It was clearly three clueless people trying to answer heavy questions without really knowing anything about the subjects. It was not analytical at all, I would of suspected radar may have shown a little more interlect (been the very bright person that he is). The problem may have been that I only saw the end when they were wrapping up and did not get to justify there comments. However I'm suspecting not.
Good idea to talk and ask questions, bad idea to get a group of people that don't really have a clue. But then again if they actually got people that knew they probably couldn't get people to watch. It would also most likely be on tv one or three.
Bomber's sources lacked variety, too - and dare I say, objectivity? Counterpunch?
Also, I wouldn't call indymedia a credible source of information - open publishing is a nice idea, but when every loon under the sun tries to publish their wacky conspiracy theories, the place ceases to be a news site and becomes a dumping ground...
I didn't realise I was saying it was credible? with all my comment on the lack of knowledge portayed by those involved. I would have been more interested in open debate with joe public, if I want that I guess I'll try and listen to talk back radio (sure even thats slanted, but not nearly as badly).
I assume you watched the whole thing? at anytime did they get into debate or give any thoughtfull explaination to there answers? or was it all as token as 'America loves middle eastern oil, and this is what it all stems from'
In a bid to reclaim his birthday (or not), one of the guy's at work provided a should which consisted of twin towers of chocolate chippie biscuits with jet planes wedged in em. Svensational. Mmmm sugar
yeah - it was a joke... i was excited when i saw radar.. then very disapoointed.. stupid format.. i wouldnt ever bother watching it again.. no research or knowledge base to speak off.. very bland.. yeah yeah bush is evil.. ok..
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Technorati
oh no you dont! what are YOUR thoughts!...
oh no you dont!
what are YOUR thoughts!
I only saw the end. It was clearly ...
I only saw the end.
It was clearly three clueless people trying to answer heavy questions without really knowing anything about the subjects. It was not analytical at all, I would of suspected radar may have shown a little more interlect (been the very bright person that he is). The problem may have been that I only saw the end when they were wrapping up and did not get to justify there comments. However I'm suspecting not.
Good idea to talk and ask questions, bad idea to get a group of people that don't really have a clue. But then again if they actually got people that knew they probably couldn't get people to watch. It would also most likely be on tv one or three.
tv one or three if it were a bunch of ...
tv one or three if it were a bunch of polictial history military experts.
Bomber's sources lacked variety, too - ...
Bomber's sources lacked variety, too - and dare I say, objectivity? Counterpunch?
Also, I wouldn't call indymedia a credible source of information - open publishing is a nice idea, but when every loon under the sun tries to publish their wacky conspiracy theories, the place ceases to be a news site and becomes a dumping ground...
I didn't realise I was saying it was ...
I didn't realise I was saying it was credible? with all my comment on the lack of knowledge portayed by those involved. I would have been more interested in open debate with joe public, if I want that I guess I'll try and listen to talk back radio (sure even thats slanted, but not nearly as badly).
I assume you watched the whole thing? at anytime did they get into debate or give any thoughtfull explaination to there answers? or was it all as token as 'America loves middle eastern oil, and this is what it all stems from'
I just checked the sources and you're ...
I just checked the sources and you're point is dead right. or left as the case maybe with these sources, they were too bias for fair and open debate.
your point...
your point
Oil is certainly never the answer to ...
Oil is certainly never the answer to everything, but I was rather amused to discover recently that Chechnya has fairly solid oil reserves....
oh I'm not suprised, a lot of oil does ...
oh I'm not suprised, a lot of oil does come from that region, Russia is the second largest oil supplier (correct me if I'm wrong).
Fuck, I didn't check this. Oh well. ...
Fuck, I didn't check this. Oh well. What a tard.
Yes...
Yes
Yes... It did seem a bit one sided, ...
Yes... It did seem a bit one sided, reminded me of a lefty version of faux news
In a bid to reclaim his birthday (or ...
In a bid to reclaim his birthday (or not), one of the guy's at work provided a should which consisted of twin towers of chocolate chippie biscuits with jet planes wedged in em. Svensational. Mmmm sugar
yeah - it was a joke... i was excited ...
yeah - it was a joke... i was excited when i saw radar.. then very disapoointed.. stupid format.. i wouldnt ever bother watching it again.. no research or knowledge base to speak off.. very bland.. yeah yeah bush is evil.. ok..
man that was so stupid. It was like ...
man that was so stupid. It was like bombers crappy show on channel z except i had visuals. Ive heard all this "bush sucks" bullshit before... argh
[ usa-rocks ]
I missed it. Was there anyone on the ...
I missed it.
Was there anyone on the show that provided opposition to Bomber's perspectives?
nope. it was more one sided than fox ...
nope.
it was more one sided than fox news on a bad day.
cry me a fucking river. stick to ...
cry me a fucking river.
stick to helping depressed kids.
three problems with this that i ...
three problems with this that i saw...
not enough time....bomber is used to taking alot more time to get his views accross.
one sided; spirited debate is always more fun!
and if you didn't already have a pretty heavy duty knowlege of the international situation, the whole thing would've gone over your head.
in short, try an hour long show, explain the basics and go from there