aljazeera.com— The Masters of the Universe evaded responsibility and defiantly demanded more sacrifice from their victims, says author.
Oct 10, 2011View in Crawl 4
It has a middle eastern name....and we all know that middle easterners are islamofascists!! Never mind that sites like AlJazeera and Russia Today actually give you the full story more often than any of the left or right wing skewed branches of the US mainstream media. When was the last time you saw a dead american soldier on TV? When was the last time you SAW the aftermath of a drone attack on innocent civilians on your news? Bush didnt even allow pictures of flag covered coffins coming back from the war...and the media blackout around OWS was apparent to all.
I know, I know....who would EVER need more than that out of a news station? I am going to stick with Fox News and Drudge!!!
That is their main problem, Al Jazeera is too Muslim-like for them. They're skeered of Muslims. And yes, this is one of them most credible news sources, yet they cannot tell me what's incredible about it.
ok by that statement Jpost and Heartz should be perfectly acceptable to the liberals but everytime something is posted or referenced from them the liberals deride the source
The real masters of the universe are sitting on capital hill, not Wall street laughing their asses off.
Yes, they are evading responsibility of creating monopolies and advantage for the wealthy elite over small and medium business. They are even fueling the fires to hate Wall Street so no one wil turn to them and question their connections with Wall Street, the money, the influence pedelling and the kick backs.
While I agree mostly, don't save all your ire for Congress. Wall Street and large corporations are culpable. In fact, who is the real Puppet Master here? I'd argue the large monied interests are, not politicians.
"Between 1979 and 2009, the top 5 per cent of American families saw their real incomes increase 72.7 per cent, according to Census data. Over the same period, the lowest-income fifth saw a decrease in real income of 7.4 per cent (by contrast, the 1947-79 period all income groups saw similar income gains, with the lowest income group actually seeing the largest gains)."
While some simply believe that mass increase in earnings was earned fairly, I'm not buying it. But, even if they did, our country was great and building because all ships rose with the economy. The lowest income groups shared as well. Moving towards a model where one group does remarkably well while everyone else struggles will not lead to our continued prosperity and is not the kind of country in which I want to live.
I use to stay away from the English AlJazeera BUT since I've started reading regularly for several weeks now, I'm really impressed. I like it as much as the BBC.
Compassionate warfare. It seems like a good idea, but Im going to guess that it is not an effective way to win wars. But we dont fight wars to win them anymore. We fight wars to make money.
The real masters of the universe are sitting on capital hill, not Wall street laughing their asses off.
Yes, they are evading responsibility of creating monopolies and advantage for the wealthy elite over small and medium business. They are even fueling the fires to hate Wall Street so no one wil turn to them and question their connections with Wall Street, the money, the influence pedelling and the kick backs.
It's okay. When you see people who get to sleep with a woman while still having hobbies and interests, it can get under the skin. Some day USARugula will get a good harvest, have some extra cash, hire a hooker (and hopefully not kill her, given his minor obsession with serial killers), and be un-tensed for a few hours.
No they're not. You give the people on Wall Street a pass when they were the ones selling triple AAA rated toxic loans to everyone else with full knowledge they were toxic? I don't doubt that when Wall Street bought off government officials the same way big oil bought off government officials to wage the Iraq war. No doubt government needs to have better checks and balances. But don't blame the police for causing the crime. You can be mad at the police for being incompetent, but you can't ignore the criminals who caused the crime in the first place, that's just being silly. Unless you're one of the criminals?
The CRA was enforced and the banks had no choice but to make those toxic loans with minimum payment ARM's on bad credit, no loan application documents and no verified ability to pay. The banks were warned that if they did not make those loans they would face sanctions. Once again it goes back to capital hill and their manipulation of the private sector believing the ends (poor people buying large homes) was justified by the means (banks making loan the poor people could never pay).
The banks were reguired by law to make those loans, congressmen, including Barney Frank warned them they would be prosecuted if they did not make the loans. There was no choice and that was the intent of the CRA, to put people in homes so they could show the numbers of people moving from rentals to homeownership. The ends was to have more home ownership by poor people the means was to force the banks to write those loans. Those loans were available to anyone and everyone without question or regard. Good banking practices will tell you to not make a loan to someone that can not pay it.
