NE_REVIVAL

Members
  • Content count

    1,331
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

61 Excellent

About NE_REVIVAL

  • Rank
    Footballguy

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team
    New England Patriots

Recent Profile Visitors

4,156 profile views
  1. 1. Well for some it certainly appears to be not only that we can't get along without china but we can't get along without china on their terms. 2. The new president can't change the direction of international policy? You don't say? Well afaic if it was ok for the rougue clown of a president we used to have to unilaterally (ie no aproval from congress) try to commit us to climate con treaties, illegally fund the terrorist iranian government, trade terrorist leaders for a f'ing desserter, rewrite immigration policy on the fly, reward the communist dictatorship in cuba, all against the wishes of congress and in some cases the law,I think the new president can take a call from whomever he wants. 3. No, we already have the transition, we have a new president and he needs to try and undo the incalculable damage one of the worst presidents in our history has done at home and abroad. What Obama and his sycophants want now is irrelevant, the sooner you and china understand that the better. 4. I don't doubt for a second that China would go to war militarily over taiwan and im pretty confident we wouldn't but we don't have to consistently telegraph our fecklessness abroad as our previous "leader" did. If its a trade war I wouldn't welcome it, but there is little doubt that china is an oppressive regime and im not as certain as you are that history will look so kindly on us playing nice nice with them. What was it jon stewart said about a new president you don't agree with? Ah yes, get over it, its supposed to taste like a #### taco.....
  2. Well you compared taking a call to ripping out our own heart. Have we actually broken an agreement, is there a section in the agreement that covers the pe taking a call? As already stated I admit you could be right, im just trying to get you to acknowledge that maybe, just maybe you could be wrong. Maybe letting china know that the community organizer from chicago isn't running the show anymore isn't the ripping out our own heart move some want to make it out to be.
  3. I respectfully disagree with just about everything you just said which imo is all based on your opinion and your certainty that you know what is best. You assume, no you are certain that displeasing china is the equivalent of cutting our own throat and i say how the f can you possibly know that? How can you be so damn certain that we can't possibly go on without china and the world will end for america. China most certainly is dictating who we can talk to and its rather absurd to suggest otherwise. Did the agreement we signed also ok chinese aggression in the s china sea and chinas cyber warfare?
  4. Im aware of 2 tweets, one mentioning Taiwan initiated the call and the other mentioning arms sales so if that is what u r referring to im not sure how that translates into evidence that you and henry know more about how to interact with china than trump and his advisers do. Let me concede it is possible you are right, i just don't see any real evidence to support the assertion. Personally Im not sure whether the call will prove to be a good thing or bad, but it is clear that appeasing china hasn't stopped their aggression. Im also uncomfortable with the thought of other countries dictating to our president who he can talk to and who he can't. Short term maybe its bad, maybe good, long term it could well be viewed differently. I don't know and neither do you and yet you and henry seem so certain about your opinions. The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. (Bertrand Russell)
  5. With comments like above its no wonder you also recently posted " I've noticed this among Trump fans and certain conservatives: they feel like liberals patronize them and talk down to them. It's part of the whole anti-intellectual movement that got a guy like Trump elected." What evidence (proof) do you have to support your assertion that Henry the fbg mb guy has more knowledge and fact re china than trump does? Is Henry an alias for John Bolton? If its Kerry its no wonder the world has gone to hell in a hand basket over the last 8 years
  6. Sure there is "some" difference between hoping for something bad and joking/making light of something bad; but both are deplorable, particularly for people who consider themselves to be journalists, wouldn't you agree? Its admittedly a poor analogy, but its kinda like the difference between hoping a woman gets raped and laughing making jokes about a woman being raped. One is worse than the other, but both are pretty bad You didn't answer so let me ask again, you do concede that the apology from cnn wasn't made up, correct?
  7. You got that right Henry, of course they probably shouldn't post on message boards either
  8. So you believe there is a huge distinction between hoping something bad happens and joking/gleefully laughing about it? Was the apology from cnn made up to? http://nypost.com/2016/12/02/cnn-apologizes-for-producers-joke-about-a-trump-plane-crash/
  9. No, I think you are sorry you can't refute any of the facts or reasoning I presented. IMO, it is blatantly obvious that the left is largely responsible for feeding the narrative that cops are the enemy (and therefore high on the list of problems facing minorities, which is of course absurd) which in turn has lead to a dramatic increase in police killings and disregard for the law. Rather than insult me, tell me why that reasoning is wrong?
