[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Thanks for yet again demonstrating your ignorance, if anybody still had any doubts. I am a socialist exactly because I understand how capitalism works.[/quote]
Wrong again little Ryan - - You are a socialist because you’ve bought into some of your nutty professors illogical conclusions. As far as “knowing” how capitalism works you’ll get there in a few years.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:Not skewing anything, it is what it is. Do you even know the definition of propaganda? It’s not the thing itself that makes something propaganda, it’s how the thing is used.
[i]Definition of PROPAGANDA
1capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions
2: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect [/i]
I should be charging you tuition.[/quote]
But you have yet to show how this is supposed to “further the cause” of terrorists. How is playing a relevant video of a real event propagada? The burden IS on you to prove your wildass allegation. What you’re saying is telling the truth supports terrorists, and strikes right at the heart of freedom of the press, and thus, freedom.
Don’t you dare come in here talking about freedom when you’re advocating the muzzling of what little effective journalism we have left.
So once again, I desire that you actually support your argument, instead of assuming what you’re trying to prove, which is what you’re doing now. By your logic, we shouldn’t show footage of any crimes, either, since this is “propaganda” that “emboldens criminals.”
You need to buy (and read) a book on basic logic, because you honestly don’t seem to understand how it works (which is, of course, why you are a right winger).[/quote]
I’ve already listed why I believe this video is propaganda as defined by the above definition. Go back and reread it, twice if needed, I don’t feel like spoon feeding you again.
But since you purport to have a love of basic logic, riddle me this: Why would the insurgents take the time to video the killing and send it to CNN, if they didn’t envision some benefit in doing so?
Oooooooh, I get it! The insurgents are…JOURNALISTS! They were just doing their journalistic duty, and getting the “information” out to the world. Damnit, why didn’t I see that? Thanks Ryan for setting me straight./sarcasm
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
First of all, I watch CNN all the time.[/quote]
Golly, I would’ve never guessed. The coffee house probably has it on all the time, huh?
Except for that time when they DID show footage of a US soldier getting his brains blown out. Remember, this was after they made the decision a “news organization” that they didn’t want to play “overly graphic” videos that would unnecessarily “rile up” the people. I suppose they are willing to bend their rules when they get videos sent to the personally by the insurgents. I suppose that’s different.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:Second of all, don’t complain about selective reporting when you cheer it on when Fox does it. It’s quite obvious you don’t give a shit about honest reporting–you’re an ideologue with an axe to grind, and you want news that confirms what you believe.
Third, sorry, you don’t get to decide what is and is not news. When brain-dead military fetishists like you start a war and send people to die in another country, it’s news when they actually die.[/quote]
I swear to god, you are the absolute king of strawman argumentation. This is a point in which you begin to go off the deep end. I’ve never cheered on any selective reporting of any news organization. Again, you need to quote me on this, or shut your Marxist pie hole.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
You don’t have to tell me this, I already know. All the telltale signs are there–the total disregard for any type of logical thought when the subject of the military is broached by itself is a dead giveaway.
Furthermore, thanking the members of the world’s largest terrorist organization is not something I would even consider doing. I’d just as soon shake the hand of an Al Qaeda member or former SS officer.[/quote]
And there you have it folks,…true colors. It’s always good to see someone come out of their shell, even if it’s all creepy and stuff. I’ve read that college campuses are targeted by terrorist organizations for recruitment of the more radical students. Tell me ryan, how’s your recruitment going?
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
If they did it because they thought it would “embolden the enemy,” then yes.
Here’s the bottom line: I don’t care how you have to dress it up for yourself so that your doublethink is satisfied; CNN (or any other news organization) has a right to play relevant video from a major story like the war. The Wikileaks documents have revealed to what extent the government has gone to in order to try and hide the details of this war from Americans. We don’t need news outlets shying away from showing anything that they have. We need more war information, not less.
Perhaps they should show “discretion” and only show grisly footage of our troops murdering civilians and torturing prisoners. No American deaths. Would that be satisfying to you?
