|
United States5162 Posts
On January 06 2012 00:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 00:01 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 23:57 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 05 2012 23:49 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 23:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 05 2012 23:40 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 23:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 05 2012 23:31 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 23:21 Velr wrote:ROFL You guys are advocatin free speak over anything.. But suddenly when some guy wears a uniform it's diffrent? Are you serious? You can blatantly lie about the Holocaust and preach total bullshit lies that insult entire communites/countreis/religions but you can't give your polticial opinion while wearing the us-uniform? fucking lol. It's the same thing as any employer - you can have free speech, but if they don't like it they can fire you. In this case it's bit murkier since he's employed by the government, but it's still the same principle. In most European countries your employer wouldn't have the right to fire you for saying something he doesn't like without paying you compensation, unless it could be considered as an offense (in France: faute grave). Now the military is a very special thing and derogates to most of these rules, for obvious reasons. I'm sure if you have a contract of something you will be compensated as it requires, but I doubt a McDonalds employ is going to get any direct compensation for being fired because he supports pot reform. They'd probably be able to get unemployment benefits though. He would. You have the right to support pot reform and expressing an opinion that doesn't hurt anybody (it's not racist / homophobic / sexist etc...) can't be considered as a faute grave (serious offense, the only way to fire someone without compensation). If he is under a permanent contract, he would get very big compensation for being fired without a reason. Mc Donald's or not. Well, I'm glad I don't live in Europe. I disagree with not being able to fire someone without compensation unless the compensation was previously agreed upon. I also disagree with the government determining what speech is offensive. Different things offend different people and regulating that seems unwise to me. Well I'm glad I don't live in the US where your boss has all power upon you, and can decide that you fuck off and ruin your life just because that morning he didn't like your face. I am happy and proud live in a society where people are somehow protected from the ones who are richer or further in the hierarchy of their company. Because maybe you guys didn't notice but oppression doesn't always come from the State. Your model of society is a feudalism. Except that instead of being kings, dukes, barons and at the bottom serfs each of them having right of life and death on the one below them who have strictly no rights, it's shareholders, CEO's, Managers, qualified employee and asshole who clean the floor, each of them having the right to decide that the one below will be unemployed and lose everything if he doesn't like him or his opinions. Yup. I like the fact that I can tell you to fuck off if I don't like you and run my personal business how I see fit. If that means running your business into the ground because you fire everyone you disagree with, go right ahead. Anyways, good talking to you again Biff. Hopefully you never get in the situation of being unemployed at 50 without any perspective in life because your legislation didn't judge useful to give you guarantee against your abusive CEO. It would risk to make you change your perspective, and it's so much nicer and easier to always take the side of the rich and the powerful. It was a pleasure 
We still have unemployment benefits. Even if you're fired you can still get them.
|
United States5162 Posts
On January 05 2012 23:58 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 23:49 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 23:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 05 2012 23:40 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 23:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 05 2012 23:31 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 23:21 Velr wrote:On January 05 2012 22:54 Serthius wrote:On January 05 2012 13:54 NtroP wrote:On January 05 2012 13:42 InvalidID wrote:
[quote]
Any number of things can interrupt satelite feeds, and it is far more common then you think. Even if there was not bad weather in the place the up-link was located, there could have been bad weather on the down-link. Most satellite communication systems operate with a very thin margin. Increased solar radiation, assorted atmospheric effects(especially around dusk), and most importantly rain on the downlink can and will cause a link to go down.
The systems are designed to have anywhere between 99-99.99% availability with local weather effects on the downlink(its assumed you can just increase uplink power), but if you do the math, 99.9% availability is around an hour and a half of downtime a year.
Any glance at a sattelite communications textbook will tell you this, but you know, its a lot easier to invent conspiracies. Hey, have you ever watched satellite going in and out? It looks like digital distortion. Every time. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvzeowlqmBIWhat does this video look like when it cuts out? A fake analog signal. You do know that the video traveling up the screen like that is caused by ANALOG syncing, right? Argue with me on this one, please. That particular soldier is actually under investigation for breaching military protocol: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/checkpoint-washington/post/a-soldier-ron-paul-and-political-opinion/2012/01/04/gIQAgBh1aP_blog.htmlMilitary employees are not allowed to speak out on political issues while wearing their uniform. Which makes sense. ROFL You guys are advocatin free speak over anything.. But suddenly when some guy wears a uniform it's diffrent? Are you serious? You can blatantly lie about the Holocaust and preach total bullshit lies that insult entire communites/countreis/religions but you can't give your polticial opinion while wearing the us-uniform? fucking lol. It's the same thing as any employer - you can have free speech, but if they don't like it they can fire you. In this case it's bit murkier since he's employed by the government, but it's still the same principle. In most European countries your employer wouldn't have the right to fire you for saying something he doesn't like without paying you compensation, unless it could be considered as an offense (in France: faute grave). Now the military is a very special thing and derogates to most of these rules, for obvious reasons. I'm sure if you have a contract of something you will be compensated as it requires, but I doubt a McDonalds employ is going to get any direct compensation for being fired because he supports pot reform. They'd probably be able to get unemployment benefits though. He would. You have the right to support pot reform and expressing an opinion that doesn't hurt anybody (it's not racist / homophobic / sexist etc...) can't be considered as a faute grave (serious offense, the only way to fire someone without compensation). If he is under a permanent contract, he would get very big compensation for being fired without a reason. Mc Donald's or not. Well, I'm glad I don't live in Europe. I disagree with not being able to fire someone without compensation unless the compensation was previously agreed upon. I also disagree with the government determining what speech is offensive. Different things offend different people and regulating that seems unwise to me. Well thank fucking god Europe isn't a country. I wouldn't want "the government determining what speech if offensive" either.
He said in most European countries, which why I posted it as Europe as a whole rather then France, Germany, ect.
|
On January 06 2012 00:06 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 00:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 06 2012 00:01 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 23:57 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 05 2012 23:49 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 23:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 05 2012 23:40 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 23:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 05 2012 23:31 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 23:21 Velr wrote:
[quote]
ROFL
You guys are advocatin free speak over anything.. But suddenly when some guy wears a uniform it's diffrent? Are you serious?
