<p>Awww, it was tongue-in-cheek, I swear!</p>
<p>I have no problems with France. It does seem like they take on a contrarian attitude to oppose things just for the sake of opposing them (not just Iraq - I have a list floating around).</p>
<p>Cool. In that case, I am not disapointed in you! LOL And yes, the French often like playing the devil's advocate. But I was pleased to see France and US working together on Lebanon earlier this Spring. I swear, when those two countries agree, things get done!</p>
<p>France surrenders...both agree the U.S. should do something...whadya know!...no more Nazis in Paris...:p....i'm sorry I just couldn't resist....it's the last France bash... i swear on my dead cat's life!</p>
<p>But Maize&Blue is right....they like opposing U.S. decisions....but, they weren't the only ones when it came to Iraq...I think they just jumped on the bandwagon with the rest of Western European mainland.</p>
<p>Couple of things Nahrafsta:</p>
<p>1) Remember your history. France surrendered to Germany in 1940. Fair enough. France had every reason to surrender. Germany was an industrial powerhouse with almost twice the population of France, which was, at that time, still not industrialized. Had France attempted to fight, it is estimated that 100,000 Germans would have died compared to more than 1,000,000 Frenchmen...and France would have lost anyway. Also try to remember that France and Germany are not separated by an Ocean. Those two nations are connected by 400 miles of flat land! Finally, France was still suffering from the effects of WWI. If you studied your history, you would know that France was the muscle behind Germany's surrender in 1918. The US was the straw that broke the camel's back, but it is France that was responsible for more than 80% of Germany's casualities. That came at a heavy price. More than 1.5 million Frenchmen perished in WWI. For a country with 65 million people (like Germany in 1920), losing 1.5 million lives was significant but not cripling. But for France, a country with a population of just 40 million in 1915, losing 1.5 million was devastating. Think about it, most of those 1.5 million were men between the ages of 18 and 22. Do you know how many men between the ages of 18 and 22 live in a country with just 40 million people? Roughly 2.5 million. It is estimated that close to 50% of French men aged 18-22 died during WWI.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004617.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004617.html</a></p>
<p>But also try to remember that without France's support for the colonists in the 1770s, there would be no US today. A significant chunk of the weapons available to the colonnists came from the French. About 20% of those who fought against the British were French. Many of the military strategists and leaders who assisted George Washington were French. France also wrecked havoc in other areas of the World. That kept English troops scattered all over the world rather than concentrated in North America. Your own consitution was inspired by French philosophers like Rousseau. You very Capital was designed by a Frenchman. Let us face it, witholut France, there would be no US.</p>
<p>2) France did not jump on any bandwagons. Europe follows France and Germany. Even if the leaders of a few nations (Poland, England, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands) decided to follow Bush, the populations of those nations still looked to France and German. That explains why over 80% of the citizens in England, Italy and Spain opposed the war. </p>
<p>Keep in mind that I am an Arab, not a Frenchman. I personally have no love for France. They colonized my native Lebanon for many years. But I respect France a great deal. It is a great society. And of course, Paris is my favorite city on Earth! hehe </p>
<p>I realize that you guys were, for the most part, just kidding, but I take History very seriously and I hope you all learn to respect great nations other than your own.</p>
<p>Hey i'm no sore loser! I can admit when i've been beaten...la viva la france :p</p>
<p>
[Quote]
and law is mostly cultural...chances are if you raped a girl in pakistan, her family would be on you in a second without governmental action.