That really doesn't describe the 'real truth' here. Banks were not 'forced' to make loans. Banks really wanted to make those loans. They were called 'liar loans' because banks were so eager to commoditize this stable product and make loads of cash. The mortgage companies I worked with were not making loans because they felt pressure from congress. They were desperate to make loans because of the wads of cash.
I can understand the frustration with corporations and all of their special privileges that are granted by government. However, I don't understand this obsession with constantly comparing one's own possessions with everyone else's. I don't begrudge someone who has more than me. As long as the "rich" earned their money without coercing anyone in a system of free exchange, their wealth is rightfully theirs and they made everyone better off in earning it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
But we don't have a system of free exchange especially when it comes to information. Many of the rich used misinformation or closely held to become rich. There's a reason insider trading is illegal and it's because information isn't freely exchanged.
I agree. We live in a system where government creates protected classes and organizations either through direct subsidy or through regulatory capture. Above, I'm talking about a free market where everyone must bear the full consequences of their actions and face competition without restraints.
I really hope this is not spun into poor VS. Rich,, because that is Not the problem. The problem is assh**es. assh**es like the one seen here with the hair. That guy does not give a s**t about his neighbors family that he does not know. You know what he cares about first, is having all the money and power that he can. The protesters need to make clear that they want to get rid of the assh**es. They want transparency again and the right to choose and vote. Look at how they try to pay people to be President "for the companies interest" ie. that New Jersey Gov. That is what the protests are against. If the media needs a single demand, tell them no more assh**es! That should encompass the problem.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I totally agree with that! I would never take that away from him! But is giving to charity, (something that every wealthy person does, just about, I'm sure) constitute s**tting on other people? I don't agree with doing wrong to people and then washing it away with confession and good deeds, unless you never commit that wrong again and try to make it right. He stated on TV. out of his own mouth, that he cares way less for people than Meatloaf, but yet he can run for President because he has enough money. Can a not wealthy, good hearted person run for President? It seems no... So he needs to do a lot more (like pay the same in taxes as me for starters) for me not to look at him like a greedy assh**e that would call an American an African to steal his job. The children are mad at the adults!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I kinda feel the same. I don't want to visit their site because IF the Government is being as watchful as I think they should be and they probably are, they would be making a list of frequent visitors to their site.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I think Aljazeera is a better source of truthful information over Fox. I wont make fun you, but I will say that if your afraid of Arab names, you are most unlike the majority of Digg readers.
Not what I'm saying at all. They may be the most wonderful news organization ever.
My guess would be somewhere, a little beep goes off for those who visit their site frequently and I don't care to invite that on myself. Warranted or not.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Al Jazeera is becoming a semi respectable source for global news.
You think the Arab people's organizations are all terrorists and need to be watched? That is adorable. The world is round, and science has learned that disease comes from germs.
you suggested that the government should have a watch list of frequent viewers to Al Jazeera. As if Al Jazeera is a terrorist organization or an "unamerican" organization.
You should spend less time being a arrogant a** and more time reading AND comprehending. I didn't suggest they "should". I implied that they most likely "DO".
Ohmygawsh you are right. Their website probably uses web information cookies. This nation is going to hell in a hand basket and the only political party that can us is lemonparty.org! You should check it out!
If you could write a decent sentence with decent grammar, we might be able to read what you are trying to tell us. Until then, you will probably just be buried.
also, in every one of those examples there is no source to any of the claims or they are all claims from places that would benefit from discrediting them.
"I agree that Fox trends to the right. How is that a big controversy? The accusations against Al Jazeer are that they are biased against our civilization."
It appears you believe right wing ideology to be 100% correct. Otherwise you would understand that, when incorrect, Fox's bias stands against our civilization.
From your own link:
"A widely reported criticism is the unfounded allegation that Al Jazeera showed videos of masked terrorists beheading western hostages in Iraq. When this was reported in other media, Al Jazeera pressed for retractions to be made. This allegation was again repeated on Fox News Channel in the USA on the launch day of Al Jazeera's English service, 15 November 2006. Later The Guardian apologized for incorrect information that Al Jazeera 'had shown videos of masked terrorists beheading western hostages'."
Do you defend false reporting over accurate reporting? Is lying the thing that makes our civilization great?
Obviously I don't believe that any news source is 100% correct. Do I believe that ideas trending toward the right closer to Libertarian views are better for our country than the left? Absolutely. You disagree. Fine. Regardless, equating Fox News with Al Jazeera because you disagree with their views is ignorant at best.
