OP/ED: Half Truths And Revolutions: What Our Governments Dont Want Us To Know

You're either incredibly dense, or you honestly don't understand what an Op/Ed is.

Opinion/Education .. op/ed.. get it?

I think the "Ed" stands for "editorial".

I seriously have to chuckle at how this Op/Ed is becoming a discussion about Op/Eds. And still not voted up. That must mean a hell of a lot of folks are voting "no:bias".

[edit on 2005-10-2 by wecomeinpeace]

Shots, how do you explain Angot then?

One very small corporation that produces very little if any oil/gas.

According to the CIA fact book they produce little if any oil/gas in significant amounts.

Oil - production:
0 bbl/day (2001 est.)

Oil - consumption:
3,500 bbl/day (2001 est.)

Oil - exports:
NA

Oil - imports:
NA

Oil - proved reserves:
0 bbl (1 January 2002)

Natural gas - production:
220 million cu m (2001 est.)

Natural gas - consumption:
220 million cu m (2001 est.)

Natural gas - exports:
0 cu m (2001 est.)

Natural gas - imports:
0 cu m (2001 est.)

Natural gas - proved reserves:
49.98 billion cu m (1 January 2002)

www.odci.gov...

Operation Afghanistan


...Mission accomplished.


Operation Iraqi Freedom...


...Mission accomplished.


Operation Iranian Takedown...


...in the pipelines.

Never say never, when in fact there is some.

Hoorah I finally got my total of 5 yes votes to get this sob upgraded. I must of received atleast 15 No:Bias votes for this, as well as 1 No:Source vote

Now I can get down to discussing my opinion with people who disagree. Gee now that will be a nice thing to do after that debacle.

[edit on 2/10/05 by subz]

Originally posted by Astronomer68
Surely you don't seriously expect us to believe the above. The governments of our respective countries are true reflections of who we are, or at least who we were.

How can you say that? Both Britain and America do not have proportional representation. Lets look at the brass facts to see how wrong that statement is:

Election 2005

Registered voters as of 2004: 44, 180, 243
Voter turn out in 2005: 61%
Percentage of votes for Labour: 36%

That totals a whopping 9.7 million Brits voted for Tony Blair's labour government. Thats Blair with 16% of the population's approval! Even if you just look at those eligible to vote (38 million), he still only has 25% of eligible voters approval.

Do I think Tony Blair reflects Britain and her people? Abso-bloody-lutely not!

Originally posted by Astronomer68
Tony Blair & George Bush are not two lackeys for elite interests that want to keep the great mass of our countries surpressed.

Well they are surely not representatives of the people thats for sure. Im speculating based on trackrecords and the evidence of the power corporations and banks wield in Western politics. You are basing your opinion on your hopes your leaders arent corrupt and evil profiteers and lackeys.

Originally posted by Astronomer68
Both of them honestly believe they are doing what is best for us and for our future--they could both be mistaken, but fear of domestic revolution was certainly not their motivator. You demean two well intentioned leaders to state otherwise.

Bollocks. How are they well intentioned? What have they given back to the people? What have they stopped? They've bled our nations dry of money, given us huge increases in fuel prices, lots of dead soldiers, lots of dead civilians in 2 middle eastern countries that had nothing to do with the terrorists involved in 9/11, they took civil liberties away for our "own protection".

Sorry but they are about as well intentioned as the fox guarding the chicken coop.

Originally posted by Astronomer68
Did you know it has been something like 27 years since the last refinery was built in America? Our refineries today are only geared to accept light, sweet crude (market terminology) because of environmental rules & regulations.

Really? If that was so why did they stop building refineries then? Because they cut their noses off to spite the enviornmentalist groups? Why didnt they continue to build light-sweet refineries?

Originally posted by Astronomer68
An easier way to prevent a fantasized revolution would have been to built a couple of new refineries that can handle heavy crude oil.

Or it could well be that oil is not a renewable resource?

