DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on October 11, 2011, 06:57:25 AM
-
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y273/ItsZep/Politics/dd3098e7.jpg)
-
THIS IS WHAT A MOB LOOKS LIKE
October 5, 2011
I am not the first to note the vast differences between the Wall Street protesters and the tea partiers. To name three: The tea partiers have jobs, showers and a point.
No one knows what the Wall Street protesters want -- as is typical of mobs. They say they want Obama re-elected, but claim to hate "Wall Street." You know, the same Wall Street that gave its largest campaign donation in history to Obama, who, in turn, bailed out the banks and made Goldman Sachs the fourth branch of government.
This would be like opposing fattening, processed foods, but cheering Michael Moore -- which the protesters also did this week.
But to me, the most striking difference between the tea partiers and the "Occupy Wall Street" crowd -- besides the smell of patchouli -- is how liberal protesters must claim their every gathering is historic and heroic.
They chant: "The world is watching!" "This is how democracy looks!" "We are the ones we've been waiting for!"
At the risk of acknowledging that I am, in fact, "watching," this is most definitely not how democracy looks.
Sally Kohn, a self-identified "community organizer," praised the Wall Street loiterers on CNN's website, comparing the protest to the Boston Tea Party, which she claimed, "helped spark the American Revolution," adding, "and yes, that protest ultimately turned very violent."
First of all, the Boston Tea Party was nothing like tattooed, body?pierced, sunken-chested 19-year-olds getting in fights with the police for fun. Paul Revere's nighttime raid was intended exclusively to protest a new British tea tax. (The Wall Street protesters would be more likely to fight for a new tax than against one.)
Revere made sure to replace a broken lock on one of the ships and severely punished a participant who stole some of the tea for his private use. Samuel Adams defended the raid by saying that all other methods of recourse -- say, voting -- were unavailable.
Our revolution -- the only revolution that led to greater freedom since at least 1688 -- was not the act of a mob.
As specific and limited as it was, however, even the Boston Tea Party was too mob-like to spark anything other than retaliatory British measures. Indeed, it set back the cause of American independence by dispiriting both American and British supporters, such as Edmund Burke.
George Washington disapproved of the destruction of the tea. Benjamin Franklin demanded that the India Tea Co. be reimbursed for it. Considered an embarrassment by many of our founding fathers, the Boston Tea Party was not celebrated for another 50 years.
It would be three long years after the Boston Tea Party when our founding fathers engaged in their truly revolutionary act: The signing of the Declaration of Independence.
In that document, our Christian forebears set forth in blindingly clear terms their complaints with British rule, their earlier attempts at resolution, and an appeal to the Supreme Judge of the world for independence from the crown.
The rebel armies defending that declaration were not a disorganized mob, chanting slogans for the press and defacing public property.
Even the Minutemen, whose first scuffle with the British began the war, were a real army with ranks, subordination, coordination, drills and supplies. There is not a single mention in the historical record of Minutemen playing hacky-sack, burning candles assembled in "peace and love," or sitting in drum circles.
A British lieutenant-general who fought the Minutemen observed, "Whoever looks upon them as an irregular mob will find himself very much mistaken."
By contrast, the directionless losers protesting "Wall Street" -- Obama's largest donor group -- pose for the cameras while uttering random liberal cliches lacking any reason or coherence.
But since everything liberals do must be heroic, the "Occupy Wall Street" crowd insists on comparing themselves to this nation's heroes.
One told Fox News' Bill Schulz: "I was born to be here, right now, the founding fathers have been passing down the torch to this generation to make our country great again."
The Canadian environmental group behind Occupy Wall Street, Adbusters, has compared the Wall Street "revolutionaries" to America's founding fathers. (Incidentally, those who opposed the American Revolution fled after the war to ... Canada.)
The -- again -- Canadians exulted, "You sense they're drafting a new Declaration of Independence."
I suppose you only "sense" it because they're doing nothing of the sort. They say they want Mao as the president -- as one told Schulz -- and the abolition of "capitalism."
The modern tea partiers never went around narcissistically comparing themselves to Gen. George Washington. And yet they are the ones who have engaged in the kind of political activity Washington fought for.
The Tea Party name is meant in fun, inspired by an amusing rant from CNBC's Rick Santelli in February 2009, when he called for another Tea Party in response to Obama's plan to bail-out irresponsible mortgagers.
The tea partiers didn't arrogantly claim to be drafting a new Declaration of Independence. They're perfectly happy with the original.
Tea partiers didn't block traffic, sleep on sidewalks, wear ski masks, fight with the police or urinate in public. They read the Constitution, made serious policy arguments, and petitioned the government against Obama's unconstitutional big government policies, especially the stimulus bill and Obamacare.
Then they picked up their own trash and quietly went home. Apparently, a lot of them had to be at work in the morning.
In the two years following the movement's inception, the Tea Party played a major role in turning Teddy Kennedy's seat over to a Republican, making the sainted Chris Christie governor of New Jersey, and winning a gargantuan, historic Republican landslide in the 2010 elections. They are probably going to succeed in throwing out a president in next year's election.
That's what democracy looks like.
-
<< To name three [differences]: The tea partiers have jobs, showers and a point. >>
Excellent point, Einstein: The Streeters have no jobs. That is one of the things they are protesting, the gutting of America's manufacturing industries through the exportation of millions of American jobs overseas by - - you guessed it! - - by American corporations. Which I guess means they also have "a point," one of many, as it happens, which most people seem to be able to understand through the symbolism, signs and chants of the crowd. Now, showers - - Einstein has a point there - - the original Tea Party took only a few hours, so I'm guessing that the participants all went home, had a nice hot bath and washed all the red paint off their skins so that the British civil authorities couldn't arrest them for their crimes. Since the Occupation - - get that, Einstein, an OCCUPATION, not a Party - - goes on for weeks and weeks, and the participants don't get to go home during it, it would be nice if the NYPD, ever mindful of the demonstrators' lawful rights of peaceful assembly, provided some free shower facilities for them. Don't hold your breath waiting for those fascist thugs to do it, though. They're too busy spraying pepper spray in the eyes of non-violent demonstrators and whacking them with their batons.