It was not propaganda, no matter how bad you want it to be so that you can feel better about trying to deny someone their first amendment rights. Propaganda involves selective or misleading advertisement of certain aspects of a situation. The brutal killing of a US serviceman is not propaganda–it’s just reality, and the people need to see it.[/quote]
The above would be funny if it weren’t so pathetic. You attempt to define propaganda, and get it blazingly wrong, even after I GAVE you the very definition. You, ryan, have the intelligence of a bucket of mule piss.
Spin this in any direction that makes you feel better, but CNN did in fact turn themselves into the publisher of enemy propaganda. All under the guise of “journalism”.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:Do some learning boy and then come back. Posting links to biased websites proves nothing.
Wrong again regarding NASA and CRU. Different data, different methodology. You really need to go back to school on this subject. [/quote]
It proves more than talking out of your ass with no accompanying documentation does. You see, in a rational debate, some evidence beats no evidence every time, so sorry, you’re losing at this point.
Furthermore, you display an unfamiliarity with logical debate, since you say that a biased website proves nothing, but then you’ve neither shown that the website is actually biased, nor that the facts it states are incorrect. Indeed, a biased website can still be correct.
So just to underscore how pathetic your response is, I’ll just post this:
You may not have thought about this, but just to let you know, if your statements are factually refuted with accompanying data, it’s not the other person’s “fault.” You’re wrong, and you need to stop being a baby and acknowledge reality. It’s no shame to admit that you were wrong.
[/quote]
You realize NASA works with satellite data and the CRU counts tree rings from 1000’s of years ago?
Completely different data sets.
Anyone that claims differently is a huge liar. I don’t see how this is even a point of discussion.
I mean seriously, your link shows how since 1960 they have had to throw away tree ring data because it does not match the satellite data.
It demonstrates how inaccurate ALL the CRU tree ring data is!!!
I am not sure what your point is but these clowns pick and choose data to tell the story they want.
The media, including CNN in your other link backs up their lie without any investigation whatsoever.
You should be embarrassed.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Thanks for yet again demonstrating your ignorance, if anybody still had any doubts. I am a socialist exactly because I understand how capitalism works.[/quote]
Wrong again little Ryan - - You are a socialist because you’ve bought into some of your nutty professors illogical conclusions. As far as “knowing” how capitalism works you’ll get there in a few years. [/quote]
Haha, which ones? My math teachers, physics tecahers, or engineering teachers? Which ones propagandize their students?
Or are you simply out of things to say?
this is why I only listen to Michale Savage. That old crazy bastard hates EVERYBODY equally. Listening and laughing hysterically to his show is one of my guilty pleasures, like midget porn, AM/PM hot-dogs, and strangling homeless people.
Now you’re pulling a ZEB, and directing to me to fictitious explanations. Where did you explain it? I went back and looked, and all I found was this:
“I’m talking about showing a propaganda video supplied by terrorists (insurgents-whatever) glorifying their killing of a US soldier.”
Here, you claim that it is a propaganda video, and claim that it glorifies the killing of a US soldier. You do not explain what makes it propaganda, and though you claim it glorifies the killing, you offer no evidence to show that it actually does.
Nothing. Then there’s this:
“Not skewing anything, it is what it is. Do you even know the definition of propaganda? It’s not the thing itself that makes something propaganda, it’s how the thing is used.”
Again, you claim that it is propaganda. So no, you’ve done absolutely nothing to explain HOW this is propaganda. US Army recruiting commercials are propaganda. Simply SAYING that a video is propaganda does not make it so. Everything you have claimed rests on your warped interpretations of the world and is not authoritative.
First of all, I don’t know that they did. You just claimed that they did, but your claims are always highly suspect. But even if they did, like you said, it’s not propaganda unless it is used in a certain way. Showing the video on a news broadcast is not propaganda if all it shows is the death of an American. If it’s a music video or something, showing rich, popular terrorists killing Americans, then I’d agree with you.
Not really sure what you’re trying to say here. If you’re attempting to mock me for watching the least partisan network left, sue me.