Originally posted by Astronomer68
This would alleviate the shortages we sometimes experience in gasoline, diesel, and heating oil and help keep prices for those products down. Of course doing so would piss off the various environmental groups because there is as yet no way to make their operations environmentally friendly. However, stirring up the environmentalists would have been far preferable to starting wars.

Yes, yes of course. Bush really fears the environmentalist crowd doesnt he. Tell that to the EPA.

I have said it once and I will say it again, dispite what cheney said about conservation being good as a personal virtue but not as haliburton (oh sorry I meant public :lol policy...even if there was enough oil to last another thousand years, conservation would still be wise. The economic stimulus the retooling of the American superstructure to support, not just greater oil conservation, but alternative energy sources such as wind, tidal, geo-thermal and solar would be such as to create an economic boom that would last for decades to come. Unfortunately in a culture where profits come before people, and the profits have to be taken NOW and long term vision is called daydreaming, it just won't happen until its too late, and as such we are waltzing down the same path the mayans and others blindly took, we are sowing the seeds of our own downfall and destruction.

Quietsoul I understand your lack of understanding. Remind me to be more lenient in my estimation of your incredible intellectual faculties someday (DENSE)?

I never said I didn't understand or enjoy it. Just that it showed bias.

This is the criteria for a NO vote: Use this button to vote no, and send the author an anonymous message that you think the introduction section (first paragraph) is too biased for ATSNN.

The poster say: Look at how the World is today. Our politicians tell us we have a clear threat to our way of life in the shape of Al-Qaeda. They are formulating laws as we speak that they say are designed to protect us from this threat. Well, thats one way of looking at it, but try looking at it this way instead.

How about:

In today's world politicians say we have a clear threat to our way of life in the shape of Al-Queda. They are formulating laws, as we speak, designed to protect us. Of course, that is one way of looking at it. But can we see it another way?

(With due respect to the poster.)

All that was omitted was the line between them and us, i.e., the they say, they tell us, and the insistence that the reader see it from the point of view as the writer.

Thank you and good day.










[edit on 3-10-2005 by garyo1954]

[edit on 3-10-2005 by garyo1954]

Originally posted by garyo1954
This is the criteria for a NO vote: Use this button to vote no, and send the author an anonymous message that you think the introduction section (first paragraph) is too biased for ATSNN.

garyo1954, that rule does not apply to Op/Ed pieces. They are expected to be an expression of the author's opinion and are therefore biased by their very nature, and hence are intended to be exempt from the "no:bias" vote. Perhaps the guidelines are not as clear on this matter as they should be, but I can assure you this is definitely the case.

[edit on 2005-10-3 by wecomeinpeace]

Peace?
Nuff said?

Is it not by that criteria if one can't vote yes then they shouldn't vote at all? Is this what you are saying?

Well duh! Maybe the reason more people don't take the time to vote is because they can't vote honestly.

Just a suggestion. Just a thought.
No problem. Not voting seems to be the solution.

Originally posted by garyo1954
Is it not by that criteria if one can't vote yes then they shouldn't vote at all? Is this what you are saying?

No problem. Not voting seems to be the solution.

You misunderstand me. No one would dream of attempting to pressure you into a vote either way. If you don't think the article is suitable for ATSNN, as is your prerogative, then you should vote "no:story". Keep in mind that contributors often put a reasonable amount of effort into their contributions, and will also receive a notification/rejection U2U for every no vote that is put through. Votes of "no:bias" for articles that are meant to be biased can be extremely frustrating for the author, and often gives rise to misunderstandings and squabbles as we have seen here.

I encourage you to keep voting, but to do so with a clearer understanding of the voting system would be to the advantage of all and to the forum in general.

Peace?
Nuff said?

Peace. There is no malice in my posts here. Clearing up a misunderstanding is all.

people are too lazy to revolt these days, so unfortunately, they win...

Originally posted by QuietSoul

You're either incredibly dense, or you honestly don't understand what an Op/Ed is.

Opinion/Education .. op/ed.. get it?

..

I don't think there is reason to be rude to people if they don't understand, I honestly didn't know what op/ed ment, I could have figured it out. I am far from dense.

