Monzanator

I bet the Steelers can't wait to see Roethlisberger back. Any idea of QB controversy there is gone. Rudolph had a terrible game against a team they owned the last five years

What do you expect? There's no common sense in this impreachment deal. This will be a political circus which serves its purpose. I wouldn't watch like 5 seconds of this shitshow myself

13 minutes ago, Olympian1010 said:

He’s getting closer with the likes of Brexit and Trump.

You didn't answer my question

21 minutes ago, Olympian1010 said:

They’ve both tired to control people. They’ve both spread continued misinformation. They both lead campaigns of hate through their various platforms. 

Right. So when is Murdoch starting World World III?

42 minutes ago, Olympian1010 said:

Influence doesn’t make you a journalist. Hitler had some large influence too, but that didn’t make him a good leader, person, or journalist.

 

Controlling what gets known by the public doesn’t make a journalist, if anything it makes you a heavy handed dictator.

You're spiralling out of control. If you bring up Hitler to allegedly prove Murdoch is not a journalist then you've completely lost it  

6 minutes ago, LDOG said:

 

You say you are not religious and that you don't care enough to protest, yet you are against those things (so, not "neutral"). Why are you against something that doesn't seem to affect you in any way then?

Because I'm tired of the non-stop propaganda in the media. I've heard about abortion for the past 20 years and I'm sick of it. Yet I'm gonna hear about it for the next 30 years most likely.

52 minutes ago, Olympian1010 said:

Hearst was NOT a journalist either. They are men that buy out struggling outlets, and then use them as political tools. Murdoch (and Hearst) were never trained in journalism or communications, and neither worked as a journalist. Journalists are pawns in a political game for them. That is not how my profession should work. They are dictators. There is little difference between Mussolini and them (besides they belong to opposing sides of the political problem). I fact, Mussolini was an actual journalist, so is more qualified than those two idiots. 
 

Hearst and Murdoch are the definition of fake news. I know I called Poland a land of racist pricks, but calling Murdoch and Hearst journalists is more of an insult (and less true)

Get out of your idealistic bubble and smell the coffee, mate. I suppose you were really born in the wrong century. Murdoch IS the news and has more influence than 99.99% of people living on this planet.

36 minutes ago, KingOfTheRhinos said:

Not sure if anyone here has mentioned it yet but the Australian liberal government is ignoring climate change was responsible for the massive wildfires we've been having that are contributing to the genocide of thousands of national furna and wildlife.

And they've put massive cuts into the fire services in our country.

They gave drought relief funds to people not effected by the drought.

Wildfires are like a common thing for centuries though? How can you pin the latest one on climate changes? It's a nonsense assumption.

35 minutes ago, Olympian1010 said:

Murdoch is NOT a journalist. He is a political player acting as one. Fox is actually registered as an entertainment company, and not a journalistic company.

 

It’s a serious insult to my passion that who’d consider him a journalist.

Of course he is a journalist. He controls what his newspapers publish. He owns New York Post for 40 years just for starters and his empire has grown so much it's an entertainment business now. He's the modern day Randolph Hearst. You can't talk journalism and dismiss Murdoch as "political player" because it's not true.

1 hour ago, Olympian1010 said:

We know the game we play, we just wish the rules were enforced 
 

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with journalists asking for the truth, no matter the costs. True journalists just want what’s best for people (and yes, we have slants because we too are human)

Rupert Murdoch would laugh in your face right there And he's just about the most powerful journalist in the world.

Just now, Vojthas said:

- tax-free Church

- religion at school financed by the public money

- prosecutors not investigating bishops covering pedophilian priests and pedophilian priests themselves

It's a give & take product of the Church opression during the communism rule. This won't change until the next couple of generations when people in charge of this country won't be influenced by the Solidarity martyrdom anymore. Hell, former PZPR members just got voted into the European Parliament, they're still very much alive & kicking. This entire political group needs to go away because the current liberals are too scared to trigger an open war with the Church. Which is no surprise because they come from the same side of the pre-1989 fence

4 minutes ago, heywoodu said:

Those are different lines though. And both suck. Just as badly as journalists being attacked.

The pen is mightier than the sword. I will NEVER believe in journalists posing as victims of whatever political / social propaganda there is. They play the game so they can't complain about the rules, period.

2 minutes ago, Olympian1010 said:

At least I can live a otherwise happy life in a liberal countries. I can be surrounded by people of all different nationalities, races, etc. There’s a lot wrong with the US, and a lot of it has to do with failed conservative polices. We have saying “Conservatives vote with fear, Liberals vote with hope”. I’d prefer to live in a country where religion doesn’t control the government (like in most conservative countries), or in a place where actual logic exists.

