|
Post by chiefdelilah on Nov 23, 2016 19:37:09 GMT
'Truth' can be pretty subjective though can't it? I take it you're a big fan of The Guardian as well, as its biases cancel out the widespread right wing bias of most of the British press? If I had to rely on the press for my news then I would seek some balance, so I'd read the Guardian a bit. I've noticed this with the way you debate on here. Rather than address the issue you seek hypocrisy or lack of credibility in the other person's argument. So the mainstream media, please go ahead and defend it, I'm all ears duck... Again, you seem to think that because I don't like one thing, I'm automatically a massive supporter of something else. The mainstream media is another concept, like 'the left' and 'the right' that isn't the amorphous, homogenous entity you seem to think it is. They don't all preach the same propaganda. There are different agendas at play. I'm confused by you saying you want some 'balance' when your views on here don't seem to reflect that at all? You just seem to want news that confirms your own biases, even if it's a cock-eyed conspiracy theory.
|
|
|
Post by Mendicant on Nov 23, 2016 20:12:59 GMT
If I had to rely on the press for my news then I would seek some balance, so I'd read the Guardian a bit. I've noticed this with the way you debate on here. Rather than address the issue you seek hypocrisy or lack of credibility in the other person's argument. So the mainstream media, please go ahead and defend it, I'm all ears duck... Again, you seem to think that because I don't like one thing, I'm automatically a massive supporter of something else. The mainstream media is another concept, like 'the left' and 'the right' that isn't the amorphous, homogenous entity you seem to think it is. They don't all preach the same propaganda. There are different agendas at play. I'm confused by you saying you want some 'balance' when your views on here don't seem to reflect that at all? You just seem to want news that confirms your own biases, even if it's a cock-eyed conspiracy theory. The only thing I'm confident you're "a massive supporter" of is Stoke City. I'm getting a clear impression you have far more faith in say the BBC than I do, you don't have to be a big supporter of it. As for looking for news to confirm my opinions, like I said to manmarking in the Putin thread, I wouldn't come on here with all the debate if that's what I wanted. I'd read the back of Cornflake packets. As for conspiracy theories... conspiracy theory for the sake of it is tedious and a waste of time. But just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you. I'm more inclined to believe the official 911 version than most people, I think Neil Armstrong did walk on the moon, but it wasn't Hillary in that video...
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Nov 23, 2016 20:23:03 GMT
Again, you seem to think that because I don't like one thing, I'm automatically a massive supporter of something else. The mainstream media is another concept, like 'the left' and 'the right' that isn't the amorphous, homogenous entity you seem to think it is. They don't all preach the same propaganda. There are different agendas at play. I'm confused by you saying you want some 'balance' when your views on here don't seem to reflect that at all? You just seem to want news that confirms your own biases, even if it's a cock-eyed conspiracy theory. The only thing I'm confident you're "a massive supporter" of is Stoke City. I'm getting a clear impression you have far more faith in say the BBC than I do, you don't have to be a big supporter of it. As for looking for news to confirm my opinions, like I said to manmarking in the Putin thread, I wouldn't come on here with all the debate if that's what I wanted. I'd read the back of Cornflake packets. As for conspiracy theories... conspiracy theory for the sake of it is tedious and a waste of time. But just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you. I'm more inclined to believe the official 911 version than most people, I think Neil Armstrong did walk on the moon, but it wasn't Hillary in that video... I don't think the BBC is a hive of pinko traitors, no. The fact folk all along the political spectrum accuse them of bias suggests that they're maybe more balanced than they're given credit for. I actually agree with you about the link you posted - it does imply that the entire alt-right are white supremacist types, which isn't true. It's equally silly though to suggest the movement has no ties or followers who are essentially neo-Nazis as well. And quite a lot at that.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2016 20:43:37 GMT
They ought to shift Match of the day to channel 4, it is causing too much division.