<<No one knows what the Wall Street protesters want -- as is typical of mobs.>>
Yeah, of course no one knows. They never say why they're there. Maybe they're against . . . Wall Street? Is that too crazy to consider? Corporate America? Gee, this is really tough to figure out, but I think I finally cracked the code. Yay!!! According to my painstaking cryptographic analysis, I think that they're upset that a web of financial institutions that nearly brought the whole country to its knees financially, requiring a trillion-dollar bailout from the US Treasury and the Fed because of their sub-prime loan shenanigans are still up to the same old skullduggery, resisting new attempts to regulate them so they can't pull off any more shit like that in the future. They also seem a little bit pissed off at the massive unemployment, the real rate of which is around 20%, not the nine-point-something bullshit figure that their Wall-Street-controlled government hands out. They seem to connect it with governmental (Wall-Street-inspired) decisions. Like Free Trade and "globalization" which are code words for saying, "We will export millions of your jobs to China and 99% of you will get absolutely nothing from it while 1% of us will get obscenely rich." Some of them are concerned that social security, public health care and other frivolous wastes of money will have to be cut so the country can better afford more trillion dollar handouts to the rich, more multi-trillion-dollar corporate wars for oil, more billion-dollar bonuses to bankers and stockbrokers and other good stuff.
<<They say they want Obama re-elected, but claim to hate "Wall Street.">>
NO, Einstein. Maybe this is a good time to straighten out one of your basic misconceptions. They say they hate Wall Street, alright, but YOU say that "they want Obama re-elected." That is total bullshit, my friend. They are in the streets PRECISELY because they don't trust the electoral system at all, and have decided to bypass it completely in favour of massive civil disobedience and public pressure for change. These are folks who already voted for Obama once, and got Bush back instead. Guys who voted for "change" and got more wars, more killing, more catering to the corporations and the rich. More Guantanamo, more military trials for accused "terrorists," more immunity for torture. No sir, they do NOT "want Obama re-elected." That is total bullshit, my friend. What they would LIKE is for Obama to be Obama, the guy they voted for. But they aren't going to be fooled by him a second time.
<< You know, the same Wall Street that gave its largest campaign donation in history to Obama, who, in turn, bailed out the banks and made Goldman Sachs the fourth branch of government. >>
NOW you're getting it, Einstein. Congratulations. Wasn't that hard after all, was it?
<<But to me, the most striking difference between the tea partiers and the "Occupy Wall Street" crowd -- besides the smell of patchouli -- is how liberal protesters must claim their every gathering is historic and heroic. >>
It is heroic. Fucking pigs paid directly by Wall Street firms beat the shit out of them, arrest them, spray them in the face with pepper spray - - that's what they risk every day and that's what's heroic about it all. When was the last time you saw a Tea Party beaten up, arrested and sprayed with pepper spray? By their enemies ye shall know them - - the Tea Party represents no threat at all to the criminal class of super-rich who have bought up the U.S. government, therefore they are never pepper-sprayed, beaten or arrested by Wall Street's paid thugs.
<<They chant: "The world is watching!" "This is how democracy looks!" "We are the ones we've been waiting for!" >>
All true - - and all genuine differences with the tea party. Nobody is watching the tea party any more - - they are watching what REAL change and REAL democracy advocates are doing.
<<At the risk of acknowledging that I am, in fact, "watching," . . . >>
LMFAO. Gotvcha!!!!
<<this is most definitely not how democracy looks. >>
God no! People in the street demanding that Wall Street get out of their government, with signs advertising their grievances -- what's democratic about THAT? Democracy looks like back-room deals far away from the TV cameras where Obama makes deals with Wall Street and hires guys like Geithner, Larry Summers and others straight off Wall Street to "advise" him on how more public funds can be turned over to failed banks and financial institutions so they can pay out more billion dollar bonuses to their leaders before losing the last round of bail-out money in new reckless gambling ventures. THAT'S what real democracy looks like.
<<First of all, the Boston Tea Party was nothing like tattooed, body?pierced, sunken-chested 19-year-olds getting in fights with the police for fun.>>
So what? Neither is the Wall Street Occupation anything like "tattooed, body-pierced, "sunken-chested" (Has this guy been going around measuring the chests of the demonstrators? Actually, if he saw the video clips of the topless "We Can't Afford Shirts" Wall Street lady protestors, there was absolutely NOTHING "sunken chested" about them - - maybe this guy needs his eyes examined!!!) 19-year-olds getting in fights with the police for fun." The Occupation has people of all ages, shapes, sizes and colours. They exclude no one.
And what moron would describe being beaten with batons, kicked in the chest and back and sprayed in the face with pepper spray as "fun?" I seriously question the sanity of whatever corporate-paid ass-hole wrote this drivel. Surely Wall Street can pay writers of better ability than this to trash their opponents.
<< Revere's nighttime raid was intended exclusively to protest a new British tea tax.>>
Yeah well he was a Tea Partier alright.
<<(The Wall Street protesters would be more likely to fight for a new tax than against one.) >>
True enough, but that's only to get back the money that Wall Street stole from their Treasury in bail-outs, fraudulent savings and loan scandals, sub-prime mortgage loan scandals, oil wars, "foreign aid" to Israel, etc. The list of the Kleptocracy's thievery from the American people is just too long for one post. King George hadn't looted the American people as thoroughly as Wall Street has, the state wasn't teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, and 200 years ago nobody had pensions and social welfare benefits to be worried about.
<<Revere made sure to replace a broken lock on one of the ships and severely punished a participant who stole some of the tea for his private use. >>
Yeah? "Severely" punished? In those days the punishment for theft of anything valuable was death. What was Paul Revere? Judge, jury and executioner? What did Paul Revere DO to the tea-thief? Inquiring minds need to know. And then by way of contrast, inquiring minds also need to know, what was done by the corporate-controlled state to those who stole, not tea, but hundreds of billions of dollars, from the American people? The difference, I am sure, would be very instructive.
<<Samuel Adams defended the raid by saying that all other methods of recourse -- say, voting -- were unavailable. >>
YESSSSS!!! BINGO!!!! I guess after all you watched the Chris Hedges video I posted here where he explains EXACTLY why it is impossible today for Americans to vote against the banks and the financial industry, who have bought out all the politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle. Excellent. Glad to see that someone is finally getting it.
<<The tea partiers didn't arrogantly claim to be drafting a new Declaration of Independence. They're perfectly happy with the original. >>
Sure they are - - and so are their bosses on Wall Street. That's why they're NOT revolutionaries, they're just fucking parasites who want to continue their giant rip-off of the American working class.
<<Tea partiers didn't block traffic, sleep on sidewalks, wear ski masks, fight with the police or urinate in public. They read the Constitution, made serious policy arguments, and petitioned the government against Obama's unconstitutional big government policies, especially the stimulus bill and Obamacare. >>
How many of those thousands of protestors were "urinating in public" anyway? According to Einstein here, there should have been a torrent of pee big enough to wash away all the cops and their horses into the East River. I watched plenty of videos of these events and have yet to see even ONE guy "urinating in public," but Einstein here appears to think it's an essential part of the protest movement - - how can ya possibly confront Wall Street unless you pee in public? As for "blocking traffic," the NYPD do a pretty good job there all by themselves. I remember just a few weeks ago, on Lexington Avenue in the mid-Fifties watching as police roadblocks stopped and re-directed ALL eastbound vehicular traffic onto Lexington rather than allowing it to proceed further cross-town; AND stopping all vehicles van-size or larger on Lex for interior checking. Nobody in New York gives a shit about traffic any more. Three Fridays ago, guests coming for a Friday night dinner were held up for over two hours by police roadblocks and checkpoints on the FDR Drive. BFD, the demonstrators blocked traffic. What else is new?
