Another hypocrite that claims they hate corruption and censorship, but gives the worst offender a pass.Quote:
Originally Posted by helge
Printable View
Another hypocrite that claims they hate corruption and censorship, but gives the worst offender a pass.Quote:
Originally Posted by helge
:)Quote:
Originally Posted by pickel
Pickel the Dodger tries again.
No cigar as you well know, that I find Putin and his regime repulsive, but you will dodge that too, won't you, Poor Pickel.
"Can't find a box to fit helge in. WahWah"
Not a fan of Zelensky either, as you might have noticed.
Take it that you have a poster over your bed with Wlodomir.
Hypocrite
Trust me helge, I've found a box to put you in, and it's labeled "boring".Quote:
Originally Posted by helge
:)
Well I'm out of the "hypocrite box" then ?
Trust me, Pickel; I can live with you finding me boring.
I don't really want to have anything to do with people without principles, like you.
You lot are more than often only good for watch tower recruitment.
Cause you are so good at following orders.
^
Yup. Still boring.
Why not- some American propaganda about Russian propaganda. :chitown:
Current and former employees describe Russian state television as an army, one with a few generals and many foot soldiers who never question their orders.Six nights a week, Vladimir Solovyov, one of the dominant voices in Russian propaganda, gathers a half-dozen pundits for more than two hours of what appears to be unscripted political crosstalk. Most recent episodes have been devoted to mocking Ukraine and its allies—especially the United States and President Biden—and debating Russia’s options. “Should we just turn the world to dust?” Solovyov asked during his show on April 29th. His guests—seven middle-aged men—laughed heartily. Later, Solovyov grew sombre. “I’d like to remind the West of two statements of historic significance,” he said. “The President of the Russian Federation has asked, ‘What is the point of a world in which there is no Russia?’ ” This is a quote from an interview Solovyov himself conducted with Vladimir Putin, in 2018, in which Putin responded to a question about the possibility of a nuclear war. The second statement Solovyov quoted was also from Putin in 2018: “If they start a nuclear war, we will respond. But we, being righteous people, will go straight to Heaven, while they will just croak.” Solovyov quotes this one a lot, sometimes as a sort of call-and-response with his guests.
All broadcast television in Russia is either owned or controlled by the state. The main evening newscasts on the two main state channels, Channel One and Russia One, cover more or less the same stories, in more or less the same order. On April 30th, for example, Channel One led with a report from a village recently “liberated from the neo-Nazis”; Russia One began its newscast with a general update on the gains made by Russian troops—“Hundreds of neo-Nazis liquidated, tens of airborne targets hit, and several hits against command centers and equipment stockpiles.” Both newscasts reported on atrocities ostensibly committed by Ukrainian troops. “The Ukrainian Army once more bombed civilian targets,” Russia One claimed. Channel One carried a detailed confession supposedly made by a Ukrainian prisoner of war, who said that he had raped a Russian woman and murdered her husband. Both channels carried reports from a military hospital where a group of young men in identical striped pajamas received medals for their heroic roles in “liberating” Ukrainian towns and villages.
Coverage is repetitive not just from day to day, television channel to television channel; nearly identical stories appear in print and online media, too. According to a number of current and former employees at Russian news outlets, there is a simple explanation for this: at weekly meetings with Kremlin officials, editors of state-controlled media, including broadcasters and publishers, coördinate topics and talking points. Five days a week, a state-controlled consultancy issues a more detailed list of topics. (The organization did not respond to a request for comment.) I have not seen these lists myself—individuals with access to them said that they were too scared of being prosecuted under new espionage laws to share them—but they agreed to analyze the lists during the course of a couple of weeks. They said that the lists generally contained six to ten topics a day, which appear designed to supplement the Ministry of Defense’s war updates that constitute mandatory coverage. Those among my sources who have seen these lists work for non-broadcast media, but the talking points they described invariably appeared in the news lineups on Channel One and Russia One.