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Nov 23, 2016 20:50:35 GMT
I can't help thinking that you're judging the accuracy of the media based mainly on which sections of it reinforce your existing opinions though In many ways, Wikipedia ought to be lauded by the alt-right. It's independent, not for profit, written by ordinary folk.... But then it doesn't agree with you so you choose to not trust it. No. If I wanted to reinforce my existing opinions I wouldn't come on here for a start. If Hillary can influence CNN et al so much I don't think she'd have much compunction at getting her staff, fresh from another screaming fit, to nobble a Wikipedia page or two. It might be true what you said about that Spencer guy, he could walk round in a klan outfit shouting "alt-right" like that lady who used to shout "Sentnul" up Hanley for all I care, it wouldn't make articles from what is recognised by the public before this apparent smear campaign as "alt-right" suddenly white supremacist etc. Do you think Milo Yiannopoulos is a neo-nazi for example, even if the BBC imply he's from that kind of crowd? I feel daft even asking the question it's that absurd an idea. I think any movement that's accredited as being started up by a white nationalist lays itself open to those charges. That's natural. It doesn't mean that everyone who calls themselves alt-right is a white nationalist but they choose to associate with some who probably are As for Milo, no I don't think he's a neo Nazi. I think he's a thoroughly nasty Internet troll consumed by a desperately sad self-loathing rooted in his failure to accept his own sexuality. He's full of hatred and there's only so much of it he can waste on himself. The rest seeps out and is (il)liberally lashed out in the general direction of anyone he takes a dislike to. He's happy to be used as proof absolute by some on the alt-right that they can't possibly be homophobic because one gay psychopath on Twitter agrees with them. The old "I have a friend who's Asian so I can't be racist" chestnut. Milo feels included in a movement for the first time in his life this way so it's an arrangement that suits both parties. I could be wrong but that's my cod-psychoanalysis anyway
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Nov 23, 2016 21:33:25 GMT
'Truth' can be pretty subjective though can't it? I take it you're a big fan of The Guardian as well, as its biases cancel out the widespread right wing bias of most of the British press? If I had to rely on the press for my news then I would seek some balance, so I'd read the Guardian a bit. I've noticed this with the way you debate on here. Rather than address the issue you seek hypocrisy or lack of credibility in the other person's argument. So the mainstream media, please go ahead and defend it, I'm all ears duck... Lol but you're just accusing him of doing what you most certainly and pretty much everybody else does on here - confirm their bias by referring back to sources they like and disregarding those they don't! By relyingon brietbart and other similar organisations and dismissing so-called MSM it's the same thing right?
|
|
|
Post by Mendicant on Nov 23, 2016 21:57:46 GMT
If I had to rely on the press for my news then I would seek some balance, so I'd read the Guardian a bit. I've noticed this with the way you debate on here. Rather than address the issue you seek hypocrisy or lack of credibility in the other person's argument. So the mainstream media, please go ahead and defend it, I'm all ears duck... Lol but you're just accusing him of doing what you most certainly and pretty much everybody else does on here - confirm their bias by referring back to sources they like and disregarding those they don't! By relyingon brietbart and other similar organisations and dismissing so-called MSM it's the same thing right? I dismiss mainstream media's reporting of US politics and some other subjects - not because I disagree with them - rather because it's deceitful agenda-driven spin by a bunch of cunts masquerading as a responsible reporters. Breitbart is spin, big time, and so is Drudge, Infowars is ludicrously biased but for each thesis there is an antithesis, and the synthesis produced from inquiry into both is, I hope and believe, better.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Nov 24, 2016 0:42:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Mendicant on Nov 24, 2016 6:47:25 GMT
From the first paragraph: "The election of Donald Trump as US president is the most dangerous moment for Western democracy and global stability since the fall of the Soviet Union – possibly even since the end of World War II." I personally think a far more dangerous moment was Turkey shooting down a Russian jet over Syria, or the proposed no fly zone over Syria by the current US administration. Or even John McCain, renowned for advocating military action, getting the Republican nomination in 2008. Edit: or 911 and the war on terror, homeland security and the NSA.
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Nov 24, 2016 7:49:46 GMT
From the first paragraph: "The election of Donald Trump as US president is the most dangerous moment for Western democracy and global stability since the fall of the Soviet Union – possibly even since the end of World War II." I personally think a far more dangerous moment was Turkey shooting down a Russian jet over Syria, or the proposed no fly zone over Syria by the current US administration. Or even John McCain, renowned for advocating military action, getting the Republican nomination in 2008. Edit: or 911 and the war on terror, homeland security and the NSA. Why are they far more dangerous, out of interest? You can understand why people are extremely worried about Trump, surely?
|
|
|
Post by Mendicant on Nov 24, 2016 8:35:27 GMT
From the first paragraph: "The election of Donald Trump as US president is the most dangerous moment for Western democracy and global stability since the fall of the Soviet Union – possibly even since the end of World War II." I personally think a far more dangerous moment was Turkey shooting down a Russian jet over Syria, or the proposed no fly zone over Syria by the current US administration. Or even John McCain, renowned for advocating military action, getting the Republican nomination in 2008. Edit: or 911 and the war on terror, homeland security and the NSA. Why are they far more dangerous, out of interest? You can understand why people are extremely worried about Trump, surely? Because of the risk of war with Russia and in the case of 911, anti-terror laws. I don't understand the supposed fear of a Trump presidency with regards to Western democracy and global stability. I do not get it unless to be worried about Trump is to be swayed by months of propaganda. The world will be safer after January, other things being equal, because of Trump's strategy of rapprochement with Russia, not that he'll get much credit for it of course.