<<They are probably going to succeed in throwing out a president in next year's election. >>
Fuck him, if they do, he deserves it.
<<That's what democracy looks like.>>
Sure that's what it LOOKS like, but once you realize that BOTH candidates were bought and paid for with the same Wall Street money, then you know exactly how deceptive that appearance really is. The Occupy Wall Street movement already knows that. The Tea Party is just too fucking dumb to connect the dots.
-
You know, I'd also - - on a sort of non-intellectual, non-argumentative way - - express how CU4's article made me feel when I first read it.
Starting with the opening pictures and their captions - - Tea Party, all events: Zero Arrests; Occupy Wall Street, single event: 700 Arrests.
As if it were some kind of badge of honour NOT to get arrested by the fascist thugs of a corporate-owned police state, and some kind of disgrace to be arrested by them.
So that was my initial response - - bemusement at the absurdity and unthinking, unreflective nature of the two pictures and their captions. But then, as I began to read the content of the article, I found it to be really depressing and disturbing in its mean-spiritedness, its trashing and character-assassination of the participants - - ridiculing their physical appearance, feigning ignorance of their demands and grievances, dismissing the police brutality they had suffered as "fighting with the police for fun."
It struck me as exactly the way the Nazi-controlled press would have commented on the arrest or trial of the White Rose resistance movement - - snarkily commenting on their scrawny physique or dishevelled clothing, comparing them unfavourably with such clean-cut and "healthy-looking" groups as the Hitler Youth or the Bund Deutscher Mädel and dismissing their bruises or other evidence of torture or brutality as the result of "fighting with the police for fun."
I really can't think of a more despicable piece of "reporting," of falsification of the truth, and it occurred to me that I don't have to go all the way back to Nazi Germany for my example, there are examples closer to home - - the deliberate MSM misrepresentation of the student anti-war movement in its early days and even later, the defamatory rumors spread about the student victims of the Kent State massacre - - that their bodies were lice-ridden and filthy, that they stank, etc. All lies, all bullshit, of course - - these were quintessential American college kids from the Midwest - - but lies and bullshit that served the purposes of the war-mongering corporate state then, and apparently now as well. Seems like nothing much has changed in the past 40 years - - new scandals, new lies, new wars sure, "new" on the surface, but underneath it all: the same old shit.
Which brings me to the subject of hope. I would like, instead of the despicable lies and misrepresentations and character assassinations of the corporate-controlled "press," which CU4 and others bring to this group on a daily basis, to present the group with a talk on hope, given last year by Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer-Prize-winning journalist and a speaker at the recent "Occupy Washington" and "Occupy Washington" rallies this year. A breath of fresh air, so to speak, to blow away the evil lies and misrepresentations with which the corporate-controlled media are flooding us now. I really hope you all will watch this to the end - - you too, CU4:
CHRIS HEDGES: "HOPE" SPEECH (UNEDITED) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KP8YcfdHIN4#ws)
And please let me know if the link doesn't work - - I have to choose on my menu between "current URL of video" and "URL of video." Whichever one I give you here, if it doesn't work, I'll get the other one for you. Thanks.
-
Maybe mobs should go to the protesters houses and try to intimidate them?
Whoops, they don't have houses because either: A. The bank repossessed it B. They are too lazy to save for it or C. They can't qualify for it
-
<<Maybe mobs should go to the protesters houses and try to intimidate them? >>
Why would you suggest this?
Should people be intimidated by mobs in their own homes or neighbourhoods for exercising their Constitutional rights to assemble and voice their grievances?
What if they were anti-abortion protestors at an abortion clinic, should they too be intimidated by mobs following them to their own homes or neighbourhoods?
You sound as if you might be under the impression that the Wall Street Occupation is intimidating the people who live and work in the financial district. Do you believe that? and if so, on what basis?
Have you seen ANY video of the demonstrations that was NOT produced by the corporate-owned MSM? Where?
<<Whoops, they don't have houses because either: A. The bank repossessed it . . . >>
Why do you sound so gleeful in describing their plight? Did you consider that they may have invested their life savings in the house, paid the mortgage faithfully for years, lost the house because they were laid off on short notice and can't find work, or had a tragic family illness that their insurance couldn't or wouldn't cover, or some other reason? It kind of bothers me that you can sound so callous towards the misfortunes of others, always assuming the worst about them, always assuming that the misfortunes of your fellow citizens are all somehow richly deserved.
<<B. They are too lazy to save for it . . . >>
Well, it's a possibility. How do you know from looking at the crowd, which ones are homeless and which are not? Or, of the homeless ones, which are the lazy and which are the merely unfortunate? Which ones worked and got laid off, or worked and got sick or worked and had to support a sick or injured family member, or worked and got screwed by their insurance . . . ? Is this some special power that you have or can anyone learn the trick?
<< . . . or C. They can't qualify for it>>
Yeah, let's see, no job, no job prospects, useless paper degree, mountain of student loan debt, no occupational skills and no family connections on Wall Street or the corporations - - yeah, you're right, I bet that must cover a few of them anyway.
Last question: Why do you hate them so much? What's going on?
-
Why do you hate those who have succeeded, so much?? Why do you hate those who have put for the hard work and perseverence needed to reached the upper levels of income, so much?? Why do you hate businesses and those owners that actually do the employing, so much?? I have yet to have gotten a job from a poor person
-
<<Why do you hate those who have succeeded, so much?? >>
Nothing at all in the Occupy Wall Street is directed at "those who have succeeded." The anger is directed a lot more specifically, i.e. , towards Wall Street, towards corporate America, and for reasons which are repeated everywhere, so that by now you should KNOW why the movement hates Wall Street and why it hates the corporations who have corrupted both political parties with their money. Your question is just an attempt to misrepresent the Occupy! movement by misrepresenting its goals, turning it into an "anti-success" instead of an anti-corruption movement, which it obviously is.
<< Why do you hate those who have put for the hard work and perseverence needed to reached the upper levels of income, so much?? >>
see above. another misleading question, designed to portray Occupy! as something which it is not, and ignore its publicly stated goals and objectives.
