FRESH COAST BACK!! FRE$H C0A$T BAQ.. returning in 2013 post apocalypse

Discussion in 'Battle Video Archives' started by Lush One, Oct 17, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Thedude710

    Thedude710 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2012
    Messages:
    524

    Stop a acting like you're Intelligent, you're 30 years old attending a community college. Real intellects would laugh at you...
    test
  2. tyronehouston

    tyronehouston Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    Messages:
    6,019
    It's never too late to get a higher education and get a degree to help you live a better lifestyle.

    If you gonna knock him, knocking him for trying to get a degree is a stupid one, tbh.
    test
  3. Thedude710

    Thedude710 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2012
    Messages:
    524
    No I don't agree, at all sorry.
    test
  4. Ravenous510

    Ravenous510 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Messages:
    3,474
    Okay....this post I respect. However, I've never taken any theory to "implausible levels".

    I've never said that "one person controls everything", and imo, the fact that you would imply that I have is born from your desire, whether subconscious or conscious, to dismiss the mess so you can go on with your life and sleep eight hours per night. I don't mean that as an insult because I can't blame people for being oblivious to the truth when it's so difficult to get an accurate account of it in this country.

    As for your implication of implausibility regarding the possibility of a government/corporate/media complex, you're simply wrong, Henry. If you admit that the government is essentially puppeteered by corporate interest, then you admit that the media is as well.

    Why don't we ever see footage of the horrors of the wars we engage in on the ten o'clock news? Why aren't the casualties we inflict on foreign populations reported? All we hear about is how many casualties the American military or its proxy forces have suffered.

    The only redeeming form of media in the U.S. is the internet, but you still have to go to sites usually hosted in other countries to obtain footage of what's really going on. Mark my words, though, soon the internet will be just as censored as any other form of American media. The motion picture industry is constantly trying to close backroom deals to get congress to legislate internet censorhip bills.

    Media has been used by the government since before World War II to propagandize and influence foreign populations. Read up on Voice of America. You think the government is above implementing the same tactics on its own citizens? Please.

    Eddie Bernays was employed first by corporations and then by the government to manipulate the opinion of the populace through media campaigns. This was around the turn of the 20th century, and although Bernays is dead now, his models now serve as a blueprint for public relations officials and marketers everywhere.....

    And just for the record, Bernays' methods were built on the basic premise that in general people were animalistic, incapable of critical thought, and therefore needed to be controlled, and that the best way to do this was to introduce materialism in the extreme to society because consumerism induces docility.
    test
  5. Know the Ledge

    Know the Ledge brother man, brother man

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    3,881
    well lets just say

    he could 100% be doing alot worse things with his time then learning.
    test
  6. Savage Henry

    Savage Henry Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    1,284
    See, this is why I usually just avoid these discussions with you. In the same breath, you dismiss what I said because of one word, then take a giant leap by making the assumption I "dismiss the mess" so I can sleep, simply because I don't agree with your tangents.

    I said a person or group, not that you've said it was a single person.

    I'd agree that (big) media , for the most part, is focused on maximizing profits. Like any business, making money comes first. Do I believe that means that they're puppets for big business? Not in the least. There's countless examples of the media exposing corruption in both business and government, and not just on little internet sites. The LA Times, NY Times, and so on and so forth have done this too many times to count.

    Beyond that, just look at things from a logistics standpoint. Big media outlets have hundreds, sometimes thousands of employees, each with their own opinions, ambitions and goals. There are hundreds of major media outlets, and each of them have different points of views, and different agendas. To think that there's a group of people capable of controlling all of that, no matter how rich and powerful, is extremely naive.

    During college I was the editor of the school paper, and interned for some local papers. Not that that is anywhere near working for major media outlets, but I do understand the structure, have worked with people who wrote for the L.A. Times and similar papers. I have a good idea of how just implausible it would be.

    Does that mean that there isn't any influence on media from corporations and government? Not at all. People do favors to get sources, they get silenced by higher ups, a lot of stuff happens. There's even several instances of flat out corruption, in isolated instances from time to time.

    But there is just no way that all of it can be controlled, on the level you're implying. Fox News exists, so to think it doesn't happen at all would be silly as well, but there's plenty of examples to show media as a whole is not being "puppeteered".

