12 Things That The Mainstream Media Is Being Strangely Quiet About Right Now

[Feuer Frei!]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

I just noticed the source itself runs lots of panic buy gold now "news" articles as well as running lots of buy gold adverts, so it isn't just a case of it linking to dodgy "news outlets" it really is crazy one itself.

You know, i was going to retort with a big paragraph about gold-buying and the ins and outs of filtering out adverts on news sites, but, what it really comes down to is that we all have different B.S. Filter meters. And we all have different tastes in news articles.
In relation to the BS Filter meter, i'm indicating filtering out the adverts and reading the article, which you (allegedly did).
The filtering out of the adverts, you didn't.
In relation to differing tastes in news (worthy) stories/articles, we all have different tastes, without the adverts of gold-buying and impending doom of the world within eye-shot of the articles.
Well, that's that then.
Let me pose a question to you:
If the BBC were to have adverts of water purifiers and book adverts of the end is nigh and bunker down, the end of the world is coming adverts plastered around it's reputable and might i add very good reporting, would you dismiss the articles?
Or use your BS Filter meter (or rather the advert filter)?

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Feuer Frei!

You know, i was going to retort with a big paragraph about gold-buying and the ins and outs of filtering out adverts on news sites, but, what it really comes down to is that we all have different B.S. Filter meters. And we all have different tastes in news articles.
In relation to the BS Filter meter, i'm indicating filtering out the adverts and reading the article, which you (allegedly did).
The filtering out of the adverts, you didn't.
In relation to differing tastes in news (worthy) stories/articles, we all have different tastes, without the adverts of gold-buying and impending doom of the world within eye-shot of the articles.
Well, that's that then.
Let me pose a question to you:
If the BBC were to have adverts of water purifiers and book adverts of the end is nigh and bunker down, the end of the world is coming adverts plastered around it's reputable and might i add very good reporting, would you dismiss the articles?
Or use your BS Filter meter (or rather the advert filter)?

Rationalize it however you want, but the majority of the kook conspiracy theorist websites (Prison Planet, Infowars, etc) run those sort of ads. When you see them, you know immediately what kind of website you're dealing with.

[Feuer Frei!]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Rationalize it however you want, but the majority of the kook conspiracy theorist websites (Prison Planet, Infowars, etc) run those sort of ads. When you see them, you know immediately what kind of website you're dealing with.

Don't get me wrong, kooks as you call em' they are.
I don't belive in their bs theories and beliefs one bit.
Not trying to rationalize them.

You know, i was going to retort with a big paragraph about gold-buying and the ins and outs of filtering out adverts on news sites, but, what it really comes down to is that we all have different B.S. Filter meters. And we all have different tastes in news articles.
In relation to the BS Filter meter, i'm indicating filtering out the adverts and reading the article, which youThe filtering out of the adverts, you didn't.
In relation to differing tastes in news (worthy) stories/articles, we all have different tastes, without the adverts of gold-buying and impending doom of the world within eye-shot of the articles.
Well, that's that then.

Wrong, the problem is that the adverts about impending doom are carried on sites that are doing articles about impending doom.
So it isn't about filtering out articles or adverts as filtering out one still leaves the other, so either filter out both , in which case ignore all the content of the sites or filter out neither and make a judgement on all that is there.

(allegedly did).

Nothing allegedly about it, but what I can say without a shadow of a doubt is that you didn't actually read the article at all as it has been shown repeatedly by many people pointing out that the article contains all that is needed to show that most of its claims are either pure bull or crazy speculation from loony sources.

If the BBC were to have adverts of water purifiers and book adverts of the end is nigh and bunker down the end of the world is coming adverts plastered around it's reputable and might i add very good reporting, would you dismiss the articles?

If the BBC had articles telling me of the need to buy gold while prices are at record levels and adverts selling gold at even further inflated prices I would say that its articles are just bollox and its adverts are for real rip off merchants.

[Feuer Frei!]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

If the BBC had articles telling me of the need to buy gold while prices are at record levels and adverts selling gold at even further inflated prices I would say that its articles are just bollox and its adverts are for real rip off merchants.

