quote:

Originally posted by occrider Perhaps they should rename this forum to the trashbin? Or the receptacle for unwanted threads?

Threads have been getting moved here like crazy, along with unwanted people.

Then again, I don't even know if I'm wanted?

*frankly, I don't care. I'll post my opinions anyway*

___________________
aka Tits McGee
aka Chesty LaRue
aka Busty St. Claire

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Perhaps they should rename this forum to the trashbin? Or the receptacle for unwanted threads?

ya it is begining to look that way eh?

perhaps it is time to make a forum and call it "the Trashbin"??lol

___________________
Mystic Mind - DJ Mixes
http://soundcloud.com/mystic-mind

Facebook page
https://www.facebook.com/DJMysticMind

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut That's golden. Finally, someone understands what I'm trying to say! Believing everything the media tells you and believing nothing the media tells you are polar opposites, both with an abundance of icy cold ignorance. *hi-fives to daff and occrider!*

I feel the same way

___________________

quote:

Venus: And there are troops of savage giraffes whose necks are on fire, like the starry ejaculations of fireworks in the very pale sky of childhood ... Venus: Enter, enter here - men of all kinds and races, victims of reality! You who have the thirst for dreams. ... Venus: You, on life's bitter road, drenched in hard sunlight who have the thirst that once more the dark marvel of dreams...

Some of u are taking that post a bit too seriously, theres no need for a flame war

quote:

Originally posted by daffodil I guess you consider this argument reasonable. I'm scared. I want evidence, and your interpretation of the American media is not going to cut it. I work as a journalist and I don't see this. Yes, I'm sure there's a conspiracy theory involving, "Of COURSE you don't know, they'd kill you if you knew!" but I'm not buying it. The American media has a history of publishing embarrassing information about the government.

ok yes the media put up a whoole lotta crap that the us government do, but thats mainly the stuff that a whole lotta ppl know about or stuff that media broadcast owners may decide that the country knows about, OR that is truly important that the country deserves to know about their leaders. Media giants may be given some form of "benefit" by the government to do this, but think about how devastating the release of so much information could be to the world. Wars could break out like a 16 yr olds face

quote:

Originally posted by daffodil You're contradicting yourself. How can this propaganda be effective if 90% of the population is opposed to the war? Why does the American media want a war? Don't say it's so they have something to cover, because if you know the American media as well as you claim, you know that they will find something to cover. I realize your argument is that the government controls the media, but you're wrong.

the media dont want a war, but the information that theyve been given which needs censoring could START a war. The government doesnt necessarily control the media, but they can heavily influence it... perhaps bush has some videos of some media owners doing strange things with rabid hamsters... :s

quote:

Originally posted by daffodil Bush does not get the country's money. He's a kerbillionaire anyway. Furthermore, printing money does make you rich, it just causes insane inflation because there's nothing to back it. Russia tried to do this sometime after they overthrew the czars (I may have my timeline wrong). It because cheaper to wipe your ass with rubels than to buy toilet paper.

In fact he is not a kerbillionaire, perhaps a single digit millionaire unless theres some form of dirty dealing under the surface... Country leaders in a democracy generally arent paid terribly much money as a form of salary. they take $$$ from the tax payers to pay for the stuff while they are in power, and then get a nice big whopping superannuation which is again funded out of the tax payer's money... but they amount that they take wouldnt affect shit of what else that money is spent on.

quote:

Originally posted by daffodil But still hide like bin Laden in the desert for half a year?

you missed my point. i suggested that saddam had maybe formed this agreement with the us a while before things started to get rough in order for minimal possibility of harm to himself or his family.

quote:

Originally posted by daffodil Yeah, that happened Your "movies" theory is completely irrational and counter-productive. A simple cost/benefit analysis would stop the U.S. from agreeing to this.

wtf??? movies? would you think that if a country agreed to something like that, that they'd send perhaps 200 troops and 20 tanks and expect to conquer a country with one of the largest army strength in the world??? get a clue.

quote:

Originally posted by daffodil Did you read occrider's post? There is no election advantage to Bush at this time. Oil? Probably. Popularity? Please. America doesn't care if it's popular, it doesn't need to be popular. It's not trying to be prom queen. I don't make this point because I think it's a good thing, but facts are facts. If you can tell me why America needs to be liked, do so.

cheaper oil being imported to the country would benefit that country shitloads, particularly for a country that has no means of producing the oil apart from synthetically (australia) and is hence forced to import all oil from other countries... having free trade with iraq would reduce cash flow from australia to other countries and improve economical benefits or alternatively spend that money on other goods from other countries. (lets not forget that it is better to sell more goods to other countries than buy from them. otherwise value of the currancy is liable to fall - basic high school economics)

quote:

