Watch Christopher Hitchens Get Waterboarded

[John56{vg}]

You may believe what you want. I look at many sources for my news. But I don't trust everything I see on video and I rarely trust a blog. I have many sources to get to what the truth is and what is objective or not.

I was providing info for those that get their news from the major news outlets or, God forbid, Fox News.

You may get your news where you like. Your cynicism may make you feel COOL and IN but I am NOT gullible. I research everything I have said. You may not agree with me, I don't really care.

Your agenda is not to believe ANYTHING but what you WANT to believe in. That is fine, but it doesn't make your "truth" any more believable than mine.

Generalizing: All police are bad, All Government is bad, All Media is bad, is more gullible and sad than doing research and is not ANYWHERE near the truth either. The truth IS ellusive, the truth is not always pure and unadulterated. But it is too easy to be cynical and negative about everything. I refuse to play that game.

You MAY take exception to what I have posted. But there just may be those that will appreciate it. It was, in fact, written for those people, not for you. You seem to have all the answers, don't you?

[Virulent]

Your agenda is not to believe ANYTHING but what you WANT to believe in.

I try to be open-minded, I just seem to disagree with you on some things. Believe me, I am very happy to continue this discussion; I do have a specific question for you about the BBC:

Do you remember when the BBC reported that Tony Blair's statement that Iraq could have WMDs ready in 45 minutes was exaggerated? Do you remember how Tony Blair got really angry, and then the chairman and director general of the BBC both resigned, and its vice-chairman publicly apologized?

Why were they sorry? Was it in fact true that Iraq could have WMDs ready in 45 minutes? If a news source made a factual criticism (and, as we all know, a massively understated one), and then people got angry... and members of the staff were fired... doesn't that demonstrate that the angry people have some sort of executive oversight?

I really don't know how to interpret the above, recent example except by concluding that people at the BBC should be afraid of losing their livelihoods if they challenge the government line.

Generalizing: All police are bad, All Government is bad, All Media is bad, is more gullible and sad than doing research and is not ANYWHERE near the truth either.

That is indeed a generalization. I will agree with the "all government is bad" part though, if by government you mean compulsory statist authority and by bad you mean unethical.

You MAY take exception to what I have posted.

Not at all! You're welcome to your opinion, I'm welcome to mine, and (I believe) we're welcome to criticize each other's. No-one need ever worry about offending me; I've got very thick skin.

It was, in fact, written for those people, not for you.

I think you were actually talking to me if you look back. I asked: "Is it completely irrelevant that they are funded by a government?" and you said "I make my determination from that, not from who owns who or how it is funded." I was the first person in the thread to bring up funding's influence. Or maybe your post was a complete non sequitur?

You seem to have all the answers, don't you?

That is kind of a thought-terminating cliche, not really a question. Put another way, maybe you meant "you're very opinionated". Indeed, I am! You are too.