Left, right, what's the difference when it comes to election manipulation? You are making no sense, again.Forboding Angel wrote:The acronyms were the point. Out of all of the mass media networks, FOX is the only right leaning network. Therefore when it's surrounded by hardcore left leaning networks, I fail to see how it is such a threat. If FOX gets more viewers, did it ever occur to you why that might be?
Nobody argued about this.Forboding Angel wrote:Well first of all, there is no such thing as fair or balanced when news is concerned.
Yes. Nobody said others are not evil, it was just specifically said that a media giant named FOX manipulated elections. Also nobody gives a damn about your right/left separation, it was not mentioned in the argument, only by you.Forboding Angel wrote:Secondly, you have 10 or more huge media outlets slewing things to the hardcore left, and one huge network slewing towards center-right, and that one is somehow evil?
Yes. You don't know how to argue, you just spew whatever you think looks good.Forboding Angel wrote:Yet I'm not making sense?
Your hardcore-left is at our right.Forboding Angel wrote:Secondly, you have 10 or more huge media outlets slewing things to the hardcore left, and one huge network slewing towards center-right
Ok let me get this straight. Because FOX exists (regardless of the fact that I don't watch news on tv (or tv at all for that matter)) I no longer have any sense of what is politically left or right nor do I know what is Right or Wrong.zwzsg wrote:As well as right and wrong, since you now firmly believe it's okay for your governement to pick up random civilian in foreign country and torture them for years, to wreck up far away countries that did nothing to you just to get a taste of blood, and to deny the low to middle classes of your own country any chance to get some care when they get ill.
Nobody of any intelligence ever believed Iraq had nuclear weapons, and it was never explicitly stated in any government reports - just a generic term "weapons of mass destruction" that was usually referring to chemical/biological weapons. Even then the evidence was often pretty fucking dodgy, with major figures saying so, and the fact that we never found any of these shows that it was all a load of bollocks.If Iraq had actually had nuclear weapons (which EVERYONE believed he did, even the europeans. Even Saddam himself believed that he had them!) then how would your story change? Everyone thought that saddam had them
hahahahahaha fucking hell, i bet the irony here didn't even cross your mind for a single secondTortures them for years... I mean seriously, wtf?
To continue your tortured, demented Nazi analogy:But that's right, you guys always want proof. Well the last time you demanded proof, it rolled into paris in a panzer tank flying the nazi flag.
Hmm, hindsight really is 20/20, and it even allows you to maintain a moral highhorse, how convenient.tombom wrote:Nobody of any intelligence ever believed Iraq had nuclear weapons, and it was never explicitly stated in any government reports - just a generic term "weapons of mass destruction" that was usually referring to chemical/biological weapons. Even then the evidence was often pretty fucking dodgy, with major figures saying so, and the fact that we never found any of these shows that it was all a load of bollocks.If Iraq had actually had nuclear weapons (which EVERYONE believed he did, even the europeans. Even Saddam himself believed that he had them!) then how would your story change? Everyone thought that saddam had them
Yes. Because, as I said, left and right are relative. If everything around you is rightish, then you think of right as the norm. Your media ranges from right to far-right. You're not exposed to any actual left. So, when building your mental representation of right and left, you take the extreme around you, and think the middle is center. This would work if you were exposed to left and right sided opinions. But you're only exposed to right and more right! So your middle, is actually skewed to the right. As for right and wrong, I'm not sure how you came to lose the balance.Forboding Angel wrote:Ok let me get this straight. Because FOX exists (regardless of the fact that I don't watch news on tv (or tv at all for that matter)) I no longer have any sense of what is politically left or right nor do I know what is Right or Wrong.
Yes, these poor people are not rich enough to afford health care. My point.Forboding Angel wrote:These poor people generally refuse the health care insurance because it takes a portion out of their check
You should try knowing a little something about that which you are speaking before opening your mouth (Or in this case, pressing a key). I was an European. You're not. I can tell you that everybody here knew it was an ignominious lie: The only Nuclear Plant Saddam ever had (that Jacques Chirac sold to him in 1975) had been reduced to rubble many years ago. Irak had been completly choked by ten years of embargo, had become extremely poor and not able to do anything. It was quite a feat to make your whole nation somehow think striking an unrelated country had anything to do with the world trade center fall, but that magic trick didn't work accross the ocean.Forboding Angel wrote:If Iraq had actually had nuclear weapons (which EVERYONE believed he did, even the europeans. Even Saddam himself believed that he had them!) then how would your story change?