Topics fall into four broad categories: economic, revelatory, sentimental, and ironic. Economic stories should show that Western sanctions against Russia have made life harder in Europe than in Russia: people in Britain can’t afford heat, Germans could be forced to ride bikes because gas prices are rising, stock markets are falling, and Western Europe may be facing a food crisis. Revelatory topics focus on misinformation and disinformation in the West. These may include stories about Ukrainian refugees exposing their true criminal selves by shoplifting in a Western European country, or a segment about Austin Tice, an American journalist who was kidnapped in Syria, in 2012, narrated to suggest that he was punished for telling the truth about the United States. Sentimental stories focus on connections between Russians in Russia and in eastern Ukraine: a couple getting married in newly “liberated” Berdyansk, humanitarian aid from Russia arriving in the Donetsk region, and Russian doctors providing medical treatment to children injured in Ukraine. Finally, ironic stories focus on mocking the Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky, and, frequently, Joe Biden’s supposed mental decline. For these, Russian television often uses segments from Tucker Carlson’s show on Fox News.
In the early days of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, I was in Moscow, watching television, and I was struck by the ways in which channels downplayed the war: the tone was matter-of-fact, the length of newscasts unchanged. I assumed that this was a strategy aimed at making Russians pay little attention to what the Kremlin was calling a “special military operation.” But, according to my sources, what I was observing was not a deliberate strategy but a lack of strategy. At least some of the Kremlin’s media managers hadn’t known that the invasion was coming. Now television is all war all the time; in addition to talk shows and newscasts, there are special reports that claim to debunk Western and Ukrainian propaganda or to expose the roots of so-called Ukrainian fascism, and fictional dramas on the Great Patriotic War, Russia’s term for the Soviet part of the Second World War. In the past, journalists in television and print media would be instructed to pursue specific angles on stories. But people who have seen the lists describe a less prescriptive process today. “It’s this, not that—for example, Mariupol, and not Bucha,” one of my sources said. “And within that space you can even have a discussion.”
Solovyov, whose show airs on Russia One, is a master of orchestrating what sounds like discussion, within the narrow space defined by authorities. On April 26th, he and Margarita Simonyan, who runs both Rossiya Segodnya, a domestic state-news holding, and RT, the international arm of the television-propaganda machine, discussed a purported plot to assassinate them and several other propagandists that had ostensibly been foiled by the secret police a day earlier. Footage of the raid looked like a parody—among the evidence police claimed to have found was a pendant with a swastika on one side and a Ukrainian trident on the other, Molotov cocktails in plastic bottles (not a thing), and three video-game cartridges. Simonyan mused that the assassination was planned on orders from the opposition politician Alexey Navalny, in collaboration with Zelensky, because both are neo-Nazis.
In 2020, Navalny himself survived an assassination attempt that appears to have been carried out by Russia’s security service, the F.S.B.; he has been in prison for more than a year. “Can you even imagine the things he would have done here, if he hadn’t been jailed?” Simonyan said. Before I dived into watching Russian propaganda, Lev Gudkov, an independent sociologist, told me that television rhetoric was based on “ascribing their own traits to the opponent.” It really is that simple. Solovyov and his guests, along with the other news anchors, reporters, and hosts on Channel One and Russia One, sound like aggrieved kids on a playground: “No, you are the Nazi!”; “You are shelling residential neighborhoods!”; “You kill journalists!”; “You rape and kill civilians!”; “You are genocidal!” (I asked Solovyov and Simonyan for interviews; Solovyov didn’t respond, and Simonyan used her Telegram channel, which has about three hundred thousand subscribers, to announce that she would not speak to me.)
The Yale historian Timothy Snyder has coined the term “schizo-fascism” to describe actual fascists who call their enemies “fascists.” Snyder has said that the tactic follows Hitler’s recommendation to tell a lie so big and outrageous that the psychic cost of resisting it is too high for most people—in the case of Ukraine, an autocrat wages a genocidal war against a democratic nation with a Jewish President, and calls the victims Nazis. The talking heads on Russian television regularly acknowledge the apparent absurdity of the situation they claim to describe. “The world has gone mad,” Dmitry Drobnitsky, a political scientist, said on Solovyov’s show, on April 29th. “Russians are Russophobic, and Jews are the worst anti-Semites.” A few days later, the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, in an interview on Italian television, repeated the same canard about anti-Semitic Jews, adding that Hitler was part-Jewish. Solovyov, who is Jewish, has referred to Zelensky as “a supposed Jew.”
https://www.newyorker.com/news/annal...d=CRMNYR012019
Doesn't seem much different to our propaganda TBH.