But they ALSO played the 9/11 attacks “that time.” So if you’re going to piss and moan about them playing a video of an American being killed “that time” then you CANNOT criticize them for not playing the 9/11 attacks, since they also played them “that time.” Moron.
If this:
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/anderson.cooper.360/blog/2006/10/why-we-aired-sniper-video.html
is what you’re talking about, it says thee screen went black before the rounds hit. Just like they’ll play footage of the twin towers burning, but won’t show the impact. Again, same difference. The only difference is this one makes your military boner soft, so you don’t want them to play it. Tough. Change the channel.
You posted this quote, supporting it:
“Although Fox News emerges as conservative, it is not nearly as far to the right as many outlets are to the left[…]”
Then, ZEB posted this:
“bigflamer there are two things that you can be sure of. The first is that the media has a gigantic lean to the left and it has for quite sometime. It is reflected in many different ways[…]”
And you replied with: “Right, and logically this makes sense.”
These indicate that you believe the hilarious myths about the “liberal media” and think that Fox is an effective counterbalance.
True colors. Indeed. I suffer from a painful consistency and unwillingness to ocmpromise principles. I dislike murderers and terrorists no matter where they come from, unlike you, who urge people to shake their hands so long as they were born in the right place.
You’ve just proven you’re so hopelessly brainwashed (this might be technically applicable to someone who lacks a brain, but I digress…) that it would pointless to continue correcting you.
I’ll just give you some advice: actually learn some history before you get so sanctimonious. It’s obvious you don’t know much.
Ah, insults. The last refuge of an ideologue whose world view is crumbling.
You gave me A definition. I’m using THE definition that has always been used. Even holding to the definition you posted, it STILL does not meet the criteria, and you have yet to explain otherwise.
I’ll tell you this one more time, since you’re obviously unacquainted with logical discourse: you cannot assume what you wish to prove.
Haha, is this supposed to make me feel bad? After I’ve schooled you in another “debate?” You have no case, you ignored half of my post, and you assume what you’re trying to show. You have no case, and you know it.
Keep the insults coming. That’s one way I know I’m on the right track.
Change your tampon and come back, hopefully with an actual explanation (still waiting…) of how this is propaganda, and someone might take you seriously.
[quote]heavythrower wrote:
this is why I only listen to Michale Savage. That old crazy bastard hates EVERYBODY equally. Listening and laughing hysterically to his show is one of my guilty pleasures, like midget porn, AM/PM hot-dogs, and strangling homeless people. [/quote]
I am with you on this.
[quote]heavythrower wrote:
this is why I only listen to Michale Savage. That old crazy bastard hates EVERYBODY equally. Listening and laughing hysterically to his show is one of my guilty pleasures, like midget porn, AM/PM hot-dogs, and strangling homeless people. [/quote]
You sir, are spot on with this. I listen to him most nights and it’s certainly not because I agree with, or think he’s right about everything he says. His show is just…entertaining. I find myself thinking, “I wonder what that crazy old bastard Savage thinks about this?”
LOL
[quote]Big Banana wrote:You realize NASA works with satellite data and the CRU counts tree rings from 1000’s of years ago?
Completely different data sets.
Anyone that claims differently is a huge liar. I don’t see how this is even a point of discussion.
[/quote]
Uhhh, no, you just don’t have the faintest idea what you’re talking about (surprise!). In fact, CRU’s main area of research was the CRUTEM instrumental temperature record, which, as I said, matches very closely the data generated by other organizations:
Maybe you should rethink your accusations about lying. You look pretty silly right now. In fact, even if CRU’s data was completely thrown out, it barely makes a dent in the scientific evidence of warming.
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
I mean seriously, your link shows how since 1960 they have had to throw away tree ring data because it does not match the satellite data.
It demonstrates how inaccurate ALL the CRU tree ring data is!!!
I am not sure what your point is but these clowns pick and choose data to tell the story they want.
The media, including CNN in your other link backs up their lie without any investigation whatsoever.
You should be embarrassed.[/quote]
As long as you keep responding to my documented claims with vague and unsupported conspiracy theorist posts, I’m going to continue alternately laughing and crying at you.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:You realize NASA works with satellite data and the CRU counts tree rings from 1000’s of years ago?
