| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/30/2007 08:18:37 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Ok... Ann Coulter... someone who is deserving of airtime with a fair an unbiased and educated view of the world? Heck no. It doesn't matter what side you are on, a person like her is a 3-ring circus that is there specifically to shake things up and get ratings. It's so rediculous that she gets so much face time on the "news" while highly educated peole that actually have something to say may never get the chance. And I would say the same of someone as far off in wacko land as her on the left as she is on the right.
I have to disagree with the sentiment that people don't mind when things are swung their way... I think they just don't notice it as much. I certainly would get upset because that leaves more room for it to be argued against by the other side. Might as well show it all fair and balanced so there is nothing to dig up afterwards and discredit the whole story. |
Not disagreeing about the nature of Coulter, but I do believe she's a Cornell grad, and a JD from Michigan, with Honors. She's also a raving egomaniac and an intentionally inflamatory personality. But still, she's educated all right. |
ahhh i said educated view of the world. degrees don't mean anything when you wave them around with lunacy. |
|
|
|
05/30/2007 08:20:12 PM · #27 |
Any Hamel on Trial fans here? :P
|
|
|
|
05/30/2007 08:29:22 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
ahhh i said educated view of the world. degrees don't mean anything when you wave them around with lunacy. |
LOL, I think I've said it before on here, nobody can know the whole truth. Isn't quantum-physically possible. So educated is pretty relative to what you have of the ability to see truth, which you can't know.
Do you mean educated or progressive? :P |
|
|
|
05/30/2007 08:32:47 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
It's not what they say, it's what they don't. |
like FOX News' loooong history of "subliminal" ideology? like mislabeling Mark Foley as "Mark Foley (D) Florida" during the first 24 hours of his scandal?
i don't care who they've added to their roster. they're still a bunch of nutcases.
granted, having watched CNN on a trip this weekend (i don't have cable at my house), they're a gaggle of raving loons too. |
|
|
|
05/30/2007 08:40:46 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by wavelength:
It's not what they say, it's what they don't. |
like FOX News' loooong history of "subliminal" ideology? like mislabeling Mark Foley as "Mark Foley (D) Florida" during the first 24 hours of his scandal?
i don't care who they've added to their roster. they're still a bunch of nutcases.
granted, having watched CNN on a trip this weekend (i don't have cable at my house), they're a gaggle of raving loons too. |
No, like none of them, including Fox, reporting about a Deomcrat senator in the late 80's who actually had sex with an underage page, not just chat, and he didn't get booted, just censured. Not to mention re-elected several times.
Sure, doesn't make Foley right or any better, just proves that Democrats have no halo's hanging off their heads either.
They're all a bunch of liars and power hungry bastards, and yet we keep electing them, on both sides. :/ For my part, I've stopped feeding the media beast, none of them have my eyes or ears these days. |
|
|
|
05/30/2007 08:41:46 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by wavelength:
It's not what they say, it's what they don't. |
like FOX News' loooong history of "subliminal" ideology? like mislabeling Mark Foley as "Mark Foley (D) Florida" during the first 24 hours of his scandal?
i don't care who they've added to their roster. they're still a bunch of nutcases.
granted, having watched CNN on a trip this weekend (i don't have cable at my house), they're a gaggle of raving loons too. |
lol! Best thing is to do is just close your eyes and hide in a corner... or seek alternative new sources. I choose alternet but I'm sure people will claim they are liberally biased... if that means focusing on liberal issues, then sure. lol. |
|
|
|
05/30/2007 08:57:16 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Just like I never hear submitters complain about "those spurious tens." |
Ahem!
We now return you to your media discussion ...
|
|
|
|
05/30/2007 09:24:50 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by wavelength:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Ok... Ann Coulter... someone who is deserving of airtime with a fair an unbiased and educated view of the world? Heck no. It doesn't matter what side you are on, a person like her is a 3-ring circus that is there specifically to shake things up and get ratings. It's so rediculous that she gets so much face time on the "news" while highly educated peole that actually have something to say may never get the chance. And I would say the same of someone as far off in wacko land as her on the left as she is on the right.
