RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism.

RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Edwynn -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/23/2011 10:58:11 AM)
It was impossible to escape notice your jumping up and down on the bed at the news that the government sent GE a $3.2 billion check. I appreciate your enthusiasm.

WantsOfTheFlesh -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/23/2011 11:00:33 AM)
I have no interest in slinging insults about and name calling. I think its childish and it derails discussion. Nice using the word "denier" as in a Holocaust denier lol as if it is a robust fact I'm denying. You have a right to your own views but I don't share them - for example you object to anybody having any religiously identifying symbols because it is percieved as pushing their faith in your face. [:D] It seems clear enough that many conspiracists (perhaps not all - I shouldn't tar) look for any piece of knowledge which is in turn interpreted in a selective way. I said the news was pretty crap and yes it is at times biased. Sometimes it does reflect the views of the owners. In the UK for example Murdock is anti-EU and his papers generally (albeit not always) reflect that stance but it is one thing to make that supposition, which seems a fair enough conclusion to come to, and quite another to say there is some sort of grand machievellian plan to control the masses! [8\|]

Edwynn -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/23/2011 11:08:00 AM)
Political "bias" is a red herring. What does not get reported matters. How the most essential item or word in contradiction to the bleating of the headline and all the 'experts' supporting that get's buried in the penultimate paragraph on page 14, by more creditable and objective experts, matters. But here's some more crayons for you in any case. All two colors.

Edwynn -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/23/2011 11:12:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh In the UK for example Murdock is anti-EU and his papers generally (albeit not always) reflect that stance but it is one thing to make that supposition, which seems a fair enough conclusion to come to, and quite another to say there is some sort of grand machievellian plan to control the masses! [8\|] Who says there's conspiracy? Who is it that has such a dire need to ascribe the term "machievellian" to any of this? Apparently you quite miss the point.

WantsOfTheFlesh -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/23/2011 11:17:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn Political "bias" is a red herring. What does not get reported matters. How the most essential item or word in contradiction to the bleating of the headline and all the 'experts' supporting that get's buried in the penultimate paragraph on page 14, by more creditable and objective experts, matters. Er... no it does matter. However, you are right that what doesn't get reported also matters. However, many fairly important issues aren't properly reported in the "meja" - such things can't be put down to control conspiracies without substantial proof. quote: But here's some more crayons for you in any case. All two colors. Sorry but I don't want pink - unlike yourself I don't feel the need to draw any elephants! [:D] quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn quote: ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh In the UK for example Murdock is anti-EU and his papers generally (albeit not always) reflect that stance but it is one thing to make that supposition, which seems a fair enough conclusion to come to, and quite another to say there is some sort of grand machievellian plan to control the masses! [8\|] Who says there's conspiracy? Who is it that has such a dire need to ascribe the term "machievellian" to any of this? Apparently you quite miss the point. Edwyn, I initially referred to conspiracy theories relating to control of the populace. I was critical of those views but you disagreed. What else could that be other than machievellian unless you think it is a good thing? [8\|]

Edwynn -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/23/2011 11:21:12 AM)
You are not only displaying lack of reading comprehension, but you keep braying it to the world. I never claimed conspiracy, and in fact the whole point was that there is no conspiracy. That is ALL yours.

WantsOfTheFlesh -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/23/2011 11:24:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn You are not only displaying lack of reading comprehension, but you keep braying it to the world. I never claimed conspiracy, and in fact the whole point was that there is no conspiracy. That is ALL yours. Sorry to disagree again old boy! On the previous page I said "I think you are right Kd. A lot of people see conspiracy in almost everything. It is a good example of people seeing what they want to see, sometimes (not always AFAIK) with a hate agenda. For example the media talks a lot of shit at times and gets it simply wrong a lot but there is no genuine reason to think it is trying to manipulate and control our lives." You replied to that post by criticising that view. How much clearer can it be? Its funny how those that accuse others of poor reading comprehension are often at fault themselves! [;)]

Edwynn -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/23/2011 11:26:59 AM)
In economics study of industrial organization and market regulation there is concern for monopoly and oligarchy for a reason. If your understanding of the world is limited to what the media oligarchy tells you, than there is little I can do for you. Of course those standard econ books are nothing but conspiracy to begin with.