You can blatantly lie about the Holocaust and preach total bullshit lies that insult entire communites/countreis/religions but you can't give your polticial opinion while wearing the us-uniform?
fucking lol. It's the same thing as any employer - you can have free speech, but if they don't like it they can fire you. In this case it's bit murkier since he's employed by the government, but it's still the same principle. In most European countries your employer wouldn't have the right to fire you for saying something he doesn't like without paying you compensation, unless it could be considered as an offense (in France: faute grave). Now the military is a very special thing and derogates to most of these rules, for obvious reasons. I'm sure if you have a contract of something you will be compensated as it requires, but I doubt a McDonalds employ is going to get any direct compensation for being fired because he supports pot reform. They'd probably be able to get unemployment benefits though. He would. You have the right to support pot reform and expressing an opinion that doesn't hurt anybody (it's not racist / homophobic / sexist etc...) can't be considered as a faute grave (serious offense, the only way to fire someone without compensation). If he is under a permanent contract, he would get very big compensation for being fired without a reason. Mc Donald's or not. Well, I'm glad I don't live in Europe. I disagree with not being able to fire someone without compensation unless the compensation was previously agreed upon. I also disagree with the government determining what speech is offensive. Different things offend different people and regulating that seems unwise to me. Well I'm glad I don't live in the US where your boss has all power upon you, and can decide that you fuck off and ruin your life just because that morning he didn't like your face. I am happy and proud live in a society where people are somehow protected from the ones who are richer or further in the hierarchy of their company. Because maybe you guys didn't notice but oppression doesn't always come from the State. Your model of society is a feudalism. Except that instead of being kings, dukes, barons and at the bottom serfs each of them having right of life and death on the one below them who have strictly no rights, it's shareholders, CEO's, Managers, qualified employee and asshole who clean the floor, each of them having the right to decide that the one below will be unemployed and lose everything if he doesn't like him or his opinions. Yup. I like the fact that I can tell you to fuck off if I don't like you and run my personal business how I see fit. If that means running your business into the ground because you fire everyone you disagree with, go right ahead. Anyways, good talking to you again Biff. Hopefully you never get in the situation of being unemployed at 50 without any perspective in life because your legislation didn't judge useful to give you guarantee against your abusive CEO. It would risk to make you change your perspective, and it's so much nicer and easier to always take the side of the rich and the powerful. It was a pleasure We still have unemployment benefits. Even if you're fired you can still get them.
Hopefully Ron Paul, Gingrich, Buchanan, Santorum, Darth Vader, Voldemort or whoever wins these primaries will take care of them. Finally, you guys will be really free.
|
United States5162 Posts
On January 06 2012 00:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 00:06 Myles wrote:On January 06 2012 00:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 06 2012 00:01 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 23:57 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 05 2012 23:49 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 23:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 05 2012 23:40 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 23:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 05 2012 23:31 Myles wrote:
[quote]
It's the same thing as any employer - you can have free speech, but if they don't like it they can fire you. In this case it's bit murkier since he's employed by the government, but it's still the same principle. In most European countries your employer wouldn't have the right to fire you for saying something he doesn't like without paying you compensation, unless it could be considered as an offense (in France: faute grave). Now the military is a very special thing and derogates to most of these rules, for obvious reasons. I'm sure if you have a contract of something you will be compensated as it requires, but I doubt a McDonalds employ is going to get any direct compensation for being fired because he supports pot reform. They'd probably be able to get unemployment benefits though. He would. You have the right to support pot reform and expressing an opinion that doesn't hurt anybody (it's not racist / homophobic / sexist etc...) can't be considered as a faute grave (serious offense, the only way to fire someone without compensation). If he is under a permanent contract, he would get very big compensation for being fired without a reason. Mc Donald's or not. Well, I'm glad I don't live in Europe. I disagree with not being able to fire someone without compensation unless the compensation was previously agreed upon. I also disagree with the government determining what speech is offensive. Different things offend different people and regulating that seems unwise to me. Well I'm glad I don't live in the US where your boss has all power upon you, and can decide that you fuck off and ruin your life just because that morning he didn't like your face. I am happy and proud live in a society where people are somehow protected from the ones who are richer or further in the hierarchy of their company. Because maybe you guys didn't notice but oppression doesn't always come from the State. Your model of society is a feudalism. Except that instead of being kings, dukes, barons and at the bottom serfs each of them having right of life and death on the one below them who have strictly no rights, it's shareholders, CEO's, Managers, qualified employee and asshole who clean the floor, each of them having the right to decide that the one below will be unemployed and lose everything if he doesn't like him or his opinions. Yup. I like the fact that I can tell you to fuck off if I don't like you and run my personal business how I see fit. If that means running your business into the ground because you fire everyone you disagree with, go right ahead. Anyways, good talking to you again Biff. Hopefully you never get in the situation of being unemployed at 50 without any perspective in life because your legislation didn't judge useful to give you guarantee against your abusive CEO. It would risk to make you change your perspective, and it's so much nicer and easier to always take the side of the rich and the powerful. It was a pleasure We still have unemployment benefits. Even if you're fired you can still get them. Hopefully Ron Paul, Gingrich, Buchanan, Santorum, Darth Vader, Voldemort or whoever wins these primaries will take care of them. Finally, you guys will be really free.
LOL. I'm actually in favor of them, though I feel they need to be more regulated/enforced.