I have to disagree with the sentiment that people don't mind when things are swung their way... I think they just don't notice it as much. I certainly would get upset because that leaves more room for it to be argued against by the other side. Might as well show it all fair and balanced so there is nothing to dig up afterwards and discredit the whole story. |
Not disagreeing about the nature of Coulter, but I do believe she's a Cornell grad, and a JD from Michigan, with Honors. She's also a raving egomaniac and an intentionally inflamatory personality. But still, she's educated all right. |
ahhh i said educated view of the world. degrees don't mean anything when you wave them around with lunacy. |
Just curious, why do you think her view of the world is not an educated view?
|
|
|
|
05/30/2007 09:46:42 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Just like I never hear submitters complain about "those spurious tens." |
Ahem!
We now return you to your media discussion ... |
DAMN you Jeffrey! LOL! |
|
|
|
05/31/2007 08:37:15 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by wavelength:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Ok... Ann Coulter... someone who is deserving of airtime with a fair an unbiased and educated view of the world? Heck no. It doesn't matter what side you are on, a person like her is a 3-ring circus that is there specifically to shake things up and get ratings. It's so rediculous that she gets so much face time on the "news" while highly educated peole that actually have something to say may never get the chance. And I would say the same of someone as far off in wacko land as her on the left as she is on the right.
I have to disagree with the sentiment that people don't mind when things are swung their way... I think they just don't notice it as much. I certainly would get upset because that leaves more room for it to be argued against by the other side. Might as well show it all fair and balanced so there is nothing to dig up afterwards and discredit the whole story. |
Not disagreeing about the nature of Coulter, but I do believe she's a Cornell grad, and a JD from Michigan, with Honors. She's also a raving egomaniac and an intentionally inflamatory personality. But still, she's educated all right. |
ahhh i said educated view of the world. degrees don't mean anything when you wave them around with lunacy. |
Just curious, why do you think her view of the world is not an educated view? |
The things she says are so callous and based on her small circle of observations and opinions. She speaks as if she is speaking for society when she is clearly not. People can say whatever crazy things they want but when they say it in front of millions and say it as if she assumes they all agree, it's not educated. It's ethnocentric... or egocentric... or both or I don't know. It's just nuts. |
|
|
|
05/31/2007 09:11:28 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
The things she says are so callous and based on her small circle of observations and opinions. She speaks as if she is speaking for society when she is clearly not. People can say whatever crazy things they want but when they say it in front of millions and say it as if she assumes they all agree, it's not educated. It's ethnocentric... or egocentric... or both or I don't know. It's just nuts. |
I think you underestimate Coulter, she's pretty narrow in her view, but don't think that she's blind to what others think. Most of her business trades in attacking what others think, so she already knows what their ideas are. You can't attack something if you don't know where it is after all. I don't think that she doesn't see the other side at all, she just disagrees quite vehemently with them.
Be careful with statements like "It's just nuts", about 35% of the country is just about that "nuts" in ideology, if not always as rude and boorish about it. Saying that other people are nuts if they disagree with your opinion is a disservice to your own intellect, and often shuts off any avenues of dialog that you might have had previous to that statement. |
|
|
|
05/31/2007 09:38:34 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
The things she says are so callous and based on her small circle of observations and opinions. She speaks as if she is speaking for society when she is clearly not. People can say whatever crazy things they want but when they say it in front of millions and say it as if she assumes they all agree, it's not educated. It's ethnocentric... or egocentric... or both or I don't know. It's just nuts. |
I think you underestimate Coulter, she's pretty narrow in her view, but don't think that she's blind to what others think. Most of her business trades in attacking what others think, so she already knows what their ideas are. You can't attack something if you don't know where it is after all. I don't think that she doesn't see the other side at all, she just disagrees quite vehemently with them.
