I love indie games. Where AAA game developers are too big and take little risk, indie games are more often innovative and fun. However, there are times when indie developers make stupid design ideas that can take a great game and totally suck the fun out of it.
One problem I have with big and small games is this obsession with online play. Online games can be really fun, but to me this is just a gimmick. The multiplayer should NEVER be the main selling point for a game. It should be more like a special feature on a DVD. You are not required to watch the "behind the scenes" in order to enjoy a movie, but it's there if you enjoy that stuff. If the single-player is weak in order to give the game spectacular multiplayer, I will avoid it. The fact is once a game loses it's steam and the multiplayer is its only worthwhile feature, then it is basically worthless. There is a reason I still play games like DOOM and Half-Life. The single-player games are fantastic and the multiplayer is there almost like an afterthought.
I recently played an indie game where you need to have a log-in to use the level editor. The only point to the log-in is to share highscores and custom levels. What if I don't want to share anything? It's not like I have to pay to use it, but it is still annoying as hell. What if the server is down or my internet is off? Do these guys really not see how retarded it is to have these "always on" games? The reaction to the Xbox One PR disaster should give a lot of these devs an idea of how the average consumer feels about games that need to be connected to the Master Computer all the time. Think about it!
Another major gripe I have with indie games are game elements where challenge is often confused with making the game as much of a frustrating chore as possible. It almost feels like an elitist game programmer who thinks he is making a modern Contra but is really making a game that punishes the player for making little mistakes. Contra is a tough game not because it punishes the player but because it is tough to master.
One really good example of an indie game that confuses unfairness with challenge is Unepic. I really wish I could give Unepic a high rating, but the stupid bits just keep showing up to slap the player across the face. One boss fight requires you to drop all of your potions on the floor or the boss will cause the player to lose control and start drinking potions. On top of that, you'll lose all of your stuff after you're forced to watch yourself die all because you didn't take the time to research on the internet what you need to do.
Another point in the game has these jesters that transform your weapons into toy hammers. It would be a funny if the change was temporary instead of permanent. The only way to get back your weapons is to gather up 500 (!) prayer points (a lot of grinding) and find this hidden room at the other side of the map. So your best weapon is now a worthless toy hammer that does 1 damage and now you have to go on this boring adventure to get enough points to get your weapon back. Then it can happen again and again until you're past that part of the game with the jesters!
The final grand annoyance is the final boss where you have to periodically switch with a new character (who you never played as before) to protect the castle while your character has to go fight the final boss. There is a timer that tells you when the next wave of enemies are coming so you know when to switch back. However, the window for you to fight the wave and make progress with your main character is so small that by the time you beat the first wave of enemies the next wave is already attacking you! I finally uninstalled the game and haven't played it since. Making your game unfair and frustrating doesn't make it "challenging" and "edgy". IT MAKES IT A SHITTY GAME!! Go back to start. Do not collect 200 dollars.
Another huge problem I have with some indie games are the inappropriate graphics. The game can be a simple 2D game, but some developers feel the need to use super-ultra-uber-chocolatey-advanced-super-shaders that severely limit their audience. Would it be so bad to forget about the super shaders and just use the simpler shaders? Why do these games need NASA super computers just to run the ultra-kickass graphics to enjoy the game? All it does is ruin the game's chances at success because the customers with the appropriate hardware are more sparse. On top of that, a lot of these devs don't even bother to tell people about these requirements, especially for people who are not as tech-savy as them (that elitist thing again). Now you have unhappy customers who payed money for something they can't even play.
There are even games where the graphics looks horrible, but the game still requires the computer from the starship Enterprise to run. One good example of this is the indie game "99 Levels to Hell". The graphics are piss poor. They look like some third grader drew them. However, this 2D platforming game runs choppy because they use these shaders and lighting engines that bog down the computer. You can't even see the difference these pointless graphical features provide. WHAT IS THE POINT!? LORD HAVE MERCY IF YOUR GAME DOESN'T NEED THE LATEST, GREATEST 4.5D GRAPHICS CARD!! On top of that, the game is boring and repetitive so it doesn't really make a difference to me anyways. As always, gameplay over- way over- over the moon over graphics.
