patrick.net

Dan8267 says

Kevin says

Just because you agree with something doesn't make it "true" or "accurate".

Absolutely. What makes something true and accurate is that it corresponds to reality, unlike Fox News. And RT News does, at least every bit of RT News I've watched, and I've watch quite a bit of RT News America.

I know RT News is accurate and true because I can independently verify the news it reports. That's what so fucking great about living in the information age.

Now, if you believe RT News is lying about stuff, feel free to go through all the YouTube videos of RT News I've linked to and point out specific falsehoods. The Daily Show and the Colbert Report do exactly this same thing to Fox News every day.

Nope, sorry.

The problem with outlets like RT News, China Daily, etc. isn't that they lie -- it's that they only publish stories that support the narrative that they're trying to create. They commit lies of omission. It's propaganda 101, and the Russians and Chinese are experts at it.

The fact that they're state-run news agencies says everything.

I've worked for news organizations before. There was always some agenda, but it didn't come from any government official. Mostly it came from not wanting to alienate advertisers.

Lets say that there was a man who saved 5 people from a burning building, raised a dozen orphans, saved a stranger's life by donating a kidney, and runs a charity that builds schools in Africa.

The guy also once got arrested for public intoxication.

A news paper decides to publish the public intoxication story, but none of the rest. The public's impression is that this guy is a drunken asshole.

Did they lie? Nope. Did they tell the truth? Nope.

If you want a non-US news source that generally prints the truth (and the whole truth) without much obvious bias, try the likes of Al Jazeera, not RT News.

Yes, the big 3 cable news companies are shitty news in general, but they're just generic corporate news. There are literally thousands of other sources of news, and very few of them are as awful as the ones you're referring to.

By the way -- not that many people actually watch cable news. They get a lot of attention because they're, collectively, the single largest news source, but they're still tiny, with fewer than 5% of americans ever tuning into any one of those cable news channels. They're irrelevant.

Dan8267 says

It's not common knowledge, as opposed to the detainment camps of Japanese Americans during WWII, which is well-known because it happened on such a massive scale.

was not an atrocity as you state.. and not a big deal since many were treated well enough given the times. the USA govt didnt butcher the JA as the Japanese and German Govts butchered their detained citizens. So your pathetic comments are worthless.

there was every reason to detain actual and suspected citizens and agents of foreign powers. may well have saved 10,000s of others since we already found spies and were attacked at both ends by foreign submarines. Worth it as history has shown Japan was a Militaristic fascist society based on their past history. Fact is they were and still are much more racists than western societies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Japanese_spies,_1930-1945

Dan8267 says

1. Japanese-Americans property and land was confiscated either out right or by strong-arming.

2. Japanese-Americans were never compensated for this injustice.

3. The imprisonment of Japanese-Americans and the confiscation of their property and land was due mostly to greed and racism.

You think the Japanese Govt thought about this when they attacked Pearl Harbor and started WWII. Though shit ...

thomaswong.1986 says

You think the Japanese Govt thought about this when they attacked Pearl Harbor and started WWII. Though shit ...

What does the Japanese government have to do with how we treated American citizens?

Kevin says

There was always some agenda, but it didn't come from any government official. Mostly it came from not wanting to alienate advertisers.

This is exactly right. There are a few really truly great news resources out there, but I don't think agenda-free news exists anymore, if ever it did.

Kevin says

The problem with outlets like RT News, China Daily, etc. isn't that they lie -- it's that they only publish stories that support the narrative that they're trying to create.

You mean exactly like every other news organization ever? In any case, RT News covers things that should be covered by other news outlets.

Kevin says

The fact that they're state-run news agencies says everything.

One can say the exact same thing about corporate-run news agencies. So, no it doesn't.

The thing about misinformation is that you should be able to demonstrate that it is misinformation as oppose to just saying the source is bad. If you need examples, watch The Daily Show. They demonstrate the misinformation of cable news, particularly Fox, is vivid detail.

In contrast, your argument that RT News is bad because it comes from the state of Russia is not a convincing argument. You should be able to show that RT News is bad with actual evidence that has nothing to do with where it comes from.

Kevin says

They commit lies of omission.

Lies of omission are the easiest lies to expose. For example, recently the entire Fox News propaganda machine took a sound bite from Hilary Clinton's testimony to imply that she was saying that there should be no investigation into what caused the security failure in the embassy bombing. Jon Stewart played the very next sentence out of Clinton's mouth which showed she was stating the exact opposite. Fox News is exposed as the propaganda machine targeting idiots that it is.

Again, go through every RT News story I've posted and point out the alleged "lies of omissions". This should be damn easy if what you are saying is correct. And if you actually do this, I will agree with you. But I'm not going to take your opinion at its face value since every independent check of the facts behind the stories of RT News I've ever conducted has confirmed the accuracy and completeness of the story.

I'm just calling them like I see them. I've got no stake in either side.

thomaswong.1986 says

the USA govt didnt butcher the JA as the Japanese and German Govts butchered their detained citizens.

No one ever claimed that. That's a Straw Man argument.