Clueless as usual.Quote:
Originally Posted by sabang
Emphasize rape and other atrocities, mock the opposition leadership, push 'good news'- same shit, different language.
Most definitely not, but you keep smoking your fake news.Quote:
Originally Posted by sabang
Glasnost your Perestroika Comrade!
https://external-content.duckduckgo....093&f=1&nofb=1
Sabang has gone full hoohoo.
What a cretin.
As divisions in society deepen, an understanding of a common reality is eroding, social scientists warn.
On a crisp, sunny day in Maryland, United States, in March 2021, President Joe Biden sprang onto the red carpet-lined steps of Air Force One. Four seconds after he began climbing to the aircraft’s entrance, he slipped. He reached down, steadied himself on one of the steps with his left hand, and started climbing again. He tripped a second time. Two steps later, he fell yet again – this time landing awkwardly on his left leg. He stood, grasping the guide-rail, brushed down his suit trousers, and moved once more – more slowly this time – towards the plane’s door.
The White House press office quickly issued a statement that the president was “100 percent fine” and that he’d been blown off balance by a gust of wind. But the incident, just 58 days into his presidency, was seized upon by Biden’s opponents as evidence that the 78-year-old leader was simply not physically robust enough to carry out his job.
After a savage 2020 election campaign, it is not surprising that images of Biden tripping repeatedly would attract damning comment from Republicans who lost to Biden. After all, similar concerns over fitness for office were raised by Democrats just eight months earlier when then-President Donald Trump was seen walking unsteadily down a ramp at West Point Military Academy in New York (Trump, who had turned 74 the day before his visit to West Point, later claimed that his “leather-bottomed shoes” made it difficult for him to manage the “slippery” walk).
Differing interpretations of the two leader’s physical abilities might be dismissed as petty partisan sniping, but reactions within the US to these two moments point to perhaps one of the most challenging issues facing America today: What is the truth?
Was Biden really blown off his feet by the wind, or did he stumble? Were the soles of Trump’s shoes really to blame for the way he walked at West Point, or was there another reason? Have physical slip-ups by the two men been re-versioned by people who wish to alter the reality of what actually took place?
Welcome to truth’s parallel universe.
This is a place where disagreements on a shared reality have caused widening – and hardening – divisions across the US. Where once-respected authorities – teachers, scientists, journalists, politicians and others – are now suspected of twisting facts to push their own radical agendas.
That willingness to twist facts was made shockingly clear by Donald Trump’s lawyer, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, in a television interview with NBC’s Chuck Todd on the Meet the Press programme in August 2018.
“Truth isn’t truth,” Giuliani declared.
Quassim Cassam is a professor of philosophy from Warwick University in the United Kingdom who writes on self-knowledge, Kantian epistemology, and perception. He likens that remark to the moment in George Orwell’s novel, 1984, in which the character Winston Smith is being tortured by a representative of Big Brother to force him to believe that two plus two equals five.
“And Winston has great difficulty believing that two plus two is five,” Cassam says. “And he has great difficulty believing that for the simple reason that two plus two is not five.”
Indeed, it is not.
But it seems that there are many out there now who will do anything they can to convince you otherwise.
An implosion of trust
Ethan Zuckerman, a civic media scholar at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, says there has been an implosion of trust across the US.
“Americans don’t trust big business. And we don’t trust schools. We don’t trust unions. We don’t trust newspapers. You name it, we don’t trust it,” he says.
Zuckerman, named by Foreign Policy as one of its top global thinkers, believes that lack of trust can be directly tied to an erosion of faith in US leadership.
“In the 1960s, if you asked Americans whether they had faith in the government to do the right thing all or most of the time, 77 percent of them said: ‘Yes, I’ve got faith in the government,’” he says.
“By the time we hit the 1980s and Reagan, we’re down to about 25 percent of Americans who say they trust the government. By the time we get to Obama and then Trump, we’re under 15 percent.”
“So, if you don’t trust the media and you don’t trust the government, and you don’t trust your employer, and perhaps you don’t trust your neighbours, who can you trust?” Zuckerman continues.
“And the answer is: You trust people on the internet who share the same points of view that you do.”