Be careful with statements like "It's just nuts", about 35% of the country is just about that "nuts" in ideology, if not always as rude and boorish about it. Saying that other people are nuts if they disagree with your opinion is a disservice to your own intellect, and often shuts off any avenues of dialog that you might have had previous to that statement. |
I don't care what percent of the country is with her. She says nutty things and I'm not going to tippy toe around it. It's not that she disagrees with my opinions, its that she is so wreckless with her statements, it's the intent of those statements. I don't think it's a disservice to my intellect, it's my opinion, and unlike her I don't claim to have others speaking with me.
Case in point... she called Rage Agaist the Machine and fans of Rage Against the Machine losers. That is beyond a point that is not mine, it is offensice and narrow-minded. She was not at the concert she did not know ANY of the crowd there, hear their thoughts or opinions, yet she is allowed to say such harsh demeaning things on air and I can't say that's nutty? It is. She is putting herself out there and I'm sure thrives on people like me so she can counterattack and try to tun them into the ground.
Freedom of speech is real fun for her but let someone else exercises it and they are losers. |
|
|
|
05/31/2007 09:41:39 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
I think you underestimate Coulter, she's pretty narrow in her view, but don't think that she's blind to what others think. Most of her business trades in attacking what others think, so she already knows what their ideas are. You can't attack something if you don't know where it is after all. I don't think that she doesn't see the other side at all, she just disagrees quite vehemently with them.
Be careful with statements like "It's just nuts", about 35% of the country is just about that "nuts" in ideology, if not always as rude and boorish about it. Saying that other people are nuts if they disagree with your opinion is a disservice to your own intellect, and often shuts off any avenues of dialog that you might have had previous to that statement. |
I agree with one thing: Ann Coulter has been quite good at garnering attention, and her influence should not be underestimated. She not only graced the cover of Time Magazine, but appeared among its âMost Influential 100 Peopleâ for 2005. Her column is syndicated by more than 100 newspapers nationwide. Recent television appearances have included the Jay Leno and Today Shows. A Google search in her name yields more than 22,000,000 results.
However, what does one call information presented as factual that in reality has no basis in fact whatsover? Nuts does not seem too strong of a word. I actually have read her latest book, or at least as much as I could stand before I grew too weary of the hyperbole to continue.
In "Godless", the central argument is not just that the right is right and the left is (utterly) wrong, but that liberals are either fools or sly artists of suppression, actively engaged in the spread of false information. Darwinian texts are compared to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. AIDS statistics from 1992 come out of the closet to argue that liberal claims about heterosexual risk are fraudulent. Hitler is referenced repeatedly â more than thirty times. She even includes a rant where she dubs the anti-smoking movement a âliberal crusade.â
This seems more than just a vehement disagreement with liberals. She vehemently disagrees with proven facts, such as that smoking causes cancer and that AIDS is an issue in the heterosexual community as well as the homosexual community.
At some point, there has to be a baseline for what is accepted as fact and what isn't. Otherwise, things just get...nutty. |
|
|
|
05/31/2007 09:46:21 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Freedom of speech is real fun for her but let someone else exercises it and they are losers. |
She calls some folks losers... you call her nutty. Surely you can understand the precarious situation you have placed yourself in.
Ray |
|
|
|
05/31/2007 09:51:15 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by noraneko:
Originally posted by wavelength:
I think you underestimate Coulter, she's pretty narrow in her view, but don't think that she's blind to what others think. Most of her business trades in attacking what others think, so she already knows what their ideas are. You can't attack something if you don't know where it is after all. I don't think that she doesn't see the other side at all, she just disagrees quite vehemently with them.
