What kind of independent research? I mean, really. What independent research have you done into the lives of unnameable 'fat-cats'?

What possible research could you have done? Delved into their bank accounts? Whose bank accounts? You don't even know WHO.


Coolinator, what independent research have you done that led you to believe that "those Washington fat cats" are indeed, fat cats? And if you come back with "The independent research I have done is my own independent research" then I will fucking kill everyone on my street before ending my own life.

You CAN'T do independent research into this sort of thing, you have to listen to what other people tell you, you have to... become part of the herd. Here's the thing, I would probably agree with you, but the information that led me to believe what I believe has been passed on to me by someone else in most cases. It doesn't make you "part of the herd", it makes you part of a larger community of humanity, where it is impossible to know everything about the world around you from first-hand experience.

I was just agreeing with what Esuohlim said, you have to point your question at him, not me. I was just saying if you don't have any idea at all who these "fat-cats" are then you need to do more independent research. Meaning you read other peoples works and then come to your own conclusion about the situation.

You can do it. I believe in you.

Who are you even talking about? I agreed with a general statement from Esuohlim. Why are you going crazy about this? If you gave me a specific occurance of corruption and or manipulation of the political economic structure then maybe I can shoot out a few names but I don't know who he was referring to. All I know from past research is that private interests attempt to steer things in their favor and most if not all of these interests come from wealthy sources.


I think I answered this above. I don't know why this is so difficult to understand.

He's an asspie. He doesn't realize that Milhouse was mocking him. :lol

Reading someone's research is in the same vein as listening to a news reader, like a sheep. There is an element of trust involved.

You are in a different herd, that is all.

No,

Even after you read something that is heavily biased you have to come to your own conclusion about the subject. Even the most hated news sources (Fox) has a grain of truth in them. You have to read between the lines. You don't come to their conclusion you make up your own mind.

Hence "independent" research.

:lol Please don't breed, I don't want to pay for your kids ass kicking.

America is being sucked into a massive Zionist conspiracy on a global scale and the sheeple in this country are wearing blindfolds. The World Bank and it's Shylock handlers are pulling the puppet strings of this country and no one wants to wake up and realize what is going on. The Zionists main tool is Hollywood and the media. If you watch CBS Evening News with Katie Couric and don't see obvious Zionist leanings you are no better than the rest of the brainwashed masses in this country. I could give more examples but I would be typing forever.

edit:
great reading here:
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin...mes/read/39745

Yes, but that "grain of truth" can be true, a lie, or anything in between. In most peoples cases, they hear what they want to hear and take that as truth, and anything they don't want to hear is dismissed as a lie.

You have to trust that you are being told the truth from ANY second hand research. The only way you could truly be classed as, ahem, "not apart of the herd and ... won't be culled" is to do your own FIRST hand research. Heard a story about a suicide bombing in Afghanistan? Unless you flew there yourself and witnessed it you are just a FUCKING SHEEP IN A HERD.

Mostly, you trust other people to tell you about it.

They came to their conclusion. For good or bad they made up their mind. The real problem happens when that mind set is challenged with an opposing viewpoint that carries more weight then their initial conclusion. If they are a free thinker then they will adopt the better argument but if they are caught in a synthetic ideology then they will do everything in their power to dismiss the more reasonable argument.

That's why books contain something called a bibliography. Check sources and then come up with your own conclusion.

And I never called anyone a sheep. Herd is just how I describe the vast majority of television watchers.

Yes, yes ok. When you hear something on the news it's probably a lie, but when you read an article on an anti-climate change web site it's independent research.

No,

Most things on the televisions corporate news stations are biased. There are some truths within them but they spin it to suit a specific interest.

Reading articles are similar but they cannot refute the topic of the article.


Example:

"Carbon Tax Shelved"

So right here we have proof that a carbon tax bill was trying to be established and it has been shelved due to internal working class struggles that saw the dangers of this legislation.

Carbon tax

Struggle against it

Carbon Tax failed

Who gains from this carbon tax?

The people? No, The corporations.

Very simple.

What are you even saying here? That is just a thought train of you jumping to conclusions, it's got nothing to do with anything.

Seriously, whatever. OK, you are a maverick. Believing a conspiracy theory website is NOT like believing FOX news.

COOLIO ARE DEBATE KING

I believe in this quote. :hypno