  10. Sure, how about right from the beginning (2009) when he threw the Cambridge police under the bus. The CAMBRIDGE MA POLICE who are about as liberal and progressive a police force as you will find anywhere in this country. He could have acted like a leader and waited until he had the facts. Instead without knowing what actually happened he recklessly threw the police (who were only doing their Fing job) under the bus. Obama was wrong about the facts and wrong to make such incendiary myth feeding type comments. What he did was set/encourage the demonstrably false "police are the enemy" narrative for his administration and its continued on ever since. Now thanks to him, his party (which includes msm, hollywood & academia) we have a dramatic increase in police killings and assassinations. http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=8148986
  11. Haha, I hope dems actually believe stuff like this. Bizarre confluence of events? The Democrats losses at virtually ALL levels of government since Obama took over are STAGGERING and virtually unprecedented. Yes trump was a very poor candidate, however the fact that democrats could run such a exceedingly dishonest candidate and almost win is testament to the power and ability of the msm, hollywood and academia to distract and fool the masses. There is nothing fluky about the ongoing (7+ yrs) repudiation of the progressive community organizers horrendous/misguided abuses of power/social re-engineering experiments. Obama could have been so good for the country and instead this petty, narcissistic ideologue has driven the country apart, set race relations back 50 years and done incalculable damage to this country and rest of the world in so many ways. Good riddance.....
  12. Fixed...And ftr, mob rule isn't an upgrade
  13. Meh, while were on the subject........ http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442465/fake-news-vox-ezra-klein?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily Trending Email Reoccurring- Monday to Thursday 2016-11-25&utm_term=NR5PM Actives Millions of rightwing partisans believe dumb things: that Barack Obama is a Kenyan-born Muslim, for example, or that Hillary Clinton has secretly carried on a years-long lesbian romance with her aide-de-camp. Remember Operation Jade Helm? And, indeed, over the last year, InfoWars and the Drudge Report and Jim Hoft’s Gateway Pundit blog have all pulled in record amounts of traffic, despite peddling demonstrably untrue stories as cold, irrefutable fact. But the Left has its own nonsense. How many liberals still believe that George W. Bush “stole” the 2000 presidential election? Jonathan Chait of New York Magazine, hardly a denizen of the fever swamps, was declaring the 2000 recount stolen as recently as last month. And if you want fever swamps, consider a 2006 Scripps Howard poll found that half more than half of registered Democrats believed George W. Bush was complicit in the September 11 terrorist attacks, with respondents split about evenly between calling Bush’s involvement “very likely” and “somewhat likely.”There’s a connection between the two. As “elite” media figures know, stories — true and false — trickle down, implanting themselves in the minds of hundreds of thousands or millions of citizens too busy or too lazy to do their own research. When Vox writes, “The election probably wasn’t hacked. But Clinton should request recounts just in case,” it’s legitimizing a seed of doubt. It’s no surprise, then, that Paul Krugman — Princeton economist, New York Times columnist, Nobel laureate — spent Tuesday night on Twitter calling for an “independent investigation” of election results, based on a New York Magazine report that a handful of “prominent computer scientists and election lawyers” think results in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania “may have been manipulated or hacked.” There’s no meaningful evidence to support that charge, as the Times’ Nate Cohn immediately pointed out, but it’s now an active point of discussion on cable news. Where are the lines dividing “fake” news from real? Why was voter fraud a rightwing “conspiracy theory” when conservatives push it, but an urgent matter of electoral transparency now that it’s coming from liberals? Why are right-wingers fabulist nuts, but left-wingers devotees of triumphant Reason? And when Ezra Klein neglects the context that effectively invalidates his thesis, is it a mistake or a lie — or “fake” news? A more responsible media wouldn’t create the confusion in the first place.
  14. I read the "article/story" what a smorgasbord of left wing misinformation. slanted statistics and dishonest talking points. A grain of truth here, complete removal of context there and presto. What a load of garbage, I think it would take months to go through the "reference links (bahahaha)" to nowhere guys with a blog stories and rebut virtually every inch of this dishonest poc. That the OP picked this article to base his "post truth" thread is lol funny. Word of advice, if you want to talk about truth and fact, dont base your thread on some lol ridiculously amateurish rant from a self described humorist\story teller who no fin idea what he is talking about. Yet the kool aid drinkers are so eager to drink it all down. Hillarys trashing and destroying the lives of rape victims or the vast right wing conspiracy, no cattle futures, her otr support for the iraq war and comments re wmds, firing of the wh travel office, the missing\found fbi files, how no sane public servant would think it was ok/logical/legal to setup an off the record email server when you are the secretary of state, not knowing what the "C" on all those emails meant (bawhahaha). No mention of her telling her daughter what actually happened in libya (IE the truth) and then despicably lying to parents of the dead later. The millions she and her husband have taken from foreign entities. Honest to god