I live in a conservative country and I'm pretty happy about it. I don't attend Church at all but I don't really support liberal values too much. Selling hope buys you time, a lot of time. Immediate results are not in demand. You can skate through this way of life but then you realize you've gotten old and there is no hope anymore. I'm sure you think Poland is a country where religion controls government and all that crap but guess what, I don't care about abortion & same-sex marriage whatsoever. I'm against it but I'm not gonna flock the streets to protest it. It's a waste of my time. If our government passes the bills one day, I'll accept it and move on. It's not gonna change my life whatsoever. If you want some real religion control please check at some of these Islamic countries however most liberals preach how Islam is really the way to go and should be accepted. It won't be accepted in Poland and we'll stick to our way regardless of what the progressive minds of the world preach. Then again, if it works for the Middle East or whatever so be it. I'm not gonna call for any changes in those countries since it's none of my business. People like you seem to always know better what other nations should do, I'm for the old school isolationism which America used to be pretty proud of before.

11 minutes ago, heywoodu said:

 

Without lawyers we'd live in a world where nobody would get their fair process. "Sure, killers can go to jail, I don't care." Until you're the one accused of something you know you did not do.

 

A few weeks ago a lawyer was shot and killed on the street here, which crossed an entirely new line that had not yet been crossed here. It is a very, very dangerous one.

I believe Netherlands have crossed the line ever since the Pim Fortuyn murder. Anything after that simply moves you further away from that line, not across it. Generally it's a bad look for a country so attached to its liberal stance. You're no better than some of these conservative countries you so happily throw under the bus

I've gone above & beyond to believe in the "fair trial" nonsense. If you have enough money you can get away with anything. Just look at Harvey Weinstein after all of these accusations. An average Joe would never be allowed to walk on bail in similiar circumstances. Oh, and let's pretend OJ Simpson didn't kill his wife either I'm sick and tired of this Perry Mason mentality that only works on TV.

11 minutes ago, heywoodu said:

To be fair, any politician (or journalist, or lawyer and so on) being shot is generally bad, be it a head of state or a 'minor' one.

If you've lived through the communism rule you'd add War heroes or priests being killed for opposing the regime. Lawyers don't tick any box for me tbh. I've seen enough murderers and others get away with one on a technicality I have little respect to this profession.

9 minutes ago, heywoodu said:

 

Yes, let's hope politicians get shot, that's always good for a country. Just like journalists and lawyers being killed, moves a country forward.

 

..

Doesn't USA lead the rankings in murdered heads of state in office anyway? Poland's first King was crowned in 1025 and in 994 years we've had ONE head of state murdered while in office. Not bad for such a close-minded and conservative country

32 minutes ago, Olympian1010 said:

I guess when we’re all dead in 50 years because the ozone laye is falling apart, I can at least quote one fool. The biggest problem is my generation (and the one before) have been conditioned not to speak out. We don’t have the same opportunities your generation did, and it will come to a boiling point one day.

I'm older than you but I don't remember any war either, just the brutal days of communism masquerading as your beloved socialism. It didn't work in Poland in the 20th century, it didn't work in Bolivia right now and guess what, it won't work in the USA either if Sanders or Cortez-Ocasio are allowed to run the show. Besides the frickin' social media gives your generation a huge opportunity to speak. This goes so far that one makes you think social media is the real world and whomever doesn't have a IG or twitter account doesn't exist. It's a bubble trap the liberals fell into with the Trump elections. They won the twitter battle but lost the actual elections. Hello, people without social media actually matter.

How about that Hong Kong tweet from the Rockets GM? One damn tweet and millions of dollars are lost. And you complain about not being able to speak out? Seriously?

6 minutes ago, Olympian1010 said:

I could. We need to continue the momentum of March For Lives. Our generation is so mis-characterized. Do you realize the difference of what we have to deal with compared to what our parents have to deal with. Luxury is the standard for people older than 30 who took all the opportunity and left nothing for us. In fact, they fucked the planet over too, so now we will have nothing left. We use social media because it’s all we can afford to do. We plan rallies, the police the show up. We plan vigils, parents tell us no. We contact our congressional reps and they laugh in our faces. This is modern society 1 AD.