    A lot of reasons. Most people don't want to see that shit, and would change the channel, first of all. It's not pretty, and people don't want to think about it, let alone watch it. The FCC would have a shitfit, and they wouldn't allow it. It's just not good for business, that's the main reason.

    And yes, it would paint our government in a negative light, and they don't want that either. It would also give insight to the people we are fighting, on our operations. Those things are considered and do play a part, I'm sure.

    It does get reported though, we know about it, for the most part. We know enough to have an idea of the shit that goes on, and we know that because of the media. Maybe not prime time news, but if you're only getting your news from television, you're lost already.

    Yes, the movie/television/music industries are doing that. They've refused to adapt and held on to old models that are no longer relevant. Rather than embrace the internet and social media, they'd rather force people to use archaic business models that will die no matter how hard they fight it.

    That's not what we're talking about, though. Unless you're telling me they're all part of this secret conglomerate as well, which is just... we won't go there.

    It's not a new concept. Greek philosophers were writing about this shit more than 4,000 years ago. Leni Riefenstahl was doing it in the 30's for the Nazis. It ran rampant in the 20's here in the States. It's been a part of society as long as societies have existed. Television and marketing in general, use the same concepts and principals to their own benefit.

    I'm not saying that there's no manipulating going on, at all. I'm not even saying that the government isn't doing it in many circumstances. People are dumb, and they get manipulated, because they allow themselves to be manipulated.

    What I am saying, is that there is not a group of people who have the means to control the corporate, political, and media worlds. There would have to be tens of thousands of people in on it, all trusted enough, and on the ball enough to keep it a secret. They'd all have to agree on too many things, when it's hard to get a room of people to do that.

    There's just too many ways it would all unravel for them to keep it together, especially for people that time and time again show they're incapable of even covering their own asses. I'm not saying all of this because I'm closing my eyes to it so I can sleep at night, I'm saying it because there's just too much evidence otherwise.
    test
  7. Ravenous510

    Ravenous510 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Messages:
    3,474
    I didn't "dismiss" everything you said, but okay, although I think you're wrong. I think that a relatively small group of people manipulate the majority of money transfers in the West.

    Cool story. The top strata of humanity fight amongst themselves, and this can certainly become visible to the layman. I'm not saying that it's impossible for individual companies to be exposed for fraudulent accounting, and negligent business practices, etc, I'm saying that mainstream media is controlled in that it is perpetually kept from revealing the truth behind advertising, consumerism, the true purpose of political polls and surveys, census by race, etc. The larger issues at hand are never, and never will be reported on by mainstream media. There's a reason for that.

    You're right. There are thousands upon thousands of people involved in the production and reporting of mainstream news. However, each one of those mainstream news outlets' main offices has what is called an "editor". This is the guy who gets the "shush" order from up top, if there is one.

    Managing a large group of people is the same as managing a small group of people. It's called "delegation of authority". It can be done. The military does it every day. Chain of command, man.

    Although, I'm sure you're right about many reporters or newshounds attempting to go public with stories that mainstream news outlets wouldn't cover, however, for them to accomplish this, they usually have to end up turning to the internet, in which case people like Eyerate get to call them "wacakdoo conspiracy theorists who think that the Midichlorians are conflicted with the Tribbles over which method is best to send their ultra low frequency mind control waves through our tinfoil hats".

    We haz agreed?

    No one would change the channel. I'm sorry, but that was a silly statement. Gore and terror mesmerize people. Humans have an inherent morbid curiosity. The most popular television shows are the most violent ones.

    The second sentence is right on the money, however. Americans don't want to think about issues that have the propensity to snap them out of their Hollywood-x box-television-iphone-consumerism induced walking comas. Taking the red pill can be painful....

    Ah, we haz agreed agayn.

    But, Henry.... most people do get their news from prime time news. That's the problem. The majority of people in this country still have this gross misconception that prime time news sources are the only ones that are valid. News from any other source can be written off as unreliable.