Now we are deviating into the realm of no need.
Firstly, you had an issue with gold adverts on sites, now it comes down to wether or not prices are inflated or if they are then it's a rip-off
Either gold adverts are bs or some gold adverts are ok, so long as you are not getting ripped off.
As to the BBC, you would refute the BBC reporting prowess and reputation and ie it's articles IF there were any of the aforementioned adverts?
Really? Unless i read it wrong.
That just proves that you are black and white in your view(s) about news sites and if the advertise or not.
But then again, i call news paper sites dodgy too if they have dating links on them.
Read your news article about Belfast riots whilst seeking your soul mate on your second monitor.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Schwieger

In the event of a war with China... U.S. will be rolled over pretty easily... US army is outnumber nearly 140 to 1 by nearly 11 million reserve Chinese troops..

????

Our Air Force(s) have more planes, our Navy has greater Tonnage and we have more Strategic Arms.

Now we are deviating into the realm of no need.

It answers the question you asked.

Firstly, you had an issue with gold adverts on sites

No I didn't. If you notice I already pointed out to you that it wasn't the case and you were wrong

now it comes down to wether or not prices are inflated or if they are then it's a rip-off

Two wrongs one after the other.

Either ........

Unless you get the first bits right instead of wrong you shouldn't move to a conclusion

Unless i read it wrong

We have a winner

Read your news article about Belfast riots whilst seeking your soul mate on your second monitor.

You would have a point if the articles about the riots were telling you that if you got a soul mate through a dating agency you would be safe from sectarian idiots playing silly buggers

[Schwieger]

Originally Posted by Raptor1

I'd like to know where you get those numbers, as far as I know the entire Chinese army doesn't number more than some 3 million men, including reserves. Even if it did have so many troops...140 to 1?

Regardless, where will they even fight? Will the US invade China, or the other way around? I can't see anyone doing anything like that...

Take a look at some the articles here Raptor... http://wuxinghongqi.blogspot.com/201...7_archive.html
might surprise you.

Don't forget that at any given moment the US only has a couple hundred thousand battle ready troops.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Schwieger

Take a look at some the articles here Raptor... http://wuxinghongqi.blogspot.com/201...7_archive.html
might surprise you.

Don't forget that at any given moment the US only has a couple hundred thousand battle ready troops.

They can have a billion troops and it won't matter. The PRC lacks the ability to transport them much farther than Taiwan's west coast.

The PLAAF has less than 200 medium/heavy transport aircraft.
The PLAN has about 100 medium/heavy assault ships (about 70 of them are short range vessels). They also have about 400 landing craft. They have the ability to move there two Marine Brigades and some follow up forces in their neighborhood but that's about it.

The US has six MEUs with intergraded air and armor that can strike anywhere in the world. The US also has two Airborne Divisions that can do likewise.

Also lets not forget the USAF has planes that can fly from the Midwest and bomb targets undetected in the middle east. The Chinese air force's planes can't fly much farther than Guam.

The PRC has sufficient forces to hassle Taiwan or Vietnam or maybe Japan but short of using nuclear bombs they can't really try to fight the US.

[Krauter]

If you don't count the US' national guard units you can't count the Chinese reserve units....

Also, do the Chinese run similar theories to the Norks where EVERY citizen is considered to be in the reserve army? If so, wow, 1 Billion, give or take, combatants against the US... that'd suck big ones.

Also, I would hazard a guess that neither the US nor China will want to invade the other for fear of nuclear retaliation or just fear of a meat grinder.. it'd probably be played out in some third world country or theatre that is not close to home (Middle East, Africa, Pacific)

[Lord Justice]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

They can have a billion troops and it won't matter.

I fear you are being drawn in to a speculative debate. is the bait worth such gust?

[Raptor1]

Originally Posted by Schwieger

Take a look at some the articles here Raptor... http://wuxinghongqi.blogspot.com/201...7_archive.html
might surprise you.

Don't forget that at any given moment the US only has a couple hundred thousand battle ready troops.

I can't see anywhere that confirms your numbers, though obviously I haven't looked at the whole thing.

Originally Posted by Lord Justice

I fear you are being drawn in to a speculative debate. is the bait worth such gust?

Aren't all debates speculative? Or at least most of them. Regardless, those are the most interesting ones...

[Lord Justice]

Originally Posted by Raptor1

Aren't all debates speculative? Or at least most of them. Regardless, those are the most interesting ones...

Clearly you are a hard pounding gentleman whom embraces opinions tightly, this I observe, but is the subject matter worthy enough?

[Krauter]

If he's taking the time out of day to post here I'd say it is worthy enough

[Oberon]