Based on your logic, you should be ready to lump MSNBC and CNN with Al Jazeera then as they are obviously biased to the left.
Al Jazeera has supported Hamas which is radically anti Western.
Yes, I defend Al Jazeera. As our own news sources become more and more biased and corporate owned, I seek sources from all over the world. Al Jaseera actually posts some very good articles.
"Al Jazeera is an independent broadcaster owned by the state of Qatar through the Qatar Media Corporation and headquartered in Doha, Qatar."
So you prefer a State controlled media source; which is backed by the threat of implicit and explicit force, over "corporate" owned (what is a "corporation" other than groups of people working together on their own accord?).
To top it all off, they throw in the extra layer of a corporation under their State control at Al Jazeera.
I'm not sure I'd say I prefer this one source. Though, I judge them by the quality of their articles, not by the location of their headquarters. It's the content that is telling. I still of course read U.S. sources, the BBC and more. But, I don't like the consolidation of our media in the hands of a few.
Folks, this is clearly an opinion piece. It is no better or worse than any other opinion articles. The stuff the author points out is has been reported many times over.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Opinion, except for all the facts stuck in the middle:
"The fact is that the mega-rich have been gobbling up a greater and greater share of the national wealth for several decades now: in 1976 the top 1 per cent of households received 8.9 per cent of all pre-tax income - by 2008, its share had more than doubled to 21.0 per cent. Between 1979 and 2009, the top 5 per cent of American families saw their real incomes increase 72.7 per cent, according to Census data. Over the same period, the lowest-income fifth saw a decrease in real income of 7.4 per cent (by contrast, the 1947-79 period all income groups saw similar income gains, with the lowest income group actually seeing the largest gains). And perhaps most astonishingly, the tax rate for the highest earners was 91 per cent in 1960, 70 per cent in 1980 and only 35 per cent today, the lowest ever with the exception of a couple of years in the late 80s and early 90s.
And it's not as if these people have been suffering during this recession. Unlike the bottom 99 per cent, they've quite smartly recovered from the 2008 unpleasantness. For instance, according to a recent New York Times report, executive pay at 200 big US companies last year went up by an average 23 per cent over 2009 - the median executive salary was 10.8m USD. Meanwhile, the average American family's household net worth declined 23 per cent between 2007 and 2009."
Fair enough. I wasn't disputing his facts. What is missing in all this "rich are evil" (/s) talk is the WHY. The wealth that has been been accumulated by top 20% (not just the 1%) over the past 30+ years isn't primarily due to tax policy. It has much more to do with the rise of the professional class of workers and the information age. Meanwhile manufacturing wages have not grown much at all considering inflation and a great many workers are in the service industry as well. Quite a bit of manufacturing has also been offshored. The 1947-1979 was the heyday of post-WWII manufacturing and the rise of the middle class b/c of that.
No, that mass increase for the top 1% was not due to the rise of the Professional class. They don't really make up that top 1%. There really is no good reason for this group to do so remarkably well over the last three decades other than offshoring, downsizing, business schemes (comoditization of real estate, etc). This group did not suddenly start working harder or become more educated. They simply took advantage of the circumstances to the determent of most others. I'm not referring to the Bill Gates of the world. I'm referring to many Bankers, Wall Street, many large company CEOs, etc.
Did you even read my post? You like many are missing the big picture. In freaking out about bankers you're missing the trends in the working population and what actually happened. You think the top 1% is only (or primarily) bankers? Yes, much of what you cite did happen but it wasn't JUST the financial services industry that benefited wealthwise. Geez, apply some critical thinking skills.
Actually, not sure how you miss the critical thinking in the comment. I did not single out the 'financial sector'. Geez. I dispute your reasoning for why that top 1% saw 450% gains over the last three decades. I don't believe the Rich are evil. But, they naturally take advantage of favorable conditions through greed (many) at the detriment of most, IMO.
By the way, if you want an example of 'lacking critical thinking skills', check this out:
"Starvation is Allah's little way of punishing those who have little or no faith in Capitalism for the Poor and Socialism for the Rich."
Bizarre and deluded perspective. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they are Unamerican, jihad lovers. The small minded amongst us though usually result to broad characterizations like Muslim Lovers, Socialist, Communists, Fascists, etc. It helps in demonizing the other 'team.'