So, if you know something and someone else doesn't, it makes them dense? People will not learn if they don't ask.

Just seems rude to me.

Originally posted by garyo1954
I never said I didn't understand or enjoy it. Just that it showed bias.

See this is what annoys me. You enjoyed my Op/Ed piece but you voted no because you saw it as biased. Thats a vote gone for me for no reason whatsoever. The Op/Ed's are meant to be biased by their very nature, how many times does this need to be said?

Op/Ed's really should only be voted down if the topic is so completely irrelevant as to be banal e.g. Op/Ed: How I Felt When My Rabbit, Fluffy Jr., Died

If the Op/Ed is decently written, based on current events and interesting it should be voted up, simple.

Originally posted by garyo1954
This is the criteria for a NO vote: Use this button to vote no, and send the author an anonymous message that you think the introduction section (first paragraph) is too biased for ATSNN.

Like WCIP said, that only applies for standard news submissions where bias is not allowed in the introductory paragraph. Did you also know the authour is allowed bias in the concluding paragraph of standard news submissions? You really shouldnt vote No:Bias for submissions containing bias in their concluding paragraphs either.

Originally posted by garyo1954
Thank you and good day.

So long as you understand that the No:Bias vote doesnt apply to Op/Ed's I say great, no harm no foul. If other people gave the slightest amount of consideration to the authour and how much effort goes into providing content for this forum I dont think they would be so quick to insult them with erroneous vote U2U's. Thats all.

[edit on 3/10/05 by subz]

I am disappointed to see this.

"So long as you understand that the No:Bias vote doesnt apply to Op/Ed's I say great, no harm no foul. If other people gave the slightest amount of consideration to the authour and how much effort goes into providing content for this forum I dont think they would be so quick to insult them with erroneous vote U2U's. Thats all."

Huh? Did I miss something here? There is nothing insulting about voting NO. I did enjoy the post (much less so now).

Had you expressed your opinion from the perspective that it is yours and not mine, not ours, not as we and they, I may have voted yes. As it was you drew a line in the opening paragraph insisting one choose sides.

Now do I know how much work goes into writing? I have written quite a bit.

I spent 11 years in the capacity of New and Sports Director at radio stations in Ohio and Texas. And I wrote for the AP as well.
I still write. So I guess I know a little about writing.

But hey! I know nothing of voting, so I will refrain from it.

Let's get back to the topic rather than discussing the voting policy.

Actually garyo1954, he can use that language because other people seem to agree with his point.

That was a poor reason to vote no at the best of times...

Subz, I voted no on your op-ed piece (and voted no for bias), not because of the bias, which I expected in an OP-ED piece, but because there was no button to vote No that reflected the real reason for voting so. It was not a Story, it was an opinion, so that button was out. The writing was clear, so I couldn't reject it for poor grammar or writing, etc.

The problem I had, and still do have, with the piece is that it is speculation. I enjoy OP-ED pieces, but I want to see facts presented with them, then your opinion can be related to those facts and you can use your persuasive skills (which are considerable) to get readers to seriously consider your interpretation of them. Had you made an attempt to present factual information to bolster your opinion I would have voted YES in a heartbeat.

When you form an opinion I'm sure you do so based on some kind of evidence you perceived that supports it--and so do I. Attitudes are nothing more than opinions colored by emotions--we all have many of them. The purpose of an OP-ED piece is to try to persuade others to agree with your opinion, so please present it in a way that can at least be evaluated.

[edit on 3-10-2005 by Astronomer68]

When one opens a newspaper to the editorial one finds a bias of opinion of an editor. Editorials are biased by nature because they contain opinion. Opinion editorial is just that an opinion and that is why a separate form to news submissions is used.

Well Astronomer, that really wasnt a justified reason for voting no TBH. There is no obligation or criteria for submitting an Op/Ed that requires proof. If it were you'd find they would not be opinions any more but mere clones of standard news submissions.

But in deference to Intrepid's request im going to drop this quite important ATSNN issue.

BOT, does any one disagree with the CONTENT of my Op/Ed in any way?