    Does the fact that propaganda has been used to manufacture consent among the populace since ancient times make it any less abhorrent? I'll tell you something else....a populace has never been as snowed or deceived as the American populace is, and that's because of the technological advancements of the 20th century. Never before in history was there a large box with a screen that pipes talking heads directly into people's homes, until relatively recently in accompaniment with the invention of the television.

    We agreez so mooch. I can't believz itz.

    Welp, we just disagree on this one, Henry. Honestly I enjoy talking to you. You bring me back from the brink of going out and shooting at cops from a nearby rooftop.

    *jk.

    No but seriously, you're not a dick and I appreciate that.
    test
  8. Ravenous510

    Ravenous510 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Messages:
    3,474
    What's good for the goose is good the gander man....

    Even if shares of a company are put into exchange trade funds by investment bank "a" in order to provide liquidity for clients of investment bank "a", then the profitability and prosperity of said company is not only in the interest of the client(s) of investment bank "a", but also of investment bank "a" itself.

    Also, Goldman Sachs definitely got something for its campaign contributions. It got its former vice president, Mark Patterson, appointed to Chief of Staff to the Treasury Seceretary, Timothy Geithner.
    test
  9. Thedude710

    Thedude710 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2012
    Messages:
    524
    Now I totally agree with that. Here's my thing, when dude goes off on one of his "I'm smart look at me rants" I can't take it serious, giving his position in life. Which is attending Community college in his 30's.
    test
  10. Ravenous510

    Ravenous510 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Messages:
    3,474
    See, you're looking at this all wrong....I don't rant to draw attention to myself or to make others "think I'm smart".....I rant because I simply have a tendency to rant.....and because I'm bored at home alot of the time studying these days...

    Anyway...my point is that I'm not trying to seem like I'm better than anyone...I just can't help ranting sometimes, then someone argues with me about a point I make in one of my rants, and then an argument ensues which leads to more ranting....

    Fuggit...I'm bout ta change my name ta Rantenous510....
    test
  11. 12345678

    12345678 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2012
    Messages:
    3,782
    in all fairness getting qualifications in later life only works if uve got a spotless record. i got a degree and a few other qualifications at 30ish and have still never had a legal job because u can have all the qualifications in the world but if uve made a few mistakes in the past ur still scum in the eyes of society
    test
  12. Eyerate

    Eyerate The Definition of Real..

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    11,927
    i own 3 corporations all with different structures. one S-corp, one sole prop to be converted into an S corp in the near future, and one LLC.

    "corporations" exist to serve the purpose of blanket protection via the corporate veil and to act as a standalone entity in order to facilitate ease of taxation and distribution of profits to shareholders.

    when you say the idea of a corporation philosophically, what you really mean is the moral compass and philosophies of those sitting on the board and holding majority shares of a corporation. a corporation cant act of its own accord, and incorporating a partnership doesnt automatically make you do evil shit. greed and a lack of moral compass/integrity are what drive what you perceive as negative actions of corporations.
    test
  13. Eyerate

    Eyerate The Definition of Real..

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    11,927
    so you operate your conspiracy theorist bullshit on unsourced nonsense you read on the internet.... yea, were done with you.

    and of course the corporations dont bend to the whim of "low level shareholders". thats the whole point of a "Corporation". distribution of ownership. if you owned 5% of KOTD, and organik owned 90%, but you wanted to see loaded lux vs iron solomon and trav didnt. you'd be shit out of luck. same goes if you own a car with a girl, but you paid for 95% of it and you primarily drive it. if she wanted to paint it bright pink you can certainly let her, but you would not be obligated and would almost certainly say no. thats the way it works. why are corporations supposed to be any different?
    test
  14. Honest Kid

    Honest Kid Great Tag Maker

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2012
    Messages:
    412
    This thread had a spark when it started but now it's just garbage
    test
  15. Eyerate

    Eyerate The Definition of Real..

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    11,927
    [​IMG]
    test
  16. 12345678

    12345678 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2012
    Messages:
    3,782
    can we steer this thread back round to something that i understand again?
    test
  17. Eyerate

    Eyerate The Definition of Real..

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    11,927
    savage henry... i completely approve of all of your posts. youre a fucking beast for saving me all of these keystrokes. i havent read a single word of yours since my last post that i've disagreed with. well done sir.

