Most Ridiculous Item

No 'Most Ridiculous Item' on January 24.

[BeansBeansBeans]

I do believe that for all the advantages of the internet, it has contibuted to a decline in morals. There's lots of dodgy stuff on here that you would never have seen on Ceefax.

[Eki]

I do believe that for all the advantages of the internet, it has contibuted to a decline in morals. There's lots of dodgy stuff on here that you would never have see on Ceefax.
Don't you think everyone should have the right to know all aspects of any moral or other issue before making up their mind on it?

[BeansBeansBeans]

One of the worse aspects of modern life is that I feel that we are force fed information constantly about every little thing. I am off on a tangent here, because this cannot be blamed solely on the internet, but I do long for a simpler life. Perhaps sometimes, ignorance can be bliss.

[Hawkmoon]

Where, exactly, did he call for the abolition of the Internet?

[Hondo]

Where, exactly, did he call for the abolition of the Internet?

Thats just Eki's standard method of changing the headline of a news story link. It's either a pathecticly lame attempt to bias the story, especially for those that don't chase the link, or Eki is incredibly limited in his/her reading comprehension skills.

It does seem especially appropriate after pointing out how one should be allowed to look at all the information before making a decision. That may help to avoid problems when dealing with those that want you to believe they are delivering an accurate summation of an article. Obviously, Eki has problems getting it right.

[bowler]

Eki, it doesn't say that at all:

full story:

With the president's address about an hour away, a new Gallup poll has defined how Americans think the country is going. And we begin with the big picture: Eighty-six percent of us are satisfied with the overall quality of life in the USA. -- That's huge. It once again proves this is a great country providing more opportunity than anywhere else on earth.

Seventy percent of Americans agree with my opinion about that opportunity. -- It's there, if you work hard.

But here's a big negative. Sixty-three percent believe the moral and ethical climate in America is declining. And it is. The Internet and an irresponsible media have hit traditional values hard.

On the issues front, 70 percent of Americans are dissatisfied with how the federal government is controlling immigration. If President Bush doesn't get this message, he's flat out deaf.

Fifty-seven percent of Americans believe taxes are too high, even after the Bush tax cuts. If the Democrats don't get that message, they're deaf.

And here's something very interesting. 47 percent of Americans, nearly half, want more restrictions on abortion. Only 41 percent like the abortion laws the way they are. So the country is moving in a Pro-Life direction. Not good news for Planned Parenthood and the far left.

On the financial front, 52 percent of us feel the overall economy is good. That's the highest number of the Bush presidency.

And finally, 73 percent of Americans want the government to straighten out the healthcare mess. Most of us don't want the Feds to run healthcare. Instead, we want regulation in this area. We don't want to be gouged when we get sick.

So there you have it. What the folks think about the country according to a scientific poll by Gallup, which is usually very accurate. Gallup also says that President Bush's approval rating stands at 36 percent with 61 percent disapproving. That number is driven dramatically by the chaos in Iraq.

"Talking Points" believes if Iraq had been stabilized, President Bush would be a popular president. But Iraq continues to define him and only a sudden reversal of fortune over there will move the president's numbers up.

And that's "The Memo."

The story just mentions a decline in standards, and notes that the internet has contributed to the fall.


The internet is both a boon and a curse.The additional information available is incredible, relative to pre internet days; but the misinformation available is equally incredible. The danger now is that people assume that what they read on the internet is fact, and thay have lost the skills to research the truth.

The same applies to the media, as som many "journalists" merely rehash stuff from PR releases and reword other press statements without verifying the information.

a victory for quantity over quality.

[Sirius]

This fiasco aside...Bill O'Reilly is an idiot!

Sirius

[Eki]

Where, exactly, did he call for the abolition of the Internet?
Right there where Iran and North Korea said they were going to destroy the West with their nuclear weapons. I have the right to jump into conclusions too, you know. The headline was intended to be provocative, although Daniel doesn't like it.

[FrankenSchwinn]

about bill o, i have only this to show you guys:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2KU02lsfH8

follow up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GebrR6BNPsw

i hate oreilly..... i hate him with a passion.

[Eki]

The danger now is that people assume that what they read on the internet is fact, and thay have lost the skills to research the truth.

Lost? I think most people never have had those skills, and in addition, before the internet they didn't have the means to reach the facts and the truth. Their only links to the outside world were windbags like Bill O'Reilly. At least now they have access to all kinds of information, they just need to learn how to figure out which information is relevant.

[Hondo]

Lost? I think most people never have had those skills, and in addition, before the internet they didn't have the means to reach the facts and the truth. Their only links to the outside world were windbags like Bill O'Reilly. At least now they have access to all kinds of information, they just need to learn how to figure out which information is relevant.

Hard for some folks to do when others can't resist the urge to slap their personal bias on the facts.

You waiting to be elected God or something?

[Hawkmoon]

Right there where Iran and North Korea said they were going to destroy the West with their nuclear weapons. I have the right to jump into conclusions too, you know. The headline was intended to be provocative, although Daniel doesn't like it.

Eki, I never said that Iran and North Korea were going to blow up the West. You've done the same thing to my post that you have done with this article, namely read what was written and deliberately re-worded it to suit whatever point you are trying to make.

