Where do you get your news from? by SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

"G" -
Um, you don't see the flaw in your information-gathering approach? Because if all you see is what you CHOOSE to see, then all of your information is pre-selected by your own prejudices.

I think it's important to see what you might NOT WANT to see. One of the reasons why I used to come to this board is because I could reliably get the Rush Limbaugh/Glen Beck/ Ann Coulter POV. As frustrating as it was to encounter, I could at least get a good synopsis of what the rightwing media was focusing on at any particular time. (Now I have to go there myself. Or just listen to the GOP candidates.)

So even if what someone says makes my head blow off, I think it's important to know what's being said, especially if it's a major media outlet that reliably reflects what a government wants us to know. Otherwise you just surround yourself in a cocoon of sympatico POV.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2015 7:18 PM

I just come here and see what you guys and gals are saying. :)

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2015 8:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by G:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
"G" -
Um, you don't see the flaw in your information-gathering approach? Because if all you see is what you CHOOSE to see, then all of your information is pre-selected by your own prejudices.

I think it's important to see what you might NOT WANT to see. One of the reasons why I used to come to this board is because I could reliably get the Rush Limbaugh/Glen Beck/ Ann Coulter POV. As frustrating as it was to encounter, I could at least get a good synopsis of what the rightwing media was focusing on at any particular time. (Now I have to go there myself. Or just listen to the GOP candidates.)

So even if what someone says makes my head blow off, I think it's important to know what's being said, especially if it's a major media outlet that reliably reflects what a government wants us to know. Otherwise you just surround yourself in a cocoon of sympatico POV.

Um, so, no greater understanding today then? Ok. Google news world view? Multi-source? Nothing? Hollow brain? You very old? Cheap North Korean software on endless repeat? Again?

What seems REALLY strange to me today is how Signy gets beat up in here by both the right and the left side these days. When Bush Jr. was president, even though Sigs was moderate the lefties agreed with almost everything (s)he said.

Sigs makes a Damn Good point here G.

If you're a die-hard republican and the only news you get is from WLS and Fox News, you're an asshole. Same goes for lefties who DON'T listen to WLS and Fox for differing opinions.

The same could be said about anybody who listens to either side but doesn't listen to news of the world. Take some time to watch some BBC and Al Jazeera if you have Cable TV, for starters.

If the ONLY news you ever listen to is from sources you sycophant with, than you are nothing more than the very definition of the word Sycophant: A fawning parasite.

If a majority of the people out there were as open minded as Sigs, there's no way in hell that Trump and Clinton would be the early fore-runners in the National Polls.

I challenge you to challenge your own beliefs. Challenge the people who told you what to think and believe. Watch and listen to news that you don't openly relate to, for better or for worse. I'm sure you won't like a lot of what you hear in the "lion's den", but you won't be devoured. You've got free will and will still believe what you always have. But you might find a nugget of truth here or there that you otherwise never would have considered had you never had the bravery to step outside of your safe-zone.

I believe in what Signey is talking about here. A nation full of informed civillians who listen to the truths and un-truths coming from both sides and using their own center to forge all of that information into what they believe is true.

When things got real bad between my parents when I was about 12 years old, I remember talking to my uncle Mike and asking him who was right. My mom was his sister, and my dad was his best friend before they started dating. His response to me?

You just got to take what both of them say and know that the truth lies somewhere in the middle....

Thank you, Uncle Mike. Although it doesn't give any definitive answers, that is probably the best advice anyone has ever given me in my entire life, and it transcends my shitty childhood. It's something to always strive for in any aspect of your life.

NOBODY is EVER going to tell you the TRUTH.

If you believe everything you hear because you are on a particular "side", then you're part of the problem.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2015 11:39 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Where do I get my news from? All the usual sources except TV. Except the day after, when I was listening to ABC news while doing dishes. (And I made what I think is an interesting observation. Listening to ABC News the day after was a trip through incoherent-land. The attack was terrible! Be afraid! But don't be, because the government's - French, US, very uncertain but you get the idea - GOT this. Terrible carnage! Only for the strong of stomach! He he he - let's show it to you anyway. The poor victims! But we can't stop to consider that because it only gives 'them' what 'they' want. Be resolute! And now a word from our sponsor ... It was interesting watching them flailing without a theme.)

Anyway, they now have their story straight. From BBC, NYTimes, CNN, LATimes and other headlines:

'Paris attacks: Abdelhamid Abaaoud 'died in Saint Denis raid''
We got the guy, feel cautious relief, government has rescued you.
(Don't look too closely at what kind of surveillance and military-style operations were done. You don't want to know, and we're not going to tell you.)