And if you're counter-argument is, America isn't as bad as Nazi Germany, well, that's a weak ass argument that America does not commit any atrocities.

- America has committed genocide: the Native Americans.
- America has committed slavery for over 100 years under our country's rule.
- America has committed systematic arrest and sterilization of ethnic groups.
- America has targeted innocent, noncombatant civilians in war including children.
- America has used weapons of mass destruction including nuclear and chemical.
- America has violate the basic right of habeas corpus, a cornerstone of Western Civilization since the Magna Carta.
- America has tortured.
- America has used rape and sexual humiliation as weapons.

To say that the America government has never behaved tyrannically is ridiculous.

Kevin says

thomaswong.1986 says

You think the Japanese Govt thought about this when they attacked Pearl Harbor and started WWII. Though shit ...

What does the Japanese government have to do with how we treated American citizens?

In petty and childish minds, the atrocities committed by one side excuse all atrocities committed by the other side even those committed against innocent citizens who aren't even affiliated with the first side.

Dan, without even trying, you should have at least come across this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)#News_coverage

The stories that they choose NOT to cover says more to me about a news organization than the ones they do.

I don't know why you keep using Fox news as the baseline. Fox News is a hack company designed to cater to conservative americans. Nobody takes them seriously as a news organization. They're a step below CNN and MSNBC, and those are miles below actual news organizations.

Saying that somebody is no worse than / slightly better than Fox News is like saying that Stalin was an OK guy because at least he wasn't Hitler.

Dan8267 says

Not a terribly bad design for a zombie apocalypse, but the outer wall needs to be thicker, there needs to be a second gate pair at the other side for emergencies, the interior between the two walls needs to be partitioned into two sections (front and back).

Oh you can count on there being secret escape tunnels from the dozens of underground bunkers. If there's one thing you can count on with these folks, it's they like cellars and tunnels!

Problems are numerous. Castle and fortress designs were a good solution right up until the invention of explosives. At this point it's a huge waste of redneck money. But I suppose it's no dumber than some other things Uh-mericans spend money on.

I like pointing people to this Siberian family, to knock some of their survivalist fantasies down a peg:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/For-40-Years-This-Russian-Family-Was-Cut-Off-From-Human-Contact-Unaware-of-World-War-II-188843001.html

Kevin says

Dan, without even trying, you should have at least come across this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)#News_coverage

Wikipedia is worth than worthless. It's so full of misinformation and propaganda from both governments and corporations that a person is better off avoiding even looking at it. Wikipedia will steer you the wrong way even with its references on any issue where money, politics, or reputations are on the line.

If Wikipedia were around during the early 1940s, all references to the Holocaust would have been removed as not neutral point of view.

Vicente says

Oh you can count on there being secret escape tunnels from the dozens of underground bunkers. If there's one thing you can count on with these folks, it's they like cellars and tunnels!

But no! That's exactly how the zombies always get IN a secure compound: through tunnels and sewers. That's exactly what you don't want.

It's much better to have just two entrances/exits that are far apart on opposite sides of a divider. Finally, have a nice Dirigible for those situations when the two exits are both compromised at the same time.

Vicente says

Problems are numerous. Castle and fortress designs were a good solution right up until the invention of explosives. At this point it's a huge waste of redneck money.

Yeah, I've been trying to get into the mind of the people who think that the minute men are going to save America from tyranny. The only explanation I can come up with is that they grew up on Westerns and they have a cowboy fantasy that they never got over. So they think that modern America is like the Wild West and the things that people got away with back then, like evading the law and living in the mountain, are still practical.

Meanwhile, reality has become as different from the Wild West as the Wild West was from antiquity. Government surveillance is everywhere. Privacy is dead. The capacity of the government to commit violence is beyond the wildest imagination of the cowboys. The asymmetry of power between governments and their civilian populations has grown exponentially over the past one hundred fifty.

Dan, cops don't show up on time, they show up after the shooting is over and you and your family are dead. Another good reason to have a gun.

Might not save every life, but sure will save some. You know there are examples out there. These people can't even control their own officers from going around on shooting rampages, they sure as hell ain't touching my guns.

FortWayne says

Dan, cops don't show up on time, they show up after the shooting is over and you and your family are dead. Another good reason to have a gun.

No so funny of a story. The one shooting that I did happen upon while it was in progress I quickly turned and went the other way. I did see a cop at the end of the block and when I told him that someone was getting shot he said, "I know I am waiting for backup."

FortWayne says

These people can't even control their own officers from going around on shooting rampages, they sure as hell ain't touching my guns.

I think that the question here is not so much of whether or not you should own guns, but is stopping tyranny a valid justification for a right to own guns.

Hell, I can think of a lot of reasons why people should be able to own guns, and a couple of decades ago fighting tyranny might have been a valid reason, but no more.

Whatever, Dan. You're going to trust a Russian government owned publication with zero transparency over Wikipedia, which has a full edit history available, and has had study after study done on it that shows it to be more balanced than *any* other information source?

Why not just say that you implicitly trust whatever you happen yo agree with?