By the way, Iran has the explicitly stated goal of destroying the state of Israel. That's why their nuclear weapons are offensive and not defensive.

[Eki]

By the way, Iran has the explicitly stated goal of destroying the state of Israel. That's why their nuclear weapons are offensive and not defensive.
Where and when? All I've heard is Iran's president saying Israel should be wiped off the map. 1) He doesn't have the authority to start a war against anybody, the Supreme Leader Khamenei has, and 2) wiping off the map could also be done peacefully, like DDR was wiped off the map in 1989, and if that's the case, I agree. I also would like Israel to become secular and be called something else than "Israel", I believe that would ease a lot of tensions in the Middle East.

[Hondo]

Where and when? All I've heard is Iran's president saying Israel should be wiped off the map. 1) He doesn't have the authority to start a war against anybody, the Supreme Leader Khamenei has, and 2) wiping off the map could also be done peacefully, like DDR was wiped off the map in 1989, and if that's the case, I agree. I also would like Israel to become secular and be called something else than "Israel", I believe that would ease a lot of tensions in the Middle East.


Speaking of "where and when", I'd still like to know when and where Bill O'Reilly said he wants to "abolish Internet and Freedom of Press". If you can't find the quote, then as part of the crusade for truth and justice, you could at least modify the statement to reflect that's it's based on opinion, divine or otherwise.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Where and when? All I've heard is Iran's president saying Israel should be wiped off the map. 1) He doesn't have the authority to start a war against anybody, the Supreme Leader Khamenei has, and 2) wiping off the map could also be done peacefully, like DDR was wiped off the map in 1989, and if that's the case, I agree. I also would like Israel to become secular and be called something else than "Israel", I believe that would ease a lot of tensions in the Middle East.


Sure Eki, if you believe that, I will believe you will be doing PR for O'Reilly next.

Khamenei would tell his little lap dog to shut up if he didn't like what was said. You really believe everyone but George Bush should be given the benefit of the doubt don't you?

Also, your thread title is more than bogus, it lends little credability to most of your statements afterwards. O'Reilly; like a lot of people in the media believe 100% in the freedom of speech and the role the US Constitution does to protect that and the freedom of the press in the US. For anyone who knows and hates/loves The guy, they would know that your statement was just nonsense, but I have come to expect this sort of bending of the truth and reality to suit your narrow purposes....

[Mark in Oshawa]

PS, Israel could vote tomorrow to change the nation to "Southern Arab Republic of Palestine" and nothing would change.

[Hondo]

PS, Israel could vote tomorrow to change the nation to "Southern Arab Republic of Palestine" and nothing would change.

In my opinion, Eki doesn't understand that either. I was amused to see him refer to O'Reilly as a "windbag". Reminds me of that old schoolyard comeback "It takes one to know one"'.

For whats it's worth, I'm aware that O'Reilly is involved in conservative media, but I don't normally read his columns unless someone with poor credibility posts a link to one.

[Hawkmoon]

Where and when? All I've heard is Iran's president saying Israel should be wiped off the map. 1) He doesn't have the authority to start a war against anybody, the Supreme Leader Khamenei has, and 2) wiping off the map could also be done peacefully, like DDR was wiped off the map in 1989, and if that's the case, I agree. I also would like Israel to become secular and be called something else than "Israel", I believe that would ease a lot of tensions in the Middle East.

Do yourself a little justice and stop selectively reading between the lines to suit your arguments. It's undermining everything you say.

Why do you interpret O'Reilly's comments but choose to take the Iranian President's comments at face value?

I doubt you would take a comment from George Bush about wiping Iran of the map to mean anything other than a declaration of war. Yet from the Iranians it's a passive statement. :dozey:

[Mark in Oshawa]

In my opinion, Eki doesn't understand that either. I was amused to see him refer to O'Reilly as a "windbag". Reminds me of that old schoolyard comeback "It takes one to know one"'.

For whats it's worth, I'm aware that O'Reilly is involved in conservative media, but I don't normally read his columns unless someone with poor credibility posts a link to one.

Windbag? EKI?? Oh I don't know, you might be doing a diservice there, but I wont say to whom!!

O'Reilly is a conservative, but he is also quite willing to post shots at Conservatives when they betray a principle that a conservative should hold on a philosophical level. I find him annoying, and not always right, but he is pretty consistent. What I will say is love him or hate him, he like all media people loves the internet, which means something as stupid as Eki's thread title just makes us doubt his credability.

As for Eki beliving the president of Iran over Bush, that is nothing new. He told me in the "Saddam Hussein hung" thread that the Kurd's wouldn't have been gassed if they just gone along with Hussein. Nice statement there but it is again, Eki, whatever he can say to justify his far out stance on issues will work if he thinks you will buy it. If you don't buy that one, it is ok, he will find another limb to climb out on ....

[Rudy Tamasz]

Talk about windbags. There's a certain guy on this forum who pretends to be liberal but praises religious fundamentalists. Sometimes he's spitting out nationalism but isn't eager to put a word for his ethnic kinsmen in a neignboring country. His credentials are weak in every field to pretends to be strong in.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Rudy...pm me with the name will ya??