<<Why do you hate businesses and those owners that actually do the employing, so much?? >>
and yet another misleading, false and ridiculous question, designed again to take the focus off the Occupy! movement's actual goals and objectives, by putting forward a false definition of them. Falsifying and mischaracterizing not only the movement's focus and objectives, but my own as well. Where in my post did I say that I hate businesses or that I hate owners of businesses that employ people? All of my comments were directed at corporations and institutions that ripped off and got bailed out. None of them at "corporations that employ people" except to the extent that Wall Street and American corporations are employers but employ people in the enterprise of ripping off other people and the government.
<< I have yet to have gotten a job from a poor person>>
So what? I have no beef with your employers, unless they're in the business of ripping off people or getting bailed out by the government for their crookedness. Poor people create jobs in other ways - - they have basic needs that have to be satisfied by somebody and if the poor person can't pay, the government does. Either way, no poor people requiring the services or goods, no jobs needed to supply them.
-
<<Why do you hate those who have succeeded, so much?? >>
Nothing at all in the Occupy Wall Street is directed at "those who have succeeded."
It has everything to do with the idea that someone else has done better, has made more money and has succeeded in life. You yourself are procaliming a need to limit what one can make in the ridiculous perversion of the word fair. you're the one proclaiming a need to tax the snot out of them (I added snot, based on the volatility of yon and folks like Xo's pdemands that 'the rich pay their fair share", despite the fact they already pay MORE), thus punishing them for their success. Wall Street is just a convenient boogeyman, as these protests are across the country, parked outside of both the WH and millionaires'/bullionaires' homes.
Its the by-product of Obama's class warfare scorched earth campaign platform, and is having its desired results, albeit quite hypocritical, not to mention completely unfocused.....its just anger at those who have more, and how dare they
-
SEIU's Stephen Lerner Leaks Plan to Terrorize Corporate Executives (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsZECfIGGeA#)
-
<<It has everything to do with the idea that someone else has done better, has made more money and has succeeded in life. You yourself are procaliming a need to limit what one can make in the ridiculous perversion of the word fair. you're the one proclaiming a need to tax the snot out of them (I added snot, based on the volatility of yon and folks like Xo's pdemands that 'the rich pay their fair share", despite the fact they already pay MORE), thus punishing them for their success. Wall Street is just a convenient boogeyman, as these protests are across the country, parked outside of both the WH and millionaires'/bullionaires' homes.
<<Its the by-product of Obama's class warfare scorched earth campaign platform, and is having its desired results, albeit quite hypocritical, not to mention completely unfocused.....its just anger at those who have more, and how dare they >>
It's obvious to me that you aren't watching or listening to the demonstrators but creating in you own mind, either by yourself or under the influence of MSM accounts, a conception of who they are, what they are asking for and where their motivation comes from.
Obviously the people that I am watching on my computer screen in New York or Washington, are NOT the people you are describing and have almost nothing in common with them.
The actual demands and grievances are well-stated and very specific; what you describe as their demands sounds crazy, unbalanced and unrealistic. I was wondering, have you actually seen any clips of demonstrators denouncing "success" or "people who have done better" or "people who are making more money?" I have watched many videos of these demonstrations and have yet to encounter such denunciations, except from you, here in this NG.
The bulk of the demonstrations are in public spaces, in city centres, I'm not aware of demonstrations occurring outside of millionaires' or billionaires' homes and every one I've seen so far specifically mentions Wall Street and corporations, most of them IIRC have mentioned bailouts as well.
I can't really argue with your interpretation of what these demonstrators are "really" for or against, so I think maybe the best thing to do is just post some of the video clips and you can just watch them and tell me where specifically the demonstrators are expressing anger towards "success" or "making more money" or "doing better." In reality they don't say any such thing, that's just YOUR interpretation of what they really mean.
-
Hey, BT, thanks for the Stephen Lerner clip. I found it was awesome and inspiring. Hopefully he's right and this is the start of an unstoppable movement to take back the country from Wall Street and the corporations.
The video was interesting though for the editing and the cognitive dissonance. While Lerner is speaking calmly and even humouously, and he and people in the background are even laughing and giggling, the red text across the screen keeps warning of "violence" and "thugs" and similar hazards. ("Violence" and "thugs" I guess have a special meaning to the conservatives watching the film, because the only thugs appearing in the story so far are the NYPD thugs and the only violence is that of the NYPD thugs beating, kicking and pepper-spraying the demonstrators.) This treatment was especially weird, because even while the text was warning of violence and thugs, none of this was showing on the screen - - it was either Lerner, calmly speaking, or black-out.
-
Yeah some people let their enthusiasm get in the way of presenting the story.
But I'm not sure that the SEIU members will be have any differently than they did in Madison or at the townhall meetings where they beat the crap out of people against ObamaCare.
My fear is that sooner or later you are going to have rival philosophies marching towards each other like the big scene in Gangs of New York and there will be blood on the streets . And for what? . Because my sides right and the other side is wrong? or because they are unknowing pawns of bigger fish with hidden agendas. or Because hell they just like to fight.
I am sceptical about the alliances forming around this staged occupation. And i really hope that no one dies because politicians are flexing muscle.
All to pass a tax on millionaires. Which they would have my vote on if they raise taxes on everyone. 5% across the board. I don't like singling out specific classes to punish, be they jews or the rich.
-
<<But I'm not sure that the SEIU members will be have any differently than they did in Madison or at the townhall meetings where they beat the crap out of people against ObamaCare. >>
Well, it'll be a test of the organizers' ability to maintain order. Lerner sounds like a pretty savvy guy. I'm sure he knows by this time of the danger from union members going nuts but even more dangerously of the risk of FBI provocateurs infiltrating the movement and initiating violence for which the movement can be blamed, as happened frequently in the Sixties. I think the movement has to be cognizant of the risk, alert to and prepared for it, but cannot be paralyzed by it. Maybe their outreach or media arm could start now digging out all the old exposes of FBI and other agency provocateurs, so that the public will "blame the FBI first" if and when violence does break out. Those bastards never change. This is a serious problem for the movement and cannot receive too much attention and planning. I sure as hell hope they're on top of it.
<<My fear is that sooner or later you are going to have rival philosophies marching towards each other like the big scene in Gangs of New York and there will be blood on the streets . And for what? . Because my sides right and the other side is wrong? or because they are unknowing pawns of bigger fish with hidden agendas. or Because hell they just like to fight. >>
LOL. Seen many videos of the demos? NONE of those guys "like to fight." They're all nerds. But I love 'em cuz they're smart, funny, articulate and courageous.