Originally posted by daffodil Each of your generalizations and stereotypical insults just keeps making you less intelligent. The "stupid American" bit is old and has little foundation. There are stupid people everywhere.

actually, despite the fact that you are a journalist the title "Stupid White Men" is written by a man called Michael Moore. This novel (if you read it) has taken literally years to be released because the publishing company deemed it "too contraversial for readers" - hmmmmmm

for more information, you can always check if amazon.com sell it

along with michael moores website - www.michaelmoore.com

quote:

Originally posted by daffodil as occrider said, "Look there are two kinds of sheep in the world, those that blindly follow authority in the face of logic and those that blindly disbelieve in authority in the face of logic. Use some fucking common sense and be neither."

interesting quote there, pity it has little to no relevance to any of my arguments

quote:

Originally posted by daffodil You have provided no evidence of this absurd conspiracy theory, and neither has anyone else. All of these constructions have amounted to a chain of "ifs," easily broken at just about ever link b/c y'all are so obsessed with the idea of a conspiracy theory that you haven't even bothered with rationality.

who's being rational here? the person who is suggesting a few possibilities? or the person who disbelieves them without thinking twice about them? THINK!

quote:

Originally posted by daffodil I'm not quite sure what you're talking about because I don't watch television news, but I don't see where it's a problem for only Americans to have original footage. Footage of the raid? Of them pulling Hussein out of the spider hole?

what i am saying is that the american media appear to be the only people who have their own original video recordings of saddam. all international media have used the footage that america have provided.

quote:

Originally posted by daffodil Do you think there's any chance that because the American troops were IN Tikrit, that they were, well, there? I don't see much American media broadcast in Iraq, something's telling me these soldiers got their information first-hand.

ok. the information first hand is given by whom? think about it. the president says to the highest ranking officer at the pentagon - tell them we caught him. we are ready to make the american citizens think he's captured and get rid of one worry in their lives. we never had this conversation.

then word breaks out in the pentagon. everyone tells everyone, then the troops in iraq get told by their mates who heard it from their mates etc etc etc. - if you had an open mind about this you will see it is entirely possible

quote:

Originally posted by daffodil Then why did you bother? It shows.

What shows? i have a generally open mind about pretty much everything that i myself can logically believe. on one hand i have this possible conspiracy and on the other side i have what i'm fed by tv... go figure why i'm arguing for this

quote:

Originally posted by daffodil I want them now.

here ya go

quote:

Originally posted by SuperFarStucker I read your entire post, and it's ridiculous.

explain why?

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Perhaps they should rename this forum to the trashbin? Or the receptacle for unwanted threads?

I agree. Stop giving us Chill Out Room threads. If it isn't fit for the Chill Our Room, you'd better believe it isn't fit for the ivory tower.

quote:

cheaper oil being imported to the country would benefit that country shitloads, particularly for a country that has no means of producing the oil apart from synthetically (australia) and is hence forced to import all oil from other countries...

Actually, my dad's a geochemist, so I think I'd better comment on this. There are significant oil deposits both to the North of Australia (near Indonesia especially and - here's one for the conspiracy theorists - near East Timor) and to the West of Australia (part of the reason - along with lower admin costs - that a lot of the Petroleum companies like BHP, CRA and Woodside have moved to Perth) currently being drilled by Australian and international companies. I'm not sure that there's enough petroleum there to sustain Australian demand, but it'd be pretty damn close if we had to make the effort.

Much cheaper to just import it from the Saudis though.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

quote:

Originally posted by -=M=- ok yes the media put up a whoole lotta crap that the us government do, but thats mainly the stuff that a whole lotta ppl know about or stuff that media broadcast owners may decide that the country knows about, OR that is truly important that the country deserves to know about their leaders. Media giants may be given some form of "benefit" by the government to do this, but think about how devastating the release of so much information could be to the world. Wars could break out like a 16 yr olds face the media dont want a war, but the information that theyve been given which needs censoring could START a war. The government doesnt necessarily control the media, but they can heavily influence it... perhaps bush has some videos of some media owners doing strange things with rabid hamsters... :s

That could possibly work if there were only 1 or 2 news outlets in the country. However, read up on media restrictions in the US, any single broadcast network cannot own more television stations that reach more than 35% of of the national audience. Additionallly, a company cannot own both a newspaper and a television or radio station in the same market. Therefore ALL the media newspapers, television, and radio are competing against one another meaning that if there is news that will attract listerners/readers/watchers they WILL report it. I assure you, I read news from the UK, Australia, and the US and the news are the one and the same ... the ONLY possible difference is that the US news is somewhat US centric, however, that makes sense since there is typically a lot of US news to report. It's somewhat silly to assume that the government is "blackmailing" tv execs to not report the news because SOMEBODY would report it! If not television than the print media, if not the print media than radio. But of course I suppose the government is controlling EVERYBODY . Well if that's the case then tell me this ... how come every time I go to bbc, they are covering the same stories as CNN??? Or how about when I go to news.com.au???

quote:

In fact he is not a kerbillionaire, perhaps a single digit millionaire unless theres some form of dirty dealing under the surface... Country leaders in a democracy generally arent paid terribly much money as a form of salary. they take $$$ from the tax payers to pay for the stuff while they are in power, and then get a nice big whopping superannuation which is again funded out of the tax payer's money... but they amount that they take wouldnt affect shit of what else that money is spent on.