[Eki]

choose to take the Iranian President's comments at face value?

I don't. I just don't call him a lier and a madman before I have any solid proof that he is one. I try to keep my mind open to the views of both sides. And that's been my point all the time. Maybe you should read between the lines sometimes.

I don't defend Bush because there seems to be enough of those doing it for me here. I'd probably would if everyone else were attacking him.

There seems to be a lot of those who seem to believe the US is absolute "good" that can never do anything wrong and should always be trusted, and some other countries are absolute "evil" that must always be mistrusted and never given the benefit of a doubt.

[Eki]

PS, Israel could vote tomorrow to change the nation to "Southern Arab Republic of Palestine" and nothing would change.
If they voted "yes", then at least the name would change. But changing it to "Southern Arab Republic of Palestine" wouldn't be a good idea. "Israel" has a negative ring to Arabs and "Southern Arab Republic of Palestine" would have a negative ring to Jews, it should be something neutral instead that both parties could accept.

[LotusElise]

There seems to be a lot of those who seem to believe the US is absolute "good" that can never do anything wrong and should always be trusted, and some other countries are absolute "evil" that must always be mistrusted and never given the benefit of a doubt.

That isn't true. I can't think of anyone here who is absolutely behind Bush in everything he does - most of us can be quite critical of some of his actions, using debate and reason rather than inflammatory language and all-out condemnation.

I myself am broadly pro-Palestine but consider the Ayatollah Khameini to be an extremist and not acting in the interests of peace and conciliation, which can be the only solution in the end.

[Knock-on]

Do yourself a little justice and stop selectively reading between the lines to suit your arguments. It's undermining everything you say.

Why do you interpret O'Reilly's comments but choose to take the Iranian President's comments at face value?

I doubt you would take a comment from George Bush about wiping Iran of the map to mean anything other than a declaration of war. Yet from the Iranians it's a passive statement. :dozey:

This is the crux of the matter really. Eki believes his opinion is the only right and valid one on this forum.

He can blatantly post a complete untruth like this thread yet justify it in his own mind.

Occasionally, he comes up with something useful but it's normally buries so deep in the rest of the crap that it's easily overlooked.

Whats worse is that by posting threads like this, he's giving credibility to people like Bill o'Reilly :rolleyes:

[Eki]

Talk about windbags. There's a certain guy on this forum who pretends to be liberal but praises religious fundamentalists. Sometimes he's spitting out nationalism but isn't eager to put a word for his ethnic kinsmen in a neignboring country. His credentials are weak in every field to pretends to be strong in.
For a moment I thought you were talking about me, but then I realized I have never pretended to be "liberal", I don't label myself, and certainly not have I "praised" religious or any other fundamentalists. I have just said I understand they have their reasons to do what they do if you look at it their way, I don't see how that's "praising". And the fact there are people in Sweden, Norway and Russia who linguists say speak a language that's related to my native language doesn't make them my "ethnic kinsmen". If it did, the English, the Iranians and the Russians and any other who speaks an Indo-European language would be your "ethnic kinsmen".

[Hondo]

I really don't care who Eki likes, dislikes, supports, or condemns, nor can I imagine why anyone who has been subjected to his quasi-judicial drivel would take him seriously. This is a principle issue. He needs to prove the title of this thread or modify it or retract it.

I was surprised to see someone so seemingly wrapped up in their own smug self-righteousness, completely trash their personal integrity by blatantly posting a statement known to be false, as fact.

Ban him.

[Bebee]

Talk about windbags. There's a certain guy on this forum who pretends to be liberal but praises religious fundamentalists. Sometimes he's spitting out nationalism but isn't eager to put a word for his ethnic kinsmen in a neignboring country. His credentials are weak in every field to pretends to be strong in.

If you go that far to make the comment, you might as well put a name to it... :rolleyes:

[Drew]

The internet just gives people what they want, not what people decide is best for other people. Unfortunetly sometimes that is a bad thing, other times it's a good thing :)

[agwiii]

Don't you think everyone should have the right to know all aspects of any moral or other issue before making up their mind on it?

I particularly want to thank Bill Clinton for teaching a generation that oral sex is not considered having sex.

[Knock-on]

I particularly want to thank Bill Clinton for teaching a generation that oral sex is not considered having sex.

Blimey Agwiii, you actually made me laugh :laugh:

And of course, dear old Barbera Bush was quoted as saying:

"Clinton lied. A man might forget where he parks or where he lives, but he never forgets oral sex, no matter how bad it is."

[agwiii]

Blimey Agwiii, you actually made me laugh :laugh:

The Clinton administration reporting of crimes involving children included boys and girls under the age of 21. Thus, by his own definition, Clinton had sex with a child, making him the first Pedophile President.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I don't. I just don't call him a lier and a madman before I have any solid proof that he is one. I try to keep my mind open to the views of both sides. And that's been my point all the time. Maybe you should read between the lines sometimes.

I don't defend Bush because there seems to be enough of those doing it for me here. I'd probably would if everyone else were attacking him.