|
On January 06 2012 00:15 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 00:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 06 2012 00:06 Myles wrote:On January 06 2012 00:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 06 2012 00:01 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 23:57 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 05 2012 23:49 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 23:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 05 2012 23:40 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 23:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
In most European countries your employer wouldn't have the right to fire you for saying something he doesn't like without paying you compensation, unless it could be considered as an offense (in France: faute grave). Now the military is a very special thing and derogates to most of these rules, for obvious reasons. I'm sure if you have a contract of something you will be compensated as it requires, but I doubt a McDonalds employ is going to get any direct compensation for being fired because he supports pot reform. They'd probably be able to get unemployment benefits though. He would. You have the right to support pot reform and expressing an opinion that doesn't hurt anybody (it's not racist / homophobic / sexist etc...) can't be considered as a faute grave (serious offense, the only way to fire someone without compensation). If he is under a permanent contract, he would get very big compensation for being fired without a reason. Mc Donald's or not. Well, I'm glad I don't live in Europe. I disagree with not being able to fire someone without compensation unless the compensation was previously agreed upon. I also disagree with the government determining what speech is offensive. Different things offend different people and regulating that seems unwise to me. Well I'm glad I don't live in the US where your boss has all power upon you, and can decide that you fuck off and ruin your life just because that morning he didn't like your face. I am happy and proud live in a society where people are somehow protected from the ones who are richer or further in the hierarchy of their company. Because maybe you guys didn't notice but oppression doesn't always come from the State. Your model of society is a feudalism. Except that instead of being kings, dukes, barons and at the bottom serfs each of them having right of life and death on the one below them who have strictly no rights, it's shareholders, CEO's, Managers, qualified employee and asshole who clean the floor, each of them having the right to decide that the one below will be unemployed and lose everything if he doesn't like him or his opinions. Yup. I like the fact that I can tell you to fuck off if I don't like you and run my personal business how I see fit. If that means running your business into the ground because you fire everyone you disagree with, go right ahead. Anyways, good talking to you again Biff. Hopefully you never get in the situation of being unemployed at 50 without any perspective in life because your legislation didn't judge useful to give you guarantee against your abusive CEO. It would risk to make you change your perspective, and it's so much nicer and easier to always take the side of the rich and the powerful. It was a pleasure We still have unemployment benefits. Even if you're fired you can still get them. Hopefully Ron Paul, Gingrich, Buchanan, Santorum, Darth Vader, Voldemort or whoever wins these primaries will take care of them. Finally, you guys will be really free. LOL. I'm actually in favor of them, though I feel they need to be more regulated/enforced.
Careful, socialism is not far.
|
United States5162 Posts
On January 06 2012 00:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 00:15 Myles wrote:On January 06 2012 00:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 06 2012 00:06 Myles wrote:On January 06 2012 00:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 06 2012 00:01 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 23:57 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 05 2012 23:49 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 23:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 05 2012 23:40 Myles wrote:
[quote]
I'm sure if you have a contract of something you will be compensated as it requires, but I doubt a McDonalds employ is going to get any direct compensation for being fired because he supports pot reform. They'd probably be able to get unemployment benefits though. He would. You have the right to support pot reform and expressing an opinion that doesn't hurt anybody (it's not racist / homophobic / sexist etc...) can't be considered as a faute grave (serious offense, the only way to fire someone without compensation). If he is under a permanent contract, he would get very big compensation for being fired without a reason. Mc Donald's or not. Well, I'm glad I don't live in Europe. I disagree with not being able to fire someone without compensation unless the compensation was previously agreed upon. I also disagree with the government determining what speech is offensive. Different things offend different people and regulating that seems unwise to me. Well I'm glad I don't live in the US where your boss has all power upon you, and can decide that you fuck off and ruin your life just because that morning he didn't like your face. I am happy and proud live in a society where people are somehow protected from the ones who are richer or further in the hierarchy of their company. Because maybe you guys didn't notice but oppression doesn't always come from the State. Your model of society is a feudalism. Except that instead of being kings, dukes, barons and at the bottom serfs each of them having right of life and death on the one below them who have strictly no rights, it's shareholders, CEO's, Managers, qualified employee and asshole who clean the floor, each of them having the right to decide that the one below will be unemployed and lose everything if he doesn't like him or his opinions. Yup. I like the fact that I can tell you to fuck off if I don't like you and run my personal business how I see fit. If that means running your business into the ground because you fire everyone you disagree with, go right ahead. Anyways, good talking to you again Biff. Hopefully you never get in the situation of being unemployed at 50 without any perspective in life because your legislation didn't judge useful to give you guarantee against your abusive CEO. It would risk to make you change your perspective, and it's so much nicer and easier to always take the side of the rich and the powerful. It was a pleasure We still have unemployment benefits. Even if you're fired you can still get them. Hopefully Ron Paul, Gingrich, Buchanan, Santorum, Darth Vader, Voldemort or whoever wins these primaries will take care of them. Finally, you guys will be really free. LOL. I'm actually in favor of them, though I feel they need to be more regulated/enforced. Careful, socialism is not far.
I might be for a more free market, but I'm not so blind to think that a safety net of some kind isn't beneficial.
|
On January 05 2012 23:21 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 22:54 Serthius wrote:On January 05 2012 13:54 NtroP wrote:On January 05 2012 13:42 InvalidID wrote:On January 05 2012 13:08 NtroP wrote:On January 05 2012 12:43 Saryph wrote:On January 05 2012 12:30 NtroP wrote:On January 05 2012 12:15 bOneSeven wrote:Alex Jones is a crazy guy ( but imo , get in that field and try to keep yourself 100% sane , I believe it's impossible ) and most of you completely discard him , however I couldn't find the video alone ( tbh I don't really feel like searching for it because I may simply not find it , I never browsed trough CNN shows ) so here it is ... Just watch 1:04-1:50 from this video http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6c8LyUeGC8&feature=player_detailpage ---- Coincidence or deisgn ? Ron Paul getting ZERO support from any media .. Obviously design. I don't watch any tv, movie, or show without attempting to see what underlying themes and messages are that are being conveyed. If you don't, you're just letting groups and people who's only intent is to control you and help you spend your money program your mind. I really don't get how SO many people can be wild conspiracy theorists in this thread. CNN lost a satellite feed during an interview with a Ron Paul supporter: MUST have been them pulling the plug, OBVIOUS. Two days ago in this thread: If Ron Paul doesn't come in first place in Iowa, MUST be vote fraud, NO other answer. And lets not forget yesterday and Mr '9-11 was computer controlled, US government planned attacks to get us into the middle east. No one offers ANY proof at all, ZERO. ZERO. Is this thread/site really breaking down into a crackpot conspiracy theory core? What is next? JFK? Moon? Did the US let Pearl Harbor happen on purpose? If you're making a claim that is wildly offensive or different than what the majority believes, you need to offer something to back it up. P.S. Or is asking someone to back up a wild accusation with anything at all asking too much? Here, do some homework. Validate YOUR claim. Here is the fact. A Ron Paul supporter was cut off. You come in saying, oh poo hoo. It's 2011 or 2012 or whatever. Shit happens. However, you could easily educate yourself by taking the initiative and googling what tends to cut out satellite feeds. Was it weather? Google the weather conditions. Judging by how well satellite tv works, it'd probably have to be something pretty noticeable. Perhaps swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus... interrupting the satellite feed. I have my view, and I don't really want to waste my time trying to change yours. Perhaps, you could ask yourself why you are making excuses for a major media outlet? My point of view is that reality is likely a whole lot more fucking complicated than what is shown on major news outlets. If it isn't, what did I lose? However, I bet that JFK is on the moon since pearl harbor, happening on purpose. Any number of things can interrupt satelite feeds, and it is far more common then you think. Even if there was not bad weather in the place the up-link was located, there could have been bad weather on the down-link. Most satellite communication systems operate with a very thin margin. Increased solar radiation, assorted atmospheric effects(especially around dusk), and most importantly rain on the downlink can and will cause a link to go down. The systems are designed to have anywhere between 99-99.99% availability with local weather effects on the downlink(its assumed you can just increase uplink power), but if you do the math, 99.9% availability is around an hour and a half of downtime a year. Any glance at a sattelite communications textbook will tell you this, but you know, its a lot easier to invent conspiracies. Hey, have you ever watched satellite going in and out? It looks like digital distortion. Every time. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvzeowlqmBIWhat does this video look like when it cuts out? A fake analog signal. You do know that the video traveling up the screen like that is caused by ANALOG syncing, right? Argue with me on this one, please. That particular soldier is actually under investigation for breaching military protocol: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/checkpoint-washington/post/a-soldier-ron-paul-and-political-opinion/2012/01/04/gIQAgBh1aP_blog.htmlMilitary employees are not allowed to speak out on political issues while wearing their uniform. Which makes sense. ROFL You guys are advocatin free speak over anything.. But suddenly when some guy wears a uniform it's diffrent? Are you serious? You can blatantly lie about the Holocaust and preach total bullshit lies that insult entire communites/countreis/religions but you can't give your polticial opinion while wearing the us-uniform? fucking lol.