Like I said, a little rant. It just bothers me to see these things happening in games. A great idea is completely flushed down the pooper because of poor execution is a dang shame, in my honest opinion.
tl;dr A good game doesn't rely on online features, frustrating difficulty, and super graphics.
Forsaken Eagle
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
Saturday, June 15, 2013
Still Alive And Going My Own Way
It has been a while since I had the time and interest to make a blog post. I have finished a pretty intense semester of school. On top of that, I
have since moved into a new apartment. Blogging has been pretty far off
my radar. This is going to be a short recap over the past several months of where I stand.
I have let go of A Voice for Men and Men Going Their Own Way since my last blog post. There is an increasing leftist incursion on the websites under the banner of apolitical discussion. Wherever a leftist is allowed to spread myths about politics and "traditionalists", suppression of speech and rights for men are soon to follow. These movements have been hijacked and are by all means male versions of the feminist scourge. The Men's Rights Movement (MRM) has been renamed the Men's Human Rights Movement (MHRM). How long until it is just Human Rights Movement, HRM, then finally the HRM+ where special considerations are made for women and other "victim" groups? It is a slippery slope I will gladly avoid.
Simply put: individual rights AND responsibilities that complement them are inherently a right-wing ideal. Men's and women's rights require a small, strong government as opposed to a large, weak one. Anyone who claims to be apolitical is merely trying to hide their political philosophies. The million dollar question, why?
I also found this interesting graphic thanks to RockinMrE:
I have let go of A Voice for Men and Men Going Their Own Way since my last blog post. There is an increasing leftist incursion on the websites under the banner of apolitical discussion. Wherever a leftist is allowed to spread myths about politics and "traditionalists", suppression of speech and rights for men are soon to follow. These movements have been hijacked and are by all means male versions of the feminist scourge. The Men's Rights Movement (MRM) has been renamed the Men's Human Rights Movement (MHRM). How long until it is just Human Rights Movement, HRM, then finally the HRM+ where special considerations are made for women and other "victim" groups? It is a slippery slope I will gladly avoid.
Simply put: individual rights AND responsibilities that complement them are inherently a right-wing ideal. Men's and women's rights require a small, strong government as opposed to a large, weak one. Anyone who claims to be apolitical is merely trying to hide their political philosophies. The million dollar question, why?
I also found this interesting graphic thanks to RockinMrE:
This definitely sums up political ideologies far more accurately. The extreme left-wing would be total subjugation of citizens in the style of 1984. The extreme right-wing is total anarchy where true survival of the fittest exists.
I aim for the Republic area of the spectrum. I firmly understand the Founding Fathers saw the evils of big government, but also understood that government is the necessary evil in order to unify a society. I can't help but laugh at anyone who claims right-wingers like myself are for anarchy because they clearly do not understand how the political spectrum works.
The Founding Fathers also understood that democracy was a mob rule where "the 51% can dictate how the other 49% should live". I laugh even more at the current culture's obsession for the buzzword 'democracy'. Without even understanding the key differences between republicanism and democracy, kids are raised by parents and teachers to believe a democracy is a paradise where everyone has a voice and a unicorn in every garage. This is then used to peddle the myth the Democrats are for the little people unlike the Republicans. Truth be told, neither party stands for their namesakes, but that is a book-worth of a topic entirely.
If you haven't visited his channel yet, check out RockinMrE on YouTube. Here is a great video explaining the ridiculousness of having rights and liberties without the responsibilities that MUST accompany them:
Also I would highly recommend Bernard Chapin's channel and Davis Aurini's as well. There are hours of videos on all three channels for people disgruntled with the current state of affairs to enjoy.
It is also looking to be necessary for me to give up on Facebook for a little while if not permanently. For various reasons, I am finding the website to be depressing to use and association not in my best interests. On top of Facebook increasingly becoming a politically correct machine willing to censor anyone that doesn't meet the expectation of pressure groups, I don't think or feel Facebook has the best algorithm for a social media website. I do not know when I'll make these changes, but the sooner the better.
I have been curious about constructing a personal blog site where people I know can reach me and read my thoughts and opinions on my own terms. I may also look into Tumblr or Twitter.
I hope to keep up the blogging and find new alternatives to existing movements and websites. The only thing stopping me right now is myself. Remember, freedom belongs to those who work the hardest for it.