There seems to be a lot of those who seem to believe the US is absolute "good" that can never do anything wrong and should always be trusted, and some other countries are absolute "evil" that must always be mistrusted and never given the benefit of a doubt.

Eki, I have criticized Bush, as has Gannex. You wouldn't defend Bush if your life depended on it. Don't make me put on hip waders any more than I have to read your posts.

[agwiii]

[quote="Eki"] ttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,246290,00.html (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,246290,00.html)

Of course, those who read O'Reilly's column saw that nowhere did he suggest abolishing the Internet or freedom of the press. Must be a language barrier, eh Eki? Perhaps you can find a translation into Finn that would make what O'Reilly actually wrote clear to you.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Oh yes, and Eki, you wouldn't accept solid proof if people quoted the President of Iran directly any more than you accept any other proof. You see and believe what you want to hear, and that is why you are such a joy to refute and talk to.....

[Mark in Oshawa]

I wouldn't Ban Eki, I believe in free speech. To paraphrase an AMERICAN saying (get that EKI, American..ooooooh) "I deplore what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it"., but in Eki's world it would come out kind of muddled, maybe like "I don't agree with what you are saying, and I wouldn't defend your right to say it to the death, because that would go against my principles of non-confrontation and peace in the face of a tyrant like that George W. Bush."

Maybe I exaggerate a little......but tell me by how much people?

[agwiii]

I wouldn't Ban Eki, I believe in free speech. To paraphrase an AMERICAN saying (get that EKI, American..ooooooh) "I deplore what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it"., but in Eki's world it would come out kind of muddled, maybe like "I don't agree with what you are saying, and I wouldn't defend your right to say it to the death, because that would go against my principles of non-confrontation and peace in the face of a tyrant like that George W. Bush." Maybe I exaggerate a little......but tell me by how much people?

As you know Mark, one of the principles upon which the United States of America is founded is that only through open discussion of ideas, can we separate the good ideas from the bad. We believe in openness, and have even passed laws requiring and enforcing what we call government in the sunshine. These principles of openess and access are alien to many other cultures. For example, in the work I do with F4J, I learned that UK family law orders are sealed and secret -- something that would be illegal in the United States of America.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Well Agwiii, most western nations are populated with people who believe in free speech, but most would be shocked at how much control is put down on "free speech" even in places where they play such lip service to it.

I think Family law orders here are sealed only to the lawyers and parties involved, but I could be wrong.

In any case, free speech can be defined in many different forms, but my point has always been that as much as Eki says things that annoy me ( I blocked him for the better part of a week once ), I defend his right to say it. I suspect many others here would feel the same, but by some of the things Eki says, I wonder if he really understands the fragility of it, and how many of the people he tries to make excuses for would take that right away in a heart beat.

[ArrowsFA1]

...your thread title is more than bogus, it lends little credability to most of your statements afterwards...
:up:

Is that a dead end I see ahead :confused: :dozey:

[Camelopard]

Eki, I have criticized Bush, as has Gannex. You wouldn't defend Bush if your life depended on it. Don't make me put on hip waders any more than I have to read your posts.


Why do you bother, he is winding you up, or fishing as we say here and doing a very good job of it!!!!

[agwiii]

:up: Is that a dead end I see ahead :confused: :dozey:


That is a light at the end of a tunnel; it is an oncoming train.

[agwiii]

Why do you bother, he is winding you up, or fishing as we say here and doing a very good job of it!!!!

Or as we say here, trolling, which some forums forbid.

[Camelopard]

That isn't true. I can't think of anyone here who is absolutely behind Bush in everything he does - most of us can be quite critical of some of his actions, using debate and reason rather than inflammatory language and all-out condemnation.

Sorry Lotus Elise (nice moniker!) I can think of one who would in my opinion would never criticise dubya or anything he does, after all you don't bite the hand that feeds you............

[agwiii]

I think Family law orders here are sealed only to the lawyers and parties involved, but I could be wrong.

From what I read, Canada's family laws are different from the UK.

[Alexamateo]

I particularly want to thank Bill Clinton for teaching a generation that oral sex is not considered having sex.

:laugh: lol I used to say the same thing :) ...........





When I was a teenager :erm: :p :

[agwiii]

That isn't true. I can't think of anyone here who is absolutely behind Bush in everything he does - most of us can be quite critical of some of his actions, using debate and reason rather than inflammatory language and all-out condemnation.

Excellent point. None of our Presidents have been perfect, often far from it. Certainly, all post-WWII Presidents have had their share of critics, from inside their party and from the opposition. That sort of open debate is healthy. Democracy is not a perfect form of government, but it is the best available to us.

[LotusElise]

Sorry Lotus Elise (nice moniker!) I can think of one who would in my opinion would never criticise dubya or anything he does, after all you don't bite the hand that feeds you............
I meant forum posters, unless the person I think you're talking about posts here very secretly.

[SOD]

O'Reilly has such a big opinion of himself. he says that people agree with his opinion. What a blowhard, not to mention serial editorialiser.

"With the president's address about an hour away, a new Gallup poll has defined how Americans think the country is going. And we begin with the big picture: Eighty-six percent of us are satisfied with the overall quality of life in the USA. -- That's huge. It once again proves this is a great country providing more opportunity than anywhere else on earth. (Bill why are more Americans emigrating TO Ireland than the other way around?)