What kind of country blames irrelevant minorities as a distraction for economic failure? What kind of country tortures people? What kind of country hires mercenaries? What kind of country goes to war against a radical minority and uses wartime powers to promote censorship and fear? What kind of country uses prayer to fight drought conditions? What kind of country uses religion as a political tool?
anomaly100Oct 10, 2011
The stupid in this thread is strong. Al Jazeera is not credible, why exactly?
bdbrOct 10, 2011
Because their name sounds "terrorist-y". /s
igorunchainedOct 10, 2011
It has a middle eastern name....and we all know that middle easterners are islamofascists!! Never mind that sites like AlJazeera and Russia Today actually give you the full story more often than any of the left or right wing skewed branches of the US mainstream media. When was the last time you saw a dead american soldier on TV? When was the last time you SAW the aftermath of a drone attack on innocent civilians on your news? Bush didnt even allow pictures of flag covered coffins coming back from the war...and the media blackout around OWS was apparent to all.
I know, I know....who would EVER need more than that out of a news station? I am going to stick with Fox News and Drudge!!!
anomaly100Oct 10, 2011
That is their main problem, Al Jazeera is too Muslim-like for them. They're skeered of Muslims. And yes, this is one of them most credible news sources, yet they cannot tell me what's incredible about it.
isa9191Oct 10, 2011
Makes you wonder if they all failed al gebra in school.... they probably did :S
pc25Oct 11, 2011
Al Jazeera is not credible, why exactly?
ok by that statement Jpost and Heartz should be perfectly acceptable to the liberals but everytime something is posted or referenced from them the liberals deride the source
shadyrightwingerOct 11, 2011
"Al Jazeera journalist admits to being Hamas operative"
http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=239638
pc25Oct 11, 2011
again silence from nommie.
bille3Oct 10, 2011
The real masters of the universe are sitting on capital hill, not Wall street laughing their asses off.
Yes, they are evading responsibility of creating monopolies and advantage for the wealthy elite over small and medium business. They are even fueling the fires to hate Wall Street so no one wil turn to them and question their connections with Wall Street, the money, the influence pedelling and the kick backs.
JustSayNoPartyOct 13, 2011
While I agree mostly, don't save all your ire for Congress. Wall Street and large corporations are culpable. In fact, who is the real Puppet Master here? I'd argue the large monied interests are, not politicians.
JustSayNoPartyOct 13, 2011
"Between 1979 and 2009, the top 5 per cent of American families saw their real incomes increase 72.7 per cent, according to Census data. Over the same period, the lowest-income fifth saw a decrease in real income of 7.4 per cent (by contrast, the 1947-79 period all income groups saw similar income gains, with the lowest income group actually seeing the largest gains)."
While some simply believe that mass increase in earnings was earned fairly, I'm not buying it. But, even if they did, our country was great and building because all ships rose with the economy. The lowest income groups shared as well. Moving towards a model where one group does remarkably well while everyone else struggles will not lead to our continued prosperity and is not the kind of country in which I want to live.
mike4410Oct 11, 2011
I use to stay away from the English AlJazeera BUT since I've started reading regularly for several weeks now, I'm really impressed. I like it as much as the BBC.
bloatedbellyOct 11, 2011
USA mass media is owned and operated by an elite class along with placing profit above so many other things.
I generally view foreign-based news sources as more believable than USA based propaganda dispensers.
shadyrightwingerOct 11, 2011
Even when one of their employees works as a terrorist operative on the side?
http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=239638
JustSayNoPartyOct 13, 2011
Agreed. When I go overseas, I'm amazed at how 'worldly' the news is compared to the States. We do get quite a 'biased' dose of reporting.
motozeroOct 10, 2011
Watch "The War You Don't See" the US. called an Aljazeer news station, told them to leave the building, and then bombed it.
ghengiskhan1Oct 10, 2011
Compassionate warfare. It seems like a good idea, but Im going to guess that it is not an effective way to win wars. But we dont fight wars to win them anymore. We fight wars to make money.
bille3Oct 10, 2011
We fight wars to lose face.
bille3Oct 10, 2011
The real masters of the universe are sitting on capital hill, not Wall street laughing their asses off.
