.:.:.:.:
RTTP
.
Mobile
:.:.:.:.
[
<--back
] [
Home
][
Pics
][
News
][
Ads
][
Events
][
Forum
][
Band
][
Search
]
full forum
|
bottom
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
]
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
]
Reply
[
login
]
SPAM Filter:
re-type this
(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)
you are quoting a heck of a lot there.
[QUOTE]blah blah blah[/QUOTE] to reply to Murph.
Please remove excess text as not to re-post tons
message
[QUOTE="Murph:665216"]PatMeebles said:[QUOTE]DestroyYouAlot said:[QUOTE]Quite a lot of this can be boiled down to, "I can cite many credible references that this did happen, and you can cite many credible references stating that it didn't." Unfortunately, by the nature of media coverage in the US, sources stating things that agree with the administration's party line are going to be lent credibility, while sources disagreeing are going to be - by default - presented as easily dismissable. What's more, the same thing is happening in this thread - if one person copypastes a lengthy diatribe from one place, stating that some shady shit happened, another is going to label them a kooky Kool-Aid drinker, and copypaste an equally credible (and opposing) diatribe to prove their point. None of you knows whether it did or didn't happen, no matter how much you'd like to have one up on your opposite number - the fact still remains that just about any well-constructed conspiracy theory regarding this issue [I]could[/I] have happened, and - whether the Fox viewers around here like it or not - most of them are at least as [I]plausible[/I] as anything we've heard from Washington. The government's story is not, by the nature of the source alone, any more believable than any other viewpoint; past experience has shown that, if anything, it's actually less so.[/QUOTE] You've just stated that both viewpoints are equally credible, and then went ahead and said the official story is less credible. Where the hell are you? And to reiterate... [QUOTE]Unfortunately, by the nature of media coverage in the US, sources stating things that agree with the administration's party line are going to be lent credibility, while sources disagreeing are going to be - by default - presented as easily dismissable.[/QUOTE] Yeah, that's exactly how the media addresses viewpoints against Bush... except for tax policy, abortion, energy, global warming, Iraq, Iran, Israel, Palestine, Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame, Gonzales Firing attorney's, Bush v. Gore, Keith Olbermann... am I done? ... oh wait... Supreme Court nominees, Terri Schaivo, abstinence only education, embryonic stem cell research, Darfur, John Bolton, the UN corruption in general, government spending...[/QUOTE] Actually, Destroy equalled the references and "diatribes" used, not the actual viewpoints, ie. government conspiracy or terrorist attack. Personally, none of this matters to me, because whether it was terrorists, or the government (which I really can't seem to agree with), a lot of people died, and a lot more are going to die due to severe cultural issues. There really is no way to cede peace from this situation, because Iraq War/Afghan campaign, or no Iraq War/Afghan campaign, there will still be people, and in some cases militant people, who will try to break this country. Lessons of history: every major empire (and if you don't think we're virtual world empire, you're a fucking moron) will have its allies, enemies, and eventually, it's end. As long as there is religion, we're all fucked. Because without something semi-concrete to stand on, billons of people trying to play a guessing game of how to live will only create more tension, and the hopeful dream of oneday becoming "global citizens" is just that, a figment for fools. [/QUOTE]
top
[
Vers. 0.12
][ 0.004 secs/8 queries][
refresh
][