Seventy percent of Americans agree with my opinion about that opportunity. -- It's there, if you work hard. You can work hard for $5/hour and still like.



"most of us can be quite critical of some of his actions, using debate and reason rather than inflammatory language and all-out condemnation."


I'd say that you havn't heard any of the criticism levelled against Bill Clinton by the looney-right when he was president. :laugh:

[Hondo]

O'Reilly has such a big opinion of himself. he says that people agree with his opinion. What a blowhard, not to mention serial editorialiser. :


I wonder if Eki and O'Reilly are actually the same person? They seem to share similar traits.

[Knock-on]

If you want a good rounded debate, all you need is Eki on one side, Agwiii on the other and then have Fousto moderare with a M16 :laugh:

[Camelopard]

I meant forum posters, unless the person I think you're talking about posts here very secretly.


Yes, I'm talking about a forum poster, he was big noting himself a few days ago in another thread!

[Eki]

If you want a good rounded debate, all you need is Eki on one side, Agwiii on the other and then have Fousto moderare with a M16 :laugh:
I think fousto alone would be too biased. I want janvanvurpa with an AK47 to co-moderate it.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Fiero, no O'Reilly loved hearing Saddam was hung, Eki spent 40 pages arguing with Gannex, Agwiii, Hawkmoon and myself for a few names saying how wrong it all was, and how the invasion of Iraq was bad. O'Reilly I think is a little more Hawkish

O'Reilly and Eki locked in a room....boy that would be reality TV wouldn't it???

[Hondo]

I think fousto alone would be too biased. I want janvanvurpa with an AK47 to co-moderate it.

Might I suggest a Valmet M76. It really is a better weapon.

[SOD]

I wonder if Eki and O'Reilly are actually the same person? They seem to share similar traits.

one of them is highest rated cable news TV show in the USA :p

[Mark in Oshawa]

EKi, you don't even want to be shot with an American gun....now THAT is something!!

[Eki]

EKi, you don't even want to be shot with an American gun....now THAT is something!!
I thought M16 was an American gun? Although, my idea was that fousto and janvanvurpa would take each other out.

[Eki]

Might I suggest a Valmet M76. It really is a better weapon.
Valmet M76 was the gun I had when I was in the army, but have never tried an AK47, so can't really say which one is better, except M76 seems to be 200 g lighter than AK47:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valmet_M76

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK47

There's also a newer version of M76, namely M95. I think it looks cooler:

http://www.guns.connect.fi/gow/M95.html

[Knock-on]

I think fousto alone would be too biased. I want janvanvurpa with an AK47 to co-moderate it.

Well, I was thinking that Uncs would just shoot everyone anyway but have Jan if you want :laugh:

[Hondo]

Fiero, no O'Reilly loved hearing Saddam was hung, Eki spent 40 pages arguing with Gannex, Agwiii, Hawkmoon and myself for a few names saying how wrong it all was, and how the invasion of Iraq was bad. O'Reilly I think is a little more Hawkish

O'Reilly and Eki locked in a room....boy that would be reality TV wouldn't it???

After being a participant in the old "Terror" thread for so long, I, for the most part, steered clear of the "Hanging" thread knowing it would be a big dog chasing it's tail.

At the risk of lowering your opinion of me even further, I too believe we had no business invading Iraq at the time we did. I did not view Saddam or Iraq as a direct threat to the United States. As an indirect threat, they were no worse than many other countries in the world.

O'Reilly and Eki are both entitled to their different opinions and should be allowed to argue their cause. Debate on TV is nothing new. There would be nothing physical about it.

My only issue is Eki's outright lie on the title of the "O'Reilly" thread. If that's Eki's opinion of what O'Reilly said then it should be identified as such. Until then, it is difficult to lend any credibility to what Eki posts without back checking the facts and quite frankly, I have neither the time or inclination to do so on every post he makes since most seem to involve a link to someone else's thoughts to which he adds commentary.

[Eki]

My only issue is Eki's outright lie on the title of the "O'Reilly" thread.
Well, the title was inspired by this thread:

http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=114052

[Hondo]

Valmet M76 was the gun I had when I was in the army, but have never tried an AK47, so can't really say which one is better, except M76 seems to be 200 g lighter than AK47:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valmet_M76

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK47

There's also a newer version of M76, namely M95. I think it looks cooler:

http://www.guns.connect.fi/gow/M95.html

The M76 has the rear sight mounted further back on the dust cover, giving you a superior sight radius, the stock is a little longer, and the foregrip is more comfortable. Overall, the M76 is of higher manufacturing quaility and the plain dust cover can be quickly switched to one with a scope mounted on it if that is reguired.

Your friends in Israel "borrowed" the receiver design for their Galil rifle.

[Mark in Oshawa]

After being a participant in the old "Terror" thread for so long, I, for the most part, steered clear of the "Hanging" thread knowing it would be a big dog chasing it's tail.

At the risk of lowering your opinion of me even further, I too believe we had no business invading Iraq at the time we did. I did not view Saddam or Iraq as a direct threat to the United States. As an indirect threat, they were no worse than many other countries in the world.

