HorrorMovieFans.com

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:Hard to argue that at this moment, the conservatives are far more willing to have dialogue while the liberals are into suppression of different ideas. It is rampant across academia, social media, and in the workplace.

how is suppression attempted? i mean obviously denying someone a platform to speak, but are there other ways?

People are losing their jobs for espousing conservative viewpoints on Twitter, or banned on those platforms. Teachers are fired for sharing conservative beliefs, but never liberal beliefs. In media, people lose shows when they do not toe the liberal line, and it never goes the other way.

that's also denying someone a platform to speak. i guess i should have included punishing them for speaking, as a way to deny the platform, so there wasn't confusion.

There is a significant difference between not handing someone a microphone and taking their job away for not agreeing with your positions that do not relate to the job.

agreed. i think suppression can be done in other ways than either of those. but we can move on.

Tiggnutz wrote:Let's be honest Trump really should have been easy to work with not really beholden to anything ideals wise and loves deals total dick but why should that matter if you are working for the people.

In the last 48 hours, Dems in the house have stated they are going to launch an investigation into Trump and his personal connections with the Saudis because he has stated our national interests in maintaining good relations with that country outweigh trying to punish them for the death of a non-US citizen.

It is the Russia thing all over again. Since he has taken office, liberals have been trying their best to thrust us into wars with North Korea, Russia, and Saudi Arabia, each time alleging Trump has all these outside interests in maintaining peace.

zombie wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

zombie wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

zombie wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

zombie wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

zombie wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:
Stacked, because he came armed with facts? He's returned to the same universities multiple times where the students knew of him and his show, so I don't know. Do they all need a briefing before he comes sitting down with his folding table and mic? A safe space to prepare?

You wanna bet Jason or I could randomly come across him at Disneyland or some shit and have a perfectly reasonable conversation with him? Over/under is at a 1000.

stacked because he's calling on random people who don't make a living at politics and are not prepared for whatever topic he's coming with.

again, do whatever he wants. at least he's making pretense of an effort to be open to other people's viewpoints and opinions.

Being a political science student and protesting everything in every waking hour puts him at a disadvantage, I'd agree.

at least we're coming to something that could resemble an agreement.

Would you agree, that plenty of these kids think they are know-it-alls anyways, and he's actually welcoming to their disagreements?

yeah, i do think that most of the people he attracts to the show are largely gonna be know it alls that are already set into their beliefs and not willing to concede on any point, as well.

What makes you believe that? Never even on here have you encountered someone to not concede a point. Foo does everyday, Jason every hour, Me every minute. Non-sense.

hmf is a different environment than a college campus. none of us is a political media figure with a relatively large audience and we've all known each other for a long time. it is not the same by a large margin.

Well I'm glad to know none of us compare to a political media figure by a large margin. We're navel lint.

we're naval lint, which includes me!

No.

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote: I am saying that a certain amount of our beliefs have to be formed largely due to trust.

Look, we can't even get similar accounts on something like the migrant caravan, which can be seen, let alone something that 100% relies on the accuracy of both data and interpretation.

but you can choose to trust or not to trust. you have chosen not to trust in climate change. is that just because you heard trump question it's validity, or is there more to your reasoning?

My main reason is not trust in the science, it is trust in the solution. Feels too much like a snake oil pitch.

Also, I don't feel any moral responsibility to prevent it. Accordingly, I am certainly not going to make you use your money to prevent it.

so then we are not disagreeing on making up our own minds, which was the point of what i said. i didn't mean that you better come to the same conclusions that i do, or else don't make up your mind.

So how do you decide at the government level when to take action or not? In a democratic republic, public input is considered necessary. This is where media is supposed to come into play, as information providers.

Foo wrote:

Tiggnutz wrote:Let's be honest Trump really should have been easy to work with not really beholden to anything ideals wise and loves deals total dick but why should that matter if you are working for the people.

In the last 48 hours, Dems in the house have stated they are going to launch an investigation into Trump and his personal connections with the Saudis because he has stated our national interests in maintaining good relations with that country outweigh trying to punish them for the death of a non-US citizen.

It is the Russia thing all over again. Since he has taken office, liberals have been trying their best to thrust us into wars with North Korea, Russia, and Saudi Arabia, each time alleging Trump has all these outside interests in maintaining peace.