'France Beefs Up Security as Debate Grows Over Liberties'
We must trade privacy for security.
(It's the ONLY choice. One, or the other. We certainly aren't going to change our foreign policy to combat terrorism, and especially not if going after their funding means going after our 'allies' Turkey and Saudi Arabia.)

'Obama: Russia Can Choose Assad or Legitimate Syrian Gov't'
Because ... ASSAD!
(Because ... why not? That kind of parsing has worked so well in the past!)

I'm supposed to feel grateful to be rescued, happy to give up my liberties because the government tells me it's the only way to be safe from terr'sts, and righteous because, ... ASSAD! (And, yanno, Putin too.)

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 20, 2015 1:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Where do I get my news from?

I'm supposed to feel grateful to be rescued, happy to give up my liberties because the government tells me it's the only way to be safe from terr'sts, and righteous because, ... ASSAD! (And, yanno, Putin too.)

I'm actually a little confused here....

My biggest gripe about the Liberals for years have been how easily they bend over and take it in the ass if it means "safety".

I hate to say it 1kiki, but i think 8 years of Obamacare has made you a lot more Conservative minded than you'd ever admit to your non-online friends.

I'm not judging. I'm accepting you with Open Arms.

Welcome to The Middle! It's about time somebody as smart as you finally found your way here. :)

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 20, 2015 1:59 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Hey there 6-ix

I'm not a liberal. Or a conservative. At least, that's what I like to think about myself.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 20, 2015 2:20 AM

Good 1kiki...

I'm not a Rethug either, or at least I'd like to think.

If these last 16 long years have taught us anything it's that we're probably much more likely to agree on things when we're not mindlessly waving a party flag. :)

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 20, 2015 2:28 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Amen to that, brother!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 20, 2015 2:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Amen to that, brother!

If anybody wants to see an example of "Progressive"....

me and 1kiki got your Progressive right here!

EDITED TO ADD: Since nobody has replied to ANY topic in the RWED for several hours......

"Seacrest Out"... *drops mic* ;)

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 20, 2015 8:55 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Wow. I knew it was bad, but that's... just...you're a basket case. Stop watching or listening to any news.

As usual, you have nothing insightful to add, just more name-calling. Ho hum.

Personally, I thought KIKI's post was pretty spot-on, because it pointed out the self-contradictory narrative that our media spouts ... the kind that's meant to bypass our memory and logic, twist our brainz into pretzels, and convince us that what we heard yesterday was not what we REALLY heard, and that permanent peace can only be gained thru permanent war!

In fact, I heard a quick reference the other day on NPR about how RUSSIA was going to "join up" with America on bombing ISIL. I damn-near choked on my coffee! Does NPR really think it's going to convince the American public that Russia is a do-nothing nation in Syria? Because if nothing else, Americans have certainly heard the administration whine endlessly about Russia's bombing campaign.

I'm pretty sure that painting Russia as a johnny-come-lately just isn't going to fly, because Americans aren't all THAT sensitive about who's getting bombed in Syria, but if there's one thing they know, they know the Russians are doing a lot of it!

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 20, 2015 12:24 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Originally posted by G:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
Wow. I knew it was bad, but that's... just...you're a basket case. Stop watching or listening to any news.
As usual, you have nothing insightful to add, just more name-calling. Ho hum.

You mean "GSTRING" don't you? Glass houses douche nozzle.

Your interpretation of the news slides right by the fact that it's a business and goes on to assume the invisible goliath, TPTB, pulling all the levers. Like the staff are just zombie robots. Your perceptions are mangled by your prejudice and lack of real, actual hands-on knowledge and bad internet sleuthing.

YOUR "real, hands-on knowledge"? Tell me, oh wise one, what does YOURS consist of? UNLIKE YOU, I actually know quite a bit about a lot of things, like nerve gases and forensic failure analysis and regulatory processes. UNLIKE YOU I happen to know real working journalists (both affiliated and independent) and international rights-lawyers (thru my email group) who are well-versed in Middle Eastern, Eastern, and European affairs. UNLIKE YOU I look at items and sources I don't necessarily agree with, UNLIKE YOU (apparently) I can tell the difference between allegation and evidence, and can often tell where information is insufficient or withheld.

You can't seriously tell me ... oh wait, you just did ... that after viewing the extremely divergent POV in the various national news outlets ... where holes and spin become very evident ... that the POV is not efficiently moderated by government narrative on all sides?