O'Reilly and Eki are both entitled to their different opinions and should be allowed to argue their cause. Debate on TV is nothing new. There would be nothing physical about it.

My only issue is Eki's outright lie on the title of the "O'Reilly" thread. If that's Eki's opinion of what O'Reilly said then it should be identified as such. Until then, it is difficult to lend any credibility to what Eki posts without back checking the facts and quite frankly, I have neither the time or inclination to do so on every post he makes since most seem to involve a link to someone else's thoughts to which he adds commentary.

I agree with your post for the most part, and I too objected to the US invasion of Iraq, mainly because I knew America wasn't mentally ready or maybe ready from a organizational role to know how to put Iraq back together. Of course, I should have done what you did, try to avoid Eki threads, since he just argues himself around in circles, but hey, I was bored and home between jobs, so it happened....

THank god I have a job starting monday, then I will leave this crazy forum behind for a while...reality is a good thing...

[Hondo]

Well, the title was inspired by this thread:

http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=114052

I understand what you're saying, but I don't view that as an excuse to damage your own credibility. How about asking a mod to add "I believe" to the beginning of the title of your "O'Reilly" thread?

[Eki]

How about asking a mod to add "I believe" to the beginning of the title of your "O'Reilly" thread?
I don't have any objections to that. If any of you mods read this, could you change the title the way Fiero suggested, please?

[Hondo]

I don't have any objections to that. If any of you mods read this, could you change the title the way Fiero suggested, please?


I can't speak for others, but thanks Eki, I appreciate you making the effort. Your credibility just went up.

[libra65]

"But here's a big negative. Sixty-three percent believe the moral and ethical climate in America is declining. And it is. The Internet and an irresponsible media have hit traditional values hard."

The inter net, gee, I thought it was television causing that... err, wait- it's rock & roll music...no wait, it's rap music. Maybe it's video games...yeah thats it. No, wait its R rated movies...I know, its....(fill in the blank)

[Hondo]

Smoking tobacco in public.

[ArrowsFA1]

I don't have any objections to that. If any of you mods read this, could you change the title the way Fiero suggested, please?
Done :)

[luvracin]

My only issue is Eki's outright lie on the title of the "O'Reilly" thread. If that's Eki's opinion of what O'Reilly said then it should be identified as such. Until then, it is difficult to lend any credibility to what Eki posts without back checking the facts and quite frankly, I have neither the time or inclination to do so on every post he makes since most seem to involve a link to someone else's thoughts to which he adds commentary.

Hang on... I think you're onto something.....

EKI IS Bill O'Reilly!!!

[Hondo]

I believe the moral and ethical climate of America and any other nation rises and falls with the natural evolution of human society. The morals and ethics of humans have been swinging up and down long before the Internet and mass media existed. The Internet and media alone cannot force an individual to lower their morals or ethics, they can only provide tools and excuses for those who choose to do so. If 63% of the American public and Mr. O'Reilly really believe that the Internet and irresponsible media are responsible for the decline of traditional values, could one of them please explain to me what caused traditional values to change the way they have before either of these services were available?

[Knock-on]

"But here's a big negative. Sixty-three percent believe the moral and ethical climate in America is declining. And it is. The Internet and an irresponsible media have hit traditional values hard."

The inter net, gee, I thought it was television causing that... err, wait- it's rock & roll music...no wait, it's rap music. Maybe it's video games...yeah thats it. No, wait its R rated movies...I know, its....(fill in the blank)

Make a seat at the Bar chaps, another voice of reason has entered at long last :up:

I don't think that mankind was ever meant to be happy with his lot. It doesn't matter if you're Bill Gates or Dangling from your fastenings at Traitors Gate, we all like to pass the buck.

Culpability is alien. It's the commies, the lefties, the black, the white, the round-eyes, the slanty-eyes, the young or the old, them over there and them that may come over here. The Devil, the God, religion, lack of religon, men women and everyone else NIMBY.

And we would be lost without it.

[SOD]

I believe the moral and ethical climate of America and any other nation rises and falls with the natural evolution of human society. The morals and ethics of humans have been swinging up and down long before the Internet and mass media existed. The Internet and media alone cannot force an individual to lower their morals or ethics, they can only provide tools and excuses for those who choose to do so. If 63% of the American public and Mr. O'Reilly really believe that the Internet and irresponsible media are responsible for the decline of traditional values, could one of them please explain to me what caused traditional values to change the way they have before either of these services were available?

i'd like to know the question that was asked by the pollsters and if any reference to the "internet" & "irresponsible media " was made in that question or follow-up questions.

here's what O'Reilly said: you decide. "But here's a big negative. Sixty-three percent believe the moral and ethical climate in America is declining. And it is. The Internet and an irresponsible media have hit traditional values hard."

If we could get rid of the internet or curtail the content contained therein, then the morals & ethics will improve. The talk of restricting internet priviliges is an important one.

There's a piece of legislation concerning "net neutrality" and there are demands for service providers to store data about their customers. The service providers could make big money if they had more control over the net, the payback to the US govt is ithat the govt can spy on the internet usage of its citizens. (The FBI can read what I type because the US govt thinks every non US citizen is not to be trusted.)