Bush is actually a double digit millionare from family holdings and his earnings in business before politics ...

http://www.bop2004.org/bop2004/

quote:

you missed my point. i suggested that saddam had maybe formed this agreement with the us a while before things started to get rough in order for minimal possibility of harm to himself or his family.

Ok ... well if he was willing to bargain with the US and carry out this huuuggee ploy/coverup I have to ask one question ... WHY DIDN'T HE SIMPLY AGREE TO THE US'S ULTIMATUM THEREFORE AVOIDING THE WHOLE INVASION???? Or better yet, if he knew what was coming, why not agree to ALL the UN inspection demands and avoid the whole fiasco???

quote:

cheaper oil being imported to the country would benefit that country shitloads, particularly for a country that has no means of producing the oil apart from synthetically (australia) and is hence forced to import all oil from other countries... having free trade with iraq would reduce cash flow from australia to other countries and improve economical benefits or alternatively spend that money on other goods from other countries. (lets not forget that it is better to sell more goods to other countries than buy from them. otherwise value of the currancy is liable to fall - basic high school economics)

If you read my last post, you would have realised that Iraq still isn't producing any more oil than it was since before the war. And the oil is going to all markets ... not just the US and allies. Furthermore, Iraq cannot "dictate" the price of oil on world markets. OPEC has the overwhelming majority of oil production in the world and would cut quotas and production to naturally raise the price of oil in the market ... basic high school economics.

quote:

actually, despite the fact that you are a journalist the title "Stupid White Men" is written by a man called Michael Moore. This novel (if you read it) has taken literally years to be released because the publishing company deemed it "too contraversial for readers" - hmmmmmm for more information, you can always check if amazon.com sell it along with michael moores website - www.michaelmoore.com

Sigh ... who's your source for that information? Michael Moore I would presume . Your "years" to release was actually 4 months and the reason why the publisher hesistated was because the original release date was scheduled directly after september 11. The publisher already KNEW the content of the book was controversial and had planned on releasing it anyway, as they had already printed 50,000 copies. It was only AFTER 9/11 that the publisher became concerned about publishing the book so soon after the attacks because it would not be well received by the public. Therefore it was purely a business decision.

http://freelancewrite.about.com/lib...y/aa031702a.htm

quote:

who's being rational here? the person who is suggesting a few possibilities? or the person who disbelieves them without thinking twice about them? THINK!

No, rational is taking all the facts at hand and coming to a reasonable conclusion. Rational does not mean believing in every hare brained scheme because there is the slightest, ittiest, bittiest chance that it might be true ... but to slightly twist your words around:

Who's being rational here? A person intelligently critiquing a theory or the person who believes in it without thinking enough about it?

quote:

what i am saying is that the american media appear to be the only people who have their own original video recordings of saddam. all international media have used the footage that america have provided.

Ok well then we can just wait for his trial to start, when all the cameras are about, to finally put in that last nail in the coffin of your theory.

quote:

ok. the information first hand is given by whom? think about it. the president says to the highest ranking officer at the pentagon - tell them we caught him. we are ready to make the american citizens think he's captured and get rid of one worry in their lives. we never had this conversation. then word breaks out in the pentagon. everyone tells everyone, then the troops in iraq get told by their mates who heard it from their mates etc etc etc. - if you had an open mind about this you will see it is entirely possible

So why can't one simple solider from that division that captured him simply say: No it didn't happen ... we weren't there. Not ONE single soldier has come forward??? He could earn millions tellign the story about the massive government coverup! No takers??? Not one??? Oh right, if he did we would kill him and he would be completely forgotten just like that, despite his enormous revelations. Therefore no one has come forward .... uhuh.

quote:

What shows? i have a generally open mind about pretty much everything that i myself can logically believe. on one hand i have this possible conspiracy and on the other side i have what i'm fed by tv... go figure why i'm arguing for this

You might need this site in the future ...

www.snopes.com

If you hear any rumor ... anything that sounds remotely false, use that site as a basic benchmark. If that fails ... use simple research.

No offense to you personally, but I have a deep seated hatred for conspiracy theories. I make it a personal mission to attack every single one.

___________________
Retro ...