Forsaken Eagle
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
"Equality" Was Never Enough
A feminist once said, "Men have been in control for thousands of years, so it is our turn." I am scratching my head. Not only is this a fallacious argument based on pseudo-historical nonsense (for every woman who had lived in poverty, I'll show you a man in greater poverty), it is also based on a vengeance agenda.
When if ever has vengeance politics ever worked? If that is too difficult to research, how about putting the shoe onto the other foot. Imagine if you were told since childhood that you were the violent half of the human race and the other half is the "fairer sex." Imagine if you were told to apologize at every turn for being born a woman. Imagine if any reasonable and factual argument you make against an extremely pervasive ideology you know hurts your gender and society as a whole is swept away with a screaming "You're just sexist!" or "You can't possibly understand our plight!" as the only counter-argument, and nobody is willing to question it. Sounds like a frustrating conundrum, huh? How can you reach such a large demographic that finds humor in the mutilation of your body parts on national television for the crime of wanting a divorce?
You wouldn't be a 'bitter' person yourself?
It bothers me to the core of my being to know that there are so many women in this world who cannot see the contradictory nature of this idea and how it will eventually bite them in the ass when the truth does come out. (Keep in mind I need to mention it will hurt women because there seems to be a great deficit of women who genuinely have the well-being of men as well as women in their hearts and minds.) The truth always does come back to haunt the guilty and unreasonable. How long can such a big lie be perpetuated to silence half the population in order to bring the other half up to a more privileged status?
Pictures like the one above are not surprising to me, unfortunately, as equality as it really should be practiced is seen as oppression by the feminists. Equality that is fair to all is in the form of opportunity for success not the rewards that come from success. The real rules of the feminist game is to give any and every possible privilege (many of which most men in history have never known) to women without the requirement of the responsibilities such privileges carry with them. That is the duty of the men as they have been designated the Oppressor class while women get the strangely comfortable Victim class. The responsibilities can be carelessly placed on the shoulders of all men, and any dissent labeled as hate speech. I emphasize the word carelessly for a reason, as the feminist bubble is starting to rupture.
That is all this half-century of feminist malevolence has been, a giant bubble. It is a huge mansion of cards with nothing to hold it up but blind faith and the continued shaming of any man courageous enough to point out its ridiculous nature, even if the man is only thinking of the women in the process. The careless method in which women are more than happy to talk about men being stupid and lower than themselves in casual conversation and the single mother-led households is starting to take its toll on men and boys throughout the western world. They know they are not what the women around them claim to be (rapists, chauvinists, sexists, etc), but are made to believe they are anyways. At first it is easy to swallow. However, the lie keeps becoming larger and more complex to the point where reality cannot be ignored anymore.
More and even more men (even some women) are stepping up to the task of fighting back the hatred. The response to this uprising is of course more hatred. A very recent example of this hatred is the protest during Dr. Warren Farrell's University of Toronto speech. Not even an intellectual and gentle man like Farrell is permitted his rights when going against feminist dogma. The irony of the video is the amount of hateful language and gestures of the feminists who are crying "No hate speech on campus!" In their minds, their cause is righteous and any intolerant behavior on their part is justified against what they perceive to be intolerance. Take a good look at the one girl shouting at officers and her fellow students and compare her to the men trying to listen to all sides of the argument. If you are grounded in reality, then the primary issue should be apparent.
What I cannot figure out is the mind of a religious zealot. If feminist arguments are really based on common sense and fairness, then why do they feel the necessity to silence opposing debate? If feminism is foolproof, then why worry about "hate speech"? If the answer to that question is "men are stupid and will believe anything to justify their hatred of women", then is it not you yourself who is the bigot to believe half the human population is not competent enough to think on their own without your supervision? Putting the shoe on the other foot again, is this not what feminists claim men have historically reacted to women thinking for themselves? Now we arrive back to where we started. Do you want there to be equality and end the conflicts between the sexes, or are you only interested in control even when the consequences down the road will only further destroy the relationship between men and women?
Choose:
EQUALITY AND UNDERSTANDING
or
CONTROL AND CONFLICT
Maybe most people who happen to read this blog will think this is too black and white. I don't see the problem here. I have looked deep inside of myself and I know where I stand. Women are going to have to move out of their comfort zones, see the good in men as men and not for women's benefit, and decide whether it is time for the human race to continue to evolve. Men and women need each other. Until both sexes can have mutual respect for the others worth, there will be no moving forward.