Would a guy like Bill O'Reilly like the media to indulge in self-censorship so that everything portrayed gets a big "Bill O'Reilly approved" sticker? you bet'cha!!

would a guy like BIll O'reilly like internet rights to be curtailed? you betcha.

would a fascist regime like the freedoms of the press and the internet rights to be curtailed? you bet'cha

[Hondo]

I believe all governments greatly dislike the internet. The last thing any authority wants those under it's command to have is a completely free and unfrettered ability to exchange infornation and opinions on a global scale. Most everybody supports freedom of speech as long as that speech embraces their idealology. From that standpoint, I doubt O'Reilly is any different than any other media figure. Most all of them tell the story from just on side.

I was surprised to learn of all the laws dealing with "holocaust denial", you know, making it a criminal offence. When I hear of stuff like that, it makes me curious about what they don't want you to hear.

Still and all, I think blaming the media and Internet for one's lack of morals and ethics is pretty lame.

[Eki]

I was surprised to learn of all the laws dealing with "holocaust denial", you know, making it a criminal offence. When I hear of stuff like that, it makes me curious about what they don't want you to hear.
That's how I feel about it too. When there recently was a "holocaust conference" in Iran with "holocaust denying" researchers attending, Israel and the US opposed it rather strongly. If there's nothing to be found, why not just let them research all they want? When Saddam didn't want weapons inspectors snooping around, many seemed to take it granted that he had something to hide.

[Knock-on]

That's how I feel about it too. When there recently was a "holocaust conference" in Iran with "holocaust denying" researchers attending, Israel and the US opposed it rather strongly. If there's nothing to be found, why not just let them research all they want? When Saddam didn't want weapons inspectors snooping around, many seemed to take it granted that he had something to hide.

It's fair to say that when Saddam refused inspections, it made it look to the outside world that he had something to hide. It was a logical assumption and therefore one that had to be pursued by the UN.

However, nobody is hiding the Holocaust from anyone. You can drive to the concentration camps and see the evidence. I fail to see how any rational, or even sane person could honestly claim it never happened.

I do take on board though that it is a valid subject for discussion. If some states want to deny the facts, let them enter debate and do it in full light of a reasoned discussion. They will be blown out of the water and continued denial would severely weaken their credibility and therefore their strength.

[Hondo]

It's fair to say that when Saddam refused inspections, it made it look to the outside world that he had something to hide. It was a logical assumption and therefore one that had to be pursued by the UN.

However, nobody is hiding the Holocaust from anyone. You can drive to the concentration camps and see the evidence. I fail to see how any rational, or even sane person could honestly claim it never happened.

I do take on board though that it is a valid subject for discussion. If some states want to deny the facts, let them enter debate and do it in full light of a reasoned discussion. They will be blown out of the water and continued denial would severely weaken their credibility and therefore their strength.

Saddam may have thought he had something to hide in error, or, at the time, he may well have had something to hide. Either way, that alone wasn't grounds to invade the country.

I have no doubt that the Nazi Government practiced ethnic cleansing, now know as the Holocaust. I think the term "Holocaust" lends a certain bias towards indicating that the Jewish people were the only group affected when, in fact, they went after any race or nationality they considered sub-human, including Poles, Slavs, Gypsies, etc.

I certainly don't believe it should be a criminal offence to deny or debate whether it occurred or not. I agree that most denial arguments would be blown out of the water. I seem to recall General Eisenhower demanding the camps be filmed and documented for the express purpose of preventing those in the future from engaging in just such denials. Very forward looking of him.

[Eki]

Saddam may have thought he had something to hide in error, or, at the time, he may well have had something to hide.

Or he may have simply thought the inspections were humiliating and demeaning.

[Knock-on]

Or he may have simply thought the inspections were humiliating and demeaning.

Or he may of thought they were stealing his sand :rolleyes:

[Eki]

Or he may of thought they were stealing his sand :rolleyes:
I doubt if George W would allow Iranians and North Koreans to come and snoop around in his country.

It's also possible that Iraq expected something in return for allowing the inspections, like easing the sanctions, and when it didn't happen, they thought the inspections were futile, and no matter what they'd do, the US wasn't going to believe them.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I doubt if George W would allow Iranians and North Koreans to come and snoop around in his country.

It's also possible that Iraq expected something in return for allowing the inspections, like easing the sanctions, and when it didn't happen, they thought the inspections were futile, and no matter what they'd do, the US wasn't going to believe them.


Eki, The North Koreans and Iranians didn't win a war over the US and Bush didn't agree to allow the UN through 14 resolutions to go over his country to proclaim he had no more WMD's. See, there you go trying to use moral equivlence again. You also stated in an earlier thread that maybe Saddam didn't want to be humiliated any more. Saddam deserved all the humiliation he could take if it got him out of being invaded.

Your point is taken however, maybe the US wouldn't believe him. I think if Saddam put an honest effort to show the nations's weapons and facilities to the UN, really bend over backwards and show contrition for his invasion of Kuwait back in the 90's, Bill Clinton would have believed him. Slick Willie loved having problem's solved, but Saddam dragged it out until Bush became President, and we know what happened.