I just can't take you seriously. Most of what you post is crap.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 20, 2015 4:14 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I wanted to add a point about "the news".

I read, many years ago a significant point, and out of all of the useful/ interesting/ insightful things that book* had to tell me, one of the things I remember is this ...

Nearly ALL OF THE MSM NEWS YOU READ IS AN OFFICIAL RELEASE. That's how the MSM is so easily captured by the government.

Think about it: It's either a written release, or a verbal statement, or it's a press conference ... it might be from the local dog catcher, or it might be from the local FD (about a wildfire, for example), or the water board (about water quality), or from the FTSB (plane crash), or Congress or the State Department ... but if you go behind the dramatic image of a reporter standing in front of a firetruck with smoke billowing in the background, or past the "talking heads" who are endlessly regurgitating the latest talking points, the original info source is almost always an authority, usually a government authority or a university. In other words, you're being told exactly what the spokesperson want to tell you. I challenge you to look at any news media's next ten articles and find something that wasn't a release of some sort.

REAL investigative reporting ... where new information is found ... happens so rarely you can probably count them on the fingers of two hands for any particular year.

It would be nice if Twitter could replace all that centralized information control. After all, these are presumably on-the-ground people who are witnessing an event as its happening. But there are three problems with Twitter:

1) It's easily contaminated with false reports. Governments and other interest-groups ALSO find Twitter useful. Vetting the information is fraught with difficulties.

2) It's very individualized. An ant's POV is still an ant's POV. Maybe, if you combine the POVs of MANY ants, you can create a bigger picture.

3) It's self-selected by the recipient. Like most contacts on the internet (FB, Twitter, Insatgram etc) it allows one to capture only the most congenial POV, and ignore the rest.

So just like the MSM, Twitter and social media have their defects as well, so they (like the MSM) must be viewed with caution.

* Look! The book is still available HERE! http://www.amazon.com/Logic-Contemporary-Rhetoric-Reason-Everyday/dp/1
133942288)

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 20, 2015 5:20 PM

THGRRI

This whole premise of you being objective because on occasion you post from a reputable sources is a joke. If you have an agenda and spin things to fit that agenda then it’s your intentions that should be what’s flushed out, not necessarily the source you link us to. Too many times we have followed your links to find they said nothing of what you claim. To many times we have followed your links to find you alter the text to fit your narrative.

No SIG, you starting this thread is to deflect from what we all know to be true, the truth means little to you and your delusion that we will not call you on it makes me laugh.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 20, 2015 10:58 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

I honestly don't remember what trail of links I followed, but speaking of 'reputable' sources broadcasting disreputable lies -

http://off-guardian.org/2015/11/19/bbc-caught-throwing-facts-down-the-
memory-hole/

BBC caught throwing facts down the memory hole

Cast your mind back to 2013, I know it’s been a while, but try. It was a different time. Miley Cyrus was riding a wrecking ball and World War Z was tearing up the box office and David Cameron wanted to bomb Assad. It was truly a wondrous age.

…but now the BBC wants to flush it all away.

Sadly, this doesn’t include Miley Cyrus. Or World War Z.

John Humprhys, veteran propaganda peddler and all-round swell guy, took out his scissors and pritt-stik and got to work editing our history. This is what he said on the BBC Radio 4’s Today Program (135 minutes in):
Well its more than 2 years since the Government, our Government asked the House of Commons to approve military action against Islamic State in Syria and MPs said no, it was a devastating defeat. It seemed to proved the end of David Cameron’s plans to for British war Planes to join other Western forces in attacking them in Syria as well as in Iraq.
The Foreign affairs select committee produced a report that seemed to put the seal on it a few weeks ago: There should be no extension of British military action into Syria unless there is a coherent international strategy that has a realistic chance of defeating IS and of ending the civil war in Syria.”

A statement of fact with which it is only possible to have one objection. Namely, that it is not true. Parliament never voted on attacking ISIS, and Cameron never wanted to attack ISIS. The vote was about declaring war on Assad’s government. As the BBC, and the whole rest of the world, reported at the time http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-23892783:
MPs have rejected possible UK military action against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government to deter the use of chemical weapons.

In the event that the motion had passed, we actually would have been fighting ON THE SAME SIDE as ISIS. A pretty important distinction, as military entanglements go. In the wake of the Paris attacks this week a renewed effort is being made to generate hype for intervention in Syria, and the media are trying to conflate – in the public’s mind – Assad and ISIS.

