The Shrine

That whole incident stinks and is bizarre beyond words.

The father of the bomber is a Nigerian defense official and possible arms dealer with heavy Mossad ties. Somehow, though, supposedly even HE sent the CIA or some other agency massive warnings, saying that his son was planning a terror attack against them...and yet the kid managed to get through the NETHERLANDS without a valid passport, which is supposed to be next to completely impossible from what I've read.

To me, it's fairly clear that the kid had a LOT of help some or another outside agency getting through airline security worldwide, whether he was aware of it or not.

Fuck Homeland Security and its rotten massive corruption in any case. The TSA blows too and I don't trust them either. I'm over all this shit.

Other people can put up with the "Israel West"-style travel restrictions if they want, I'm staying off planes unless I feel like putting myself through massive potential aggravation of all sorts of possible kinds.

Did this actually appear on TV? Did anyone watch it?

Zeus wrote:Did this actually appear on TV? Did anyone watch it?

Yes. I usually watch Rachel every night. The chick is a truthsayer, through and through.

I'm at a coffee shop without headphones (and, apparently, without freaking heat), so I can't watch the clip, but: don't confuse someone who shares your biases with being a "truthsayer." When we are philosophically and politically aligned with someone, we are more likely to forgive logical fallacies and political jabs. Just keep in mind that many people in this country feel the same way about O'Reilly that you do with Maddow.

Kupek wrote:I'm at a coffee shop without headphones (and, apparently, without freaking heat), so I can't watch the clip, but: don't confuse someone who shares your biases with being a "truthsayer." When we are philosophically and politically aligned with someone, we are more likely to forgive logical fallacies and political jabs. Just keep in mind that many people in this country feel the same way about O'Reilly that you do with Maddow.

I am well aware of my biases, and other peoples' biases. I analyze that sort of thing every thing I listen or get into a political discussion.

However, I've come to the realization that people like O'Reilly and Beck and Hannity are people who merely spout out opinions and outright lies without any facts (or a weak soundbite) to back it up. People like Stewart and Maddow and Obermann use evidence to point out hypocrisy and expose lies. It's not a matter of bias, even though the two sides fall cleanly between the two.

Just watch clips from one side and watch clips from the other side. There is a very sharp difference found between cutting investigative journalism and political party rhetoric/name-calling when you look at each.

You should get a chance to watch the clip. Rachel isn't completely biased on the left side, either. She is repeated critical of the govt's denial of the unspoken war on Pakistan (with its constant drone attacks).

I'm very disappointed in the right side of things because I would love to see some actual Republican investigative journalism. I would follow that sort of thing, despite my own biases, because I would love to see how the other side thinks. Sadly, I'm beginning to believe that the other side doesn't "think" beyond a shallow understanding of what they think is the truth. Again, the truth is never shallow. It's a complex entity that many people refuse to dig into.

I am surprised Cheney is not in prison. Has he even gone on trial for any of his corruptions? I think most countries in the world would have at least exiled him, some places might have even executed him.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/modules.ph ... e&sid=9951

Article from a veterans' site entitled "EVIDENCE MOUNTS FOR U.S. COMPLICITY IN TERRORISM".

Mental wrote:http://www.veteranstoday.com/modules.ph ... e&sid=9951

Article from a veterans' site entitled "EVIDENCE MOUNTS FOR U.S. COMPLICITY IN TERRORISM".

I doubt the release of those prisoners was anything more than incompetence or political maneuvering. It's not a conspiracy to promote terrorism.

That being said, all of the terrorist attacks have been successful. The shoe bomber was successful. This new terrorist attack was successful. These are terrorist attacks, so the actual immediate result (300 deaths or not) has nothing to do with it. It's the aftermath.

People get afraid. Politicians start foaming at the mouth. Freedoms are taken away. The best thing to do is to take the course of action that has the LEAST amount of perception, such as increasing the intelligence sharing and investigating resources. Instead, predictably, we always take the course that has the most perception and is the most useless. The terrorist KNOW this, and we play into their hands every single fucking time.

I disagree. But, not sure I have time to discuss it much today. I think the Mossad and/or CIA made sure that kid performed various impossibilities like getting through the Netherlands without a passport that day, though.

SineSwiper wrote:

Kupek wrote:I'm at a coffee shop without headphones (and, apparently, without freaking heat), so I can't watch the clip, but: don't confuse someone who shares your biases with being a "truthsayer." When we are philosophically and politically aligned with someone, we are more likely to forgive logical fallacies and political jabs. Just keep in mind that many people in this country feel the same way about O'Reilly that you do with Maddow.

I am well aware of my biases, and other peoples' biases. I analyze that sort of thing every thing I listen or get into a political discussion.

However, I've come to the realization that people like O'Reilly and Beck and Hannity are people who merely spout out opinions and outright lies without any facts (or a weak soundbite) to back it up. People like Stewart and Maddow and Obermann use evidence to point out hypocrisy and expose lies. It's not a matter of bias, even though the two sides fall cleanly between the two.

Just watch clips from one side and watch clips from the other side. There is a very sharp difference found between cutting investigative journalism and political party rhetoric/name-calling when you look at each.

You should get a chance to watch the clip. Rachel isn't completely biased on the left side, either. She is repeated critical of the govt's denial of the unspoken war on Pakistan (with its constant drone attacks).

I'm very disappointed in the right side of things because I would love to see some actual Republican investigative journalism. I would follow that sort of thing, despite my own biases, because I would love to see how the other side thinks. Sadly, I'm beginning to believe that the other side doesn't "think" beyond a shallow understanding of what they think is the truth. Again, the truth is never shallow. It's a complex entity that many people refuse to dig into.

But that's also the trap a bit. Liberally-minded people tend to bash each other with their biases while conservative-minded people tend to think alike. I also feel that a lot of the conservative media appear to be more "united" as if they're taking cues from one source (such as a conservative think tank; which explains how Fox News and Republican politicians always seem to be on the same page repeating the exact same phrases) but that could also very easily be my own bias talking. The same way you and I appear to find evidence against the conservatives they can find against us liberals. I'm sure there is just as much liberal bullshit that's spewed that's not necessarily scrutinized for a few reasons, including a) most media tends to be liberally-leaning and b) liberally-minded people don't tend to say the exact same things as each other.

Personally, I agree with you, but I think that it's not nearly as clear-cut as we'd like to think.

Zeus wrote:But that's also the trap a bit. Liberally-minded people tend to bash each other with their biases while conservative-minded people tend to think alike. I also feel that a lot of the conservative media appear to be more "united" as if they're taking cues from one source (such as a conservative think tank; which explains how Fox News and Republican politicians always seem to be on the same page repeating the exact same phrases) but that could also very easily be my own bias talking. The same way you and I appear to find evidence against the conservatives they can find against us liberals.

I disagree. I don't buy the "both sides are bad" crap. Republicans don't "find evidence". They spout opinions like it was fact. When they do find something, they make a mountain out of a molehill.

Take ACORN for example. They "expose" ACORN (which was actually a bullshit video that was edited to hell) and try to make all kinds of fury about taking their funding, etc., etc. On the other hand, Maddow exposes Blackwater's connections to the CIA for assassination projects. It barely gets news coverage, yet it's 10x more important than ACORN.

Hell, when there's something major on the liberals, such as the drone attacks or Blagojevich, both sides report it.

Again, I don't disagree with you philosophically, but that don't mean we are allowed to dismiss the possibility