<<I am sceptical about the alliances forming around this staged occupation. And i really hope that no one dies because politicians are flexing muscle. >>
Right now is way to early for revolutionary violence but that time is coming. These guys will be broken up by violence in the end - - either police violence, or if that's not working, then National Guard violence. But in the end the state will crush them. The important thing is that the people absorb the lesson - - non-violent protest in this country doesn't have a hope in hell. The hard core will have to learn to organize and discipline themselves like the old Communist Party. They'll have to wait for the right time and know it when it comes - - the country WILL fall apart, it's inevitable, given the near-total control that the right wing exercises over the levers of power. The right wing always overreaches - - Hitler is by far the best example, but as the power elite shifts more and more to the right, the leadership becomes more and more fascistic, Hitler-like, even though they'll never be able to produce another Hitler. They'll try to cling as much as possible to democratic forms. In their arrogance and their greed, they will sooner or later fuck up and the economy really will be driven over the cliff.
<<All to pass a tax on millionaires. Which they would have my vote on if they raise taxes on everyone. 5% across the board. I don't like singling out specific classes to punish, be they jews or the rich. >>
Well the problem with all across-the-board tax increases is that it hurts the guys at the bottom a lot more than it hurts the guys at the top. "Singling out" is unavoidable - - it just means that those least able to bear the pain get an exemption. It's like the draft board - - all the healthy 1-A get to go to Nam and the 4-Fs are "singled out" for exemption. Fairness requires that some lines have to be drawn.
-
<<It has everything to do with the idea that someone else has done better, has made more money and has succeeded in life. You yourself are procaliming a need to limit what one can make in the ridiculous perversion of the word fair. you're the one proclaiming a need to tax the snot out of them (I added snot, based on the volatility of yon and folks like Xo's pdemands that 'the rich pay their fair share", despite the fact they already pay MORE), thus punishing them for their success. Wall Street is just a convenient boogeyman, as these protests are across the country, parked outside of both the WH and millionaires'/bullionaires' homes.
Its the by-product of Obama's class warfare scorched earth campaign platform, and is having its desired results, albeit quite hypocritical, not to mention completely unfocused.....its just anger at those who have more, and how dare they >>
In reality they don't say any such thing, that's just YOUR interpretation of what they really mean.
The Nuttiness of the 'Occupation' Movement
Al Sharpton, Nancy Pelosi, different leaders of varied labor unions -- pour it on, folks! Show your political solidarity with all the "occupations" going on around the country! Speak to us in anguished tones about the awfulness of free market mechanisms like banks and the horror of earning more money than someone else.
While you're at it, tell us what you're going to do about the horrors of free enterprise and the profit motive. The explicit Marxist-Leninist remedy seems out of favor these days. That leaves, what? Congeries of yelps ("Stop Corporate Greed," "People, not Profits") from the ragtag occupation armies enjoying the autumn sunshine in venues from Wall Street to the West Coast.
Many times over the past couple of years, I have had occasion to drag out the immortal piece of wisdom, "Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad." Truer words surely haven't been spoken (apart maybe from "There's no such thing as a free lunch"). Those "progressive" commentators and politicians egging on the occupation forces have conceivably taken leave of their senses. Whether the majority of occupiers ever had senses to take leave of is a matter, shall we say, for discussion.
The mainstream media, ever alert to possibilities for provoking a cat fight, have been prowling the various centers of "occupation," striving to make ordinary Americans think something real and vital (as opposed to fake and febrile) is going on around the land. Supposedly, to listen to the occupiers and their well wishers, the country is in revolt against heartless capitalism. As the website of CBS's "The Early Show" informed us Monday, "Americans are frustrated and making their voices heard." News machines like "The Early Show," are frustrated with the heavy lifting involved in sorting through proposals for actual, useful economic reform that would create jobs while reducing media sound bites.
The 1960s flavor of the occupation movement is unmistakable, though the occupiers themselves reference the Arab Spring movement as inspirational: Take over a public square or something and villains will topple.
One measurable difference between the occupation of "Wall Street" and the takeovers of college deans' and presidents' offices 40-odd years ago is that the countercultural types of that time, in their hirsute glory, had moderately clear and at least partly digested aims -- chiefly, "ending" a controversial war in Vietnam. So what if it was a glib and specious idea? It was clear. Also clear was the demand to accord blacks, as Negroes were coming to be called, their rights as freeborn Americans.
Nothing so clear comes to us from the occupiers who rant against greed and corruption, and want to redistribute wealth to the non-super rich who make up "99 percent" of the population (including those who eke by on a mere $750,000 a year).
The fun part of all this is the sudden urge on the part of Democrats and liberals to hide behind the occupation forces, touting their cause for at least as long as it takes to beat out the Republicans' brains in 2012. Sure will be a sight when the campaigns start in earnest and the president has to decide for himself how to walk a fine line between hanging bankers and soliciting their campaign contributions.
Genuine anger, disgust, pain, and heartache exist in abundance. Does that mean phony calls from the grassroots to forgive student debt and redistribute income have either merit or coherence?
What this mainly means is that "progressive" ideas about how economies work -- conditioned on government control and supervision -- are flatter even than once supposed. We wouldn't otherwise find a former speaker of the U. S. House trying to pass off T-shirt slogans and scribbled placard signs as some grand summation of the best in economic thinking.
Another thing this whole episode may mean (pardon my shaking up the syntax) is:
These are the people to whom we gave power in 2009, so that they might revive the economy and spur job creation?
We commissioned Congress and the president to guarantee loans to shaky, clean- energy projects and to take over health care and auto companies with no better result than trillions in debt and a 9.1 percent unemployment rate?
That's what the friends, the boosters, the encouragers of Wall Street occupation have done for us these past three years?
No wonder they want someone to hide behind (http://townhall.com/columnists/billmurchison/2011/10/11/the_nuttiness_of_the_occupation_movement)
-
Well the problem with all across-the-board tax increases is that it hurts the guys at the bottom a lot more than it hurts the guys at the top.
So? What made the poor so special?
-
It's coming out the the people paying the protesters to protest are a bunch of Jew Haters.
-
I see sirs found another conservative view of the "nutty" Occupy Wall Street movement. Once again, as with sirs' own description of these people, it's just impossible to match up the people that sirs and his latest "Nutty Wall Street" writer are describing. I am sure that these people exist somewhere - - if only in sirs' head or the head of the corporate flunky who wrote the last description of the demonstrators - - but at some point I think it's useful to get back to reality - - not the reality inside sirs' and his favourite authors' heads, but the reality on the streets.
I think, in view of the number of video clips available of the demonstrations and their supporters, I am just going to avoid even reading what sirs and his favourite writers write in their attempts to describe the demonstrators, and instead just post the video clips of the actual demonstrations themselves.
I also note Kramer's unsupported allegation that "those who pay the demonstrators to demonstrate" (as if these kids were out at the demonstration for a pay-cheque) are - - wait for it! - - "Jew haters." OF COURSE. What else could they be but Jew-haters? The only surprise here was how long it took the MSM and their flacks to come up with that one.