To quote the reader, to whom we are very grateful, that brought his information to our attention:
This lie is about as serious a case of war propaganda as is possible… How can we have a fair debate if the BBC turns truth on its head?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 21, 2015 10:12 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Wow. I knew it was bad, but that's... just...you're a basket case. Stop watching or listening to any news.-G

As usual, you have nothing insightful to add, just more name-calling. Ho hum. -SIGNY

You mean "GSTRING" don't you? Glass houses douche nozzle.
Your interpretation of the news slides right by the fact that it's a business and goes on to assume the invisible goliath, TPTB, pulling all the levers. Like the staff are just zombie robots. Your perceptions are mangled by your prejudice and lack of real, actual hands-on knowledge and bad internet sleuthing. =GSTRING

YOUR "real, hands-on knowledge"? Tell me, oh wise one, what does YOURS consist of? UNLIKE YOU, I actually know quite a bit about a lot of things, like nerve gases and forensic failure analysis and regulatory processes. UNLIKE YOU I happen to know real working journalists (both affiliated and independent) and international rights-lawyers (thru my email group) who are well-versed in Middle Eastern, Eastern, and European affairs. UNLIKE YOU I look at items and sources I don't necessarily agree with, UNLIKE YOU (apparently) I can tell the difference between allegation and evidence, and can often tell where information is insufficient or withheld.
You can't seriously tell me ... oh wait, you just did ... that after viewing the extremely divergent POV in the various national news outlets ... where holes and spin become very evident ... that the POV is not efficiently moderated by government narrative on all sides?
I just can't take you seriously. Most of what you post is crap.= SIGNY

And talk about pure crap! You can't possibly KNOW those things you say you do! What a dumb f*ck.=GSTRING

How can you possibly know what I know?
I used to work in a lab that did, among other things, forensic failure analysis. They usually had some engine or industrial equipment up on a motor mount, and (being nosy) I'd go over there in my spare time and ask them what they were doing. They did, among other things, nondestructive testing by using magnetic particles and a fluorescent dye. And I an EXPERT about forensics failure analysis? No, but I know that such a thing exists, ad that it is therefor possible to tell whether metal was sheared at high velocity (explosion) or at low velocity (mechanical failure or deflagration)

Without being too specific, I know I've mentioned more than once that I was part of a DOD grant on detecting chemical weapons in a civilian environment, and was in regular contact with Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Edgewood, MD. Am I an EXPERT in chemical weapons? NO, but I know more than the average chemist about them.

Here's a bunch of OTHER things I've had to stick my nose into, professionally: heating, air-conditioning, and sound-proofing for houses under the LAX flight-path. Indoor air quality in dirty neighborhoods (HVAC). Secondary oil recovery - how wells age, how they're "stimulated", how and where they fail (the casing, usually). How oil flow is traced in a complex field (radioative iodine) and which regulatory body tracks that process (DTSC). How and where the gas company imports nat gas during the summer for storage into old oil fields, until the winter. What the problem is with "hot gas". What the entire nat gas import/ production, blending, pumping, storage and monitoring looks like for So Cal. I'm kind of a troubleshooter.

I also know other people, who also know a lot of things. A medically-trained chemist. An electronics and computer expert whose job it is to design and computerize sensing, data acquisition, and data storage for such experiments as high-speed lasers. The same person who has a deep interest in military equipment and military strategy.

An independent journalist who at various times of his existence learned Hebrew and lived on a Kibbutz for a few years, lived in Egypt for a few years after that, Lived in Nicaragua, and was a merchant marine (able bodied seaman) on the various freighters that ply the Great Lakes. HE's a people-collector, so through him I know a AFP Bureau Chief in the ME, a Canadian international human right lawyer, and a Canadian progressive professor of philosophy.

Quote:
"UNLIKE YOU I happen to know real working journalists (both affiliated and independent) and international rights-lawyers (thru my email group) who are well-versed in Middle Eastern, Eastern, and European affairs. "- SIGNY
How do you KNOW who I know? - GSTRING

If you knew anybody except some minor players in some anti-movements, it would be reflected in your posts.

Quote:
"I actually know quite a bit about a lot of things"- SIGNY
*snort* So do I.- GSTRING

Then why don't you bring that knowledge here???

Quote:
"...like nerve gases and forensic failure analysis and regulatory processes."- SIGNYM
And those have exactly what to do with Russia invading Ukraine? Or other current events? Please tell me.-GSTRING

One of the things I KNOW is that large events don't just happened without creating some sort of indication at the time, and leaving some traces afterwards. That's why I keep asking for evidence.