The invasion of Iraq
Suzanne Schneider, who specialises in political theory and history at the Brooklyn Institute for Social Research, says that has fed a surge in conspiratorial thinking in the US as people, having turned their backs on traditional sources of knowledge, search elsewhere for “truth”.
“Conspiratorial thinking takes advantage of moments when there are cracks in an official discourse, and it uses those cracks as an opening to implant counter-narratives,” she explains.
“Conspiracy theories proliferate when the kind of standard ideological narratives start to break down, and they offer some sort of reassurance that someone is in charge of this mess.”
Schneider cites the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the US as an example of how the government deliberately distorted reality in order to justify going to war. On February 5, 2003, the US provided the United Nations with what it said was “solid evidence” of Iraq manufacturing and stockpiling weapons of mass destruction as a pretext for the invasion. That “evidence” was later revealed to have been falsified.
“Certainly, a generation that lived through that war and various aspects of the ‘war on terror’ cannot look back and think that the government has been forthright with them,” Schneider says.
Donald Trump’s inauguration
“We like to think that facts lead to beliefs, but in fact, beliefs affect how we approach facts,” explains Brian Schaffner, a professor of civic studies at Tufts University in the US. He specialises in the study of public opinion, political campaigns, and elections.
“When people already believe in something, showing them a fact doesn’t necessarily help because they want to basically look at that fact through the prism of what they believe.”
The question of the crowd size at Donald Trump’s 2017 inauguration is a classic case in point.
Though a photograph of the crowd at Trump’s inauguration showed far fewer people than those photographed at Barack Obama’s 2009 inauguration, Trump’s Press Secretary Sean Spicer declared that Trump drew “the largest audience ever to witness an inauguration, period, both in person and around the globe”.
Many journalists scoffed at Spicer’s defiant distortion of the truth, but Senior Counselor to President Trump, Kellyanne Conway, came to his defence with the extraordinary claim that the press secretary had simply been using “alternative facts”.
“Part of me is thinking, how many people are really buying this right now?” Schaffner says, recalling his reaction to Spicer’s inauguration remarks at the time.
He decided to conduct a survey to determine whether anyone would support Spicer’s false claims. His experiment would involve showing 1,388 American adults photographs of the two inaugurations, side by side, and asking the participants to say which photo showed more people.
“This was a case where we could show them factual evidence, like photographic evidence, and see if they would still tell us that, you know, something that’s not true right before their eyes is true to them.”
The results of the survey were astonishing. People seemed willing to believe that two plus two equals five – with no torture needed.
“Our experiment showed that 15 percent of American adults said that they saw… in the picture that had fewer people in it, they said that’s the one that had more people in it. And that was the one from Trump’s inauguration,” Schaffner says.
How could it possibly be that people could seriously make such easily refutable claims?
Todd May is a professor of philosophy from America’s Clemson University and a specialist in post-structuralism – how power structures influence our understanding of reality. He said he believes that is because those people were so deeply invested in seeing a large crowd that they were prepared to say they were certain the photograph contained images that were not really there.
“What we see here is not simply a cynical form of lying, but real self-deception,” May explains.
“If people are not willing to believe their own eyes, but believe a false ideology, then we’re not going to be able to meet in reality.”
And that is a fundamental part of the problem.
Neoliberal ideologues and ‘the politics of manipulative populism’
Like those who peddled the story that Joe Biden’s slip on the stairs of Air Force One confirmed that he was not up to the job of leading America, many who claim to be purveyors of “truth” are conniving to distort reality for their own political benefit.
British author Peter Oborne, whose book, The Assault on Truth, explores the manipulation of reality by politicians, believes the twisting of truth was supercharged by neoliberal ideologues who gained influence in the US after the Vietnam War.
Oborne says the neoliberal movement “had a very dangerous effect in enfranchising politicians to create new truths which aren’t actually true – i.e., to convert truth to myth. This is important because it means that truth doesn’t become something which is related to anything real. It becomes a manifestation of power.”
“So, what you are doing, quite deliberately, as a political strategy in order to win elections, is to create enormous divisions, perilous divisions in the long term, in society itself.”
“The politics of manipulative populism is the best way of describing it,” Oborne says.
“Manipulative populism is not about doing real things. It’s about constructing false emotions built on anger and hatred.”