I used Wikipedia because if I showed you the articles that were published elsewhere you'd just say that you don't trust them.

You're a crackpot.

FortWayne says

Dan, cops don't show up on time, they show up after the shooting is over and you and your family are dead. Another good reason to have a gun.

Yes, that's a good argument for a gun. However, it has nothing to do with militias. I reject the proposal that gun control laws are bad because they prevent militias from saving us from the federal government. That doesn't mean I reject all pro-gun arguments.

I also accept the argument that gun control doesn't prevent criminals from gaining access to guns. However, there is some evidence that it reduces the amount of guns available.

However, on the pro-gun-control side, there's a valid argument that a gun in the household with kids is more likely to result in the kid shooting himself than the parents shooting an armed intruder.

Kevin says

ou're going to trust a Russian government owned publication with zero transparency over Wikipedia

I would trust anything over Wikipedia just based on the propaganda I've seen on it including removing references to presidents being against women's suffrage during the early 20th century, removal of content about Guantanamo Bay during the Bush administration, removal of content about unpublished Canadians laws that people were arrested for, etc.

I've challenged you time and again, to go back to the RT News videos I've linked to on this site and point out any falsehood including lies of omission. You have pussied out every single time. Why would I take your word when you refuse to site one specific lie of omission or any other kind in any of the RT News videos I've posted?

Again, if you actually did demonstrate a significant and deliberate lie of omission, then I'd accept your case. The fact that you haven't speaks volumes more than Propogandapedia.

Kevin says

You're a crackpot.

You're welcome to prove this conjecture. However, calling me a crackpot certainly does not instill me with any faith that you have an informed opinion about anything.

We as a nation need to stop labeling people as crackpots if they stand up for their principles.

FortWayne says

We as a nation need to stop labeling people as crackpots if they stand up for their principles.

I agree. Even if someone is undeniably proven wrong on any given topic, that does not make them a crackpot. Things get even fuzzier on topics as they get more complicated and where the answer is not so clear. However, the needle on the crackpot meter starts to edge towards "full on" when denial is the response to sound reasoning backed by clear evidence. Also, we do indeed live in a world where crackpots exist and the internet seems to give them much more of a voice than standing on a soapbox in Speakers' Corner in Hyde Park.

As far as Dan goes I have seen him admit fallibility on a few occasions when faced with evidence contrary to his opinions.

leo707 says

As far as Dan goes I have seen him admit fallibility on a few occasions when faced with evidence contrary to his opinions.

And that's all we can ask of anyone.

Dan8267 says

However, on the pro-gun-control side, there's a valid argument that a gun in the household with kids is more likely to result in the kid shooting himself than the parents shooting an armed intruder.

Whenever I have looked at the studies that show that, the vast majority of the homes where the kids are getting accidentally shot are homes with other problems: domestic abuse, criminal activity, alcohol/drug abuse, etc.

Even with that said I think that any home with gun(s)+kids should be required to have any and all guns locked at all times when there is not an adult directly supervising. Because of my kids I do not currently keep any guns loaded and unlocked. However, I have been shopping around for one of those quick access handgun gun safes (anyone have experience or a recommendation for one of these?).

I think that every parent--during all the other giving birth/hospital discharge stuff--should be made plainly aware of the dangers of unlocked guns. In the piles of booklets and pamphlets there was all kinds of advice on child proofing, etc. I don't recall a single mention of guns, or anyone at the hospital mentioning guns. Our pediatrician did ask if when had guns and the conversation was about 5 seconds:

Pediatrician: "Do you have guns in the house?"

Us: "Yes."

Pediatrician: "Are they locked?"

Us: "Yes."

Pediatrician: "OK."

And that was all.

Dan8267 says

point out any falsehood including lies of omission.

FWIW -- off the top of my head, they didn't really cover the Putin protests at all. I don't recall any coverage of or even a mention of the Pussy Riot trial, either.

I like RT, by the way. I like the BBC better, though!

Forget Russia specific issues. Read their coverage on Syria. Its practically a transcription of Russian government officials statements on the conflict.

FortWayne says

Another good reason to have a gun.

Agreed, but a crossbow is better.

JodyChunder says

FortWayne says

Another good reason to have a gun.

Agreed, but a crossbow is better.

Those don't do too well outside Victoville Jody. :)

FortWayne says

Those don't do too well outside Victoville Jody. :)

Nothing to do with Vville -- there was a study conducted by the CIA from a few years back citing the crossbow as the single-most effective handheld weapon for intimidating an enemy/intruder.

I know there's been some progress made on repeating crossbows as well in the last few years, though nothing terribly elegant has yet emerged.

IDDQD says

leo707 says

I have been shopping around for one of those quick access handgun gun safes (anyone have experience or a recommendation for one of these?).

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2/192-0959196-6858010?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Gun+Vault

I have been using their two-shelf "deluxe" model for last 3 or 4 years. No complaints so far.

Thanks.

I have been thinking of getting one with fingerprint entry. Is there a reason why you did not go with that?

I was thinking very simple, one shelf, I don't want to be fumbling around in the dark.