Who I really feel sorry for of course are the leaders of the movement, many of whom are themselves Jews. You see, Jews generally are not very smart or sophisticated people. They just wouldn't have the brainpower to realize the fact that their supporters and backers, nice as they may seem on the surface, are in reality "Jew-haters," people who hate the fucking Jews that they are supporting, only the poor Jews are just too fucking dumb to pick up on that hatred. Kramer, or his source, they can easily see it, though. Thanks for the warning, Kramer. I guess the first person I better warn about this is Steve Lerner. I'm sure he'd want to know.
Unfortunately, nowadays, "Jew-haters" aren't what they used to be. Today, "Jew-hater" is a term applied indiscriminately to anyone who can no longer support the fascism, racism and violence of the Jewish State - - and that covers a lot of ground, including, it seems, many Jews themselves. Thus we have the phenomenon of "Jew-hating Jews," a.k.a. "self-hating Jews." Me, for example. I don't think Canada should grant tax exemptions to Jewish organizations which collect donations in Canada and give them to charities in Israel. I'm kind of an old-fashioned Canadian who happens to believe that tax exemptions should be given to Canadian charities that collect money in Canada for charitable uses in Canada. Period. Let the other organizations collect money here for Israel if they wish to do so - - that is their right. But there is no reason in the world for the Canadian government to subsidize that kind of charitable collection and distribution with tax exemptions. Not a single Canadian will benefit from the exercise. So I am, to my everlasting shame, a "Jew-hater." I'm starting to think, strange as this may sound, that the number of Jewish "Jew haters" by now exceeds the number of gentile "Jew-haters," and is growing faster too.
So, Kramer, I don't think a lot of protestors are going to be shocked by the "revelation" that "Jew-haters" are behind these demos. Most of them, especially the Jewish ones, will react like, "Jew-hater? Hey that's me! Awesome!" But: nice try.
-
actually Mike, the jew-haters financing the protesters are from Canada.
-
Canadian Jew-haters are the worst of the worst, Kramer. I know, I'm one of them. We're insidious and we don't quit. Watch out for us, we're everywhere.
-
Canadian Jew-haters are the worst of the worst, Kramer. I know, I'm one of them. We're insidious and we don't quit. Watch out for us, we're everywhere.
So you have heard about Adbusters too?
-
Yes of course. Everyone in Canada knows Adbusters. They're sometimes very funny. I knew they started the Occupy Wall Street movement and were very active in it, but wasn't sure if they were the "Jew-haters" you were referring to.
-
Yes of course. Everyone in Canada knows Adbusters. They're sometimes very funny. I knew they started the Occupy Wall Street movement and were very active in it, but wasn't sure if they were the "Jew-haters" you were referring to.
yup they sure are
-
I guess you know then who's bankrolling Adbusters - - George Soros. And you probably know Soros' ethnicity as well - - he's also a Jew.
You see, Kramer, Jew-hating is just too important to be left to the non-Jews.
-
I guess you know then who's bankrolling Adbusters - - George Soros. And you probably know Soros' ethnicity as well - - he's also a Jew.
You see, Kramer, Jew-hating is just too important to be left to the non-Jews.
You mean Soros the same Soros that has blood on his hands by selling out his fellow Jews during the Holocaust, and enjoyed doing it, that Soiros?
-
<<You mean Soros the same Soros that has blood on his hands by selling out his fellow Jews during the Holocaust, and enjoyed doing it, that Soiros?>>
Far as I know, that's a baseless slander. Never seen any authentication at all, in any form. Still, nothing's impossible. I know a lot of Holocaust survivors. Dozens, if not more. One thing I learned early, don't ask them how they got out. If they want to tell you, they'll tell you. If not, just leave it alone. It's not up to me to pass judgment on any of them. The guilty are those who put them in that situation, who forced them to make choices, often terrible choices, who made them do what they had to do to survive. A famous survivor, I don't remember now who it was, wrote that "the best of us died in the camps."
-
A famous survivor, I don't remember now who it was, wrote that "the best of us died in the camps."
With G. Soros being a survivor I'd have agree
-
TEA PARTY Invades OCCUPY DC- (explicit) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnGcUnoNa5Q#ws)
-
Interesting concept -- three fairly articulate Tea Party media people go down to Wall Street to provoke demonstrators, shoot the least articulate demonstrators they can find, edit out any intelligent rebukes, and then show the resultant tapes as representative of all the demonstrators. Hey I bet these guys could work for the MSM if the MSM has any openings for them.
God bless every one of the OWS demonstrators, even the ones who are too angry to articulate why they are there' Their heart is in the right place, just as the Tea Party's heart is, well, up their ass.
There were at least TWO brief encounters that the Tea Party flacks were too fucking stupid to edit out of their own tape. One where the schmuck says, "We're against Communism . . . AND fascism!" where the "and fascism" was so obviously an afterthought that it was hilarious. "Q: Who are the most beautiful women you've ever seen? A: Hmmm, well, there's Angelina Jolie, and there's Penelope Cruz, and there's Scarlett Johannson . . . AND my wife!"
The other exchange, and I love this guy, whoever he is, God bless him for telling the truth and not falling for the MSM/corporate/war machine lies at all:
- We support the troops
- Our troops are terrorists!
- They're just following the orders of their Commander in Chief
- FUCK THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF!!!
That was so beautiful, it's worth watching the whole stupid fucking tape for, all over again. And once more for good luck. Plenty of Americans are not fooled one bit by the militaristic propaganda bullshit that pours out of the MSM, glorifying those murdering scumbag thugs as "heroes" and here's some average ordinary American who sees right through the bullshit and isn't fooled.
It also shows how wrong some members of this NG are when they try to link OWS to Obama supporters. I had this argument with - - not sure if it was Kramer or sirs or both, maybe in another thread, but they claimed these were Obama supporters. They might have been once but they are fed up with Obama and a lot of them with the Democratic Party, although some of them seem to think that pressure can be brought on the Democrats to change their ways.
I think it's a mistake for them not only to think they can force change on the Democrats, but I think if they really are putting their hopes on the Democratic Party, they should stay home. Because before OWS, I think Americans were smart enough to realize that, as Obama put it, the ones who drove the family car over the cliff were the GOP. That was overly simplistic in my mind because a lot of the Democrats were equally guilty. Still mainly because of timing, there was a general trend to blame the GOP for the mismanaged economy. They were (if you didn't look too closely at the Democrats) the party of big business, of capitalism itself, and they could be blamed for the mess. OWS can't help but throw a lot of that blame around equally, so of the two parties, the one with the most to lose from this is the Democrats.
