user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
smile bank:
similiar ballots:
92467. Which of these do you think is most responsible for world: United States, United Kingdom, European Union, G8, G8+5, OPEC, oil nations or none of them?
45330. If the United States stopped it's unconditional military and financial support for Israel, would there be less terrorism directed at the United States
51744. AMERICANS: "All for the United States, nothing outside the United States and no one against the United States." Agree/disagree?
92538. How many nations spend more per capita on their military than the United States?
92742. United States citizens can claim islands for the United States government.
67808. Should the United States conquer Canada, Mexico... and all of South/Latin America to form the Super United States of America?
50687. Actually, which country makes better TV: United States or United Kingdom?
74329. Why hasn't the "Downing Street Memo" been widely reported by the United States press?
82652. Is the United States loyal to the United Kingdom?
111972. The United Nations Alliance of Civilizations- will it just be useless?
|
if you don't see an image, click here.
|
COMMENTS:
Obviously, the US should not censor the press.
However, the US government officials really should do a self-check on their anti-UN rhetoric, as it seriously undermines diplomacy efforts.
Although, now that I think about it, that doesn't include the incredibly irresponsible Rightwing Media Machine (Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, etc.). That gets tougher ... I am still against censoring them, but I do believe their rhetoric is very damaging to US interests.
Cathexis- so you also disagree with the rhetoric against the media?
As for US government officials? Why shouldn't they criticise the UN? They are entitled to their opinions. I don't think a censorship on the free speech of officials would be approriate either.
Beside which, much of the criticism is about its structure as a cause of undermining diplomacy efforts.
I'm not convinced that the Deputy Secretary was suggesting that the U.S. engage in censorship of the media. In this case, unchecked could have, and very probably did, mean "unchallenged."
Free speech and freedom of the press- two of the reasons we bothered to build the place...
As for Mister Brown, he had me until he said the words "Rush" followed by "Limbaugh".
And we *should* be made to self-check ourselves at *every step* in our procedures. Might be time-consuming, but the benefits would, IMO, be justified.
No.
The UN doesn't have the moral authority to lecture to anyone. They celebrate, promote and defend nations that kill all opposition and then spend their time criticizing the few free nations left.
To hell with them.
Besides that they deserve as much criticism as they can get, right now I think they're getting off light in the US media (which is mostly pro-UN).
There should be a system of balance, the right wing have gone unchecked and the foolish rantings of Herzog and his supporters, justifies the rest of the worlds view of an arrogant US.
^ 'a system of balance', AKA 'censorship'.
No one must be allowed to speak ill of the world government. Of course you'd say that, you also oppose giving nations a vote, instead favoring a self-electing, self-regulating government answering to no one. I think on this matter your rantings can be dismissed.
Steel, quite frankly you are full of it. The UN has been a morally bankrupt organization for YEARS. A organization which has included countries like Sudan, China, and Saudi Arabia on its Human Rights Commission DESERVES world-wide ridicule. They are WORTHLESS.
You can't say that, any and all criticism of our benevolent, all knowing and all powerful world government ist verboten.
Please report to the nearest reeducation camp, where you will learn to appreciate the benefits of one world government and not criticizing your rulers.
steelhamster- "justifies the rest of the worlds view of an arrogant US."
Since when does the UN Deputy Chief represent the views of the rest of the world? As if everyone not American agrees with him about this issue of 'too much criticism of the UN in the US media'. I am not American and I disagree very much with him. I will stand by fellow democracies when their freedoms are challenged.
What about what Voltaire said? about free speech: "I may disagree with what you are saying, but will defend to death yourr ight to say it." (Voltaire)
This has nothing to do with whether one likes or dislikes the UN personally, but has everything to do with freedom of thought and expression.
If some international bureaucracy begins to challenge tolerance of freeedom of expression in one democracy, they may turn on the others as well.
Its times like this that I am glad that the UN is powerless, and is incapable of acting out its rhetoric.
They show their true colors. The UN does not support all human rights, only the ones that don't interfere with their power.
It's funny and sad. The neo-cons are frothing rabidly over something that someone didn't say.
Typical.
cranky- Of course he didn't say it out loud. But the implication was still there.
"In this case, unchecked could have, and very probably did, mean "unchallenged." "
- And how should it be challenged if not through censorship and government intervention? That the free press should be doing the checking? Reality check- what if they don't want to?
WTF, Neocon? HA!
Voted : No, the US should continue to value the extent of its free press and freedom of thought
Besides the UN is a joke these days.
|
|