Completely different data sets.
Anyone that claims differently is a huge liar. I don’t see how this is even a point of discussion.
[/quote]
Uhhh, no, you just don’t have the faintest idea what you’re talking about (surprise!). In fact, CRU’s main area of research was the CRUTEM instrumental temperature record, which, as I said, matches very closely the data generated by other organizations:
Maybe you should rethink your accusations about lying. You look pretty silly right now. In fact, even if CRU’s data was completely thrown out, it barely makes a dent in the scientific evidence of warming.[/quote]
Wrong.
And you keep posting a link that does not support your points.
Is this your method of internet arguing?
Pathetic.
[quote]Big Banana wrote:Wrong.
And you keep posting a link that does not support your points.
Is this your method of internet arguing?
Pathetic.[/quote]
“One set of allegations against CRU concern its main area of research, the instrumental temperature record CRUTEM. The CRUTEM analysis is very similar to those produced by independent groups such as NASAâ??s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and NOAAâ??s National Climatic Data Center (NCDC).”
“ollowing Climategate, several amateur climate bloggers have attempted their own analyses of global temperature trends, and arrived at very similar results to CRU, GISS, and NCDC.”
HAHA!
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:Wrong.
And you keep posting a link that does not support your points.
Is this your method of internet arguing?
Pathetic.[/quote]
“One set of allegations against CRU concern its main area of research, the instrumental temperature record CRUTEM. The CRUTEM analysis is very similar to those produced by independent groups such as NASAâ??s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and NOAAâ??s National Climatic Data Center (NCDC).”
“ollowing Climategate, several amateur climate bloggers have attempted their own analyses of global temperature trends, and arrived at very similar results to CRU, GISS, and NCDC.”
HAHA![/quote]
You don’t have the faintest idea what you are posting.
Maybe you don’t, but I do.
You made the incorrect assertion that:
“You realize NASA works with satellite data and the CRU counts tree rings from 1000’s of years ago?”
implying that all CRU did was count tree rings. As I said, this is wrong, and the post I made shows your mistake. What a reasonable human being would do, being confronted with irreproachable evidence of a mistake, is to simply admit his obvious error and go on with his life, very slightly smarter for the experience.
Let’s see what you do.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Now you’re pulling a ZEB, and directing to me to fictitious explanations. Where did you explain it? I went back and looked, and all I found was this:
“I’m talking about showing a propaganda video supplied by terrorists (insurgents-whatever) glorifying their killing of a US soldier.”
Here, you claim that it is a propaganda video, and claim that it glorifies the killing of a US soldier. You do not explain what makes it propaganda, and though you claim it glorifies the killing, you offer no evidence to show that it actually does.
Nothing. Then there’s this:
“Not skewing anything, it is what it is. Do you even know the definition of propaganda? It’s not the thing itself that makes something propaganda, it’s how the thing is used.”
Again, you claim that it is propaganda. So no, you’ve done absolutely nothing to explain HOW this is propaganda. US Army recruiting commercials are propaganda. Simply SAYING that a video is propaganda does not make it so. Everything you have claimed rests on your warped interpretations of the world and is not authoritative.[/quote]
Sorry ryan, but I did indeed say this a wee bit earlier in the thread:
Here you show your complete lack of ability to understand the subject matter. You think this is about the insurgents seeing the video on CNN? WTF!? It emboldens the enemy AT LARGE to continue fighting, to step up the attacks, to give the illusion that they are winning, to convince the enemy that there is no hope, to help in their recruitment, to…EMBOLDEN them. Get it? or do I need to get out the crayons. Google the definition of embolden, I don’t feel like doing it for you.
I’d further add, that this video, being prominently presented on a national network like CNN, would also add to the insurgents benefit by bolstering their money line. This would be akin to drawing “investors” to the cause by displaying both their tactical ability, AND their ability to manipulate the American media to their benefit.