The result: distrust, unease, suspicion, intolerance, rage-filled demonstrations, violence.
President Donald Trump was quick to use those inflamed emotions as a sign that America was in decline. And he publicly identified those he claimed were to blame.
“Trump tells people: ‘Don’t trust institutions of higher learning, don’t trust universities, don’t trust professors, don’t trust scientists,’” says civic studies professor Schaffner.
“And so, I think he’s given voice to something that has really resonated with some people in a way that previous presidents just were not willing to go there.”
As if channeling the German Nazi Party’s propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels, who once declared that “If you tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth,” Trump delivered more than 30,500 “false or misleading claims” during his tenure as President, according to the Washington Post newspaper.
The January 6 attack on the US Capitol
One of the most damaging of those lies was Trump’s announcement that he won the 2020 presidential election “by a landslide” and that any claims to the contrary were evidence that the election had been “stolen” from him.
“You don’t concede when there’s theft involved,” Trump proclaimed on January 6, 2021, to a seething crowd of supporters. He then directed the mob to march on the US Capitol.
The group smashed its way into the building, calling for the vice president, Mike Pence, and the speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, to be dragged onto the street and publicly executed. The uprising left five people dead.
Though television footage showed violent battles at Congress between Trump supporters and an overwhelmed police force, one member of Congress, Republican Andrew Clyde, later claimed that the storming of the Capitol had simply not happened.
Clyde said TV footage of the Trump supporters bashing police officers “showed people in an orderly fashion staying between the stanchions and ropes, taking videos and pictures”.
“You know, if you didn’t know the TV footage was a video from January the 6th, you would actually think it was a normal tourist visit.”
Is it even remotely possible that Clyde believed what he said?
In truth’s parallel universe – the world of shape-shifting realities – a genuine answer to that question may never be found.
“We are in a world where the accounts of events, what politicians say, what others say, are completely detached now from a meaningful, underlying reality,” Oborne says.
So, to many, it would seem, it doesn’t matter that two plus two is not five. Or six. Or three. They are living, now, in a different reality altogether.
Social media and an alternative reality
Increasingly, social media provides a vehicle for them to create those alternative realities.
“You can pull on any number of threads and very quickly find yourself in a world not only where someone is trying to sell you a conspiracy theory, but where they’re pointing you to dozens of other sources that will confirm that same sort of narrative,” says media scholar Zuckerman.
“And I think that reality, by which I mean a shared vision of the world and how it works, is now up for grabs,” Zuckerman reflects.
“We now have a media system that is so diverse and also so divided that the struggles, politically, over the next 10 or 20 years, are not about the interpretation of facts, they’re about what reality we actually live in.”
Professor May suggests that people are now finding it easier to believe false narratives because they are being influenced by political power structures that manipulate the truth much more easily than before – by using social media.
“Two plus two will never equal five,” he says. “You can’t construct your own truth, independent of that reality. On the other hand, you can intervene and get people to think certain things or act in certain ways and that might influence them to modify the reality that they’re living in.”
Like a woman I met at a pro-Trump rally in Washington, DC, in January 2021, who was convinced that Trump had been “robbed” of a legitimate election win. The distance between those who speak “the truth” and those who do not had become so wide, she said, that she no longer felt safe anywhere, not even in the once-comfortable suburbs of Pennsylvania, where she had lived for years.
“I fear life,” she said. “I was just talking with a friend of mine about learning how to hunt for deer with a bow and skinning it myself – we call it ‘living off the grid’.”
Just in case things became even more dangerous, in case she had to flee the mobs of roving criminal immigrants – rapists and killers – that Trump had so often warned were surging into America from Mexico and elsewhere.
Just in case society fractured even further, in case the riots she’s seen on the news – triggered by the killing of Black men by white police – crept closer to her home.
“My goal, the goal of America, is to have a better life for the next generation to proceed further, and we’re not going to,” she told me as she stepped back to the pro-Trump rally. She held a sign aloft reading “Stop the Steal” and her voice was lost in the chant of those around her: “USA! USA! USA!”.
‘When democracy dies’
Many Americans like her give a common message that we are living in an increasingly frightening world. Life was better, once, they believe. They are convinced of that; Donald Trump and others have told them so often, that it must be true.