    [​IMG]
    test
  18. 12345678

    12345678 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2012
    Messages:
    3,782
    can everyone involved summarise what this is about in very simple terms and put forward thier arguments again in 2 sentences or less so that I know whats going on and can form an opinion? thanks in advance for doing this.
    test
  19. Savage Henry

    Savage Henry Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    1,284
    I don't think anyone is disputing that. You'd be hard pressed to find someone who didn't believe that the rich controls most of the wealth.


    It isn't the role of the media to speak on intentions, motivations, opinions or anything in the abstract. They report the news, hard facts. If a journalist is good at his job, you won't know his opinion on what he reports.

    There are editorial boards. There's the editor, a managerial editor who handles the day to day operations, there are editors for each section of the paper, chief of the copy desk and so on and so forth.

    Writers get upset when you correct their grammar, and replace even the most trivial shit in their articles. Egos are constantly bruised and arguments happen all the time, over things that the reader wouldn't even notice. You really think that it's common practice for papers to strike down tangible evidence on the government and big business, and writers just live with it? I'm not saying it never happens, but it's the exception, not the rule.

    Then there's an entire board above them, handling the business itself. But lets simplify and say they can pull this off by just bringing the main editor and owners/head honchos or whatever "in on it". Let's say half a dozen people per paper would be a part of it.

    There are hundreds of relevant papers in this country alone. It would have to trickle down, because if it only happened at the really big papers, the writers could just get the story into a a prominent local paper to get it out there. So those papers must be censoring it, too. The owners and editor of any paper of relevance would have to be on board. That's already thousands of people involved in a huge cover up, not even counting all the writers and other staff who, despite being intelligent professionals, are so dumb they don't see anything wrong with what is going on.

    It's also not making it into the papers of other countries, which means the same must be going on all over the world. And this is only talking about newspapers, which are quickly fading. The same must be going on with all the television news networks, established internet news sources, talk radio, etc.

    This has been going on for decades, constantly bringing in new people as they establish themselves in their field and move up. They all willingly accepted it, acclimated to it, and covered it up from friends and family, and kept it all under wraps. And somehow, no one of importance, in all this time, has ever figured it out, or exposed it.

    When did I say that? Anyways, it's just not the case. There would be many places for them to go, on the internet and off, if they had a major story. Even if the scenario I laid out above was possible and in effect, if they had enough credentials and clout in journalism, they'd get attention even if they posted something up on their facebook page. It's not happening, though. It's always some conspiracy site that looks like it is still being hosted on Geocities, by someone who has no name.

    Not the case, the most popular television shows are shit like X-Factor and So You Think You Can Dance? and Jersey Shore, and other mindless crap. Even when violent stuff does get popular, it's fake violence. My mom won't even watch MMA, because she doesn't like seeing people get hurt. A small portion of people like gore and terror. An even smaller portion like seeing real life gore and terror. It's why there is always a huge backlash when someone dies on live television.

    That's their fault. They choose to do that. Information is readily available to them, they just don't seek it out. It's not being hidden from them.

    They don't, though. 10 O'Clock news is local news, which is why it's different in every city. It comes on after prime time television, and they've got into the habit of watching it. They've been told repeatedly since birth that if you want to know about things, read a paper or a book. 10 O'Clock news is not where you go for politics, and everyone knows that.
    test
  20. Savage Henry

    Savage Henry Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    1,284
    I'd say it's exactly the opposite right now. Never before has information been so readily available to people. If you want to know something, you can look it up and research it from your pocket, if you'd like. The internet hasn't made it easier to control people, it's made it increasingly tougher. Before, people only got what they were being fed. Now they have the choice to research anything, they just chose not to, for the most part.


    We agree on these things, because I'm level-headed enough to point out where myself, and most others would agree with you. Just because we don't agree with your main premise, doesn't mean we don't see that there's corruption and manipulation out there. We just disagree that there's a secret conglomerate able to control it all.

    I think I can be civil with you because I know you aren't this RM persona, from interacting with you in the GT Tinychat room back in the day. You may have a strange sense of humor, but you're not a bad person. You do seem to try your best to make yourself a target on RM, though.
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)