That is why I am anti-feminist.
Forsaken Eagle
EDIT:
'Nuff said.
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Eleven Years Later and Christophobia
Yesterday was the 11th anniversary of the massive terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. What has changed since then?
Another terrible thing I keep reading is about atrocities Christians have committed through the ages. A common argument is the Crusades. There were great atrocities during this time, but the fake liberals are only telling the half-truth (whether they are aware of it or not). A closer look into the Crusades shows that it was a retaliation against... radical Islam. Islam made a push into Europe, and Europe was forced to react. I don't know about anyone else, but I would not get down on my knees and recite poetry from a book if I knew a hostile force wanted to kill my family. I would retaliate.
I get sick reading about how Christians have committed crimes against human beings in the distant past, such as the Crusades and the Salem Witch Trials, and isolated incidences of violence in modern times. Let me tell everyone that I have not seen the Christian masses taking it to the street, rioting, looting, murdering, burning, and flying airplanes into buildings every time someone makes an offensive depiction of Jesus Christ. The Christian and Judaic civilizations have evolved and had their renaissances. When I point out crimes of Islam, I point out the crimes committed in the post-modern age. Almost all arguments from the fake liberals is about old or even ancient atrocities. Muslim atrocities have not only been happening for hundreds of years, but is continuing to this day. Don't judge Christians based on a past nobody today could have done anything to change. Judge Christians on what they as a whole do today. That is what matters NOW.
Personally, I am sick and tired of being judged based on things I have never even done. I am not a sexist, racist, homophobic, Islamophobic, fanatic, drone, bully, murderer, mental retard, or any other bigoted stereotype people label me with. At nearly 23 years of age, it is old, done, and tired. I want to and should be judged on what I do right here right now. Martin Luther King, Jr. would be deeply ashamed that so many Americans devolved to judging others by petty, unchangeable traits than by the content of their character.
Another September 11th came and went, and the insanity continues apace. Blame Americans for some intrinsic racism but don't offend Muslims by calling a spade a spade. The "Religion of Peace" continues using violence and "liberals" continue taking liberties. 9/11 did change America. In some ways, it brought people closer and showed us what heroism really looks like. In other ways, the country has been free-falling from Land of Opportunity to Land of "Everyone Must Be Equal in Every Way". The 2008 presidential election marked an eery milestone for the United States. Americans voted for an almost completely unknown man with a radical past. Now I wait for the 2012 election and wonder how much of a country there is going to be left in the next few decades. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't afraid.
Forsaken Eagle
- Most everybody I know, aside from anniversary dates, has forgotten 9/11 actually happened.
- Government and media would rather put the blame on innocent Americans than the actual perpetrators.
- Intrusive security has skyrocketed in the name of safety. Do you feel safer under a huge government?
Another terrible thing I keep reading is about atrocities Christians have committed through the ages. A common argument is the Crusades. There were great atrocities during this time, but the fake liberals are only telling the half-truth (whether they are aware of it or not). A closer look into the Crusades shows that it was a retaliation against... radical Islam. Islam made a push into Europe, and Europe was forced to react. I don't know about anyone else, but I would not get down on my knees and recite poetry from a book if I knew a hostile force wanted to kill my family. I would retaliate.
I get sick reading about how Christians have committed crimes against human beings in the distant past, such as the Crusades and the Salem Witch Trials, and isolated incidences of violence in modern times. Let me tell everyone that I have not seen the Christian masses taking it to the street, rioting, looting, murdering, burning, and flying airplanes into buildings every time someone makes an offensive depiction of Jesus Christ. The Christian and Judaic civilizations have evolved and had their renaissances. When I point out crimes of Islam, I point out the crimes committed in the post-modern age. Almost all arguments from the fake liberals is about old or even ancient atrocities. Muslim atrocities have not only been happening for hundreds of years, but is continuing to this day. Don't judge Christians based on a past nobody today could have done anything to change. Judge Christians on what they as a whole do today. That is what matters NOW.
Personally, I am sick and tired of being judged based on things I have never even done. I am not a sexist, racist, homophobic, Islamophobic, fanatic, drone, bully, murderer, mental retard, or any other bigoted stereotype people label me with. At nearly 23 years of age, it is old, done, and tired. I want to and should be judged on what I do right here right now. Martin Luther King, Jr. would be deeply ashamed that so many Americans devolved to judging others by petty, unchangeable traits than by the content of their character.