Yes, they are evading responsibility of creating monopolies and advantage for the wealthy elite over small and medium business. They are even fueling the fires to hate Wall Street so no one wil turn to them and question their connections with Wall Street, the money, the influence pedelling and the kick backs.
PyriteGenieOct 10, 2011
I picture President Obama practicing saying, in his spare time, "By the POWER of GRAYSKULL!!!!"
usarugulaOct 10, 2011
That's because you are an emotionally immature middle-aged-plus man who still plays super hero dressup.
ghengiskhan1Oct 10, 2011
You say that like its a bad thing.
usarugulaOct 10, 2011
John Wayne Gacy in a unitard. You decide.
PyriteGenieOct 11, 2011
It's okay. When you see people who get to sleep with a woman while still having hobbies and interests, it can get under the skin. Some day USARugula will get a good harvest, have some extra cash, hire a hooker (and hopefully not kill her, given his minor obsession with serial killers), and be un-tensed for a few hours.
spatula7Oct 10, 2011
No they're not. You give the people on Wall Street a pass when they were the ones selling triple AAA rated toxic loans to everyone else with full knowledge they were toxic? I don't doubt that when Wall Street bought off government officials the same way big oil bought off government officials to wage the Iraq war. No doubt government needs to have better checks and balances. But don't blame the police for causing the crime. You can be mad at the police for being incompetent, but you can't ignore the criminals who caused the crime in the first place, that's just being silly. Unless you're one of the criminals?
bille3Oct 10, 2011
The CRA was enforced and the banks had no choice but to make those toxic loans with minimum payment ARM's on bad credit, no loan application documents and no verified ability to pay. The banks were warned that if they did not make those loans they would face sanctions. Once again it goes back to capital hill and their manipulation of the private sector believing the ends (poor people buying large homes) was justified by the means (banks making loan the poor people could never pay).
hackwrenchOct 10, 2011
They had a choice as to rate them AAA.
bille3Oct 11, 2011
The banks were reguired by law to make those loans, congressmen, including Barney Frank warned them they would be prosecuted if they did not make the loans. There was no choice and that was the intent of the CRA, to put people in homes so they could show the numbers of people moving from rentals to homeownership. The ends was to have more home ownership by poor people the means was to force the banks to write those loans. Those loans were available to anyone and everyone without question or regard. Good banking practices will tell you to not make a loan to someone that can not pay it.
JustSayNoPartyOct 13, 2011
That really doesn't describe the 'real truth' here. Banks were not 'forced' to make loans. Banks really wanted to make those loans. They were called 'liar loans' because banks were so eager to commoditize this stable product and make loads of cash. The mortgage companies I worked with were not making loans because they felt pressure from congress. They were desperate to make loans because of the wads of cash.
timthetaxmanOct 10, 2011
I can understand the frustration with corporations and all of their special privileges that are granted by government. However, I don't understand this obsession with constantly comparing one's own possessions with everyone else's. I don't begrudge someone who has more than me. As long as the "rich" earned their money without coercing anyone in a system of free exchange, their wealth is rightfully theirs and they made everyone better off in earning it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hackwrenchOct 10, 2011
But we don't have a system of free exchange especially when it comes to information. Many of the rich used misinformation or closely held to become rich. There's a reason insider trading is illegal and it's because information isn't freely exchanged.
timthetaxmanOct 10, 2011
I agree. We live in a system where government creates protected classes and organizations either through direct subsidy or through regulatory capture. Above, I'm talking about a free market where everyone must bear the full consequences of their actions and face competition without restraints.
lucaswyrschOct 11, 2011
We have to end the talent myth, the war for talent, sign a peace treaty and start a sustainable peace for talent!
lucaswyrschOct 11, 2011
We have to end the talent myth, the war for talent, sign a peace treaty and start a sustainable peace for talent!
gkiltzOct 11, 2011
The middle class are also confused by these kinds of statements.
crosstime_saloonOct 10, 2011
A storm is coming.
motozeroOct 10, 2011
I really hope this is not spun into poor VS. Rich,, because that is Not the problem. The problem is assh**es. assh**es like the one seen here with the hair. That guy does not give a s**t about his neighbors family that he does not know. You know what he cares about first, is having all the money and power that he can. The protesters need to make clear that they want to get rid of the assh**es. They want transparency again and the right to choose and vote. Look at how they try to pay people to be President "for the companies interest" ie. that New Jersey Gov. That is what the protests are against. If the media needs a single demand, tell them no more assh**es! That should encompass the problem.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
specimen7Oct 10, 2011
That "assh**e" has given more money to charity than you will ever make in your entire life.
