Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Convergence

  • Rank
    Big Boots
  • Birthday 06/10/1986

Contact Methods

  • AIM

Profile Information

  • Favorite Radiohead Song
    EIIRP (live) or Talk show host (live)
  • Favorite Radiohead Album
    Ok Computer
  1. Also, I restrict myself when it comes to boards and social media, so I apologize about the length of time between replies.
  2. Hey guys! I am well. My girlfriend and I moved to Denver a few years back, and we're enjoying our time in Colorado thus far. We'd like to move out of the city in the near future, just need to figure out where and how to do so. How's life going for you guys?
  3. Thanks! Perhaps I'll make my way over to current events soon...not!
  4. Convergence


    all within reason of course. Something as extreme and unlikely as that would actually give a reason for maintaining a federal military. That worse case scenario would still be a better situation than a federal final solution, would it not?
  5. Convergence


    Wish the tenth amendment actually was allowed to be relevant. Let states outlaw abortion, let other states legalize all drugs, let other states limit guns, etc. Let sanity prevail, or at least be allowed to live in your version closest to it. This federalist central planned government and economy is an absolute disaster. Fuck, let states get off the dollar if they so choose, at least give us some real options for a change. If anything, it will make things ways more interesting and allow for social theories to be tried and tested without the federal alphabet gangs limiting a state's ability to find its own solution.
  6. when it comes to war, I only kinda supported the war in Afghanistan because of obvious circumstances at the time. Most of us evolve our worldview at some point on some important issue due to new information/viewpoints on the matter. When it comes to how many failed conflict our country has been involved in in the last ten years or so, it should be painfully obvious by now what the answer is. I simply don't understand why people keep going along with the media war machine, other than they aren't really thinking things through beyond the messaging they are receiving.
  7. indeed, its baffling people can continue to fall for the same script again and again
  8. when's the last time military intervention from NATO countries actually benefited the country we intervene in? Our recent track record is pathetic. We use depleted uranium quite frequently in the middle east. I wouldn't want that in addition to everything else. We destabilize shit, we are not a calming influence in the least.
  9. well when you're high profile at anything you tend to sell your brand. Conspiracy theorists aren't alone in that. That applies to any field.
  10. pbs is better than most but they're still beholden to its sponsors. I never said mainstream media has no worth, but they almost always fail to provide greater context to world events. History is littered with conspiracies, the belief in coincidental theory is wishful thinking to the fullest.
  11. This whole Syrian chemical attack, military intervention shit is a perfect example of the need to fact check just what the hell the government is trying to claim when it says this many children died or that they know for certain Assad did it. What hardline evidence are they actually using to support their theory? Videos from 'the opposition'? How objective is that shit? It makes no sense to not provide the public with hardline data with regards to casualities and how they arrived at such conclusions, because they could very easily just make the whole thing up, ala WMD's.
  12. What is the proper rhetoric to engage in when discussing conspiracies? I've asked this before, I'm curious as to the way to communicate information without people jumping to namecalling. My tone previously may have been off-putting, I've admitted that before. But give me an example of how someone like me would talk about 9/11 being an inside job without people attacking my character/sanity instead of addressing the topic at hand or the information provided. Mainstream news is almost totally compromised and with an agenda. News writers don't have to be in on a conspiracy to know what will further their 'journalistic' careers, and touching subjects that affect advertising revenue or their parent company's bottom line creates an environment of self-censorship. I'm sure there are plenty of respectable journalists that are aware of such conspiracies, but never speak publicly about it because it is career suicide. I've said this before and I'll say it again, ultimately the form of media where you get your information doesn't matter at all. It's the actual source data that is cited that is important. If something is cited in video form on the internet, it can be just as credible as something cited on a tv news program, a book, or a newspaper. I think that's the ultimate falacy used to disregard conspiracy theories, and one that makes zero sense. It's like people think that because the New York Times or Washington Post doesn't report on something, it can't possibly exist, when the source material is available for researching on your own and coming to your own conclusion. I wonder if when Guttenberg made the printing press, there were hoards of people who disregarded information because it was printed instead of spoken. It doesn't make any logical sense whatsoever to disregard something just because it's in a medium such as youtube or a podcast. Appealing to some journalistic authority to verify whether something is true doesn't make sense either, do it yourself. If I tell you to read a certain chapter of a book to verify what I'm saying, are you really going to do that if you're convinced something like the NWO is a fantasy? Bashing youtube is juvenile as fuck. Fact check source material, regardless of the medium.
  • Create New...