Another September 11th came and went, and the insanity continues apace. Blame Americans for some intrinsic racism but don't offend Muslims by calling a spade a spade. The "Religion of Peace" continues using violence and "liberals" continue taking liberties. 9/11 did change America. In some ways, it brought people closer and showed us what heroism really looks like. In other ways, the country has been free-falling from Land of Opportunity to Land of "Everyone Must Be Equal in Every Way". The 2008 presidential election marked an eery milestone for the United States. Americans voted for an almost completely unknown man with a radical past. Now I wait for the 2012 election and wonder how much of a country there is going to be left in the next few decades. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't afraid.
Forsaken Eagle
Saturday, August 25, 2012
Rest in Peace, Neil Armstrong
I want to make a short post in dedication to the astronaut Neil Armstrong, the first man to step foot on our moon. A couple generations ago, he was a great hero to many children and adults alike across the country and the world. For a lack of great men today, he was always one of my heroes. All astronauts who made that fateful journey to our nearest neighbor took the greatest risk anyone could make so far. They are all men of courage willing to take that mountain of risk so that they may reach the most fantastic of places. You will never be forgotten.
Forsaken Eagle
Forsaken Eagle
Friday, August 17, 2012
Addiction to Hate
Back again to share an oldy but goody. This is an article by seasoned anti-feminist Angry Harry. It is about the similarities between Feminist and Nazi ideologies. Now I know that only angry white men are capable of being Nazis. However, never tell a feminist she can never do something those stinky men can do. Read away (if you dare):
That is a pretty solid list there if you don't mind my saying. A lot of the hurt feelings seem to come from the instantaneous thought of gas chambers and Panzers touring around Europe. Nazism was much, much more than that. It was the end result of fomented hatred and manipulation. Whenever a large population allows such evils to manifest and take over, a beast nobody would think possible will take a life of its own. The damage can never be fully recovered from. I ask those who find my views particularly offensive to check themselves out in the mirror. Like I like to say, the people who always demand tolerance are the very thing they hate.
I want to type up more posts about the left's, and feminism's in particular, addiction to hate. Growing up, I have come to realize that the most hateful people in society are projecting their own hateful natures onto others. The day I questioned the so-called victim groups, I faced that pure hatred for the first time. I won't go back to intellectual serfdom. Yelling, screaming, crying, and threatening me will 100% guarantee I will never go back to being water boy for your team.
Forsaken Eagle
02/08/03Feminism and NazismWhy do anti-feminists keep insisting that feminism and Nazism are very similar?
Well. The reason is this.
The Nazis were around well before the heavy-duty violence and the gas chambers. And for quite some time they operated in a manner that paralleled in many ways the more recent activities of feminists.
Furthermore, feminist and Nazi ideology have a lot in common.
Very occasionally I receive an email saying that it is outrageous to compare feminism with Nazism - because it somehow trivialises the terrible experiences of the Jews in the Germany of the 1930s.
But making this comparison does not do this at all.
It does the opposite.
It brings to the attention of people the kind of forces that gave rise to Nazism and, as far as men are concerned - particularly the white ones - it makes them understand a little better the horribleness of discrimination and demonisation.
Furthermore, most Jewish groups do not actually highlight the holocaust in order to gain everybody's sympathy.
They do it so that people can ****LEARN!****
They do it so that people can see if something heinous is creeping up on us.
Anyway.
Here are 30 similarities between feminism and 'early' Nazism.
Feminism and Nazism have both ...
Bar the heavy violence and the gas chambers - which came towards the end of the Nazis hold on power - feminism and early Nazism are surely very similar indeed!
- discriminated against individuals on the basis of their genetic code.
- promoted the view that the targeted group was inferior genetically and behaviourally, e.g. see AH's Men Bear a Striking Resemblance to Slugs.
- promoted propaganda that led to the targeted group being labeled as 'parasites', e.g. see AH's Steven Jones - A Parasite?
- promoted propaganda that led to the targeted group being constantly ridiculed e.g. see Incredible Shrinking Y by Maureen Dowd
- promoted propaganda that led to the targeted group being laughed at even when mutilated e.g. Bobbit jokes.