I can't imagine how he ended up saying something political at a political event. What a morally depraved simple person.
|
On January 06 2012 00:17 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 00:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 06 2012 00:15 Myles wrote:On January 06 2012 00:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 06 2012 00:06 Myles wrote:On January 06 2012 00:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 06 2012 00:01 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 23:57 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 05 2012 23:49 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 23:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
He would.
You have the right to support pot reform and expressing an opinion that doesn't hurt anybody (it's not racist / homophobic / sexist etc...) can't be considered as a faute grave (serious offense, the only way to fire someone without compensation). If he is under a permanent contract, he would get very big compensation for being fired without a reason. Mc Donald's or not. Well, I'm glad I don't live in Europe. I disagree with not being able to fire someone without compensation unless the compensation was previously agreed upon. I also disagree with the government determining what speech is offensive. Different things offend different people and regulating that seems unwise to me. Well I'm glad I don't live in the US where your boss has all power upon you, and can decide that you fuck off and ruin your life just because that morning he didn't like your face. I am happy and proud live in a society where people are somehow protected from the ones who are richer or further in the hierarchy of their company. Because maybe you guys didn't notice but oppression doesn't always come from the State. Your model of society is a feudalism. Except that instead of being kings, dukes, barons and at the bottom serfs each of them having right of life and death on the one below them who have strictly no rights, it's shareholders, CEO's, Managers, qualified employee and asshole who clean the floor, each of them having the right to decide that the one below will be unemployed and lose everything if he doesn't like him or his opinions. Yup. I like the fact that I can tell you to fuck off if I don't like you and run my personal business how I see fit. If that means running your business into the ground because you fire everyone you disagree with, go right ahead. Anyways, good talking to you again Biff. Hopefully you never get in the situation of being unemployed at 50 without any perspective in life because your legislation didn't judge useful to give you guarantee against your abusive CEO. It would risk to make you change your perspective, and it's so much nicer and easier to always take the side of the rich and the powerful. It was a pleasure We still have unemployment benefits. Even if you're fired you can still get them. Hopefully Ron Paul, Gingrich, Buchanan, Santorum, Darth Vader, Voldemort or whoever wins these primaries will take care of them. Finally, you guys will be really free. LOL. I'm actually in favor of them, though I feel they need to be more regulated/enforced. Careful, socialism is not far. I might be for a more free market, but I'm not so blind to think that a safety net of some kind isn't beneficial.
We should end this conversation right now, because if we carry on, we might end up agreeing on something.
|
United States5162 Posts
On January 06 2012 00:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 00:17 Myles wrote:On January 06 2012 00:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 06 2012 00:15 Myles wrote:On January 06 2012 00:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 06 2012 00:06 Myles wrote:On January 06 2012 00:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 06 2012 00:01 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 23:57 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 05 2012 23:49 Myles wrote:
[quote]
Well, I'm glad I don't live in Europe. I disagree with not being able to fire someone without compensation unless the compensation was previously agreed upon. I also disagree with the government determining what speech is offensive. Different things offend different people and regulating that seems unwise to me. Well I'm glad I don't live in the US where your boss has all power upon you, and can decide that you fuck off and ruin your life just because that morning he didn't like your face. I am happy and proud live in a society where people are somehow protected from the ones who are richer or further in the hierarchy of their company. Because maybe you guys didn't notice but oppression doesn't always come from the State. Your model of society is a feudalism. Except that instead of being kings, dukes, barons and at the bottom serfs each of them having right of life and death on the one below them who have strictly no rights, it's shareholders, CEO's, Managers, qualified employee and asshole who clean the floor, each of them having the right to decide that the one below will be unemployed and lose everything if he doesn't like him or his opinions. Yup. I like the fact that I can tell you to fuck off if I don't like you and run my personal business how I see fit. If that means running your business into the ground because you fire everyone you disagree with, go right ahead. Anyways, good talking to you again Biff. Hopefully you never get in the situation of being unemployed at 50 without any perspective in life because your legislation didn't judge useful to give you guarantee against your abusive CEO. It would risk to make you change your perspective, and it's so much nicer and easier to always take the side of the rich and the powerful. It was a pleasure We still have unemployment benefits. Even if you're fired you can still get them. Hopefully Ron Paul, Gingrich, Buchanan, Santorum, Darth Vader, Voldemort or whoever wins these primaries will take care of them. Finally, you guys will be really free. LOL. I'm actually in favor of them, though I feel they need to be more regulated/enforced. Careful, socialism is not far. I might be for a more free market, but I'm not so blind to think that a safety net of some kind isn't beneficial. We should end this conversation right now, because if we carry on, we might end up agreeing on something.
