Rukina Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 4 minutes ago, Hylian Air Force said: I can see Dakota Access getting bombed at some point. The Corps of Engineers are probably going to need actual personnel guarding them while they get it built to prevent a terrorist from blowing the pipeline. I highly doubt that will happen. The Native Americans there don't want to use violence as a form of resistance and the only person I've heard of who tried to brandish a weapon in a threatening way was a person affiliated with the companies behind the pipeline posing as a protestor. They already have the national guard, police, missile launchers, and a sound cannon along with a bunch of other measures set up in advance to make sure nothing gets in the way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radiant head Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 violence is bad folks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raumata Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 18 minutes ago, Radiant head said: violence is bad folks! Way to be fucking condescending. That viewpoint is just as valid as your stupid one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radiant head Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 I'm sorry ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raumata Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 (edited) ...Fuck. I now look like an asshole. Sorry for lashing out. Edited February 24, 2017 by Raumata Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 7 minutes ago, Raumata said: ...Fuck. I now look like an asshole. Sorry for lashing out. Actually, you don't, and if you were getting out of line, I'd step in and say something (which I haven't, until now). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raumata Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 (edited) 5 minutes ago, eclipse said: Actually, you don't, and if you were getting out of line, I'd step in and say something (which I haven't, until now). Felt I was out of line. I could have phrased it nicely at the very least. Edited February 24, 2017 by Raumata Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moblin Major General Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 7 minutes ago, Raumata said: Felt I was out of line. I could have phrased it nicely at the very least. This subforum tends to do that to people. You can be nice anywhere else, but step into Serious Discussion, make sure to pull out your knife so you can at least defend yourself. It's a terrible travesty that internet debate, even in places that safeguard against flaming, trolling, and the like can still generate such vitriol, but all the hope in the world can't change the internet, and never will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Hylian Air Force said: This subforum tends to do that to people. You can be nice anywhere else, but step into Serious Discussion, make sure to pull out your knife so you can at least defend yourself. It's a terrible travesty that internet debate, even in places that safeguard against flaming, trolling, and the like can still generate such vitriol, but all the hope in the world can't change the internet, and never will. What? If your goal is to "win", you've already lost the debate (because you're not going to change people by arguing with them over the Internet, and you'll MOST DEFINITELY piss me off if you or anyone else argues this point). Use this as a place to see what others think, and why, and it'll be much more rewarding. Edited February 24, 2017 by eclipse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radiant head Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 my point was that the state is inherently super violent and uses that violence to brutally enforce the will of capitalist interests against people whose water will be poisoned now. which is why complaining about violence from direct action protesting is a double standard sorry should have been less flippant about it, but wasn't supposed to be a meaningless statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rukina Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Radiant head said: violence is bad folks! Violence can be a good thing when used wisely. Edit: Oh... I thought that was a general statement. Edited February 24, 2017 by Sarracenia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moblin Major General Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 8 minutes ago, eclipse said: What? If your goal is to "win", you've already lost the debate. Use this as a place to see what others think, and why, and it'll be much more rewarding. That post was a mistake. I need to remember that the only people who fight like dogs are the most vocal ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Res Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 So Trump banned the BBC, CNN, Daily Mail (hahaha), NY Times, Buzzfeed, The Hill and LA Times from the White House briefing. Interesting selection; why the BBC but not Washington Post? Why the Daily Mail (whose demographic is right up Trump's alley)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moblin Major General Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 13 minutes ago, Res said: So Trump banned the BBC, CNN, Daily Mail (hahaha), NY Times, Buzzfeed, The Hill and LA Times from the White House briefing. Interesting selection; why the BBC but not Washington Post? Why the Daily Mail (whose demographic is right up Trump's alley)? BBC is sometimes Labour-aligned, CNN is obvious, Daily Mail is actual fake news, as is Buzzfeed, both Times newspapers are super liberal, and the Hill I'm not familiar with. As for the WP, I feel it has something to do with being one of the more traditional newspapers(and it has a catchy theme song). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 Buzzfeed News is not fake news. New York Times is very trusted independent journalism. Thank god that WP is allowed in there. The Hill is very reliable for by-the-book news. They don't do journalism, they just report on the news. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Res Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 Even if the BBC is often 'Labour aligned' (although that means very little, and Labour is a pretty centrist party), the BBC is a respected news corporation and is significantly less partisan and more factual than most. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 20 minutes ago, Hylian Air Force said: BBC is sometimes Labour-aligned, CNN is obvious, Daily Mail is actual fake news, as is Buzzfeed, both Times newspapers are super liberal, and the Hill I'm not familiar with. As for the WP, I feel it has something to do with being one of the more traditional newspapers(and it has a catchy theme song). Buzzfeed has two modes: 1. The shitpost mode, that generates revenue. 2. The in-depth news mode, which is funded by the above. This is probably why Buzzfeed isn't invited. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moblin Major General Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 Just now, eclipse said: This is probably why Buzzfeed isn't invited. Why I referred to it as Fake News. If there are no sources, it shouldn't be considered news. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 1 minute ago, Hylian Air Force said: Why I referred to it as Fake News. If there are no sources, it shouldn't be considered news. If it were 35 pages of glowing, unverified commentary about Trump, I think they'd still be invited. Since it was critical of him (as well as being unverified), he has an excuse to tell them to get lost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Hylian Air Force said: Why I referred to it as Fake News. If there are no sources, it shouldn't be considered news. That article is referring to the dossier, which they simply publicized. The dossier exists, Trump and Obama were briefed on it, it was forwarded by a British intelligence agent and it was spread around by John McCain to the FBI. The article in question claimed that the report remains unverified, but it is being spread around journalism circles and various members of the US Government. That's not fake news. That's recklessness with sensitive material. Edited February 25, 2017 by Lord Raven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Res Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 Fox News apparently had a fake Swedish 'security expert' (and convicted criminal) on their show last week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Time the Crestfallen Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 3 minutes ago, Res said: Fox News apparently had a fake Swedish 'security expert' (and convicted criminal) on their show last week. Is it telling I knew the segment was going to be about immigration before I opened the link? Not exactly shocking. Fox News is only slightly above Breitbart in terms of credibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 17 hours ago, Hylian Air Force said: BBC is sometimes Labour-aligned, CNN is obvious, Daily Mail is actual fake news, as is Buzzfeed, both Times newspapers are super liberal, and the Hill I'm not familiar with. As for the WP, I feel it has something to do with being one of the more traditional newspapers(and it has a catchy theme song). what kind of argument is this? liberal news outlets don't deserve to attend a press briefing with the white house now, but the likes of breitbart are ok? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augestein Posted February 26, 2017 Share Posted February 26, 2017 Agreed. If anything, you'd want those people there to keep viewers of those sources somewhat content. Now you're just blatantly making it so that people have a reason to rage. Also, is anyone going to comment on the fact that Trump is now talking about how the economy has gotten better due to his time in office despite: 1) These being natural fluctuations. 2) Him not sending any real economic orders / changes. 3) Even if he did, any orders he did wouldn't be able to change anything so rapidly? Like it's one thing for Trump to be bad at foreign policies, social politics, or even federal understandings, but finance should be his element. He should definitely know better about this. Like... What exactly IS this guy's level of education? Like I'm being dead serious on that one, I haven't bothered to look into it, but he's much older than most of us, and he doesn't seem to know anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radiant head Posted February 26, 2017 Share Posted February 26, 2017 (edited) he doesn't care, he just wants to take credit for anything "good" that happens he's also pandering to a base that doesn't understand or care how it works Edited February 26, 2017 by Radiant head Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.