- demonised the target group by labeling them as perverts and sexual criminals, e.g. see Put Up or Shut Up by Wendy McElroy
- sought to break the target group away from their families e.g. see The Federal Bureau of Marriage? by Professor Stephen Baskerville.
- promoted the view that the targeted group was responsible for most of the major ills in society.
- disseminated lies and disinformation about the targeted group in order to further promote their own ideology, e.g. see Msinformation by Professor Christina Hoff Sommers
- disseminated lies and disinformation about historical matters, e.g. see AH's Did Women Really Want To Go Out To Work?
- used intimidation, threats and coercion to prevent their opponents from speaking out e.g. see AH's Feminists are nasty things.
- promoted the lie that the privileged group consisted of innocent 'victims' of the targeted group e.g. "women have been oppressed throughout history."
- demanded special privileges in the workplace for members of the privileged group e.g. preferential job placements for women
- discriminated against the targeted group in educational matters and in the workplace e.g. see AH's Well Done the Girls?
- perverted the justice system so that members of the targeted group were easily discriminated against in the law e.g. in family courts.
- arranged matters so that accusers from the privileged group could be shielded by anonymity in the courtroom e.g. in sex-assault cases.
- arranged matters so that defendants from the targeted group had to 'prove' their innocence e.g. in sex-assault and domestic violence cases.
- arranged matters so that members of the privileged group could capriciously define what, legally, was to be deemed 'a crime', e.g. where nowadays the 'feelings' of women rather than the behaviours of men are the determinants of what constitutes 'a crime' e.g. see The Real Goal Of Feminism by Antonia Feitz - 18 min
- arranged matters so that members of the privileged group could capriciously define how the law was to view certain matters e.g. a fetus inside a woman can now be deemed by her - at her whim - to be a worthless piece of tissue or a prospective baby - with all the ramifications of this - regardless of how the father might feel about it all e.g. see AH's Rant Against the Child Support Agency. (Also sexual harassment etc.)
- arranged matters so that the law punished members of the targeted group more severely than members of the privileged group for the very same crime e.g. in domestic violence and murder cases.
- arranged matters so that members of the targeted group were made responsible for the choices and behaviours of members of the privileged group e.g. in paternity fraud cases where duped fathers still have to pay child support.
- arranged matters so that members of the privileged group who harmed, or even murdered, members of the targeted group were shown undue leniency - and were often actually applauded for their actions, e.g. see Killer given domestic violence award and AH's Loose Women.
- arranged matters so that the law punished members of the targeted group severely for even trivial offences - e.g. domestic violence, sexual harassment.
- arranged matters so that members of the privileged group earned a right to the property of members of the targeted group for no other reason than that they were members of the privileged group e.g. alimony, child custody.
- arranged matters so that certain speech or attitudes directed against the privileged group were criminalised e.g. biased 'hate speech' laws.
- demanded subservience to the prevailing ideology and to the government.
- effectively controlled the mainstream media and the academic institutions and arranged for them to present a dishonest and dishonourable point of view in support of their ideology.
- consistently highlighted and exaggerated the achievements and the suffering of the privileged group while downplaying the achievements and the suffering of the targeted group e.g. see Human Rights are not for Men by Melanie Phillips.
- ran government-funded educational courses in universities (e.g. Women's Studies, Title IX) and in schools to promote the privileged group at the expense of the targeted group.
- persisted in a long term campaign of hatred toward the targeted group, e.g. "Women need men like a fish needs a bicycle." "Men think about sex every 15 seconds." etc. Also see AH's Permanent Menstrual Tension.
Feminists ... "The people can always be brought to the bidding of the feminist leaders. All you have to do is tell women and children that they are being attacked (by men) and denounce those who protest as 'supporters of abuse' and for exposing women and children to danger. It works the same way in any country."
Feminism. Nazism.
Nazism. Feminism.
The 'best interests of the child' ...
"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people." Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf
Feminism. Nazism.
Nazism. Feminism.
November 2010
Irish Income Tax Cut Only For Women The IMF's plan to cut women's income tax rate by five percentage points could raise Ireland's GDP as well as tackle inequality.
Yep; it is now being proposed that men on lower pay should subsidise women on higher pay - even though men put far more into the government pot than do women, and even thought they get less out of it.