Yea, and this time I actually do have to leave.
|
On January 06 2012 00:18 NtroP wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 23:21 Velr wrote:On January 05 2012 22:54 Serthius wrote:On January 05 2012 13:54 NtroP wrote:On January 05 2012 13:42 InvalidID wrote:On January 05 2012 13:08 NtroP wrote:On January 05 2012 12:43 Saryph wrote:On January 05 2012 12:30 NtroP wrote:On January 05 2012 12:15 bOneSeven wrote:Alex Jones is a crazy guy ( but imo , get in that field and try to keep yourself 100% sane , I believe it's impossible ) and most of you completely discard him , however I couldn't find the video alone ( tbh I don't really feel like searching for it because I may simply not find it , I never browsed trough CNN shows ) so here it is ... Just watch 1:04-1:50 from this video http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6c8LyUeGC8&feature=player_detailpage ---- Coincidence or deisgn ? Ron Paul getting ZERO support from any media .. Obviously design. I don't watch any tv, movie, or show without attempting to see what underlying themes and messages are that are being conveyed. If you don't, you're just letting groups and people who's only intent is to control you and help you spend your money program your mind. I really don't get how SO many people can be wild conspiracy theorists in this thread. CNN lost a satellite feed during an interview with a Ron Paul supporter: MUST have been them pulling the plug, OBVIOUS. Two days ago in this thread: If Ron Paul doesn't come in first place in Iowa, MUST be vote fraud, NO other answer. And lets not forget yesterday and Mr '9-11 was computer controlled, US government planned attacks to get us into the middle east. No one offers ANY proof at all, ZERO. ZERO. Is this thread/site really breaking down into a crackpot conspiracy theory core? What is next? JFK? Moon? Did the US let Pearl Harbor happen on purpose? If you're making a claim that is wildly offensive or different than what the majority believes, you need to offer something to back it up. P.S. Or is asking someone to back up a wild accusation with anything at all asking too much? Here, do some homework. Validate YOUR claim. Here is the fact. A Ron Paul supporter was cut off. You come in saying, oh poo hoo. It's 2011 or 2012 or whatever. Shit happens. However, you could easily educate yourself by taking the initiative and googling what tends to cut out satellite feeds. Was it weather? Google the weather conditions. Judging by how well satellite tv works, it'd probably have to be something pretty noticeable. Perhaps swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus... interrupting the satellite feed. I have my view, and I don't really want to waste my time trying to change yours. Perhaps, you could ask yourself why you are making excuses for a major media outlet? My point of view is that reality is likely a whole lot more fucking complicated than what is shown on major news outlets. If it isn't, what did I lose? However, I bet that JFK is on the moon since pearl harbor, happening on purpose. Any number of things can interrupt satelite feeds, and it is far more common then you think. Even if there was not bad weather in the place the up-link was located, there could have been bad weather on the down-link. Most satellite communication systems operate with a very thin margin. Increased solar radiation, assorted atmospheric effects(especially around dusk), and most importantly rain on the downlink can and will cause a link to go down. The systems are designed to have anywhere between 99-99.99% availability with local weather effects on the downlink(its assumed you can just increase uplink power), but if you do the math, 99.9% availability is around an hour and a half of downtime a year. Any glance at a sattelite communications textbook will tell you this, but you know, its a lot easier to invent conspiracies. Hey, have you ever watched satellite going in and out? It looks like digital distortion. Every time. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvzeowlqmBIWhat does this video look like when it cuts out? A fake analog signal. You do know that the video traveling up the screen like that is caused by ANALOG syncing, right? Argue with me on this one, please. That particular soldier is actually under investigation for breaching military protocol: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/checkpoint-washington/post/a-soldier-ron-paul-and-political-opinion/2012/01/04/gIQAgBh1aP_blog.htmlMilitary employees are not allowed to speak out on political issues while wearing their uniform. Which makes sense. ROFL You guys are advocatin free speak over anything.. But suddenly when some guy wears a uniform it's diffrent? Are you serious? You can blatantly lie about the Holocaust and preach total bullshit lies that insult entire communites/countreis/religions but you can't give your polticial opinion while wearing the us-uniform? fucking lol. I can't imagine how he ended up saying something political at a political event. What a morally depraved simple person.
You don't get to wear the uniform provided for you by your employer to make personal statements. While wearing it you represent the organization, not yourself. I'd say that's a fairly important concept for the military seeing how it's based on a strict chain of command and not on group debate.