motozeroOct 10, 2011
I totally agree with that! I would never take that away from him! But is giving to charity, (something that every wealthy person does, just about, I'm sure) constitute s**tting on other people? I don't agree with doing wrong to people and then washing it away with confession and good deeds, unless you never commit that wrong again and try to make it right. He stated on TV. out of his own mouth, that he cares way less for people than Meatloaf, but yet he can run for President because he has enough money. Can a not wealthy, good hearted person run for President? It seems no... So he needs to do a lot more (like pay the same in taxes as me for starters) for me not to look at him like a greedy assh**e that would call an American an African to steal his job. The children are mad at the adults!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jgardnerOct 10, 2011
At first, I thought we would have real problems in our country with this kind of divisive, indendiary rhetoric.
Now I see what it has led to: the OWS movement.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
tvisioOct 11, 2011
Starvation is Allah's little way of punishing those who have little or no faith in Capitalism for the Poor and Socialism for the Rich.
anonadminOct 10, 2011
Wait, why is AlJazeera articles showing up on digg? I dont trust there TV Station and the new is even less trustworthy.
Closed AccountOct 10, 2011
I kinda feel the same. I don't want to visit their site because IF the Government is being as watchful as I think they should be and they probably are, they would be making a list of frequent visitors to their site.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
motozeroOct 10, 2011
I think Aljazeera is a better source of truthful information over Fox. I wont make fun you, but I will say that if your afraid of Arab names, you are most unlike the majority of Digg readers.
equinox2o12Oct 10, 2011
Aljazeera is an award winning news organization. Known around the world for in-depth and accurate coverage.
motozeroOct 10, 2011
I would even say that they are one of the few credible news stations 24/7 that is left. Just my opinion.
slang4catOct 10, 2011
And reflexive anti-American bias:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3524639,00.html
http://www.cjr.org/the_water_cooler/dave_marash_why_i_quit.php?page=allComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
equinox2o12Oct 10, 2011
Out of date tripe. They don't sound anti-American. It sounds like the reporter who quit didn't like the REAL America being show to the world.
FAIL
Closed AccountOct 10, 2011
Not what I'm saying at all. They may be the most wonderful news organization ever.
My guess would be somewhere, a little beep goes off for those who visit their site frequently and I don't care to invite that on myself. Warranted or not.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
motozeroOct 11, 2011
was talking to the people underneath ;)
SauntOroloOct 10, 2011
Al Jazeera is becoming a semi respectable source for global news.
You think the Arab people's organizations are all terrorists and need to be watched? That is adorable. The world is round, and science has learned that disease comes from germs.
Closed AccountOct 10, 2011
Not what I said. Please see my comment above.
SauntOroloOct 11, 2011
you suggested that the government should have a watch list of frequent viewers to Al Jazeera. As if Al Jazeera is a terrorist organization or an "unamerican" organization.
WTF does your comment mean?
Closed AccountOct 11, 2011
You should spend less time being a arrogant a** and more time reading AND comprehending. I didn't suggest they "should". I implied that they most likely "DO".
A distinct difference. Sorry it was lost on you.
usarugulaOct 10, 2011
Your paranoia doesn't surprise me.
Closed AccountOct 10, 2011
Paranoia to some. Caution to others.
SauntOroloOct 12, 2011
Ohmygawsh you are right. Their website probably uses web information cookies. This nation is going to hell in a hand basket and the only political party that can us is lemonparty.org! You should check it out!
partrowOct 10, 2011
If you could write a decent sentence with decent grammar, we might be able to read what you are trying to tell us. Until then, you will probably just be buried.
atlasfOct 10, 2011
I was struck by the source as well. Really?
Do Fox news haters defend Al Jazeera?
jgardnerOct 10, 2011
They embrace Islam while condemning Christianity. Al Jazeera is probably more reliable to them than Fox News.
BluntzworthOct 10, 2011
Only in your minds.
jgardnerOct 10, 2011
So you're saying Fox is more reliable than Al Jazeera?
particleman420Oct 10, 2011
fox isnt reliable at all, unless you're looking for a reliable source of misinformation and propaganda
jgardnerOct 10, 2011
So is Al Jazeera more or less reliable than Fox News?