And yet, purely on the basis of their genetic code, it is being said that men should pay even more.
The Jews must pay higher tax rates than the Germans.
That is a pretty solid list there if you don't mind my saying. A lot of the hurt feelings seem to come from the instantaneous thought of gas chambers and Panzers touring around Europe. Nazism was much, much more than that. It was the end result of fomented hatred and manipulation. Whenever a large population allows such evils to manifest and take over, a beast nobody would think possible will take a life of its own. The damage can never be fully recovered from. I ask those who find my views particularly offensive to check themselves out in the mirror. Like I like to say, the people who always demand tolerance are the very thing they hate.
I want to type up more posts about the left's, and feminism's in particular, addiction to hate. Growing up, I have come to realize that the most hateful people in society are projecting their own hateful natures onto others. The day I questioned the so-called victim groups, I faced that pure hatred for the first time. I won't go back to intellectual serfdom. Yelling, screaming, crying, and threatening me will 100% guarantee I will never go back to being water boy for your team.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”
― Voltaire
Forsaken Eagle
Sunday, July 29, 2012
NBC Sinks to a New Low
It has come to my attention that NBC has actually censored part of the London 2012 Olympics opening ceremony. The performance in question is a tribute to the victims of the London 7/7 terrorist attack in which 52 innocent had their lives taken in four bombings, three on subways and the fourth on a double-decker bus. It is also partly attributed to the 11 Israeli athletes murdered 40 years ago at the Munich games known as the 1972 Munich Massacre. This mockery NBC has made is reported by Mitheos Holt at the Blaze.
As if it wasn't bad enough the Olympics are not shown live here in the United States. As embarrassed as I am to say it, the broadcasting of the games is solely owned by NBC and used as a cash cow. The events are not shown live, but taped for prime time. This obviously gives the network juggernaut a greater source for profit. As if that wasn't bad enough, the belated broadcast is butchered by advertisements. Every few minutes of the ceremony is stolen for commercials for the new Mini Cooper or dinner at McDonalds. This should be amusing coming from such a 'progressive' (see: regressive) news network. NBC usually takes the more subtle form of censorship by simply ignoring stories that do not conform to their propagandist, non-journalistic standards. However, to do this during as huge an event as the Summer Games is just plain low. Did they think word would not reach the borders of the US?
Why would they censor this performance rather than any of the others? Perhaps this is a blatantly 'offensive' tribute to the propagandist goons at NBC because the perpetrators of the horrible 7/7 terrorist attack as well as the Munich Massacre were none other than Muslims. Considering a large part of the Olympics is made up of Muslim countries, the ever-progressive stiffs at NBC must have thought they were ahead of the game by censoring the tribute with an appalling interview with Michael Phelps in order to not offend Muslims. How is honoring the innocent victims of militants an act of bigotry to Muslims? This censoring is an act of bigotry towards the free nations of the first world! That is if we are still free, of course. It is an insult to all of the victims.
This is also an insult to Americans and British alike. Americans should feel insulted by having a media which not only refuses to show a major event live for extra profit and advertising, but also for this policing of such a televised event by deciding what we should or should not be allowed to view. The British should feel insulted that NBC feels the tribute to the victims of the terror attacks is too inappropriate for televised broadcasting. On top of that, NBC embarrasses the United States in front of the entire world with this act of censorship. Perhaps they made China blush at little.
Thankfully, the tribute is being uploaded to the web. Not surprisingly, the generosity of these anonymous contributors is being met with kind regards. I along with most of my fellow Americans respect and honor the dead of our allies like they do ours. Here is the video of the beautiful performance from our friends across the pond:
Recent news has former CNN president Jonathan Klein being replaced. This is attributed to CNN plummeting ratings as of late. The New York Times' Brian Stelter describes CNN as "the lone nonpartisan source of cable news, positioning Fox News to the right and MSNBC to the left." Many of us know CNN is actually playing to the left and having individuals and non-stories to make believe they are working with the right as well. The left may deny it, but Fox News does play more center more often than others, and it has the ratings to show it. Americans know deep in their hearts they are being lied to, and are consequently changing the channel. Perhaps it is about time NBC started worrying about the foundations beneath their feet. They won't have anyone to hold them up for long if they continue playing the American people for dummies.