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>... and after they've ripped you to shreds, the'll go back and kill their OWN daughter (it's called Honor Killing)</p>
<p>further more, the law about a rape victim needing to produce 4 witnesses is true, but that is under Sharia law (muslim law) not constitutional law... </p>
<p>in certain cases if the woman fails to produce 4 male witnesses to the rape, she is stoned to death</p>
<p>(im not trying to hurt anyones sentiments) but i think sharia law and its interpretation needs to come under MAJOR overhaul</p>
<p>in these modern times its just unacceptable to let rape victims be STONED TO DEATH because they fail to produce witnesses to the rape.</p>
<p>uc_benz, it is possible for the news people to be peronally liberal. But no survey can ever prove that they try to put their bias in any news. O' Reilly is an exception, of course.</p>
<p>If a person is liberal or conservative that is who they are. They cannot simply block it out whenever they want to do so. It will come out in their everyday life. I'm not talking just about television media here, but also print and Internet.</p>
<p>Unlike television media, internet media are unreliable. You should know that. </p>
<p>"They cannot simply block it out whenever they want to do so"</p>
<p>So are you saying that newscasters cheer for Bush/Kerry on live television when they present breaking news? I don't think so.</p>
<p>"It will come out in their everyday life"</p>
<p>Actually,the majority of people pay little interest to politics. Politics have no real influence in how people carry out their activities.</p>
<p>actually no...they won't kill their own daughter....they'll probably kill only the rapist and then be satisfied....being Pakistani as I am...:)....stoning to death is only a punishment if someone comits adultery and doesn't seriously repent....ofcourse it's very uncommon nowadays except in certain parts of the Middle East...Pakistan is actually a very secular Islamic country....it's like.....burning women at the stake in colonial Massachusetts, because they thought they were witches (which was often assumed if the woman slept around....Scarlet Letter....horrible book...decent historical description......but to make Islamic law look bad and then forget what happened in this very country is just absurd)...and Pakistan does not go by Sharia Law....it's majority is Muslim and then there are Buddhists, Christians, and Hindus...the country is more "westernized" than you think :)
In Islam, unjust murder is unforgiveable...and in the case of a woman being raped and then you killing her...that's unjust murder...now if you're some crazy father then yeah sure, maybe you'll kill your daughter...but a normal Paki parent wouldn't....to seclude this to Muslims isn't accurate either....I'd say a few conservative Christian parents wouldnt' be too delighted and might end up doing something very irrational as well...but normally...a Pakistani father wouldn't blame his child for being raped.</p>
<p>And like i said...talk shows like Larry King Live, Real Time, Politics Today, Inside Washington, and Crossfire will have a liberal twist....otherwise, your average 6 o clock news will just be someone reading the cue cards....when anchors have the opportunity to voice their opinions you can be damn sure they will.</p>
<p>No, I don't believe I did say that. But thank you for twisting my words to support your argument. You know what I meant so don't play stupid.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Politics have no real influence in how people carry out their activities.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ha! That's laughable. 90% of the news is politics, and you're going to tell me it doesn't affect these people's lives?</p>
<p>"The media determines the public's agenda...bringing issues to the forefront"..."The media is more concerned with portraying events in a way that the public will find entertaining...it is the number one source of information for the general public and determines its perception of what goes on in the Washington and the world."(Patterson, The America Democracy)....i think i'll believe the text book :)</p>
<p>Ha! That's laughable. 90% of the news is politics, and you're going to tell me it doesn't affect these people's lives?</p>
<p>hahaahha!! Do you go to school based on the news in tv? Do you eat, drink,sleep, breathe depending on what's new in politics as shown at FOX? I bet you dont.</p>
<p>"..."The media is more concerned with portraying events in a way that the public will find entertaining...it is the number one source of information for the general public and determines its perception of what goes on in the Washington and the world."</p>
<p>How does this quote relate to what people do in their everyday lives? This argument will get you nowhere.</p>
<p>my argument is that the media affects how ppl view politics and where they stand on issues.....you don't have an argument...:)</p>
<p>My argument is that they DONT affect people at all. The Princeton Review book even said that the majority of Americans arent interested in politics at all. they have weak political saliency and stability. Does watching the news affect our daily activities? NO. Does politics influence us the way we live and carry out our daily routine? NO. Do they influence what we do and who we interact with? NO. </p>
<p>The media is just anoher form of "entertainment" to keep people busy by watching news and whats new in politics. Like come on, do you think that Bush being reelcted will make me change the way the run my life? No. So in conclusion, the media doesnt have any major influence on people, expect in the case of elections.</p>
<p>That is the point isn't it? Since Americans are, in general, nor interested in politics, most of the politics they are exposed to is fed to them by the news. So in essence, it is the media that shapes people's minds where politics are concerned.</p>
<p>I agree with you Alexandre. But my argument was that media showing whats new in politics have little (if any) affect in the people's daily lives. I was responding to what uc_benz said:</p>
<p>"That's laughable. 90% of the news is politics, and you're going to tell me it doesn't affect these people's lives?"</p>
<p>I mean, do you really expect people to think politics influences what people do in their daily lives and whom they interact with. I think not.</p>
<p>I didn't say it controlled people's lives. I said it AFFECTS them. If it didn't affect them one bit then why would they even watch the news? As much as I think you lack general tools of life even you probably wouldn't do something that doesn't affect you.</p>
<p>"For example, he meant decisions such as which state people choose to live in."</p>
<p>How would watching the news determine which stae to live in. That's pretty unreasonable (notice that I am not using harsh responses because I do not want to get banned again).</p>
<p>"If it didn't affect them one bit then why would they even watch the news?"</p>
<p>The answer can be said in one word-- ENTERTAINMENT. How can news affect people? Please elaborate.</p>