Be careful with statements like "It's just nuts", about 35% of the country is just about that "nuts" in ideology, if not always as rude and boorish about it. Saying that other people are nuts if they disagree with your opinion is a disservice to your own intellect, and often shuts off any avenues of dialog that you might have had previous to that statement. |
I agree with one thing: Ann Coulter has been quite good at garnering attention, and her influence should not be underestimated. She not only graced the cover of Time Magazine, but appeared among its âMost Influential 100 Peopleâ for 2005. Her column is syndicated by more than 100 newspapers nationwide. Recent television appearances have included the Jay Leno and Today Shows. A Google search in her name yields more than 22,000,000 results.
However, what does one call information presented as factual that in reality has no basis in fact whatsover? Nuts does not seem too strong of a word. I actually have read her latest book, or at least as much as I could stand before I grew too weary of the hyperbole to continue.
In "Godless", the central argument is not just that the right is right and the left is (utterly) wrong, but that liberals are either fools or sly artists of suppression, actively engaged in the spread of false information. Darwinian texts are compared to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. AIDS statistics from 1992 come out of the closet to argue that liberal claims about heterosexual risk are fraudulent. Hitler is referenced repeatedly â more than thirty times. She even includes a rant where she dubs the anti-smoking movement a âliberal crusade.â
This seems more than just a vehement disagreement with liberals. She vehemently disagrees with proven facts, such as that smoking causes cancer and that AIDS is an issue in the heterosexual community as well as the homosexual community.
At some point, there has to be a baseline for what is accepted as fact and what isn't. Otherwise, things just get...nutty. |
Sorry, wasn't really talking directly about Coulter, more about the people that she purports to represent with the "be careful" section. She may very well be off the deep end. That was more of a point to be careful how you characterize things when talking to your friend/neighbor/colleague than anything else. Should have been more explanatory.
edit to add- I've never read her stuff, so I can't really comment on it.
Message edited by author 2007-05-31 21:51:57. |
|
|
|
06/01/2007 12:30:36 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Freedom of speech is real fun for her but let someone else exercises it and they are losers. |
She calls some folks losers... you call her nutty. Surely you can understand the precarious situation you have placed yourself in.
Ray |
ah but you see that is her and i have listened to her and her beliefs. She was talking about 100,000 people she has never heard nor seen based on ONE line of a statement taken WAY out of context. The rest of what was said was never even mentioned. I'm sorry but that's nutty. Nothing precarious about it. |
|
|
|
06/01/2007 12:36:42 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
Originally posted by noraneko:
Originally posted by wavelength:
I think you underestimate Coulter, she's pretty narrow in her view, but don't think that she's blind to what others think. Most of her business trades in attacking what others think, so she already knows what their ideas are. You can't attack something if you don't know where it is after all. I don't think that she doesn't see the other side at all, she just disagrees quite vehemently with them.
Be careful with statements like "It's just nuts", about 35% of the country is just about that "nuts" in ideology, if not always as rude and boorish about it. Saying that other people are nuts if they disagree with your opinion is a disservice to your own intellect, and often shuts off any avenues of dialog that you might have had previous to that statement. |
I agree with one thing: Ann Coulter has been quite good at garnering attention, and her influence should not be underestimated. She not only graced the cover of Time Magazine, but appeared among its âMost Influential 100 Peopleâ for 2005. Her column is syndicated by more than 100 newspapers nationwide. Recent television appearances have included the Jay Leno and Today Shows. A Google search in her name yields more than 22,000,000 results.
However, what does one call information presented as factual that in reality has no basis in fact whatsover? Nuts does not seem too strong of a word. I actually have read her latest book, or at least as much as I could stand before I grew too weary of the hyperbole to continue.
In "Godless", the central argument is not just that the right is right and the left is (utterly) wrong, but that liberals are either fools or sly artists of suppression, actively engaged in the spread of false information. Darwinian texts are compared to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. AIDS statistics from 1992 come out of the closet to argue that liberal claims about heterosexual risk are fraudulent. Hitler is referenced repeatedly â more than thirty times. She even includes a rant where she dubs the anti-smoking movement a âliberal crusade.â
This seems more than just a vehement disagreement with liberals. She vehemently disagrees with proven facts, such as that smoking causes cancer and that AIDS is an issue in the heterosexual community as well as the homosexual community.