Even though this is not a complex idea for an individual to wrap their head around, I don’t mind walking you through the process. I’m awesome like that.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
But since you purport to have a love of basic logic, riddle me this: Why would the insurgents take the time to video the killing and send it to CNN, if they didn’t envision some benefit in doing so?[/quote]
First of all, I don’t know that they did. You just claimed that they did, but your claims are always highly suspect. But even if they did, like you said, it’s not propaganda unless it is used in a certain way. Showing the video on a news broadcast is not propaganda if all it shows is the death of an American. If it’s a music video or something, showing rich, popular terrorists killing Americans, then I’d agree with you. [/quote]
CNN said that they did. This of course was located in the link I provided earlier, that you can’t seem to recall. Of course, we’ve already documented your inability to research something as simple as a PWI thread.
LOL…you’re not very good at this are you ryan.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Except for that time when they DID show footage of a US soldier getting his brains blown out.[/quote]
But they ALSO played the 9/11 attacks “that time.” So if you’re going to piss and moan about them playing a video of an American being killed “that time” then you CANNOT criticize them for not playing the 9/11 attacks, since they also played them “that time.” Moron.
If this:
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/anderson.cooper.360/blog/2006/10/why-we-aired-sniper-video.html
is what you’re talking about, it says thee screen went black before the rounds hit. Just like they’ll play footage of the twin towers burning, but won’t show the impact. Again, same difference. The only difference is this one makes your military boner soft, so you don’t want them to play it. Tough. Change the channel. [/quote]
Ummm, kudos to CNN I suppose for blacking out the impact and not actually going “Full Metal Jacket” on us? Is that what you wanted to hear? LOL…is this your argument?
The point completely sailed over your head, son.(in foghorn leghorn voice) My point in this, is that CNN decided to stop showing the impact of the terrorists flying into the towers because they didn’t want to play “overly graphic” videos that would unnecessarily “rile up” the people. They established this as a policy prior to the video in question. They thought that a little discretion was in order in what video they show. Now, 2006 rolls around and suddenly an insurgent supplied video of this nature pops up on CNN’s radar, and it’s “news”? Why would they suddenly disregard a standard that they themselves set?
As an aside, why couldn’t CNN have simply reported on the story of insurgents supplying said videos and not ACTUALLY show the videos? Did CNN have a bias? Or are they so stupid that they would allow themselves to be manipulated so badly by a terrorist organization? In doing so, they would’ve at the very least been consistent with an already established policy. So which is it, are they stupid or are they biased?
Also, you mention bonors in your posts alot. It’s kinda wierd, do you have a hang up with bonors?
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
I swear to god, you are the absolute king of strawman argumentation. This is a point in which you begin to go off the deep end. I’ve never cheered on any selective reporting of any news organization. Again, you need to quote me on this, or shut your Marxist pie hole.[/quote]
You posted this quote, supporting it:
“Although Fox News emerges as conservative, it is not nearly as far to the right as many outlets are to the left[…]”
Then, ZEB posted this:
“bigflamer there are two things that you can be sure of. The first is that the media has a gigantic lean to the left and it has for quite sometime. It is reflected in many different ways[…]”
And you replied with: “Right, and logically this makes sense.”
These indicate that you believe the hilarious myths about the “liberal media” and think that Fox is an effective counterbalance.[/quote]
More strawman from you,…awesome.
The above quotes are spot on, and are far from proof of me “cheering on” Fox News. I absolutely do believe that they are not nearly as far to the right in their reporting as they are smeared to be. Simply saying that they are not as far to the right as many outlets are to the left does not constitute my “cheering them on”. You’re reaching.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
And there you have it folks,…true colors. It’s always good to see someone come out of their shell, even if it’s all creepy and stuff. I’ve read that college campuses are targeted by terrorist organizations for recruitment of the more radical students. Tell me ryan, how’s your recruitment going?[/quote]
True colors. Indeed. I suffer from a painful consistency and unwillingness to ocmpromise principles. I dislike murderers and terrorists no matter where they come from, unlike you, who urge people to shake their hands so long as they were born in the right place.
You’ve just proven you’re so hopelessly brainwashed (this might be technically applicable to someone who lacks a brain, but I digress…) that it would pointless to continue correcting you.