u could go on and on and on, this is a dishonest corrupt woman. Would it be just fine and dandy if the donald started the "trump initiative" and raked in money hand over fist from foreign entities while serving in a position of power in the federal gov? Good lord what an amateur load of garbage that "article/story" is. A less (rabidly) partisan take (imho) http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/442472/fake-news-post-truth-and-all-rest Spiked’s Brendan O’Neill wades into the controversy over ‘fake news’, a controversy that, tellingly, does not revolve around the likes of Stephen Colbert and John Stewart, but rather involves claims that made-up news on social media may have swung things Donald Trump’s way. O’Neill quotes Angela Merkel: Angela Merkel bemoaned the ‘fake sites, bots, trolls’ which ‘manipulate’ public opinion and make politics and democracy harder. That Merkel had the chutzpah to say something like that is a reminder of how well she plays the post-democratic game. And here’s a reminder (via Politico from January) how news works in the country over which Merkel has presided for so long (my emphasis added): Germany’s police and politicians have faced increasing anger in the wake of the New Year’s sex attack spree in Cologne, but much of the public’s ire has been directed at a group more comfortable asking questions than answering them: the news media. After largely ignoring the story for several days after the attacks, much of the national media appeared reluctant to explore possible links between the attacks and the recent influx of refugees. Some commentators went so far as to suggest it was unlikely asylum seekers were even involved…. More thoughtful observers see a problem deeper than political bias behind the coverage of Cologne and the broader refugee crisis: a press corps that has shifted from dispassionate observer to political actor. Instead of just reporting and analyzing events, some influential journalists, especially those who work for the public broadcasting networks, consider it their professional duty to serve as a counterweight to the populist rhetoric fueling the country’s right-wing revival, critics say. Hold that thought, and then go back to O’Neill, who quotes Obama: President Obama slammed this ‘active misinformation’, arguing that ‘if everything seems to be the same and no distinctions are made’, then we ‘lose so much of what we’ve gained in terms of democratic freedoms’. To be clear, I have no doubt that social media has proved a useful conduit for disinformation, and, for that matter, that some of that disinformation has been generated by—to use the euphemism—‘state actors’, but they have, in a sense, been pushing at an open door. Reading O’Neill makes it clear who opened it: The rise of fake news, ‘alternative news’ and conspiracy theories speaks not to the wicked interventions of myth-spreaders from without, but to the corrosion of reason within, right here in the West. It speaks to the declining moral and cultural authority of our own political and media class. It is the Western world’s own abandonment of objectivity, and loss of legitimacy in the eyes of its populace, that has nurtured something of a free-for-all on the facts and news front. That goes too far. There’s always been a strong market for rumor, conspiracy theories and myth, a market that is clearly now being given a boost by technology. That market predated the “abandonment of objectivity” and it would undoubtedly outlast its return. What’s different now (and this is part of what O’Neill is getting at) is the absence of individuals with the credibility to push back. That’s not to say there won’t be an attempt at to turn the tide. O’Neill: Then came the paternalistic solutions. We need new ‘gatekeepers’, columnists claim: professionals who have the resources and brains to work out what’s true and what’s a lie and ensure that people see more of the former. Obama and others suggest Facebook must get better at curating news, sorting truth from falsehood on behalf of its suggestible users. To which the obvious retort is to ask who can be trusted to do that? After all: Journalists have explicitly disavowed objectivity, and with it their ‘gatekeeping’ role. It is time to ‘toss out objectivity as a goal’, said Harvard journalism expert Dan Gilmor in 2005. By 2010, even Time magazine, self-styled epitome of the Western journalistic style, was celebrating ‘The End of “Objectivity”’…. The abandonment of objectivity in journalism did not happen in a vacuum. It sprung from, and in turn intensified, a rejection of reason in the West, a disavowal of the idea of truth, and its replacement either by the far more technical ambition of being ‘evidence-based’ or by highly emotional responses to world events. Indeed, the greatest irony in the fake-news panic, and in the whole post-Brexit, post-Trump talk of a new ‘post-truth’ era, is that it was the very guardians of Western culture and knowledge, the very establishment now horrified by how the little people think and vote, who made us ‘post-truth’; who oversaw the turn against Enlightenment in the academy… And what happens when you give up your conviction that truth can be discovered, and instead promote the idea that all ways of looking at the world, and interpreting the world, and feeling the world, have validity? You disorientate public discussion. You slay your own cultural authority. You create a situation where people doubt you, often with good reason, and go looking for other sources of information. You create the space for other claims of truth, some of them good and exciting, some of them mad and fake. Don’t blame Russia, or us, for the crisis of journalism and democracy or for our so-called ‘post-truth’ times. You did this. You, the gatekeepers. Food for thought, I reckon.