At some point, there has to be a baseline for what is accepted as fact and what isn't. Otherwise, things just get...nutty. |
Sorry, wasn't really talking directly about Coulter, more about the people that she purports to represent with the "be careful" section. She may very well be off the deep end. That was more of a point to be careful how you characterize things when talking to your friend/neighbor/colleague than anything else. Should have been more explanatory.
edit to add- I've never read her stuff, so I can't really comment on it. |
I understand what you mean and I do not use those words lightly and do not use them because she goes against my beleifs. In fact I use that word towards her because of her blatant refusal to even hear out the other side and her presumption that her way is the only right way. That is not a way of healthy debate. I love a nice even debate and would not call those on the other side "nutty" simply because I disagreed with them, on the contrary I often seen many valuable points on both sides of arguementation.
She doesn't demand much better for herself. However it is not her that I have the real problem with but the fact that she is repeatedly being allowed to say her piece and trample over anyone that tries to disagree with her. The woman they had "debating" her on this whole Rage thing was rather timid and did not have much chance of getting a word in edgewise, and when she did it was clear to me she was still trying to tippy toe arround and stay on Anne's good side. It's disgraceful. |
|
|
|
06/01/2007 12:43:08 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by wavelength:
Originally posted by noraneko:
Originally posted by wavelength:
I think you underestimate Coulter, she's pretty narrow in her view, but don't think that she's blind to what others think. Most of her business trades in attacking what others think, so she already knows what their ideas are. You can't attack something if you don't know where it is after all. I don't think that she doesn't see the other side at all, she just disagrees quite vehemently with them.
Be careful with statements like "It's just nuts", about 35% of the country is just about that "nuts" in ideology, if not always as rude and boorish about it. Saying that other people are nuts if they disagree with your opinion is a disservice to your own intellect, and often shuts off any avenues of dialog that you might have had previous to that statement. |
I agree with one thing: Ann Coulter has been quite good at garnering attention, and her influence should not be underestimated. She not only graced the cover of Time Magazine, but appeared among its âMost Influential 100 Peopleâ for 2005. Her column is syndicated by more than 100 newspapers nationwide. Recent television appearances have included the Jay Leno and Today Shows. A Google search in her name yields more than 22,000,000 results.
However, what does one call information presented as factual that in reality has no basis in fact whatsover? Nuts does not seem too strong of a word. I actually have read her latest book, or at least as much as I could stand before I grew too weary of the hyperbole to continue.
In "Godless", the central argument is not just that the right is right and the left is (utterly) wrong, but that liberals are either fools or sly artists of suppression, actively engaged in the spread of false information. Darwinian texts are compared to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. AIDS statistics from 1992 come out of the closet to argue that liberal claims about heterosexual risk are fraudulent. Hitler is referenced repeatedly â more than thirty times. She even includes a rant where she dubs the anti-smoking movement a âliberal crusade.â
This seems more than just a vehement disagreement with liberals. She vehemently disagrees with proven facts, such as that smoking causes cancer and that AIDS is an issue in the heterosexual community as well as the homosexual community.
At some point, there has to be a baseline for what is accepted as fact and what isn't. Otherwise, things just get...nutty. |
Sorry, wasn't really talking directly about Coulter, more about the people that she purports to represent with the "be careful" section. She may very well be off the deep end. That was more of a point to be careful how you characterize things when talking to your friend/neighbor/colleague than anything else. Should have been more explanatory.
edit to add- I've never read her stuff, so I can't really comment on it. |
I understand what you mean and I do not use those words lightly and do not use them because she goes against my beleifs. In fact I use that word towards her because of her blatant refusal to even hear out the other side and her presumption that her way is the only right way. That is not a way of healthy debate. I love a nice even debate and would not call those on the other side "nutty" simply because I disagreed with them, on the contrary I often seen many valuable points on both sides of arguementation.