I’ll just give you some advice: actually learn some history before you get so sanctimonious. It’s obvious you don’t know much.[/quote]
What I know is, you said this:
Furthermore, thanking the members of the world’s largest terrorist organization is not something I would even consider doing. I’d just as soon shake the hand of an Al Qaeda member or former SS officer.
Here you place America’s service members on the same level as al qaeda and hitler’s SS. You’re on record as calling them “murderers ad terrorists”. You ryan, are a piece of shit, and I don’t mind saying so. For as long as you are posting on this board, I will not let you duck from making these statements. You own them.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
The above would be funny if it weren’t so pathetic.[/quote]
Ah, insults. The last refuge of an ideologue whose world view is crumbling.[/quote]
What can I say, insulting you is one of my guilty pleasures, douchebag.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
You attempt to define propaganda, and get it blazingly wrong, even after I GAVE you the very definition.[/quote]
You gave me A definition. I’m using THE definition that has always been used. Even holding to the definition you posted, it STILL does not meet the criteria, and you have yet to explain otherwise.
I’ll tell you this one more time, since you’re obviously unacquainted with logical discourse: you cannot assume what you wish to prove.[/quote]
I gave you THE definition, LOL at your trying to spin out of this. You still haven’t answered my question as to WHY the insurgents would take the time to tape the video and send copies to CNN. What did they hope to benefit from CNN playing the video? We come to the logical conclusion that if insurgents send CNN a gaggle of videos like that, that they are hoping one of them gets air time. Why would they want CNN playing videos that they took the time to record and send?
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
You, ryan, have the intelligence of a bucket of mule piss.[/quote]
Haha, is this supposed to make me feel bad? After I’ve schooled you in another “debate?” You have no case, you ignored half of my post, and you assume what you’re trying to show. You have no case, and you know it.
Keep the insults coming. That’s one way I know I’m on the right track.
Change your tampon and come back, hopefully with an actual explanation (still waiting…) of how this is propaganda, and someone might take you seriously.
[/quote]
Your head is fully entrenched in the sand here, and you’re starting to embarrass yourself. I’ve made my case, several times, you simply refuse to acknowledge that fact. You claim to “school me” when you in fact refuse to even acknowledge my points. Deny and deflect is the name of your game in every one of your “debates”.
It’s propaganda for the reasons I’ve already listed (several times)
CNN, and many of the MSM outlets are biased for the reasons I’ve already listed
And yes, I like to insult you because it’s fun for me; a guilty pleasure for me.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Maybe you don’t, but I do.
You made the incorrect assertion that:
“You realize NASA works with satellite data and the CRU counts tree rings from 1000’s of years ago?”
implying that all CRU did was count tree rings. As I said, this is wrong, and the post I made shows your mistake. What a reasonable human being would do, being confronted with irreproachable evidence of a mistake, is to simply admit his obvious error and go on with his life, very slightly smarter for the experience.
Let’s see what you do.
[/quote]
Yes, the CRU throws out the recent tree ring data and uses NASA’s when it is convenient. A different data set from what they generated.
This is completely the opposite of what you claimed earlier when you tried to make it seem that they came to the same results with different methods.
You really are showing that you are dishonest and you do not know what you are talking about. A bad combination. No wonder you get no respect.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Thanks for yet again demonstrating your ignorance, if anybody still had any doubts. I am a socialist exactly because I understand how capitalism works.[/quote]
Wrong again little Ryan - - You are a socialist because you’ve bought into some of your nutty professors illogical conclusions. As far as “knowing” how capitalism works you’ll get there in a few years. [/quote]
Haha, which ones? My math teachers, physics tecahers, or engineering teachers? Which ones propagandize their students?
Or are you simply out of things to say?[/quote]
Well tell me junior where did you develop your unnatural love for socialism. If you didn’t get from your college professors then we have to go back to High School. Did you have some commy indoctrinate you in HS? Are your mommy and daddy commy’s? This is not a hard one to figure out son, you’ve got ZERO real world experience. So tell me who lead you down this road?