For me, one of the best things about this OWS movement is that a lot of them seem to realize that CAPITALISM is the problem and that the solution lies OUTSIDE the political system and the phony four-year "elections" in which no real choice is ever presented to them. They realize that Wall Street and corporate America have bought and paid for BOTH political parties, so the solution will have to come from outside the system and not from within. In the long run, this means that they will - - as events force them to recognize this - - come to realize what the anti-war protestors said in the Sixties was true, that "The only solution is the Revolution."
-
Interesting concept -- three fairly articulate Tea Party media people go down to Wall Street to provoke demonstrators, shoot the least articulate demonstrators they can find, edit out any intelligent rebukes, and then show the resultant tapes as representative of all the demonstrators. Hey I bet these guys could work for the MSM if the MSM has any openings for them.
The MSM is still doing this technique with the Tea Party aren't they? I'm sure they still have openings in that division...
-
<<The MSM is still doing this technique [selective editing] with the Tea Party aren't they? I'm sure they still have openings in that division...>>
LOL. Good one. Well, that's what the Tea Party claims. I just don't know. I know in the beginning the Tea Party had plenty of racist and fascist signs but after a lot of these began showing up on the Web, the signs disappeared.
-
Further on the Tea Party-MSM-OWS love triangle, I recall an RT video interview, where the interviewee mentioned the complete news blackout that the MSM was imposing on OWS in the early days - - mentioned that whereas the MSM would rush to interview as few as 25 Tea Partiers in one group demo, nevertheless was blacking out an OWS of easily 200 people. The host agreed with regard to the minuscule number of Tea Partiers required to draw in the MSM.
I see it like this: Tea is a creation of, or was quickly co-opted by, the Koch Brothers and other corporate forces which have a stranglehold on the MSM. Tea, being on the side of the corporate state and Wall Street, can be expected to get a lot of respectful and even fawning MSM attention and plenty of coverage. OWS, obviously not. That's how it goes.
-
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/10/12/wall-street-protester-proclaims-the-jews-control-wall-st-in-zuccotti-park-rant/ (http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/10/12/wall-street-protester-proclaims-the-jews-control-wall-st-in-zuccotti-park-rant/)
The Jews Control Wall St.’ In Zuccotti Park Rant
That’s the message one Wall Street protester was trying to spread in Lower Manhattan to anyone that would listen.
A new video posted to YouTube shows the protester loudly and aggressively proclaiming “the Jews control Wall Street.”
In the nearly 6-minute video, the man is seen standing in Zuccotti Park ranting against Israel and Jews while holding a sign reading “Hitler’s Bankers – Wall St.”
The protestor, who would not give his name to those gathered around him, is also seen arguing with members of the public who took offense to his choice of words.
A number of others also ask the protester if Fox News had paid him to stand and display his sign to which he responded: “[expletive] Fox News, that’s [expletive]. [Expletive] Jew made that up.”
-
Nobody in the whole crowd supported him. Everyone challenged him although at one point a kid got up and defended his right to speak; towards the end of the clip, the demonstrators (who get around the ban on bullhorns by chanting in unison after a speaker delivers the message, a few words at a time) actually said, "This brother needs to be heard and healed."
It's pretty obvious from the tape that there is no support for this kind of sentiment anywhere in the crowd. The odds are 50% he's a plant and 50% a disturbed individual. Zero percent that he represents anyone in the Occupy Wall Street! movement.
Expect plenty more attempts to misrepresent, disturb or de-rail this movement; expect each failed attempt to escalate, first into police violence and then ultimately into National Guard / US Northern Command lethal violence, if lethal violence is what it takes to make these people shut up and go home. There's a reason for the formation of the US military's Northern Command and it sure as hell ain't what their motto says it is, "Defending Our Homeland." The only people they're gonna defend the "Homeland" against are the people in the streets right now in the financial district. Bad Moon Risin'.
-
Expect plenty more attempts to misrepresent, disturb or de-rail this movement;...
I do , the TEA party got a lot of that.
-
Well, let me know if the Tea Party ever gets batonned or pepper-sprayed.
-
Well, let me know if the Tea Party ever gets batonned or pepper-sprayed.
Why should they?
They don't even leave a mess.
Do you expect the 99% people to pick up after themselves?
-
<<Why should they?
They don't even leave a mess.>>
What a ridiculous answer. Have you seen even one video of an Occupy! demonstrator get beaten or maced by the NYPD? Were they littering or leaving a mess when they were beaten or sprayed? Mostly they're just standing there and not moving fast enough for the cops. The women who were pepper-sprayed in the face were standing behind a barricade of netting when this fucking pig just walks up to them and sprays them in the face.
Apart from your "explanation" being so totally divorced from the real world, it's also insane as pure theory. Do you think that beating and macing are reasonable responses to the act of littering? That it's OK for some fucking pig to mace a Tea Party woman for dropping a McDonald's napkin on the shining pristine pavement of Wall Street?
<< Do you expect the 99% people to pick up after themselves?>>
Yeah, they are doing their best, actually. If you followed the videos, you'd see they even have special sanitation details to try to keep the place clean. What makes you think they don't? Your prejudices, or the brainwashing you get from the MSM?
Also, don't forget that Zucotti Square was a habitat for some homeless and mentally disturbed derelicts and bums for some time before the Occupation began and that some of these folks have attached themselves to the demonstrations. I don't see how picking up their shit is the responsibility of the demonstrators, but I bet they are doing that as well since the fucking pigs sure as hell won't.
-
So the reaction of the police is a measure of authenticity?
I guess then that the Cubans that get imprison or the Chineese that get sold for parts are the most truely sincere.
Syrians getting shot and then arrested in the hospital pretty sincere too.
-
Apr 15, 2009
Dayton Tea Party: Counter Protester Arrested for Disorderly Conduct (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHgxBb-zsQQ#)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2496158/posts (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2496158/posts)
Skip to comments.
Tally of MASSIVE Tea Party violence/destruction/arrests to date
Vanity ^ | Monday, 4/19/2010 | DTogo
Posted on Monday, April 19, 2010 1:43:43 PM by DTogo
Tea Party rallies: thousands
Tea Party participants: millions
Tea Party squabbles with Law Enforcement: 0
Tea Parties confronted by riot police: 0
Tea Parties dispersed by tear gas: 0
Tea Party arrests: 0
Tea Parties causing violence/injuries: 0
Tea Parties causing property damage: 0
Tea Parties responsible for the death of anybody: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even Nancy Pelosi feels safe around TEA people , she walks right throught the pack with every clue she could get to them for who she is.
Nancy Pelosi walks past protestors with big gavel.mov (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKIcQ0xYNZA#)
The Tea party is pretty civil, I know that some racial epitets were roumered to have been hurled , but the guys that were spreading that roumor learned that microphones were present and gave up on the project.
