there is this gem now http://www.hewillnotdivide.us/ 24x7 real time stream of people being idiots ala transformers guy
On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 1:40 AM, Stefan Englhardt <[email protected]> wrote: > Today we’ve great possibilities to spread news. But it is very difficult > to get the real information unbiased. Breitbart is known to be very biased > even here over the ocean. But it seems the „normal“ media in USA is biased, > too. > > E.g. we never understood how Bush jun. got his second election where it > was clear he started a war based on wrong information. This is unthinkable > here. It would be the one point which would dominate the discussion and > would make him unvotable here. Your media seemed to move the discussion > away from this fact and relativated his guilty to make him votable. > > Another example is the Hillary Email discussion. This is a topic which is > minor at best but was discussed the whole time. > > I guess it is possible Trump kills a person in TV and get reelected if > media helps him. Unthinkable? But killing one person is much less a problem > than starting a war where thousands are killed. Breitbart would find 100 > reasons why this person has to die and would find other topics to report. > > > > > > Good and neutral media are the base of a working democracy. For sure you > have a problem. > > > > > > > > *Von:* Af [mailto:[email protected]] *Im Auftrag von *That One Guy > /sarcasm > *Gesendet:* Sonntag, 22. Januar 2017 07:05 > *An:* [email protected] > *Betreff:* Re: [AFMUG] [OT: Politics] Can we? > > > > Im pretty confident the next few days is setting the stage to effectively > shutting down "media access". Im all for it in the current environment. > Between press releases, Publicly accessible data, FOIA responses, live > streamed events, and one on one interviews (and yes...twitter) the press > really is the dialup internet method of getting information. We know more > in real time then the press could ever package up and present. The current > mindset of media in press conferences is that of militants (both sides of > the media isle) and there is zero professionalism from either one. Neither > really gives a damn what the answer is anyway, theyre going to report > whatever their preconceived response was either way. > > > > Question: Did we send B52 Bombers to hit an ISIS target? > > > > Answer: Yes > > > > CNN under Obama: Obama authorizes successful airstrike removing 100 ISIS > fighters in final days of his presidency. This act ensures that those who > would commit terror will be addressed accordingly, even during the > transition of power. > > > > Breitbart under Obama: Obama, the snake furthers military conflict day > before leaving office, leaving all Americans at risk during a tumultuous > time of transition. Kills 100, ensuring a retaliatory response. > > > > Had the same attack been authorized today: > > > > CNN under Trump: MILITARY FIASCO: Trump bombs random targets. Top military > officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, refuse to verify there were > no civilian casualties, at least 100 confirmed dead. War crime charges > possible? > > > > Breitbart under Trump: God Emperor Trump authorized the removal of 100 > ISIS top leaders in his first act as Commander in Chief. Rumors of ISIS > surrender. Barack Obama potentially one of the dead operatives. > > > > On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 11:45 PM, Jeremy <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm all for it. I think that everyone is probably just impressed by the > first white house press briefing and the remarks at Langley. What an > amazing public speaker this one is. Have you ever had a friend or friend's > uncle or something who did too much meth? You know how they start out with > one sentence and then before you know it they have told fifteen other > stories before they ever get to the point...if they ever do??? We have > four years of that to look forward to. Just watch the full speech at the > CIA, you will see what I mean. Or don't....save yourself the pain. > > > > On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 10:27 PM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Can we talk about politics yet? :P > > > > > > > > -- > > If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team > as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. > -- If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