Quote:
Tell me, oh wise one, what does YOURS consist of?"-SIGNY
I'm not a fawning egotist like you, so you'll just have to live with not knowing.-GSTRING

Well, best as I recall, you know how to load some apps on your phone. And you have that somehow conflated with knowing "computers". Congrats.

Quote:
I love this one, again:
"UNLIKE YOU I look at items and sources I don't necessarily agree with"=SIGNY
Ha! I just told you twice that I did do that - do you EVER read other people's posts?=GSTRING

Oh, you mean this?

Quote:
Google sources information from a wide variety of points of view.

you DO know that google adjusts its hit to match your personal viewing history, right? That's why I only use google sparingly. I tend to use anonymized search engines.

Quote:
I also follow journalists on twitter with multiple points of view. I see the spectrum as well as anyone. I see what some people in ISIS talk about. I see Russian state goofiness. I see plenty. What you are seeing from Signym is her purposeful ignoring of what others post. I only have guesses why she plays at being ignorant. I'm not even sure she knows why.

Then why don't you bring this information HERE??? Instead of potentially groundbreaking info, we get warmed-over allegations, without any evidence whatsoever, repeated ad nauseum.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 21, 2015 11:14 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
A large part has to do with the fact that you will ignore it, won't understand it, won't read it, can't parse it, are stuck looking only for things that validate your agenda... ad nauseum

Uh huh. In other words ... you got nothing.

A few images from Bellincrap, so badly interpreted that even image-analysts repudiate the methods. A some personal Tweets which reflect THAT PERSON'S POV.

Yanno, the only interesting piece of information that ever came to me from either you or KPO was the video of a column of tanks and non-armored personnel carriers being filmed... somewhere ... allegedly in eastern Ukraine, purporting to show Russian soldiers.

The line of tanks and un-armored personnel trucks was so long, I wound back and started counting. I noted that most of the soldiers were outfitted very similarly. Not knowing the details of Russian or Ukrainian kit, I can't say whether it was official Russian issue or came from the voentorg. The tanks were NOT state of the art Russian, and trucks are trucks, but their overall uniformity leads me to think that the supplies, at least, came from official depots. As I recall, I think the number of possible soldiers was 1000 or less (Yanno 20 per truck, so many trucks, three per tank, so many tanks). Getting into the "invasion" range. But they were never seen afterwards. No contact field reports, no bomb-out lines of tanks, no masses of Russian soldiers captured. IF they were there, they didn't take and hold territory, like an invading force would. So the information is interesting, but begs to be verified (and I don't mean just "geolocated").

As the presenter of the information, that kind of followup belongs with YOU.
The thing that you're griping about is that I don't just automatically believe everything you post. But, yanno, with all the liars out there (NOT YOU), it's probably best not to.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 22, 2015 5:12 AM

SHINYGOODGUY

Good one, Six.

To be clear - I get my news from: Eyewitness News, CNN, TWC, Metro, AM, Fox (yes, that Fox!), and the Post. Fair and Balanced!

Hee, Hee................plus FFF.net, the bastion of a free-market society.

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I just come here and see what you guys and gals are saying. :)

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 22, 2015 11:20 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
I honestly don't remember what trail of links I followed, but speaking of 'reputable' sources broadcasting disreputable lies -

http://off-guardian.org/2015/11/19/bbc-caught-throwing-facts-down-the-
memory-hole/

The usual weak tea conspiracy accusations that get thrown out at the BBC by ideological bloggers and other internet whackjobs.

The BBC churns out news 24/7 over numerous TV and radio channels. It is bound to make the odd mistake. Here we have an example of a presenter of a radio topical discussion getting a fact wrong, saying that the UK parliament voted to bomb ISIS in 2013, instead of Assad. So was this a single, isolated mistake, or part of a sinister BBC conspiracy to rewrite history? Naturally without doing any kind of corroboratory research, kiki assumes the latter. Well, here we have three recent examples of the BBC correctly relating the facts of the 2013 parliamentary vote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34893585
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34846457
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34886574

This took me about 2 minutes to find and post here. Just a thought kiki, do some basic research before you believe the word of rabid internet bloggers and go off parroting them?

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 22, 2015 11:47 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
ISIS in 2013, instead of Assad

Yes, because it's so easy to mix those two up!

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 22, 2015 12:50 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
ISIS in 2013, instead of Assad
Yes, because it's so easy to mix those two up!

I've heard others make the same mistake. People's memories get foggy, and the war in Syria/Iraq is complex. It's poor for a topical news show to make that kind of mistake, but not so unbelievable. It was only a radio discussion show after all.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 22, 2015 1:24 PM