Man you made my night honda!!

I actually dont liek cable news but read it online from the source

 

Online, on the tube, in the paper...does it matter?

It's 95% lies except for the stuff you can't fake like weather and sports.

 

And i can't belive any working class would want to vote for Bush again??? Then again kerry isn't any better...i guess you pick the less of the two evil...

 

Damn, I should have stayed up last night. . . anyway, maybe it's you who can't read between the lines. For the most part, my original reply was a JOKE about how worked up you're getting over something like hotdogs. The fact that you can even translate going through one's day at the ballpark to being fed lies by the established media is outrageous.

By the way, I've been to some websites which I'm sure you'd approve, inforwars.com, prisonplanet.com, and I've read what they have to say. The unfortunate thing about these sites is that they're RIDDLED with OPINION, not fact. Furthermore, these sites are based on a single hypothesis. The authors then actively seek the evidence to support that hypothesis, regardless the validity. So if you contend that we (I) should be getting my "information" from places like this, you're surely kidding. Anyone can set up a website to promote an agenda. . . so perhaps the owner(s) of those sites has done the same???

Finally, you in fact, have fallen into the typical "counterculture" trap. While you have told me that I am the one who is brainwashed, naive, uneducated, distracted, disinterested, etc., you have NOT offered a solution. Please enlighten me to the "truth" of the matter without making anymore baseless/irrelevant comments. Where have I gone wrong in my hotdog eating world?

I've never voted for a mainstream candidate in any election, so I really doubt that I'm influenced all that much by the "government" powers that be. Does that mean I cross the street on red? Nope. Do I go searching for little green men and reptile men who run the world? No way. However, I am content knowing that I can go out and eat a hotdog without feeling the pressures of the power elite's corruption of the mind. Can you say the same?

 

But shouldnt the REAL question be....

If they are anarchists then how do they get organized??

Who does an anarchists vote for??

If your against government and for chaos then how can you be against the current state in Iraq?

 

I don't know about others, but those people don't need to speak up for me or my rights!!!

Here is a few samples of our new saviors

 

I support our guys in uniform over there, but I have to say that 60% seems low. Are we talking about when Bush brought the biggest of the big armies into their country or now?
If then, I will have to agree that they should fight back, in their opinion and in our leaders opinions we were at war, you shoot each other in wars.
If we are talking about now, I think its bullshit that they keep "fighting" since they obviously lost. I quote fighting because strapping a bomb to a 12 year olds chest and sending him towards a group of people is not what I consider the definition of fighting.
However, like it or not, there are always 2 sides to any story or in this case, any fight. Our side and theirs, on our side we all know why we went there.... oh wait, I'm not touching that with a ten foot pole.
But anyway, we started a war, destroyed the opponents army, captured their leaders, and may or may not have had raped their prisoners for shits and giggles, but I digress. Thats our side of the story, theirs is that we came there for no reason other than oil, that we want to take over their country for our own profit, and that we will stay there for as long as we want (remember this is not my opinion, this is my opinion of the enemies opinion.) So anyway, in their minds were there for our own benefit and in order to do so we have to basically destroy their country.

Would you fight back if this was your point of view? I'm not saying its the right point of view, but its theirs. Now tell me you wouldn't fight back?

 

i would bet a good amount of money that 1/2 of the people, if not more, at those protests don't know anything about what is going on. they just go because it's the cool thing to do. i bet a good percentage of them won't even wake up and vote.

whats even scarier is that the ones that do vote, probably don't know why they are voting.

I don't care if you vote for Bush, or for Kerry.. but make an inform vote. not because MTV or some movie director is telling you one thing. Why do people even pay attention to "movie actors" they are paid to entertain us, not push their agenda down our throats.

As far as media agenda, CNN survey shows that it is a 12 to 1 ratio of journalists voting against bush. So whatever you see in the media, is so tainted that you shouldn't believe any of it.

I was watching the protest and in one segment, they were chanting down with fox news!!! hahaha.. the only station that reports anything remotely bad againt the left, and they chant against it. stupid hippies..

 

Fox News is basically Murdoch's agenda station, and he's so far up Bush's ass that lump in the presidents throat is Murdochs nose.

 

Good posts ninethreeeleven

I read a bit of this thread the other day and gave up because it was full of arrogance and ignorance but its good to see that there was some humble, sensible response.

Fancy grouping Greenpeace with the KKK What a crock of shit! Its easy to sit up in your office and throw around words like sustainability to impress your friends but when you let the dollar signs blind your judgement you convince yourself that raping the earth is part of evolution and your conscience takes another valium.

Labelling protestors as anarchists is about as accurate as labelling americans as arrogant war mongerers. Tarring all involved with the same brush is a gross generalisation that can only turn the finger of blame back on ourselves. Should we blame the media? Why? For providing the type of news that the public want to see? Or should we blame the extremist protestors that feel the best way of getting on the front page and conveying their message is by forcing people to take notice of what they have to say.

A guy in Canberra set himself on fire as a protest last year because his two young children weren't able to migrate legally into Australia. Was it affective? I suppose you could argue that it was because his children were flown over for his funeral and allowed to stay. So ask yourself why he done it and before you jump to the conclusion that he was a cut and dry maniac, consider that he was so desperate and unrepresented that he had to resort to providing such inhumane imagery in order to give the public what they want, Controversy.

My point is that if people were more open to listening to someone else's opinion rather than dismissing it as garbage because you dont see the immediate relevance (read:wont put $$ in your bank/give you a free ipod/ get you to work faster) and inspiring the extremists in the bunch to resort to what they know will get their message broadcasted to the largest audience.

On a lighter note, check out the google ads on this thread