Edwynn -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/23/2011 11:29:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn You are not only displaying lack of reading comprehension, but you keep braying it to the world. I never claimed conspiracy, and in fact the whole point was that there is no conspiracy. That is ALL yours. Sorry to disagree again old boy! On the previous page I said "I think you are right Kd. A lot of people see conspiracy in almost everything. It is a good example of people seeing what they want to see, sometimes (not always AFAIK) with a hate agenda. For example the media talks a lot of shit at times and gets it simply wrong a lot but there is no genuine reason to think it is trying to manipulate and control our lives." You replied to that post by criticising that view. How much clearer can it be? Its funny how those that accuse others of poor reading comprehension are often at fault themselves! [;)] Oh, I dunno. Maybe because the whole point was that no conspiracy was needed, and your response is that some see conspiracy in everything? Just a guess.

Edwynn -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/23/2011 11:34:07 AM)
OK Wants, I'm done! Sorry to have taken it even this far, when my priorities are elsewhere. This got to a head butting contest and I'm not fond of that. Good to meet in any regards.

WantsOfTheFlesh -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/23/2011 11:38:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn quote: ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn You are not only displaying lack of reading comprehension, but you keep braying it to the world. I never claimed conspiracy, and in fact the whole point was that there is no conspiracy. That is ALL yours. Sorry to disagree again old boy! On the previous page I said "I think you are right Kd. A lot of people see conspiracy in almost everything. It is a good example of people seeing what they want to see, sometimes (not always AFAIK) with a hate agenda. For example the media talks a lot of shit at times and gets it simply wrong a lot but there is no genuine reason to think it is trying to manipulate and control our lives." You replied to that post by criticising that view. How much clearer can it be? Its funny how those that accuse others of poor reading comprehension are often at fault themselves! [;)] Oh, I dunno. Maybe because the whole point was that no conspiracy was needed, and your response is that some see conspiracy in everything? Just a guess. You did say no theory was needed but you were clearly asserting that a conspiracy was going on as you just did in the post above the one I quote. Whether you are a "conspiracy theorist" or a "conspiricist" it amounts to the same thing - you possess certain views. I don't buy into the views of the mainstream media. In fact I take issue with a lot of the content that passes for news. Some of it is agenda driven. However, it is one thing to take issue with the media and quite another to view it as controlling us by positing some central command structure. You say it is self-evident hence no theory but I assume if others disagree they too are merely brainwashed by "what the media oligarchy tells" them.

WantsOfTheFlesh -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/23/2011 11:41:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn OK Wants, I'm done! Sorry to have taken it even this far, when my priorities are elsewhere. This got to a head butting contest and I'm not fond of that. Good to meet in any regards. Just saw your last post. Fair enough - I don't find this stuff fun either. Enjoy your time on here.

Edwynn -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/23/2011 12:26:46 PM)
If you would like to see some of what I am on about here, please read the "Obama blames speculators for rising fuel prices" thread. I hope that you eventually understand that given the reality, I consider 'conspiracy,' 'control of the populace,' etc. to be dinosaur terms, used only by the media anymore, as it turns out.

WantsOfTheFlesh -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/23/2011 12:35:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn If you would like to see some of what I am on about here, please read the "Obama blames speculators for rising fuel prices" thread. I hope that you eventually understand that given the reality, I consider 'conspiracy,' 'control of the populace,' etc. to be dinosaur terms, used only by the media anymore, as it turns out. Edwyn you yourself used the term conspiracy on this page and criticised the views I expressed. If you don't think it is true to call it conspiracy or see the facts somewhat differently to what others like myself call "conspiricists" then perhaps you should qualify your criticism. Otherwise your criticism such as on the previous page leads to misunderstanding.

Page: << < prev 4 5 6 7 [8]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125