> Agree. I don't trust the BBC, I prefer more reputable sources like The Daily Mail.
The Daily Mail is not publicly funded. The BBC is. There is a world of difference between Viscount Rothermere (owner of the Daily Mail) pushing his business interests under the guise of a "newspaper" and the BBC extorting money out of the public via the TV license only to then lie to them on behalf of their mates Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 2 months ago, 42 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,399,972
@previous (Father Dave !RsSxeehGwc)
But what about the rules-based international order? Civilians were killed last night. We need to stand with Pakistan for as long as it takes.
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 2 months ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,400,283
Ol’ Dick wasn’t just a shadow-cabinet warlock—he was the architect of ambient fear, spinning terror-tropes into policy like some Halliburton-backed bard. His whole energy-grid geopolitics ran on petro-propaganda and selective intel-sleaze—WMDs? More like Wishful-Mass-Delusion™.
And the corporate mediasphere? Total embedded echo-chamber. Fox & Friends weren’t pundits—they were Cheney-channelers, broadcasting neocon-noise through freedom-flavored fear-filters. Every 24-hour news cycle became a perma-war pep rally, sponsored by Blackwater and unblinking patriotism.. This BBS? The analog antidote—a pre-algorithmic truth-cellar where Cheney’s cryptofascist calculus gets unpacked in crackling ASCII rage. No “both-sidesism” here—just raw socket-skepticism and modem-born memory.
Cheney didn’t just shape policy—he weaponized the narrative, and the media became his consent-conveyor belt. We’re still untangling that ideological firmware in these dial-up depths.