|
On January 06 2012 00:22 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 00:18 NtroP wrote:On January 05 2012 23:21 Velr wrote:On January 05 2012 22:54 Serthius wrote:On January 05 2012 13:54 NtroP wrote:On January 05 2012 13:42 InvalidID wrote:On January 05 2012 13:08 NtroP wrote:On January 05 2012 12:43 Saryph wrote:On January 05 2012 12:30 NtroP wrote:On January 05 2012 12:15 bOneSeven wrote:Alex Jones is a crazy guy ( but imo , get in that field and try to keep yourself 100% sane , I believe it's impossible ) and most of you completely discard him , however I couldn't find the video alone ( tbh I don't really feel like searching for it because I may simply not find it , I never browsed trough CNN shows ) so here it is ... Just watch 1:04-1:50 from this video http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6c8LyUeGC8&feature=player_detailpage ---- Coincidence or deisgn ? Ron Paul getting ZERO support from any media .. Obviously design. I don't watch any tv, movie, or show without attempting to see what underlying themes and messages are that are being conveyed. If you don't, you're just letting groups and people who's only intent is to control you and help you spend your money program your mind. I really don't get how SO many people can be wild conspiracy theorists in this thread. CNN lost a satellite feed during an interview with a Ron Paul supporter: MUST have been them pulling the plug, OBVIOUS. Two days ago in this thread: If Ron Paul doesn't come in first place in Iowa, MUST be vote fraud, NO other answer. And lets not forget yesterday and Mr '9-11 was computer controlled, US government planned attacks to get us into the middle east. No one offers ANY proof at all, ZERO. ZERO. Is this thread/site really breaking down into a crackpot conspiracy theory core? What is next? JFK? Moon? Did the US let Pearl Harbor happen on purpose? If you're making a claim that is wildly offensive or different than what the majority believes, you need to offer something to back it up. P.S. Or is asking someone to back up a wild accusation with anything at all asking too much? Here, do some homework. Validate YOUR claim. Here is the fact. A Ron Paul supporter was cut off. You come in saying, oh poo hoo. It's 2011 or 2012 or whatever. Shit happens. However, you could easily educate yourself by taking the initiative and googling what tends to cut out satellite feeds. Was it weather? Google the weather conditions. Judging by how well satellite tv works, it'd probably have to be something pretty noticeable. Perhaps swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus... interrupting the satellite feed. I have my view, and I don't really want to waste my time trying to change yours. Perhaps, you could ask yourself why you are making excuses for a major media outlet? My point of view is that reality is likely a whole lot more fucking complicated than what is shown on major news outlets. If it isn't, what did I lose? However, I bet that JFK is on the moon since pearl harbor, happening on purpose. Any number of things can interrupt satelite feeds, and it is far more common then you think. Even if there was not bad weather in the place the up-link was located, there could have been bad weather on the down-link. Most satellite communication systems operate with a very thin margin. Increased solar radiation, assorted atmospheric effects(especially around dusk), and most importantly rain on the downlink can and will cause a link to go down. The systems are designed to have anywhere between 99-99.99% availability with local weather effects on the downlink(its assumed you can just increase uplink power), but if you do the math, 99.9% availability is around an hour and a half of downtime a year. Any glance at a sattelite communications textbook will tell you this, but you know, its a lot easier to invent conspiracies. Hey, have you ever watched satellite going in and out? It looks like digital distortion. Every time. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvzeowlqmBIWhat does this video look like when it cuts out? A fake analog signal. You do know that the video traveling up the screen like that is caused by ANALOG syncing, right? Argue with me on this one, please. That particular soldier is actually under investigation for breaching military protocol: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/checkpoint-washington/post/a-soldier-ron-paul-and-political-opinion/2012/01/04/gIQAgBh1aP_blog.htmlMilitary employees are not allowed to speak out on political issues while wearing their uniform. Which makes sense. ROFL You guys are advocatin free speak over anything.. But suddenly when some guy wears a uniform it's diffrent? Are you serious? You can blatantly lie about the Holocaust and preach total bullshit lies that insult entire communites/countreis/religions but you can't give your polticial opinion while wearing the us-uniform? fucking lol. I can't imagine how he ended up saying something political at a political event. What a morally depraved simple person. You don't get to wear the uniform provided for you by your employer to make personal statements. While wearing it you represent the organization, not yourself. I'd say that's a fairly important concept for the military seeing how it's based on a strict chain of command and not on group debate.
It's also obvious that in a Democracy and a Republic, the army is supposed to be neutral. I mean, that's common sense.
|
Coming from a country that was held in the hands of military dictatorships until pretty recently, the reason why the military might have strict restrictions on how it influences the public is rather easy to understand.
|
On January 05 2012 23:58 NtroP wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 21:57 Derez wrote:On January 05 2012 14:44 NtroP wrote:
I can understand your point of view. When I was 20 or so, I was firmly on the other side of the fence. Then I visited slashdot for 10 years. Also, during this time period I got very good at using google to research whatever tickled my fancy.
Now, I trust what I can research and prove using the tools *I* have. Everything else I am skeptical of. That's just standard conspiracy talk for 'even tho noone believes me, I know I'm right, because I found an incredibly biased youtube clip that said so'. One of the downsides of the internet is that you can find 'proof' for pretty much anything if you look hard and long enough. Here is a quote from the first 2 sentences on wikipedia for CRITICAL THINKING "Critical thinking is the process of thinking that questions assumptions. It is a way of deciding whether a claim is true, false; sometimes true, or partly true." I'd call it critical thinking. The ability to question what is presented to you as fact. In fact, the people that you call conspiracy theorists, might just be people that think critically about what is presented to them on tv. Maybe they shouldn't do that. Maybe questioning what others assume is true is deviant and destructive. (by definition, it is, as the definition of society is basically a group of people that think the same stuff and act the same way so they can get along) Maybe major news outlets are just so bad at their job that it causes people that question their motives to create a lot of fluff that isn't there. That'd be funny, but nice. The next thing is wisdom, the ability to discern fact from fiction and whether it matters in any given situation. I'm honestly not here to change anyone's mind. I'm here to make sure that more than one viewpoint is provided in this thread. There's others too, and I appreciate their effort.
Conspiracy theorists like to think they're engaging in critical thinking, when in reality they are most of the time only looking for any source that supports their pre-conceived anti-mainstream beliefs and claims, regardless of its quality. That's not engaging in critical thinking - it's the exact opposite.
You claiming that CNN deliberately cut off the soldier is a clear example of this and of a lack of critical thinking. Your statement was not supported by any factual evidence (in fact, as someone explained, the factual evidence available quite clearly pointed in the direction of a technical difficulty) but was instead the product of your personal beliefs regarding the "mainstream media" and its relation to Ron Paul. There was not an once of critical thinking in your post.
|
On January 06 2012 00:06 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 00:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 06 2012 00:01 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 23:57 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 05 2012 23:49 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 23:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 05 2012 23:40 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 23:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 05 2012 23:31 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 23:21 Velr wrote:
[quote]
ROFL
You guys are advocatin free speak over anything.. But suddenly when some guy wears a uniform it's diffrent? Are you serious?