The communications revolution that we are experiencing is changing our lives dramatically – and how it will transform future generations remains a matter of significant danger.
It seems that whole swaths of American society are volunteering to enter the house run by Orwell’s Big Brother. Unlike the character Winston Smith, they do not need to be forced to believe that two plus two equals five, but appear to do so voluntarily.
May says that, in the future, as we cease to relate to each other according to the grand narratives that once held society together, we may be unable to share a “common reality”.
“That may well be when democracy dies,” according to Zuckerman. “If we have a sufficiently divergent fact pattern that we can’t agree on a single reality to try to collectively govern.”
That is, indeed, a perilous thought for the future of Western democracy.
George Orwell must be turning in his grave.
How ‘alternative facts’ threaten US democracy | Investigation | Al Jazeera
Oh that would be a great fucking video.Quote:
“I fear life,” she said. “I was just talking with a friend of mine about learning how to hunt for deer with a bow and skinning it myself – we call it ‘living off the grid’.”
"What do we do now?"
:rofl:
Are sabang's cnp's getting longer and longer?
It's a rather good article, if you care to read it. I am sure several intelligent members & viewers will.
…. Yes …. and less and less relevant!Quote:
Originally Posted by panama hat
I have already stated my posts are not aimed at the boneheads. So do not expect any change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sabang
......and appears to be a trend [this type of critique] among a wide variety of similar challenging punditry.
That is, of course, highly dependent on what one cares to absorb beyond their hard wired and pre-disposed beliefs.
Of course you won't change, you have your audience in Backspit and OhWoe, though I doubt even they read your rubbishQuote:
Originally Posted by sabang
Oh, many many more than that. Just look at the viewer figures,
But it’s nothing new, and it’s certainly not brave. Why choose such a disconnected Thread title?Quote:
Originally Posted by sabang
3700 views is very low for an eleven-page thread. For example the pudding thread is ten pages and has 7000 views but nice try tooting your own horn. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by sabang
No it's not, it's vacuous shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by sabang
No, but they're sure as shit created by one.Quote:
Originally Posted by sabang
Actually, in all fairness, it is a good article, however there is a degree of hypocrisy in Sabang posting it since he is of the same ilk as a trumpanzee which the article describes. He swallows the same propaganda, but his comes straight from Russia and China.Quote:
Originally Posted by harrybarracuda
Even you must realise the "divisions in society" come from a country that is moving steadily to the left and a cretinous bunch of right wingers that don't want to give anything up and refuse to transition.Quote:
Originally Posted by bsnub
Think of trying to pull a curtain across when one end is fixed: Sooner or later it's going to tear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by panama hat
Quote:
Originally Posted by sabang
Are you really that thick? Calling Backspit and OhWoe . . . your halfwit friend needs help.
Quality threadQuote:
Originally Posted by bsnub
I am fully aware, and many of those "right-wingers" are baby boomers who happen to be dropping like flies. Speaking of aging boomers, what ever happened to Rpeater666 he seems to have spit the dummy.Quote:
Originally Posted by harrybarracuda
Who honestly gives a fuck?Quote:
Originally Posted by bsnub
:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by harrybarracuda
I don't.
What's he fucking wittering on about now?
He resorts to memes when he runs out of cnps
Sabwang watches South Park. Who woulda thought?
:rofl:
This:Quote:
Originally Posted by harrybarracuda
He's not as resilient as OhWoe and has a thin skin compared to Backspit . . .Quote:
Originally Posted by DrWilly
^^ Definitely. :)
That’s a shallow old world then! Much more your style. Can you think of another childish poster who likes cartoons? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by sabang
What Sabang and his dreary propagandising ilk continually overlook is the not entirely insignificant fact their champion polemicists are but a function of the internet and represent nothing other than a bunch of graffiti artists scribbling their cant on cyber toilet walls, a torrent of cod philosophy churned out as manifestos of so-called truth only swallowed by the credulous stupid so ably represented by him.
God, what a fucking bore that man is.
Interesting to note that I am allegedly selling propaganda by warning you of the extent you are being propagandised��
No, he's right, you're just a bore.Quote:
Originally Posted by sabang
Like the other wanketeers, you haven't got an original thought in your head and rely instead on propagandists to provide them.