She doesn't demand much better for herself. However it is not her that I have the real problem with but the fact that she is repeatedly being allowed to say her piece and trample over anyone that tries to disagree with her. The woman they had "debating" her on this whole Rage thing was rather timid and did not have much chance of getting a word in edgewise, and when she did it was clear to me she was still trying to tippy toe arround and stay on Anne's good side. It's disgraceful. |
I know! This is what happens when you give women rights. :P |
|
|
|
06/01/2007 12:46:16 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by wavelength:
Originally posted by noraneko:
Originally posted by wavelength:
I think you underestimate Coulter, she's pretty narrow in her view, but don't think that she's blind to what others think. Most of her business trades in attacking what others think, so she already knows what their ideas are. You can't attack something if you don't know where it is after all. I don't think that she doesn't see the other side at all, she just disagrees quite vehemently with them.
Be careful with statements like "It's just nuts", about 35% of the country is just about that "nuts" in ideology, if not always as rude and boorish about it. Saying that other people are nuts if they disagree with your opinion is a disservice to your own intellect, and often shuts off any avenues of dialog that you might have had previous to that statement. |
I agree with one thing: Ann Coulter has been quite good at garnering attention, and her influence should not be underestimated. She not only graced the cover of Time Magazine, but appeared among its âMost Influential 100 Peopleâ for 2005. Her column is syndicated by more than 100 newspapers nationwide. Recent television appearances have included the Jay Leno and Today Shows. A Google search in her name yields more than 22,000,000 results.
However, what does one call information presented as factual that in reality has no basis in fact whatsover? Nuts does not seem too strong of a word. I actually have read her latest book, or at least as much as I could stand before I grew too weary of the hyperbole to continue.
In "Godless", the central argument is not just that the right is right and the left is (utterly) wrong, but that liberals are either fools or sly artists of suppression, actively engaged in the spread of false information. Darwinian texts are compared to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. AIDS statistics from 1992 come out of the closet to argue that liberal claims about heterosexual risk are fraudulent. Hitler is referenced repeatedly â more than thirty times. She even includes a rant where she dubs the anti-smoking movement a âliberal crusade.â
This seems more than just a vehement disagreement with liberals. She vehemently disagrees with proven facts, such as that smoking causes cancer and that AIDS is an issue in the heterosexual community as well as the homosexual community.
At some point, there has to be a baseline for what is accepted as fact and what isn't. Otherwise, things just get...nutty. |
Sorry, wasn't really talking directly about Coulter, more about the people that she purports to represent with the "be careful" section. She may very well be off the deep end. That was more of a point to be careful how you characterize things when talking to your friend/neighbor/colleague than anything else. Should have been more explanatory.
edit to add- I've never read her stuff, so I can't really comment on it. |
I understand what you mean and I do not use those words lightly and do not use them because she goes against my beleifs. In fact I use that word towards her because of her blatant refusal to even hear out the other side and her presumption that her way is the only right way. That is not a way of healthy debate. I love a nice even debate and would not call those on the other side "nutty" simply because I disagreed with them, on the contrary I often seen many valuable points on both sides of arguementation.