Its proof of their goals and helping America is not even close to the top. Trump is a gift and they don't see it he's not that smart and loves deals. Such a waste. Yeah let's get rid of him and deal with Pence the ultra conservative who thinks somebody should watch him fuck his wife so nothing unsavory is going on. Democrats are so stupid

But hey he's mean lol

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote: I am saying that a certain amount of our beliefs have to be formed largely due to trust.

Look, we can't even get similar accounts on something like the migrant caravan, which can be seen, let alone something that 100% relies on the accuracy of both data and interpretation.

but you can choose to trust or not to trust. you have chosen not to trust in climate change. is that just because you heard trump question it's validity, or is there more to your reasoning?

My main reason is not trust in the science, it is trust in the solution. Feels too much like a snake oil pitch.

Also, I don't feel any moral responsibility to prevent it. Accordingly, I am certainly not going to make you use your money to prevent it.

so then we are not disagreeing on making up our own minds, which was the point of what i said. i didn't mean that you better come to the same conclusions that i do, or else don't make up your mind.

So how do you decide at the government level when to take action or not? In a democratic republic, public input is considered necessary. This is where media is supposed to come into play, as information providers.

i think that you should take action to conserve resources and reduce pollution, to whatever degree you think is necessary and reasonable to your other interests as a political figure. and the media should be less driven by agenda, or at least present the evidence more to support their agenda.

Reign in Blood wrote:

zombie wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

zombie wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

zombie wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

zombie wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

zombie wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:
Stacked, because he came armed with facts? He's returned to the same universities multiple times where the students knew of him and his show, so I don't know. Do they all need a briefing before he comes sitting down with his folding table and mic? A safe space to prepare?

You wanna bet Jason or I could randomly come across him at Disneyland or some shit and have a perfectly reasonable conversation with him? Over/under is at a 1000.

stacked because he's calling on random people who don't make a living at politics and are not prepared for whatever topic he's coming with.

again, do whatever he wants. at least he's making pretense of an effort to be open to other people's viewpoints and opinions.

Being a political science student and protesting everything in every waking hour puts him at a disadvantage, I'd agree.

at least we're coming to something that could resemble an agreement.

Would you agree, that plenty of these kids think they are know-it-alls anyways, and he's actually welcoming to their disagreements?

yeah, i do think that most of the people he attracts to the show are largely gonna be know it alls that are already set into their beliefs and not willing to concede on any point, as well.

What makes you believe that? Never even on here have you encountered someone to not concede a point. Foo does everyday, Jason every hour, Me every minute. Non-sense.

hmf is a different environment than a college campus. none of us is a political media figure with a relatively large audience and we've all known each other for a long time. it is not the same by a large margin.

Well I'm glad to know none of us compare to a political media figure by a large margin. We're navel lint.

we're naval lint, which includes me!

No.

well, geez. i'm not a part of hmf. thanks a lot....

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote: I am saying that a certain amount of our beliefs have to be formed largely due to trust.

Look, we can't even get similar accounts on something like the migrant caravan, which can be seen, let alone something that 100% relies on the accuracy of both data and interpretation.

but you can choose to trust or not to trust. you have chosen not to trust in climate change. is that just because you heard trump question it's validity, or is there more to your reasoning?

My main reason is not trust in the science, it is trust in the solution. Feels too much like a snake oil pitch.

Also, I don't feel any moral responsibility to prevent it. Accordingly, I am certainly not going to make you use your money to prevent it.

so then we are not disagreeing on making up our own minds, which was the point of what i said. i didn't mean that you better come to the same conclusions that i do, or else don't make up your mind.

So how do you decide at the government level when to take action or not? In a democratic republic, public input is considered necessary. This is where media is supposed to come into play, as information providers.

i think that you should take action to conserve resources and reduce pollution, to whatever degree you think is necessary and reasonable to your other interests as a political figure. and the media should be less driven by agenda, or at least present the evidence more to support their agenda.

I have chosen to take no action, and would appreciate it if other people would stop trying to dig into my pockets to use my money on their interests.

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote: I am saying that a certain amount of our beliefs have to be formed largely due to trust.

Look, we can't even get similar accounts on something like the migrant caravan, which can be seen, let alone something that 100% relies on the accuracy of both data and interpretation.

but you can choose to trust or not to trust. you have chosen not to trust in climate change. is that just because you heard trump question it's validity, or is there more to your reasoning?

My main reason is not trust in the science, it is trust in the solution. Feels too much like a snake oil pitch.

Also, I don't feel any moral responsibility to prevent it. Accordingly, I am certainly not going to make you use your money to prevent it.

so then we are not disagreeing on making up our own minds, which was the point of what i said. i didn't mean that you better come to the same conclusions that i do, or else don't make up your mind.