If you think Saddam handled it this inspection regime right, just contrast it to the actions of Quaddifi. He told the UN that he was giving up all WMD's, opened up the country to inspections, and didn't put the UN inspectors there through the machinations that Saddam did. This was all done in a matter of MONTHS. Yet Saddam screwed around while UN sanctions bit hard on his country and its people for 12 years!!! He had no intention of doing anything unless a gun was to his head, and he didn't seem to get that the gun was loaded.

Look, if you think Bush was wrong to invade Iraq, I get that (I may not agree but I get it), but please spare me the crocodile tears for Saddam. He bungled his nation's future by invading Kuwait, he was lucky the US stopped short of invading his nation for occupation at that time. He was given conditions to follow by the UN at that time and for 12 years he screwed around. Regardless of what you think of Bushie, just know that Saddam Hussein had the means to avoid this war and he jerked everyone around so much that in the end, no one would trust him.

Your constant whine that the Americans are always wrong and the source of all problems is tiring, and this attempt of yours to smear O'Reilly as some sort of Nazi is just comical.

O'Reilly is a big bag of wind, but in the end, he wouldn't censor anyone. He does on his show, because, it is alas, HIS show, but I think that is part of his show's appeal. Those who like his knee-jerk reactions love him, and those who don't, watch CNN. It is a business, so if he doesn't to have his ass kicked in a debate, he doesn't bring on people who can out argue him. That is what his viewers tune in to watch, and he wont mess with that formula. His true views on free speech I am sure are more or less the same as anyones...

[BenRoethig]

O'Reilly might be an jerk, but he is right, out media is starting to head down the same sad path that the European press has gone down where journalism has been replaced with a far left opinion page. A wise man once said to be is that the way you can tell journalists by the fact that everyone is bad at them. It's politically neutral. To be honest I don't see the Dems or socialist Europe being very displeased by the press coverage for the most part.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Ben, I am firmly of the opinion that the press in the free world leans to the left. That is ok in my books, because although I deplore it at times, there is enough balance out there in the media, and opinions are out there. Free speech is what it is...and if the world has to put up with crap media, it just makes you appreciate the really fine minds and interesting thinkers out there on the left and right. The beauty of the net is you can access it from all over the world.

I do know that politicians only get so much slack from the media, and if you are on the right, well your honeymoon period starts about 2 weeks in!!! IT is ok however, all politicans know that they wont get much love if they really mess up....

[SOD]

how many "big media" corporations are owned by "Lefties"?

[BenRoethig]

how many "big media" corporations are owned by "Lefties"?

ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, NYT, basically the entire european media.

[EuroTroll]

basically the entire european media.

I wonder how much you really know of the European media outside the UK, and possibly Germany and France...

[Mark in Oshawa]

New York Times for one. CBS's attempted smear of Bush before the last election with the false documents says to me they are owned or at least run by "lefties". In Canada, the best example is the CBC. It is owned by the taxpayer nominally but there is a very long arm's length relationship between the government and CBC, yet anyone who has watched their coverage of many issues over 30 years would understand they have always been slightly more tolerant of the Libreal party and its leftish views than the Conservatives. Torstar and GlobeMedia (both private corporations, Globemedia being publically traded)here in Canada are left of centerpolitcally, and in the case of Torstar, openly owned by center left ownership. Warren Buffett, of the Berkshire Hathaway empire owns a number of newspaper chains, and anyone who has heard his ideas on Bush would understand he isn't a media cheerleader for the right. Ted Turner, the founder of CNN and owner for many years was/is a left of center kind of guy, and again, I suspect the situation is similar overseas.

Understand when I tag a lot of media as left of center, it isn't like they are raving communists, but left of center tends to be the political views of many journalists. A survey was done before the last American election on the political bias of reporters, and an overwhelming 66% said they were Democrats, which is left to very left on most issues. I doubt highly in nations around the world with a free press the journalists are unbiased completely. In their writing they may strive to be, and it is ok to have some bias, for it is intellectually at least honest if you say what your bias is, but some pretend they have no bias while it becomes obvious they do. Many editorial writers are ex-reporters and not much different.

It isn't that it is bad to be in the media and have a bias. What is bad, is pretending you don't have it and then being so far off the chart one direction or the other. Rupert Murdoch is a right of center guy, so if you watch Fox, you will expect a more conservative view point, but they don't hide it. No one who employs Bill O'Reilly would ever think the network is unbiased 100% but on news coverage, often things are what they are, no matter who you watch.

Media is made up of people. People tend to be left or right of center, so you will find all kinds in the media. You sometimes hear though that reporters "want to make a difference" and that is wrong. Don't make a difference, tell good stories, andif you slant it a little one way or the other, I can figure that out for myself. Expose real corruption, real suffering, real incompetance and you can be biased up to a point. Intelligent readers can make up their own minds....

[agwiii]

Or he may have simply thought the inspections were humiliating and demeaning.

Perhaps so, but you have seen the video of him opening his mouth to have his teeth examined. How submissive of him.

[Mark in Oshawa]

He should have taken demeaning, because being hung is more hard on the system....