-
Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.
@cots, if you seriously took a look at corporate imperialism, see how that relates in our foreign policy and trade, and then described how that is not the case but it in fact is secret one world agenda. I promise I'll read your links.
But I'm going to go on a hunch and say you allowed people to manipulate your frustration of corporations hijacking our politics to push for policies that didn't have the american public's interest at heart and direct it into something that allows a smaller group to be the real 'bad guys'.
Capitalism isn't bad. Just maybe not let corporations buy our politicians? Get super pacs and corporate money out of politics and keep it small-dollar donation? Keep our politicians financially accountable to us as well as politically accountable?
This messaging of common ideas is something that people on both sides want. Just saying.
But I'm going to go on a hunch and say you allowed people to manipulate your frustration of corporations hijacking our politics to push for policies that didn't have the american public's interest at heart and direct it into something that allows a smaller group to be the real 'bad guys'.
Capitalism isn't bad. Just maybe not let corporations buy our politicians? Get super pacs and corporate money out of politics and keep it small-dollar donation? Keep our politicians financially accountable to us as well as politically accountable?
This messaging of common ideas is something that people on both sides want. Just saying.
When it comes to plundering the Middle East for resources our entire country is guilty as charged. BTW - Globalism and the entire desire for a one world Government isn't a secret. I've been learning about it since we started learning basic World History in the 3rd grade. Something about the basic ideals on why the U.N. was established and the theory behind why a one world government would benefit the planet. It just happens that the vision back then was a global capitalistic society and now it's a global socialistic society. Whatever, MoneyKid wants to focus on the Middle East. I think he wants to know more about why we're over there fighting an off the books war that'll we'll never win.
Last edited by cots,
Nothing has changed, just that you've been mislead to think globalism runs in a different name under different pretenses. This also isn't an adequate response for what I requested. I'm not going to do circular arguments. This isn't something that is going to take 5min. Go take the time and learn about corporate imperialism and then come back and tell me how I'm mistaken, that it isn't the driving factor behind our foreign policy or trade in the past 20-40yrs, ill be lenient argue whichever time frame you want within that range. Go open another thread that isn't hijacking this one. I'm a person of my word, if you do that and I'll do the same for your one world thing. Quid pro quo!
He mentally can't, its part of his agenda and core belief now. Don't hold it against
We can agree to disagree. I still think its an issue of people coming to power (and exploiting others to stay in power) that desire war more than an entire populous (minus a few people who desire peace) who desires war.
I agree though that people who exploit others from a standpoint of fear, using religon or race to gain or stay in power, those people are bad actors (aka scum).
I agree they deflected and pounced on the known globalist agenda. I think it might be hard to address the fact that us being over in the Middle East is supported by the majority of our entire country. Can't claim "Orange man bad" on this one. I'll wait until they start discussing why were at war over there this time I suppose (hint - it's for oil we can't drill for in our own country).
Last edited by cots,
That's interesting. You are so convinced in a conspiracy pushed by a known conspirator that you wouldn't even look at alternative evidence.
We all knew that involvement in the middle-east by the US largely involved the oil industries. Seems like corporations pushing foreign policy via our nation to control the market of oil supply/demand. Ignore corporate imperialism if you desire to continue to be distracted by known conspiracies of one world government.
I see you are the one that deflected and then projected false narratives onto those who don't subscribe to conspiracies to explain our politics. Your logical fallacies aren't difficult to follow.
I understand your point. Right now, I back off and let it go. As I said before.. It is not getting anywhere. It will be circle and circle with no ends. That's how people are argument about corruption, power, war and hatred. Not worth.
So the oil. You agree we're involved in the middle east solely for their oil? Why exactly have we been in an 18 year conflict with Afghanistan? What was the reason this time? Should we be over there to begin with? What do you think about drilling for oil in our own country? What do you think about how we deal with the radical Muslims that don't like the fact we've been invading their countries?
Last edited by cots,
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2013
- Messages
- 17,734
- Trophies
- 3
- Location
- The Lands Between
- Website
- gbatemp.net
- XP
- 8,524
- Country
The thing is, it's not necessarily an either/or proposition. People who are heavily invested in the 'one world government' conspiracy theory fail to grasp the bigger picture: it's only achievable if all developed nations succumb to authoritarian or fascist rule. Which means that by focusing solely on the government as the source of all our problems without paying attention to how much of government is owned by corporations, it almost becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The more "businessmen" we elect to government, the more government is concerned with becoming a money-making venture, and the less it's concerned with preserving our rights as humans and Americans.