I have already given up on NBC's Today and Early Today shows due to them putting up mainly non-stories, steering the audience to skew their perceptions, and just general lack of professionalism. I get up early in the mornings for my job, so I like to watch the news. I watched Early Today for the first time, and the two hosts were irritating to say the least. They are stereotypical sitcom caricatures. The woman is the intelligent one with a bitchy attitude, and the man is the moron who tries cracking all the jokes to his uninterested co-host. After giving it a try the next morning, I finally moved on to CBS. The host their at least keeps a level head and the news is generally news.
This is just for the early mornings where I need to wake up, eat breakfast, and get out the door. Almost all of my news comes from the internet. Most times I catch the news is when my family is watching MSNBC. It is an activity that will likely sicken me now, so I say adieu!
Forsaken Eagle
As if it wasn't bad enough the Olympics are not shown live here in the United States. As embarrassed as I am to say it, the broadcasting of the games is solely owned by NBC and used as a cash cow. The events are not shown live, but taped for prime time. This obviously gives the network juggernaut a greater source for profit. As if that wasn't bad enough, the belated broadcast is butchered by advertisements. Every few minutes of the ceremony is stolen for commercials for the new Mini Cooper or dinner at McDonalds. This should be amusing coming from such a 'progressive' (see: regressive) news network. NBC usually takes the more subtle form of censorship by simply ignoring stories that do not conform to their propagandist, non-journalistic standards. However, to do this during as huge an event as the Summer Games is just plain low. Did they think word would not reach the borders of the US?
Why would they censor this performance rather than any of the others? Perhaps this is a blatantly 'offensive' tribute to the propagandist goons at NBC because the perpetrators of the horrible 7/7 terrorist attack as well as the Munich Massacre were none other than Muslims. Considering a large part of the Olympics is made up of Muslim countries, the ever-progressive stiffs at NBC must have thought they were ahead of the game by censoring the tribute with an appalling interview with Michael Phelps in order to not offend Muslims. How is honoring the innocent victims of militants an act of bigotry to Muslims? This censoring is an act of bigotry towards the free nations of the first world! That is if we are still free, of course. It is an insult to all of the victims.
This is also an insult to Americans and British alike. Americans should feel insulted by having a media which not only refuses to show a major event live for extra profit and advertising, but also for this policing of such a televised event by deciding what we should or should not be allowed to view. The British should feel insulted that NBC feels the tribute to the victims of the terror attacks is too inappropriate for televised broadcasting. On top of that, NBC embarrasses the United States in front of the entire world with this act of censorship. Perhaps they made China blush at little.
Thankfully, the tribute is being uploaded to the web. Not surprisingly, the generosity of these anonymous contributors is being met with kind regards. I along with most of my fellow Americans respect and honor the dead of our allies like they do ours. Here is the video of the beautiful performance from our friends across the pond:
Recent news has former CNN president Jonathan Klein being replaced. This is attributed to CNN plummeting ratings as of late. The New York Times' Brian Stelter describes CNN as "the lone nonpartisan source of cable news, positioning Fox News to the right and MSNBC to the left." Many of us know CNN is actually playing to the left and having individuals and non-stories to make believe they are working with the right as well. The left may deny it, but Fox News does play more center more often than others, and it has the ratings to show it. Americans know deep in their hearts they are being lied to, and are consequently changing the channel. Perhaps it is about time NBC started worrying about the foundations beneath their feet. They won't have anyone to hold them up for long if they continue playing the American people for dummies.
I have already given up on NBC's Today and Early Today shows due to them putting up mainly non-stories, steering the audience to skew their perceptions, and just general lack of professionalism. I get up early in the mornings for my job, so I like to watch the news. I watched Early Today for the first time, and the two hosts were irritating to say the least. They are stereotypical sitcom caricatures. The woman is the intelligent one with a bitchy attitude, and the man is the moron who tries cracking all the jokes to his uninterested co-host. After giving it a try the next morning, I finally moved on to CBS. The host their at least keeps a level head and the news is generally news.
This is just for the early mornings where I need to wake up, eat breakfast, and get out the door. Almost all of my news comes from the internet. Most times I catch the news is when my family is watching MSNBC. It is an activity that will likely sicken me now, so I say adieu!
Forsaken Eagle
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)