Answer: QED.
particleman420Oct 10, 2011
it's almost like no news source is credible, unless you agree with it.
thats sort of inconvenient for us regular joes
equinox2o12Oct 10, 2011
FOX BLOWS!
pc25Oct 11, 2011
so does alternet, fon, politicususa msnbc
jgardnerOct 11, 2011
@particleman420
You have arrived at the truth: no news source is credible, unless you agree with it.
Closed AccountOct 11, 2011
jgard - As much as I hate to admit it, that's a pretty good observation and probably, for the most part, accurate.
particleman420Oct 10, 2011
how do you know they do that? because it's got a funny name?
actually that's the same reason the scary black president terrifies you so much, his name is scary!!
but you guys arent racist at all. nope, not at all.
atlasfOct 10, 2011
Rather than slandering people because you disagree with them, maybe you would do well to know what you're talking about next time. It's not hard:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera#Criticism_and_controversyComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
particleman420Oct 10, 2011
where did i slander you poor misunderstood victims?
particleman420Oct 10, 2011
also, in every one of those examples there is no source to any of the claims or they are all claims from places that would benefit from discrediting them.
usarugulaOct 10, 2011
If that's enough to steer you away from Al Jazeera, you should see this -- the controversies of Fox News have their own wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies
atlasfOct 10, 2011
@particleman
Accusing someone of racism isn't slander? (Actually, you may be right considering how overused the race card has become).
atlasfOct 10, 2011
@usarugula
I agree that Fox trends to the right. How is that a big controversy?
The accusations against Al Jazeer are that they are biased against our civilization.
If you can't tell the difference between the two I can't help you.
usarugulaOct 10, 2011
"I agree that Fox trends to the right. How is that a big controversy? The accusations against Al Jazeer are that they are biased against our civilization."
It appears you believe right wing ideology to be 100% correct. Otherwise you would understand that, when incorrect, Fox's bias stands against our civilization.
From your own link:
"A widely reported criticism is the unfounded allegation that Al Jazeera showed videos of masked terrorists beheading western hostages in Iraq. When this was reported in other media, Al Jazeera pressed for retractions to be made. This allegation was again repeated on Fox News Channel in the USA on the launch day of Al Jazeera's English service, 15 November 2006. Later The Guardian apologized for incorrect information that Al Jazeera 'had shown videos of masked terrorists beheading western hostages'."
Do you defend false reporting over accurate reporting? Is lying the thing that makes our civilization great?
atlasfOct 11, 2011
Obviously I don't believe that any news source is 100% correct. Do I believe that ideas trending toward the right closer to Libertarian views are better for our country than the left? Absolutely. You disagree. Fine. Regardless, equating Fox News with Al Jazeera because you disagree with their views is ignorant at best.
Based on your logic, you should be ready to lump MSNBC and CNN with Al Jazeera then as they are obviously biased to the left.
Al Jazeera has supported Hamas which is radically anti Western.
glassagateOct 11, 2011
>> They embrace Islam while condemning Christianity.
Most of the conservatives 2012 candidates do the
exact opposite....where is your outrage?
JustSayNoPartyOct 13, 2011
Yes, I defend Al Jazeera. As our own news sources become more and more biased and corporate owned, I seek sources from all over the world. Al Jaseera actually posts some very good articles.
atlasfOct 13, 2011
They say ignorance is bliss.
"Al Jazeera is an independent broadcaster owned by the state of Qatar through the Qatar Media Corporation and headquartered in Doha, Qatar."
So you prefer a State controlled media source; which is backed by the threat of implicit and explicit force, over "corporate" owned (what is a "corporation" other than groups of people working together on their own accord?).
To top it all off, they throw in the extra layer of a corporation under their State control at Al Jazeera.