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Thanks for yet again demonstrating your ignorance, if anybody still had any doubts. I am a socialist exactly because I understand how capitalism works.[/quote]
Wrong again little Ryan - - You are a socialist because you’ve bought into some of your nutty professors illogical conclusions. As far as “knowing” how capitalism works you’ll get there in a few years. [/quote]
Haha, which ones? My math teachers, physics tecahers, or engineering teachers? Which ones propagandize their students?
Or are you simply out of things to say?[/quote]
Well tell me junior where did you develop your unnatural love for socialism. If you didn’t get from your college professors then we have to go back to High School. Did you have some commy indoctrinate you in HS? Are your mommy and daddy commy’s? This is not a hard one to figure out son, you’ve got ZERO real world experience. So tell me who lead you down this road?
[quote]bigflamer wrote:Sorry ryan, but I did indeed say this a wee bit earlier in the thread:
Here you show your complete lack of ability to understand the subject matter. You think this is about the insurgents seeing the video on CNN? WTF!? It emboldens the enemy AT LARGE to continue fighting, to step up the attacks, to give the illusion that they are winning, to convince the enemy that there is no hope, to help in their recruitment, to…EMBOLDEN them. Get it? or do I need to get out the crayons. Google the definition of embolden, I don’t feel like doing it for you. [/quote]
Yes, but as I explained, your comment:
Ignoring entirely the fact that this is stupid (because it assumes that terrorist financiers make their decisions based on what CNN airs, which you ought to be embarrassed for even suggesting [by the way, I’m disappointed you didn’t work a Soros reference into this theory]), the question still stands: who cares? We’ve already established the fact that whether or not you consider it propaganda, it’s still relevant and it’s still news. So what you are saying is that if something has the ability to possibly help terrorists, it shouldn’t be played. Do you realize how far you’re going in undermining freedom of speech with this “logic?” “Uh-oh, better not play that story about that bank robbery! That would embolden the bank robbers by making them think they can get away with it!” “Better not play that story about insider trading, people might get the idea they can make a lot of money that way!” etc etc.
The bottom line is, you got your feelings hurt, so now you’re digging through your ass trying to come up with some logical reason it shouldn’t have been played, and you’ve got nothing.
It doesn’t play quite as well when I’m the one who constantly has to explain the details to you.
Wrong again. I actually read and comprehend what was written. I don’t simply assume that a post says what I want it to.
Haha. You should have a TV show.
Uh, yeah, because it’s the crux of the whole thing, jackass. How stupid is it possible for a person to be? This contest on the right to see who can give themselves the most radical lobotomy has gone too far.
I don’t know. Perhaps because playing the 9/11 footage would be beating a dead horse and would serve no purpose, since we’ve seen it a hundred times and it’s not news anymore, unlike this video at the time? That’s one possible reason. Maybe they didn’t consider it to be overly graphic which, if it did go black before impact, would be a totally reasonable judgement. If this is the case, then you might as well be agitating for Congress to ban movies and TV shows that depict the death of American soldiers. They might rile those terrorists up, too.
Furthermore, even if you disagree, and think it is overly graphic, that’s just your opinion, and you shouldn’t get so bent out of shape that others don’t agree with you. Yours is no more valid than theirs.
So in short, once again, this boils down to nothing more than you throwing a shit fit because they hurt your feelings.
Hmmm…good question! If you’re reporting on a story, and you have video, why play it? Why play relevant video? Sure, you’re on TV, but why not make it like a radio show?
Do YOU have a bias? Why are acting like the choice to NOT play the video is the obvious one? Why shouldn’t they have played the video? “It emboldens the terrorists” is not an answer.
Are you stupid? You once again fail to see that your “logic” rests entirely on your assumptions, which have been shown to be spurious. This is not a rigorous or acceptable standard for a logical argument. You have every right to hold the opinion you do, but it’s an opinion. Nothing more, and you’ve done nothing to make any other case.
Why did you use the phrase “hang up?” Are you trying to make some disgusting pun?