You can blatantly lie about the Holocaust and preach total bullshit lies that insult entire communites/countreis/religions but you can't give your polticial opinion while wearing the us-uniform?
fucking lol. It's the same thing as any employer - you can have free speech, but if they don't like it they can fire you. In this case it's bit murkier since he's employed by the government, but it's still the same principle. In most European countries your employer wouldn't have the right to fire you for saying something he doesn't like without paying you compensation, unless it could be considered as an offense (in France: faute grave). Now the military is a very special thing and derogates to most of these rules, for obvious reasons. I'm sure if you have a contract of something you will be compensated as it requires, but I doubt a McDonalds employ is going to get any direct compensation for being fired because he supports pot reform. They'd probably be able to get unemployment benefits though. He would. You have the right to support pot reform and expressing an opinion that doesn't hurt anybody (it's not racist / homophobic / sexist etc...) can't be considered as a faute grave (serious offense, the only way to fire someone without compensation). If he is under a permanent contract, he would get very big compensation for being fired without a reason. Mc Donald's or not. Well, I'm glad I don't live in Europe. I disagree with not being able to fire someone without compensation unless the compensation was previously agreed upon. I also disagree with the government determining what speech is offensive. Different things offend different people and regulating that seems unwise to me. Well I'm glad I don't live in the US where your boss has all power upon you, and can decide that you fuck off and ruin your life just because that morning he didn't like your face. I am happy and proud live in a society where people are somehow protected from the ones who are richer or further in the hierarchy of their company. Because maybe you guys didn't notice but oppression doesn't always come from the State. Your model of society is a feudalism. Except that instead of being kings, dukes, barons and at the bottom serfs each of them having right of life and death on the one below them who have strictly no rights, it's shareholders, CEO's, Managers, qualified employee and asshole who clean the floor, each of them having the right to decide that the one below will be unemployed and lose everything if he doesn't like him or his opinions. Yup. I like the fact that I can tell you to fuck off if I don't like you and run my personal business how I see fit. If that means running your business into the ground because you fire everyone you disagree with, go right ahead. Anyways, good talking to you again Biff. Hopefully you never get in the situation of being unemployed at 50 without any perspective in life because your legislation didn't judge useful to give you guarantee against your abusive CEO. It would risk to make you change your perspective, and it's so much nicer and easier to always take the side of the rich and the powerful. It was a pleasure We still have unemployment benefits. Even if you're fired you can still get them.
In many circumstances, you HAVE to be fired to get them. Quitting voluntarily gets you nothing from the government, at least in Texas.
|
On January 06 2012 00:40 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 23:58 NtroP wrote:On January 05 2012 21:57 Derez wrote:On January 05 2012 14:44 NtroP wrote:
I can understand your point of view. When I was 20 or so, I was firmly on the other side of the fence. Then I visited slashdot for 10 years. Also, during this time period I got very good at using google to research whatever tickled my fancy.
Now, I trust what I can research and prove using the tools *I* have. Everything else I am skeptical of. That's just standard conspiracy talk for 'even tho noone believes me, I know I'm right, because I found an incredibly biased youtube clip that said so'. One of the downsides of the internet is that you can find 'proof' for pretty much anything if you look hard and long enough. Here is a quote from the first 2 sentences on wikipedia for CRITICAL THINKING "Critical thinking is the process of thinking that questions assumptions. It is a way of deciding whether a claim is true, false; sometimes true, or partly true." I'd call it critical thinking. The ability to question what is presented to you as fact. In fact, the people that you call conspiracy theorists, might just be people that think critically about what is presented to them on tv. Maybe they shouldn't do that. Maybe questioning what others assume is true is deviant and destructive. (by definition, it is, as the definition of society is basically a group of people that think the same stuff and act the same way so they can get along) Maybe major news outlets are just so bad at their job that it causes people that question their motives to create a lot of fluff that isn't there. That'd be funny, but nice. The next thing is wisdom, the ability to discern fact from fiction and whether it matters in any given situation. I'm honestly not here to change anyone's mind. I'm here to make sure that more than one viewpoint is provided in this thread. There's others too, and I appreciate their effort. Conspiracy theorists like to think they're engaging in critical thinking, when in reality they are most of the time only looking for any source that supports their pre-conceived anti-mainstream beliefs and claims, regardless of its quality. That's not engaging in critical thinking - it's the exact opposite. You claiming that CNN deliberately cut off the soldier is a clear example of this and of a lack of critical thinking. Your statement was not supported by any factual evidence (in fact, as someone explained, the factual evidence available quite clearly pointed in the direction of a technical difficulty) but was instead the product of your personal beliefs regarding the "mainstream media" and its relation to Ron Paul. There was not an once of critical thinking in your post.
Indeed. As I wrote earlier (I hope, I can't find my post anymore...), the single biggest reason speaking against this being a deliberate cutoff is that they had the interview in the first place.
|
On January 06 2012 00:40 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 23:58 NtroP wrote:On January 05 2012 21:57 Derez wrote:On January 05 2012 14:44 NtroP wrote:
I can understand your point of view. When I was 20 or so, I was firmly on the other side of the fence. Then I visited slashdot for 10 years. Also, during this time period I got very good at using google to research whatever tickled my fancy.
Now, I trust what I can research and prove using the tools *I* have. Everything else I am skeptical of. That's just standard conspiracy talk for 'even tho noone believes me, I know I'm right, because I found an incredibly biased youtube clip that said so'. One of the downsides of the internet is that you can find 'proof' for pretty much anything if you look hard and long enough. Here is a quote from the first 2 sentences on wikipedia for CRITICAL THINKING "Critical thinking is the process of thinking that questions assumptions. It is a way of deciding whether a claim is true, false; sometimes true, or partly true." I'd call it critical thinking. The ability to question what is presented to you as fact. In fact, the people that you call conspiracy theorists, might just be people that think critically about what is presented to them on tv. Maybe they shouldn't do that. Maybe questioning what others assume is true is deviant and destructive. (by definition, it is, as the definition of society is basically a group of people that think the same stuff and act the same way so they can get along) Maybe major news outlets are just so bad at their job that it causes people that question their motives to create a lot of fluff that isn't there. That'd be funny, but nice. The next thing is wisdom, the ability to discern fact from fiction and whether it matters in any given situation. I'm honestly not here to change anyone's mind. I'm here to make sure that more than one viewpoint is provided in this thread. There's others too, and I appreciate their effort. Conspiracy theorists like to think they're engaging in critical thinking, when in reality they are most of the time only looking for any source that supports their pre-conceived anti-mainstream beliefs and claims, regardless of its quality. That's not engaging in critical thinking - it's the exact opposite. You claiming that CNN deliberately cut off the soldier is a clear example of this and of a lack of critical thinking. Your statement was not supported by any factual evidence (in fact, as someone explained, the factual evidence available quite clearly pointed in the direction of a technical difficulty) but was instead the product of your personal beliefs regarding the "mainstream media" and its relation to Ron Paul. There was not an once of critical thinking in your post.
Call me a conspiracy theorist again instead of actually engaging me.