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Nov 24, 2016 8:56:20 GMT
Why are they far more dangerous, out of interest? You can understand why people are extremely worried about Trump, surely? Because of the risk of war with Russia and in the case of 911, anti-terror laws. I don't understand the supposed fear of a Trump presidency with regards to Western democracy and global stability. I do not get it unless to be worried about Trump is to be swayed by months of propaganda. The world will be safer after January, other things being equal, because of Trump's strategy of rapprochement with Russia, not that he'll get much credit for it of course. You don't see any potential pitfalls in Russia being giving carte blanche to behave how it wants? "I have in my hand, a piece of paper..." He's filling his Department of Defense with some rabid hawks, including an out and out Islamophobe in Flynn and, if he goes ahead and makes him Secretary of Defense, a bloke with the nickname 'Mad Dog'. This is a man who has in the past talked of using nuclear weapons and of bombing other countries and taking their oil. Call that 'post-truth' or 'made-up populist bullshit to get elected' if you prefer, but to have the man with his finger on the button doesn't scream 'safer world' to me.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Nov 24, 2016 10:11:05 GMT
Yeah....a real breath of fresh air
|
|
|
Post by Mendicant on Nov 24, 2016 10:24:30 GMT
I dismiss mainstream media's reporting of US politics and some other subjects - not because I disagree with them - rather because it's deceitful agenda-driven spin by a bunch of cunts masquerading as a responsible reporters. Breitbart is spin, big time, and so is Drudge, Infowars is ludicrously biased but for each thesis there is an antithesis, and the synthesis produced from inquiry into both is, I hope and believe, better. So in other less noncey words, yes! You say the world will be safer from January - does that include the Baltic states? Which words were "noncey"? Come to think of it, what is a noncey word. The Baltic will be orate.
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Nov 25, 2016 7:25:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on Nov 25, 2016 16:03:08 GMT
Yeah....a real breath of fresh air Clearly, draining the swamp doesn't extend to Betsy!
|
|
|
Post by Mendicant on Nov 25, 2016 16:30:41 GMT
Yeah....a real breath of fresh air If she suported both state and public schools they could have called her Betsy-Co-Ed.
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on Nov 25, 2016 16:49:41 GMT
Yeah....a real breath of fresh air If she suported both state and public schools they could have called her Betsy-Co-Ed. If she does the job FT, how about Betsy 365?
|
|
|
Post by Mendicant on Nov 30, 2016 11:47:42 GMT
Nice scripting
|
|
|
Post by Rick Grimes on Nov 30, 2016 12:44:53 GMT
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/30/donald-trump-george-monbiot-misinformation
I know, I know it's the Guardian but still it's pretty interesting and there's enough factual information within the article for it to not be dismissed so easily. Even if you think Trump was a better option than Hilary it's pretty worrying that these are the sort of people that are finding positions within his government.
I think we really need to take a long hard look at the level of influence such people/businesses have in politics and do something about it because the same happens over here as well. There are too many people with conflicts of interest that are either finding themselves in high positions in government or throwing their money about to influence government policy so it's in their own interests rather than the interests of society and it's people.
|
|
|
Post by Beloved Monkfish on Nov 30, 2016 20:01:24 GMT
Yeah....a real breath of fresh air Looking at those qualifications, she's very much like the unqualified wands our various governments regularly appoint.
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Dec 7, 2016 12:51:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Skankmonkey on Dec 7, 2016 15:52:35 GMT
Yeah....a real breath of fresh air If she suported both state and public schools they could have called her Betsy-Co-Ed. I take my hat off to you sir!
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Dec 7, 2016 17:10:40 GMT
Yeah....a real breath of fresh air If she suported both state and public schools they could have called her Betsy-Co-Ed.
|
|
|
Post by Mendicant on Dec 8, 2016 18:26:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Jan 20, 2017 15:04:20 GMT
I guess today is the chequered flag.
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Jan 20, 2017 15:08:32 GMT
I dunno, Rog. Given how un-hinged the 'progressive left' lot are, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if we're looking for a new President tomorrow. ... Would get me some points in the Dead Pool if so
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Jan 20, 2017 15:15:30 GMT
I dunno, Rog. Given how un-hinged the 'progressive left' lot are, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if we're looking for a new President tomorrow. ... Would get me some points in the Dead Pool if so A gun toting snowflake takes him out, now that would be something to behold.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2017 15:22:27 GMT
Can't see anyone getting anywhere close TBH, absolute ring of steel around him, the big danger will be in the future when he is maybe at Trump Towers or any of his other sprawling properties.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2017 15:26:32 GMT
Crooked Hillary looks well pissed off....
|
|