Of course you’re cheering them on. You deny their obvious bias and you’ve also shown the same signature resentment of reality that marks the modern conservative, and you also display the hilariously asinine “good vs evil” world view characteristic of Christians, and so of course you support and encourage them. Just admit it. Don’t worry, there’s no possibility of lowering yourself any further in my eyes.
Even The Economist magazine, hardly a bunch of leftists, acknowledges the unprecedented slant in Fox’s reporting. But, I know from experience that no amount of evidence will change your mind when you want to believe in something, so I’ll leave it alone.
The very act of pretending that they are a legitimate news outlet is cheering them on. No sane person who is trying reasonably hard to be objective could do it. Sorry to reintroduce reality.
By the way, I think it’s hilarious that, to a modern conservatives, reporting facts and occasionally asking a Congressman to answer a question is a “left-wing bias.” God, the right is greedy.
[quote]What I know is, you said this:
Furthermore, thanking the members of the world’s largest terrorist organization is not something I would even consider doing. I’d just as soon shake the hand of an Al Qaeda member or former SS officer.
Here you place America’s service members on the same level as al qaeda and hitler’s SS. You’re on record as calling them “murderers ad terrorists”. You ryan, are a piece of shit, and I don’t mind saying so. For as long as you are posting on this board, I will not let you duck from making these statements. You own them.[/quote]
Let me “duck them?” If I liked tattoos (I don’t) I’d consider getting them all down my arms and everything. You’re goddamn right I called them muderers and terrorists, because that’s what the majority if them are, and I wouldn’t think of retracting those statements.
The fact that you are a troglodyte who has never read any history and thus is unaware of the countless times the US military has participated, directly and indirectly, in the overthrow of legitimate democracies and the wholesale slaughter of innocent people does not reflect poorly on me.
So think about, and decide what you value in this life: freedom and human rights, or the dominance of the US military. They have historically been mutually exclusive.
A man of your trifling intellect must have few, so I would not dream of taking this one away from you.
Who cares? It doesn’t matter. We have the tape, it’s relevant, and you say don’t play it. The burden is on you, and you still have not explained how exactly this is propaganda.
If they sent them a bunch of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles videos to play on air, would they be propaganda too? Of course not. So obviously, the bare fact that the video came from Al Qaeda does not by itself make a video propaganda. So we’re back to square fucking one. Will you, bigflamer, finally stop equivocating and tell us how exactly this is propaganda?
You see? That was a logical conclusion. It’s amazing how terrible you are at this.
Really? Where? You’ve used a lot of childish insults, and you’ve insisted that you’re right about it “emboldening terrorists,” but you haven’t said how, and you’ve insisted that you’re right in calling it propaganda, but you haven’t said how. You’ve done a lot emoting, and not very much thinking.
Since you’re so prone to digression, make your case, in bullet points. If your reasoning is half as solid as you claim, it ought to be easy.
That is because you HAVE NO points, as you’ve been shown again and again. Sad as it is for the right, there are standards to logical debate, and you’ve not even come close to meeting them. It’s not just about arguing a case, it’s about supporting your arguments, which you have refused to do.
It’s not denying to have to hold your hand through logical reasoning. Don’t get pissed at me because I’m a little more thoughtful and rigorous than your conservative buddies.
It’s telling that you not only ignore outright half of what I write, because you have no way to even dismiss it without being a transparent fraud, let alone rebut it, but of even the parts you do have the courage to address, you focus on irrelevancies to obscure the larger argument, which you’ve already lost.
For the last damn time, “listing” something doesn’t mean shit. I can “list” stuff all day. The fact is, the great majority of the stuff you “list” is flat out wrong. You have to BACK IT UP, by citing some source.
To be excruciatingly clear, it DOESN’T work to say: “It’s propaganda, 'cause the terrorists sent it and because it emboldens terrorists.”
I’ve already raised multiple objections to this, but even ignoring them, you still have to show why it matters where the tape came from, which you made a pathetic, hand-waving attempt to do, and you have to show that it ACTUALLY DOES embolden terrorists, which you’ve not even attempted to do.
See? You don’t have the first clue what goes into a rational argument.
Insult away. Just try to also do a little bit of explaining in there.