So how do you decide at the government level when to take action or not? In a democratic republic, public input is considered necessary. This is where media is supposed to come into play, as information providers.

i think that you should take action to conserve resources and reduce pollution, to whatever degree you think is necessary and reasonable to your other interests as a political figure. and the media should be less driven by agenda, or at least present the evidence more to support their agenda.

I have chosen to take no action, and would appreciate it if other people would stop trying to dig into my pockets to use my money on their interests.

cool. you want to force a debate, where i was just saying that people should decide for themselves where they stand. not liberals. not conservatives, but people in general. that is where this started, when you quoted it.

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote: I am saying that a certain amount of our beliefs have to be formed largely due to trust.

Look, we can't even get similar accounts on something like the migrant caravan, which can be seen, let alone something that 100% relies on the accuracy of both data and interpretation.

but you can choose to trust or not to trust. you have chosen not to trust in climate change. is that just because you heard trump question it's validity, or is there more to your reasoning?

My main reason is not trust in the science, it is trust in the solution. Feels too much like a snake oil pitch.

Also, I don't feel any moral responsibility to prevent it. Accordingly, I am certainly not going to make you use your money to prevent it.

so then we are not disagreeing on making up our own minds, which was the point of what i said. i didn't mean that you better come to the same conclusions that i do, or else don't make up your mind.

So how do you decide at the government level when to take action or not? In a democratic republic, public input is considered necessary. This is where media is supposed to come into play, as information providers.

i think that you should take action to conserve resources and reduce pollution, to whatever degree you think is necessary and reasonable to your other interests as a political figure. and the media should be less driven by agenda, or at least present the evidence more to support their agenda.

I have chosen to take no action, and would appreciate it if other people would stop trying to dig into my pockets to use my money on their interests.

cool. you want to force a debate, where i was just saying that people should decide for themselves where they stand. not liberals. not conservatives, but people in general. that is where this started, when you quoted it.

You are missing my bigger point, which is we are not given a choice. Once the power players make the decision, your decision is made, the only thing that matters is the speed of implementation.

Foo wrote: You are missing my bigger point, which is we are not given a choice. Once the power players make the decision, your decision is made, the only thing that matters is the speed of implementation.

if we're not given a choice, then the media doesn't have to tell us what to think. if they're telling us what to think, there must be something that we can change or influence that they want us to, or don't want.

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote: You are missing my bigger point, which is we are not given a choice. Once the power players make the decision, your decision is made, the only thing that matters is the speed of implementation.

if we're not given a choice, then the media doesn't have to tell us what to think. if they're telling us what to think, there must be something that we can change or influence that they want us to, or don't want.

It is the illusion that some things are in our best interest, so we do not revolt. Right now, approximately 35% of every dollar goes to taxation. The media is the propaganda arm that keeps the struggling person making middle income or lower from going on a killing spree.

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote: You are missing my bigger point, which is we are not given a choice. Once the power players make the decision, your decision is made, the only thing that matters is the speed of implementation.

if we're not given a choice, then the media doesn't have to tell us what to think. if they're telling us what to think, there must be something that we can change or influence that they want us to, or don't want.

It is the illusion that some things are in our best interest, so we do not revolt. Right now, approximately 35% of every dollar goes to taxation. The media is the propaganda arm that keeps the struggling person making middle income or lower from going on a killing spree.

propaganda is only necessary if there is a choice. you said there wasn't. *shrug*

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote: You are missing my bigger point, which is we are not given a choice. Once the power players make the decision, your decision is made, the only thing that matters is the speed of implementation.

if we're not given a choice, then the media doesn't have to tell us what to think. if they're telling us what to think, there must be something that we can change or influence that they want us to, or don't want.

It is the illusion that some things are in our best interest, so we do not revolt. Right now, approximately 35% of every dollar goes to taxation. The media is the propaganda arm that keeps the struggling person making middle income or lower from going on a killing spree.

propaganda is only necessary if there is a choice. you said there wasn't. *shrug*

The choice is speed and violence.

When is the last time we voted on going to war? When do the citizens stand up to war or support it? It is 100% based on how the media reports it.

As an intellectual exercise, humor me with two numbers, I am looking for a percentage purely based on your best guess:

- What percentage of the public viewed Russia as an enemy in 2015?
- What percentage of the public viewed Russia as an enemy in 2017?