I hit a nerve. Seeings as you're willing to address the other issues.
Let me ask you about the same thing I just asked. The oil. Do you agree we're involved in the middle east solely for their oil? Why exactly have we been in an 18 year conflict with Afghanistan? What was the reason this time? Should we be over there to begin with? What do you think about drilling for oil in our own country? What do you think about how we deal with the Muslims that don't like the fact we've been invading their countries?
Last edited by cots,
None of these questions concern with what I originally presented, if you want to discuss those we can if you start another thread. I'm done hijacking someone else's thread as well. This is you attempting to change the conversation as you don't have footing on the one you were on, largely because conspiracy theories don't have footing to stand on...
No, he understands the futility of circular arguments. Which is where I'll take my queue to depart as well. I've requested something from you in post #44, if you want to further conversation then you'll comply, otherwise I'll abstain in replying. This is yet another time where I specifically ask something to discuss a topic further and you stonewall.
@notimp - This thread covers the issue you just brought up in the impeachment thread. And no, the public doesn't care. People don't care about the war. They have their wide screen tv's, carbon producing cars, smart phones, nike shoes, fast food, happy pills and illegal drugs. Most people could care less where any of that comes from or the prices the rest of the world has to pay for it. What some moron is only allowed to post on Twitter is more important to people than some war they aren't subjected to because their main stream media pushes a pro-Muslim agenda (to purposely keep the subject buried, which is funny because Liberals supposedly support LGBTQ and women's rights and apparently have no idea what Muslims to do women and anyone they find out is LGBTQ plus they have some weird family values). Although, it's not just the Liberals that support the war (they claim not to, but then they support the Muslims (try bringing up negative stuff about the Qur'an on social media) and won't allow us to drill for our own oil in the USA knowing damn well that will keep us in the Middle East). The Conservatives see it as a meal ticket and really don't care where the oil comes from - they just want to drill for it in the USA to make more of a profit. Environmentalists claim to care about the environment, but it seems to only include where they are living. Everyone is so full of shit when it comes to this issue as most of the entire USA could care less (regardless of what they tell you). You'll see as this "story" will be gone within less than two weeks (if not a single week). Impeaching Trump and buying Baby Yoda merchandise are much more pressing issues (and both share about the same actual value - as in no value what-so-ever).
Last edited by cots,
Yeah, public morality on those issues seems to shift if it gets too 'hurtful' or actually problematic for the (state or) public 'sense of self'.
So whenever there is a sizeable conflict on 'wait, what we did was bad and amoral?' - public opinion basically sides with 'kill the messenger'.
Also - when an action would be largely detrimental to your own economic foundation - the same logic applies.
Regardless. It is better to act on a common principal of "we are bound by (the principal of) being the moral good guys" because it makes 'informed moral dissent' (think preacher speeches in churches), on a lower level possible. And society as a whole more 'healthy' if that is set in place. There are red lines though - where the public would rather look away for the rest of their lives, than to confront actual information out there.
"So transparency will set us free" is flawed as a concept. (Still not bad, just flawed..
)
Thats my opinion on this.
So whenever there is a sizeable conflict on 'wait, what we did was bad and amoral?' - public opinion basically sides with 'kill the messenger'.
Also - when an action would be largely detrimental to your own economic foundation - the same logic applies.
Regardless. It is better to act on a common principal of "we are bound by (the principal of) being the moral good guys" because it makes 'informed moral dissent' (think preacher speeches in churches), on a lower level possible. And society as a whole more 'healthy' if that is set in place. There are red lines though - where the public would rather look away for the rest of their lives, than to confront actual information out there.
"So transparency will set us free" is flawed as a concept. (Still not bad, just flawed..
)Thats my opinion on this.
Last edited by notimp,
- No one is chatting at the moment.
-
@
Psionic Roshambo:
I wonder if I could recommend that to some emulation devs that perhaps the sound could use some smoothing out to simulate those old TVs -
@
Psionic Roshambo:
I think a few of the early systems could benefit from that, at least up to the 8 bit generation, by the 16 bit generation I think TVs had gotten a lot better in almost every way
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@
Xdqwerty:
it says it only works for the original R4, R4i Gold (r4ids.cn), R4iDSN (r4idsn.com) and Acekard R.P.G. -
-
-
-
-
-
@
Psionic Roshambo:
Just give it a try, but honestly if you have a 3DS you can play DS games without a card just off the internal SD card
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