What is the factual evidence available? Here are the facts: A Ron Paul supporter was cut off (intentionally or not) after mentioning 1. His stance against war with Iran, and 2. That Egypt doesn't need us to defend them. Notice that audio only interrupts on specific words.
What has been in the media A LOT recently? That we need to go to war with Iran. That Iran has nukes. That Iran has a drone of ours and we should invade to get it back. Have you seen any dissenting views on the news at all? Also, there has been a lot of news about Israel recently to the effect that they are our good buddies and need us badly or they will be crushed by hatred on all sides. Have you seen any dissenting views on the news at all?
Have you ever heard of the phrase that there are two sides to every story? If you don't consider both sides, you'll never be thinking critically. Why do we never hear two sides on certain issues on the news ever? Technically, good reporting would insist that both sides of the story are necessary to properly cover any story. Pay attention. Think critically.
Ultimately it comes down to either massive coincidence or a political agenda. Now, I could go back and research what exactly causes satellite signals to go out, find out if there was any evidence of that on that date and make conclusions from a position of being well informed. However, I haven't seen evidence that you could think critically about that information if I presented it, so I'm not going to bother. So I'm going to allow that it could be either. In my mind it's extremely likely that it was intentional, but it wouldn't rock my world if it wasn't. Can you do the same?
|
On January 06 2012 01:30 NtroP wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 00:40 kwizach wrote:On January 05 2012 23:58 NtroP wrote:On January 05 2012 21:57 Derez wrote:On January 05 2012 14:44 NtroP wrote:
I can understand your point of view. When I was 20 or so, I was firmly on the other side of the fence. Then I visited slashdot for 10 years. Also, during this time period I got very good at using google to research whatever tickled my fancy.
Now, I trust what I can research and prove using the tools *I* have. Everything else I am skeptical of. That's just standard conspiracy talk for 'even tho noone believes me, I know I'm right, because I found an incredibly biased youtube clip that said so'. One of the downsides of the internet is that you can find 'proof' for pretty much anything if you look hard and long enough. Here is a quote from the first 2 sentences on wikipedia for CRITICAL THINKING "Critical thinking is the process of thinking that questions assumptions. It is a way of deciding whether a claim is true, false; sometimes true, or partly true." I'd call it critical thinking. The ability to question what is presented to you as fact. In fact, the people that you call conspiracy theorists, might just be people that think critically about what is presented to them on tv. Maybe they shouldn't do that. Maybe questioning what others assume is true is deviant and destructive. (by definition, it is, as the definition of society is basically a group of people that think the same stuff and act the same way so they can get along) Maybe major news outlets are just so bad at their job that it causes people that question their motives to create a lot of fluff that isn't there. That'd be funny, but nice. The next thing is wisdom, the ability to discern fact from fiction and whether it matters in any given situation. I'm honestly not here to change anyone's mind. I'm here to make sure that more than one viewpoint is provided in this thread. There's others too, and I appreciate their effort. Conspiracy theorists like to think they're engaging in critical thinking, when in reality they are most of the time only looking for any source that supports their pre-conceived anti-mainstream beliefs and claims, regardless of its quality. That's not engaging in critical thinking - it's the exact opposite. You claiming that CNN deliberately cut off the soldier is a clear example of this and of a lack of critical thinking. Your statement was not supported by any factual evidence (in fact, as someone explained, the factual evidence available quite clearly pointed in the direction of a technical difficulty) but was instead the product of your personal beliefs regarding the "mainstream media" and its relation to Ron Paul. There was not an once of critical thinking in your post. Call me a conspiracy theorist again instead of actually engaging me. What is the factual evidence available? Here are the facts: A Ron Paul supporter was cut off (intentionally or not) after mentioning 1. His stance against war with Iran, and 2. That Egypt doesn't need us to defend them. Notice that audio only interrupts on specific words.What has been in the media A LOT recently? That we need to go to war with Iran. That Iran has nukes. That Iran has a drone of ours and we should invade to get it back. Have you seen any dissenting views on the news at all? Also, there has been a lot of news about Israel recently to the effect that they are our good buddies and need us badly or they will be crushed by hatred on all sides. Have you seen any dissenting views on the news at all? Have you ever heard of the phrase that there are two sides to every story? If you don't consider both sides, you'll never be thinking critically. Why do we never hear two sides on certain issues on the news ever? Technically, good reporting would insist that both sides of the story are necessary to properly cover any story. Pay attention. Think critically. Ultimately it comes down to either massive coincidence or a political agenda. Now, I could go back and research what exactly causes satellite signals to go out, find out if there was any evidence of that on that date and make conclusions from a position of being well informed. However, I haven't seen evidence that you could think critically about that information if I presented it, so I'm not going to bother. So I'm going to allow that it could be either. In my mind it's extremely likely that it was intentional, but it wouldn't rock my world if it wasn't. Can you do the same?
The serious business now: is Tupac involved in the plot?
User was warned for this post
|
Check this out guys
CNN Iowa Caucus--Vote by Age
--------------Paul..........Santorum.......Romney
17-24.........50%..........21%..............13%
25-29.........45%..........27%..............12%
30-39.........34%..........30%..............17%
40-49.........17%..........25%..............23%
50-64.........15%..........27%..............26%
65+...........11%..........20%..............33%
Obviously the young people want freedom while the old guys are comforted by ... Jesus , no drugs and soft information ?
Oh and by the way Biff , you're kinda coming out as rational reductionist hatin on the people who do not believe.. you know , the status quo and the major news outlets .
|
On January 06 2012 01:59 bOneSeven wrote:
Check this out guys
CNN Iowa Caucus--Vote by Age
--------------Paul..........Santorum.......Romney
17-24.........50%..........21%..............13%
25-29.........45%..........27%..............12%
30-39.........34%..........30%..............17%
40-49.........17%..........25%..............23%
50-64.........15%..........27%..............26%
65+...........11%..........20%..............33%
Obviously the young people want freedom while the old guys are comforted by ... Jesus , no drugs and soft information ?
Oh and by the way Biff , you're kinda coming out as rational reductionist hatin on the people who do not believe.. you know , the status quo and the major news outlets .
Or the young people are the most easily misled by promises that are too good to be true/sane...
|
liberty and peace officially too good to be sane in 2012. Society sure has come far.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
