User Controls
This is Extremely Dangerous to Our Democracy
-
2018-04-03 at 11:39 AM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-04-03 at 11:43 AM UTCI saw this earlier. I've been trying to tell people for three damn years that those local news stations are just as biased as CNN and such and nobody listens
-
2018-04-03 at 12:02 PM UTCOn one hand mass media is evil.
On the other if you rely on social media you have to deal with "vaccines cause cancer" and "KFC grow all their chicken wings in a lab" stories.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-04-03 at 5:28 PM UTCSinclair right? Yeah I heard about this ages ago. And most people think local news is less biased lol
-
2018-04-03 at 5:32 PM UTCThis is why I only get my news from /pol/ and right wing subreddits
-
2018-04-03 at 6:21 PM UTCSo FOX, CNBC and ABC, I wonder why they didn't include other networks.
-
2018-04-03 at 6:24 PM UTCApparently the story is that the parent company (Sinclair Group) of the listed channels gave them all a script; I'm not sure which channels they do or don't own
-
2018-04-03 at 6:33 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra Apparently the story is that the parent company (Sinclair Group) of the listed channels gave them all a script; I'm not sure which channels they do or don't own
i dont really understand.
how does something that happened in america becomes a danger to you, in your over there ??? -
2018-04-03 at 6:51 PM UTCI didn't say it was
if you're talking about the thread title it was just copypasta -
2018-04-03 at 7:01 PM UTC
-
2018-04-03 at 7:02 PM UTC
Originally posted by benny vader how does something that happened in america becomes a danger to you, in your over there ???
Everyone knows the only way people will fight wars is when they are lied to.
People have completely forgotten how close America came to invading Syria during the Obama years, and how only massive social media pressure and demonstrations of awareness stopped that happening. -
2018-04-03 at 7:08 PM UTC
Originally posted by GasTheKikesRaceWarNow Everyone knows the only way people will fight wars is when they are lied to.
i think you need to better define ''people''.
those professional, volunteer soldiers that the US keep sending overseas, those are not people.
their tools. when they enlisted, theyve became an instrument. -
2018-04-04 at 8:34 AM UTC
Originally posted by benny vader i think you need to better define ''people''.
those professional, volunteer soldiers that the US keep sending overseas, those are not people.
their tools. when they enlisted, theyve became an instrument.
Soldiers are just retarded kids. It's simple finding soldiers, but they don't win wars, factories win wars. -
2018-04-04 at 8:42 AM UTC
Originally posted by GasTheKikesRaceWarNow Everyone knows the only way people will fight wars is when they are lied to.
People have completely forgotten how close America came to invading Syria during the Obama years, and how only massive social media pressure and demonstrations of awareness stopped that happening.
You mean, and how Russia stopped that happening?
Remember the laughable "red line" of Obama that was instantly crossed by Russia with no repercussion? -
2018-04-04 at 8:44 AM UTC
Originally posted by GasTheKikesRaceWarNow Soldiers are just retarded kids. It's simple finding soldiers, but they don't win wars, factories win wars.
That doesn't fit historically though, and is one of the reasons the US hasn't been able to 'win' anything in a long time - reliance on technology and powerful weapons does not work in the face of human desperation and determination.
FYI the other major one is that the politicians waging them don't understand 'war' in a realistic sense - 'war is politics by other means'. They only think of enforcing their will with weapons; they have no real long-term plans outside of killing a lot of people to encourage obedience and they certainly don't respect the countries they invade enough to understand them, and by extension the long-term effects of the conflict -
2018-04-04 at 9:05 AM UTC
Originally posted by aldra That doesn't fit historically though, and is one of the reasons the US hasn't been able to 'win' anything in a long time - reliance on technology and powerful weapons does not work in the face of human desperation and determination.
FYI the other major one is that the politicians waging them don't understand 'war' in a realistic sense - 'war is politics by other means'. They only think of enforcing their will with weapons; they have no real long-term plans outside of killing a lot of people to encourage obedience and they certainly don't respect the countries they invade enough to understand them, and by extension the long-term effects of the conflict
Yeah, like if all the technological fairy tale bullshit gets jammed before it even enters combat. Jamming everything and reducing warfare to the lowest common denominator is how some advanced eastern countries operate.
Imagine yankee doodles wet trousers when, upon entering the combat zone, all GPS and communications stop functioning. Meanwhile the opposition is fearlessly running ww2 era communication lines. Add to this capable air defense systems, and the whole thing turns into a very bloody, primitive battle that nobody wants to fight. -
2018-04-04 at 5:18 PM UTC
Originally posted by GasTheKikesRaceWarNow but they don't win wars, factories win wars.
nothing win wars.
there are no winners in wars, only loses.
and there are only two types of loses, of sustainable loses, and unsustainable loses.
those that can sustain the loses of their men, material and will to war prevails. those that cant, perish. -
2018-04-04 at 5:32 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra That doesn't fit historically though, and is one of the reasons the US hasn't been able to 'win' anything in a long time - reliance on technology and powerful weapons does not work in the face of human desperation and determination.
not really that.
the real reason US have not win anything major since WW2 is the cost of live.
the lives of american soldiers are just too high in monetary and non monetary terms.
an average american soldier prolly cost as much as 100k to raise and educate, and then theres americans public perception on the value of life.
they just couldnt sustain their loses in men so they use technology to make up for it but the real reason is that their lives cost more.
living standards is their downfall.FYI the other major one is that the politicians waging them don't understand 'war' in a realistic sense - 'war is politics by other means'. They only think of enforcing their will with weapons; they have no real long-term plans outside of killing a lot of people to encourage obedience and they certainly don't respect the countries they invade enough to understand them, and by extension the long-term effects of the conflict
i prefer to belief that their politicians are more interested in war spending rather than the outcome of the war or not understanding it.