She doesn't demand much better for herself. However it is not her that I have the real problem with but the fact that she is repeatedly being allowed to say her piece and trample over anyone that tries to disagree with her. The woman they had "debating" her on this whole Rage thing was rather timid and did not have much chance of getting a word in edgewise, and when she did it was clear to me she was still trying to tippy toe arround and stay on Anne's good side. It's disgraceful. |
I know! This is what happens when you give women rights. :P |
Or only showcase the nutty women so people THINK that's what happens. :P |
|
|
|
06/01/2007 01:16:38 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Left-bias in the media? Well even fair and unbiased media outlets look left biased to the far-right-wingers, LOL. Heck, if you're on the right wing-tip, *everything* looks like it's left-leaning! |
lol... my sentiments exactly. |
count me in for 3. fox news anyone?
|
|
|
|
06/07/2007 08:58:58 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
ahhh i said educated view of the world. degrees don't mean anything when you wave them around with lunacy. |
LOL, I think I've said it before on here, nobody can know the whole truth. Isn't quantum-physically possible. So educated is pretty relative to what you have of the ability to see truth, which you can't know.
Do you mean educated or progressive? :P |
Precisely...we are on the same wavelength. Truth is found from within. Be a mathematician with your information and you will know which is disinformation and which is accurate based on what you think leads to what conclusions.
Liberal Media moguls like Alex Jones are finally facing heat as some of his reporters were arrested 2 days ago at the republican summit. But these liberal journalists do lie a whole lot less. Just stay away from Fox news. Your better off watching soap operas.
Message edited by author 2007-06-07 21:01:24. |
|
|
|
06/07/2007 10:04:08 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by RulerZigzag:
Originally posted by wavelength:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
ahhh i said educated view of the world. degrees don't mean anything when you wave them around with lunacy. |
LOL, I think I've said it before on here, nobody can know the whole truth. Isn't quantum-physically possible. So educated is pretty relative to what you have of the ability to see truth, which you can't know.
Do you mean educated or progressive? :P |
Precisely...we are on the same wavelength. Truth is found from within. Be a mathematician with your information and you will know which is disinformation and which is accurate based on what you think leads to what conclusions.
Liberal Media moguls like Alex Jones are finally facing heat as some of his reporters were arrested 2 days ago at the republican summit. But these liberal journalists do lie a whole lot less. Just stay away from Fox news. Your better off watching soap operas. |
haha. NOT on the same wavelength. Truth cannot be from within, because the within can't actually know itself. Quantum-mechanically impossible. (sorry, I said physically before) In the end, the only hard lesson we have taught ourselves through science is that we can't possibly know all the variables that define what truth is. It must come from outside the system. If truth exists, it comes from beyond the universe, from an intellect that actually has the capacity to fully see and know every single particle of truth. If truth exists, it is from a theoretical being that is God, or is so much beyond our ability to comprehend that you might as well just call it that. You cannot scientifically prove that there is or is not a god by the same token. It is outside our realm to know and study such things.
The farthest reaches of scientific thought have already shown that our quest for truth is futile in and of ourselves. Ironically, these same theories disprove their own claims for truth ;) |
|
|
|
06/07/2007 10:08:27 PM · #48 |
| lol of course we can never know the whole truth. however we can know when it's purposely skewed and changed to manipulate us. |
|
|
|
06/07/2007 10:13:46 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
lol of course we can never know the whole truth. however we can know when it's purposely skewed and changed to manipulate us. |
a lot of things in this world, are. even our lecturers, professors, teachers, masters, superiors, even our parents, or religious leaders. sometimes it was done intentionally for their cause, other times unintentionally because they were misled too.
so before you get angry about ANY issue you were told, ask yourself if you were already misled to begin with. you get better at separating the truth from the crap as you go along. |
|
|
|
06/07/2007 10:25:47 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by crayon:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
lol of course we can never know the whole truth. however we can know when it's purposely skewed and changed to manipulate us. |
a lot of things in this world, are. even our lecturers, professors, teachers, masters, superiors, even our parents, or religious leaders. sometimes it was done intentionally for their cause, other times unintentionally because they were misled too.
so before you get angry about ANY issue you were told, ask yourself if you were already misled to begin with. you get better at separating the truth from the crap as you go along. |
well, one would hope. then you meet 60 year olds that are still making the same stupid decisions over and over.... :/ |
|