Keep in mind, the public at large has no contact with Russia, so any change in that figure would solely be based on media reporting. Similar reporting is going on with Saudi Arabia now.

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote: You are missing my bigger point, which is we are not given a choice. Once the power players make the decision, your decision is made, the only thing that matters is the speed of implementation.

if we're not given a choice, then the media doesn't have to tell us what to think. if they're telling us what to think, there must be something that we can change or influence that they want us to, or don't want.

It is the illusion that some things are in our best interest, so we do not revolt. Right now, approximately 35% of every dollar goes to taxation. The media is the propaganda arm that keeps the struggling person making middle income or lower from going on a killing spree.

propaganda is only necessary if there is a choice. you said there wasn't. *shrug*

The choice is speed and violence.

When is the last time we voted on going to war? When do the citizens stand up to war or support it? It is 100% based on how the media reports it.

As an intellectual exercise, humor me with two numbers, I am looking for a percentage purely based on your best guess:

- What percentage of the public viewed Russia as an enemy in 2015?
- What percentage of the public viewed Russia as an enemy in 2017?

Keep in mind, the public at large has no contact with Russia, so any change in that figure would solely be based on media reporting. Similar reporting is going on with Saudi Arabia now.

russia has russia's interests in mind, not america's. saudi arabia also has their own interests in mind, and on top of that are muslim. which we know how you feel about muslims as they are currently.

if there is no choice, but what you laid out, why did you vote for donald trump? why vote at all?

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote: You are missing my bigger point, which is we are not given a choice. Once the power players make the decision, your decision is made, the only thing that matters is the speed of implementation.

if we're not given a choice, then the media doesn't have to tell us what to think. if they're telling us what to think, there must be something that we can change or influence that they want us to, or don't want.

It is the illusion that some things are in our best interest, so we do not revolt. Right now, approximately 35% of every dollar goes to taxation. The media is the propaganda arm that keeps the struggling person making middle income or lower from going on a killing spree.

propaganda is only necessary if there is a choice. you said there wasn't. *shrug*

The choice is speed and violence.

When is the last time we voted on going to war? When do the citizens stand up to war or support it? It is 100% based on how the media reports it.

As an intellectual exercise, humor me with two numbers, I am looking for a percentage purely based on your best guess:

- What percentage of the public viewed Russia as an enemy in 2015?
- What percentage of the public viewed Russia as an enemy in 2017?

Keep in mind, the public at large has no contact with Russia, so any change in that figure would solely be based on media reporting. Similar reporting is going on with Saudi Arabia now.

russia has russia's interests in mind, not america's. saudi arabia also has their own interests in mind, and on top of that are muslim. which we know how you feel about muslims as they are currently.

if there is no choice, but what you laid out, why did you vote for donald trump? why vote at all?

Trump gets hate from the establishment and their media. He was a choice to not have more of the same. A guy not tied to corporate interests.

Why do you think it is so important the establishment media implies he is a traitor, despite the fact the guy has been deeply patriotic as a public figure for 35 years? That he is a racist, despite winning awards for just the opposite?

The lasting legacy of Bush and Obama was 15 years of war. Trump met with North Korea and tensions have de-escalated. Do you read praise? Trump tries to cook tensions with Russia and Saudi Arabia, do you read praise from the left that was calling for peace before? No, you get war mongering.

Foo wrote: Trump gets hate from the establishment and their media. He was a choice to not have more of the same. A guy not tied to corporate interests.

Why do you think it is so important the establishment media implies he is a traitor, despite the fact the guy has been deeply patriotic as a public figure for 35 years? That he is a racist, despite winning awards for just the opposite?

The lasting legacy of Bush and Obama was 15 years of war. Trump met with North Korea and tensions have de-escalated. Do you read praise? Trump tries to cook tensions with Russia and Saudi Arabia, do you read praise from the left that was calling for peace before? No, you get war mongering.

voting trump is a valid choice apparently, even from someone who said there was no choice but "speed and violence".

your argument seems to boil down to the media doesn't want you to make a choice for yourself. which is not unlike what i said earlier. we should draw our own conclusions and come to our points of view because that's how we actually feel, not just because it's what we're told to feel.

as for why the establishment acts to trump the way they do... i think his platform of the outsider against the establishment wouldn't work otherwise. i think they lived up to how he characterized them, to serve his image and agenda. at least on the establishment level. there are going to be those who see that and take it all to heart, for sure.

Seb disappeared after he came in puffing his chest like he was gonna derail this thread.

Thread firmly intact and thriving.