Oh, he was a very bad person, he gased tons of kurds, killed whole town of his own people to make exemple, killed anyone who might stand his way one day. But he was not into offshore terrorism. His slaughters remained limited to his own country or neighbours. There's plenty of murderous dictator like him on earth, and some are good friend or even were put in place by Amerika.Forboding Angel wrote:if you don't think he was a crazed dictator capable of doing anything heinous then you're off your rocker. Someone who gasses thousands of his own people. Tortures them for years... I mean seriously, wtf?
The concept of preemptive war is something that goes agaisnt logic.Forboding Angel wrote:The point is that it's called preemptive for a reason.
We don't have the same reference when it comes to fairly good authority. As these threads show, you believe blindly what I know to be lies.Forboding Angel wrote:fairly good authority
Yes. But not before different independant studies have proven the bomb to be from Korea.Forboding Angel wrote:should England wait until they've been nuked to respond? Is that enough proof?
Yes, thanks to their huge supply of prisoners and disregard for any human rights, your military has achieved tremendous progress in the science of torture, they have have developped and perfected methods with which to torture for extended period without causing physical harm, so they can torture the same person forever, free of the risk of causing premature death. As a bonus, the prisoners won't have any scar to show to the socialist press if one ever escape, haha!Forboding Angel wrote:@#2. Depends on your view of torture. My view is iron maidens, racks, repeatedly kicking people in the balls, castration, flaying people alive, burning people alive, etc... none of which has the military done. The worst has been waterboarding which causes no physical harm.
No. Random civilian is just one who happend to spend his holiday in the wrong country, to have a too tanned skin color, to pray in the wrong place of worship, to have said things that displeased some people, to have once talked to someone that had a file on, or just plain anybody the CIA wants. Since there's no proper trial, they can grab anybody and not have to give a reason. Knowing your mindset, you probably believe that even if they could, they would not, but that's only because you don't know human nature. The only way to prevent arbitarty arrestation is to arrest people openly, and give them a proper trial. Whenever a whole body is allowed to shadowly kidnap people and torture them without having to own any explanation, there's growing abuse, leading to dictature.Forboding Angel wrote:Random civilians? If that random civilian just happens to be carrying an AK-47 and planting an IED at the time that he gets caught, should we just let him go?
As opposed to the right reaction of LYNCH THE MIDDLE EASTERN MAN! HE LOOKS NERVOUS!!Forboding Angel wrote:just a regular middle eastern looking guy, and noticed that he was acting really strangely, and also noticed that he slipped something that looked wierd into his jacket while boarding... Would you have done anything about it?
I myself would probably have minded my own business in that situation (chalking it up to flying nervousness or something), and in hindsight, my natural reaction would have been the wrong one.
I can confirm that here in Australia. Our media was towing the Bush Inc. line (probably cause Murdoch - aka Fox - owns most of it) and our illustrious, diminutive little shit of a leader was giving Bush hand-jobs but everyone I spoke to about it was trying to work out why Bush Inc. would be saying Bin Laden was in Afghanistan while sending half the army to Iraq.zwzsg wrote:It was quite a feat to make your whole nation somehow think striking an unrelated country had anything to do with the world trade center fall, but that magic trick didn't work accross the ocean.
No, if you read the post Z I offered 2 possible alternatives. 1# Ignore the guy and mind my own business (my default kneejerk reaction). 2# Alert a stewardess. I didn't say anything about lynching.Spliff and Z wrote:Wall of text
Mcdonalds pays as a standard for 10 - 12 bucks per hour. A 1 bedroom apartment can be had kin kansas city for easily $400 dollars.zwzsg wrote:Yes, these poor people are not rich enough to afford health care. My point.
Uh huhZ wrote:We don't have the same reference when it comes to fairly good authority. As these threads show, you believe blindly what I know to be lies.
You going to volunteer to be part of one of the crews cleaning up the crater in the middle of london?Z wrote:Yes. But not before different independant studies have proven the bomb to be from Korea.
You are aware that our own soldiers are waterboarded aren't you?Z wrote:Yes, thanks to their huge supply of prisoners and disregard for any human rights, your military has achieved tremendous progress in the science of torture, they have have developped and perfected methods with which to torture for extended period without causing physical harm, so they can torture the same person forever, free of the risk of causing premature death. As a bonus, the prisoners won't have any scar to show to the socialist press if one ever escape, haha!
Hmm, how does he explain all those 30 minute calls to a known terrorist organization (e.g. Al-Queida)? Should we just figure that he was bitching to a brother in law about his ex-wife?Z wrote:No. Random civilian is just one who happend to spend his holiday in the wrong country, to have a too tanned skin color, to pray in the wrong place of worship, to have said things that displeased some people, to have once talked to someone that had a file on, or just plain anybody the CIA wants.
SpliFF wrote:You know I just LOVE the way the words "conspiracy theory" and "XNATION bashing" come up whenever XNATION, or more specifically its leads (elected or otherwise) do what politicians do.