Here's the thing, whenever someone mentions the word 'planet' I know it's going off the rails. You're too idealistic to make a real change. This ain't the 19th century. Political battle isn't won on the idealistic front anymore because the monarchic systems that dominated politics have been wiped away by the time WWI ended and the fall of British Empire after WWII completed the job. The reps laugh in your face because they know what's cooking and how the politics work. Idealistic ideas mean nothing, it's the hardware that counts. The 1960s protests were fuelled by the next generation breaking out of the post-WWII trauma. People born in the late 40s / early 50s knew nothing about the War and in USA case, Vietnam only confirmed the war was unneccessary to begin with. What is the modern society going to rebel about? The planet? Seriously? The 1960s protests could take the troops back home and that was immediate gain but the modern protests ain't gonna crush the crude oil market or wipe away the political corruption. Let alone save the planet. You target brings zero immediate gain and can't be put under any scrutiny hence you can't call it a success like the 60s generation could. What's more, the politicians are using this as their own fuel to justify their own status as if they weren't cynical enough already.

1 hour ago, Olympian1010 said:

We need a nationwide student strike. We should all refuse to go to our schools until Congress agrees to pass gun reform. Just yesterday my local state representative said that guns weren’t a problem to my face. He hated the fact that I hated guns, and now I hate the fact that he’s my representative. I will run a swear campaign that will drive him into the fucking dirt. I can’t believe that he thinks guns should have more rights than students. I rather live in fucking Bolivia because at least I could be safe at my school there 

Not gonna happen. Mass student strikes is so 1960s. The modern generation is too lazy to do anything like that. Any mass protests might happen if social media & smartphones disappeared. People have had it so easy over the last 30 years their biggest problem is promoting veganism. Luxury has become standard. And Trump is the easy punchbag. You throw a rant over him on social media twice a week and that's your job well done. This is the modern society AD 2019.

PS. I'm sure you wouldn't want to live in Bolivia no matter what. Stop fooling yourself and everyone. This sacrifice statement is just a bluff

Americans and their racial problems, sigh. But what do you expect from a nation who handed Medals of Honor for the Wounded Knee massacre?

Yeah, let's don't be naive here. Probably every team does some dirty tricks to gain an advantage and it's only a matter of who gets caught. The ball parks are so big and modern cameras are so small you can literally put a device in the coach's uniform button or whatever and record whatever you want to. I believe there are 20+ teams laughing right now these three losers got caught It's no difference when everyone felt sorry for the New Orleans Saints after Katrina hurricane only for the to be exposed as bounty hunters who want to injure opposing QBs on purpose. Sure enough, Sean Payton & Gregg Williams are still working in the league and nobody gives a damn about it anymore. Let's stop with the idealistic nonsense in pro sports, shall we?

13 minutes ago, Olympian1010 said:

 

Both of you are absolutely correct. This is more a symbolic lawsuit more than anything. Finding legal loopholes that allow you to put pressure on the government and gun companies is a way of the people letting the government know were fed up. Honestly I don’t even think we need to get rid of the second amendment. I think you could challenge the right of civilians to own guns, and win the Supreme Court because of language used in the constitution.

So, is the constitution of any use anymore or just a convenient punchbag? Everyone knows how the politics work, half of the Congress doesn't give a damn about it and the other half also doesn't but pretends they are. If the Second Amendment remains in place then every gun producer can call upon it to provide the guns for the citizens to uphold their constitutional right. If the Amendment is gone then these gun maniacs can't sue anyone over violating their constitutional rights bc the damn document no longer guarantees that. Is that common sense enough? Supreme Court is the easy way out, it's always easier to convince five people to something than hundreds of Congress members or even thousands or millions when it comes to a public referendum. And now you just put new laws on top of other laws when the Second Amendment has the top priority over any of that in first place.

8 minutes ago, Olympian1010 said:

 

Guns were invented to kill, that’s their sole purpose. Companies should be doing more to keep them out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them. None of this would’ve been necessary if people would just pass common sense gun reform.

Step one: Remove the Second Amendment which protects the right to bear arms. I'm sorry but if the politicians are unwilling to act when it comes to a political document then they have no moral right to call out gun producers over these shootings, period.

5 hours ago, Olympian1010 said:

Our Supreme Court has ruled that the family of kids killed in the Sandy Hook Shooting can sue Remington (the gun company) for their role in the shooting. It’s a huge win the anti-gun lobby.

 

Also, the public impeachment hearings start tomorrow, so can’t wait for the next few weeks of that circus.

4 hours ago, heywoodu said:

I'm guessing this now also means the family of everyone who was (on purpose, specifically) killed by someone running over them in a car can now sue the car manufacturer? And the family of people who have been stabbed to death can now sue whichever company made the knife that's used?

Americans are that stupid to follow this insane logic. Paul Walker's family sued Porsche over his death despite the driver of the car was proven to be speeding twice over the limit which led to the crash. Of course they will blame the gun producers for any shootings because they can't just blame the people who actually committed all the murders. It's simply insane.

Obviously nobody can win political elections without leaks, illegal wirings and hacked email accounts anymore. Man, Watergate seems like kindergarten amateur hour compared to modern tactics