JustSayNoPartyOct 13, 2011
I'm not sure I'd say I prefer this one source. Though, I judge them by the quality of their articles, not by the location of their headquarters. It's the content that is telling. I still of course read U.S. sources, the BBC and more. But, I don't like the consolidation of our media in the hands of a few.
unclefireOct 10, 2011
Folks, this is clearly an opinion piece. It is no better or worse than any other opinion articles. The stuff the author points out is has been reported many times over.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
usarugulaOct 10, 2011
Opinion, except for all the facts stuck in the middle:
"The fact is that the mega-rich have been gobbling up a greater and greater share of the national wealth for several decades now: in 1976 the top 1 per cent of households received 8.9 per cent of all pre-tax income - by 2008, its share had more than doubled to 21.0 per cent. Between 1979 and 2009, the top 5 per cent of American families saw their real incomes increase 72.7 per cent, according to Census data. Over the same period, the lowest-income fifth saw a decrease in real income of 7.4 per cent (by contrast, the 1947-79 period all income groups saw similar income gains, with the lowest income group actually seeing the largest gains). And perhaps most astonishingly, the tax rate for the highest earners was 91 per cent in 1960, 70 per cent in 1980 and only 35 per cent today, the lowest ever with the exception of a couple of years in the late 80s and early 90s.
And it's not as if these people have been suffering during this recession. Unlike the bottom 99 per cent, they've quite smartly recovered from the 2008 unpleasantness. For instance, according to a recent New York Times report, executive pay at 200 big US companies last year went up by an average 23 per cent over 2009 - the median executive salary was 10.8m USD. Meanwhile, the average American family's household net worth declined 23 per cent between 2007 and 2009."
unclefireOct 11, 2011
Fair enough. I wasn't disputing his facts. What is missing in all this "rich are evil" (/s) talk is the WHY. The wealth that has been been accumulated by top 20% (not just the 1%) over the past 30+ years isn't primarily due to tax policy. It has much more to do with the rise of the professional class of workers and the information age. Meanwhile manufacturing wages have not grown much at all considering inflation and a great many workers are in the service industry as well. Quite a bit of manufacturing has also been offshored. The 1947-1979 was the heyday of post-WWII manufacturing and the rise of the middle class b/c of that.
JustSayNoPartyOct 13, 2011
No, that mass increase for the top 1% was not due to the rise of the Professional class. They don't really make up that top 1%. There really is no good reason for this group to do so remarkably well over the last three decades other than offshoring, downsizing, business schemes (comoditization of real estate, etc). This group did not suddenly start working harder or become more educated. They simply took advantage of the circumstances to the determent of most others. I'm not referring to the Bill Gates of the world. I'm referring to many Bankers, Wall Street, many large company CEOs, etc.
unclefireOct 13, 2011
Did you even read my post? You like many are missing the big picture. In freaking out about bankers you're missing the trends in the working population and what actually happened. You think the top 1% is only (or primarily) bankers? Yes, much of what you cite did happen but it wasn't JUST the financial services industry that benefited wealthwise. Geez, apply some critical thinking skills.
JustSayNoPartyOct 13, 2011
Actually, not sure how you miss the critical thinking in the comment. I did not single out the 'financial sector'. Geez. I dispute your reasoning for why that top 1% saw 450% gains over the last three decades. I don't believe the Rich are evil. But, they naturally take advantage of favorable conditions through greed (many) at the detriment of most, IMO.
By the way, if you want an example of 'lacking critical thinking skills', check this out:
"Starvation is Allah's little way of punishing those who have little or no faith in Capitalism for the Poor and Socialism for the Rich."
pc25Oct 11, 2011
because the hate America/jihadi liberal Digg crew loves them......
JustSayNoPartyOct 13, 2011
Bizarre and deluded perspective. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they are Unamerican, jihad lovers. The small minded amongst us though usually result to broad characterizations like Muslim Lovers, Socialist, Communists, Fascists, etc. It helps in demonizing the other 'team.'
pc25Oct 13, 2011
you missed the other comment on the thread, they feel the same way about Heartz and JPost. Therefore your comment applies equally as well to them.
newshockerOct 10, 2011
At first, I thought we would have real problems in our country with this kind of divisive, indendiary rhetoric.
Now I see what it has led to: the OWS movement.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
SauntOroloOct 10, 2011
What kind of country blames irrelevant minorities as a distraction for economic failure? What kind of country tortures people? What kind of country hires mercenaries? What kind of country goes to war against a radical minority and uses wartime powers to promote censorship and fear? What kind of country uses prayer to fight drought conditions? What kind of country uses religion as a political tool?
Hmmmm.... I wonder!
tvisioOct 11, 2011
Starvation is Allah's little way of punishing those who have little or no faith in Capitalism for the Poor and Socialism for the Rich.