-
Plane, give it up. These commies have their agenda and no matter what facts you provide they don't care or make any difference to them. They are not the sweet loving peace loving diverse free speech crowd they claim to be. They are seriously dangerous and would rather slit your throat than have a debate. They hate you, they despise you, and they want you dead, and will then take your belongings and move right into your house right after they blow your brains out.
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/10/11/occupy-l-a-speaker-violence-will-be-necessary-to-achieve-our-goals/ (http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/10/11/occupy-l-a-speaker-violence-will-be-necessary-to-achieve-our-goals/)
-
Kramer,
If you are not having fun , you ought to step back a pace.
MT is willing to defend the indefensible , which allows you and I to enjoy shooting fish in a barrell.
He is perfect is what he is.
-
<<So the reaction of the police is a measure of authenticity?>>
Well, that's one theory. The Tea Party is never maced or beaten and your bullshit explanation for this (it's because they don't litter) is just plain ludicrous. Would you like to try again or do you give up?
My theory is that nobody is ordering the violent dispersal of the Tea Party because they are the catspaw of the GOP, they represent no threat at all to the current Kleptocracy of thieving Wall Streeters, thieving bankers and thieving politicians of both parties and in fact are doing their best to preserve and strengthen the status quo.
The Occupy Wall Street! people are, of course, a wholly different breed, and they're gonna get the full treatment, starting with MSM blackout, escalating to MSM slanders, marginalization, trivialization and ridicule, escalating to police violence , escalating to deadly violence from police and/or National Guard and/or Northern Command military forces. The Kent State treatment but only if all other measures of repression fail.
<< I guess then that the Cubans that get imprison . . . are the most truely sincere.>>
You have GOT to be kidding. By now, thanks to wikileaks releases of the US government's own diplomatic cables, everybody but you seems to know that the so-called "Cuban dissidents" are bought and paid for by the U.S. government, and have been for years. And what on earth is so sincere about that? Would you think it was "sincere" if you were to suddenly find out that all of the anti-establishment writers and poets in the US had been financially supported in secret for years by the Chinese Communists? There is absolutely NOTHING "sincere" about the Cuban political prisoners. They're a bunch of phonies, traitors and enemies of the people, bought and paid for by the US government. And thanks for bringing that up.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/12/17/us-cuba-dissidents-wikileaks-idUSTRE6BG0DE20101217 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/12/17/us-cuba-dissidents-wikileaks-idUSTRE6BG0DE20101217)
<<or the Chineese that get sold for parts are the most truely sincere.>>
Sorry, you're not gonna get me to OK the selling of prisoners' body parts before they're executed. That sucks and whoever's behind it should be jailed for 20 years. If that was what you were referring to. But I will say it's funny how the US MSM is so quick to pick up on stories like that when they come out of China and so quick to bury them when they come out of Israel. The Chinese aren't the only ones in the organ trade, but they sure as hell seem to get all the blame for it, while pets of the US get a free pass.
<< Syrians getting shot and then arrested in the hospital pretty sincere too.>>
Well, the fact is that you don't know and I don't know what's really going on in Syria. The West claims that peaceful citizens asking for more freedoms are being beaten, shot and arrested for peaceful protest. The Syrians claim that "foreign provocateurs" (French? Israeli? US? Lebanese Christian?) are raising armed gangs of thugs and paying them to attack Syrian forces of order. Personally, I think it's a little of both. I have had some close knowledge of the Syrian government in the recent past, and IMHO they are ruthless and sadistic torturers and murderers when they encounter persons whom they consider to be enemies of the state, primarily the Muslim Brothers, who they will torture and kill without mercy; further that with respect to others of their own citizens they are casually corrupt and brutal, extorting money from any likely victim and beating the shit out of anyone who complains but otherwise not murderers. There's no doubt in my mind that they'll exercise selective torture and murder on purely political protestors even if they are NOT related to the Muslim Brotherhood, but I have a lot of difficulty that they'd initiate mass killings of such people. Similarly, there have been large-scale casualties inflicted on Syrian military or internal police units which the opposition claims are the results of some units firing on others when the victims refused orders to fire on the people. I don't believe it. It's just too neat and too contrived. A firefight would result and it couldn't be swept away - - the circumstances of these killings aren't as much suggestive of a firefight as they are of an ambush. So what's going on in Syria is very complex and you and I don't know enough about it to discuss it intelligently. My best guess is that peaceful protestors are being attacked and also that Syrian army units are being ambushed by armed gangs under foreign influence. Your attempt to simplify the events so that you can draw simplistic conclusions from them is something I would not agree with.
-
<<The Tea party is pretty civil, I know that some racial epitets were roumered to have been hurled , but the guys that were spreading that roumor learned that microphones were present and gave up on the project.>>
That is totally untrue. These were not rumors. John Lewis a respected fighter for civil rights whose word, as far as I know has never previously been questioned, was spat upon and called nigger by a Tea Party crowd as he walked through it on his official business. The microphones in question could record the crowd noises but weren't good enough to distinguish one single word from the background noise. They are not superior to the human ear for distinguishing individual words from a cacaphony of crowd noises. Lewis said he was called nigger more than once and those who know Lewis believe him. Others in his entourage heard the word as well. The inability of the mikes at the scene to pick out individual words from crowd noises was used by Tea Party defenders to deny that the incident never happened. Bullshit.
-
If you don't want me to oversimplify, then you should not oversimplify either.
The TEA party has been a pain in the neck for the well established Republicans , the new congressmen that owe the TEA party their election need to keep in mind that they were elected to shake things up and impede bad decisions. Not fit in and help grease the skids.
Herman Cain predates the TEA party , but might harvest the most juce from it, he is just the right kind of smart .
If experience is any guide, two of three of the new congressmen will be disapointing , but that one in three is worth the effort.
So the message of dissatisfaction rides in on the backs of freshmen Congressmen , who can be tossed in two years if they don't understand what the people were saying themselves.
I don't know yet what the 99% guys want their elected congresscritters to do, I havent teased out a coherent message from the OWS mob yet.
I see that they are earnest but unfocused , I see that Pelosi and Obama lust for the raw power that they potentiate, I think they are malliable and ripe to be picked.
-
<<The Tea party is pretty civil, I know that some racial epitets were roumered to have been hurled , but the guys that were spreading that roumor learned that microphones were present and gave up on the project.>>
That is totally untrue. These were not rumors. John Lewis a respected fighter for civil rights whose word, as far as I know has never previously been questioned, was spat upon and called nigger by a Tea Party crowd as he walked through it on his official business. The microphones in question could record the crowd noises but weren't good enough to distinguish one single word from the background noise. They are not superior to the human ear for distinguishing individual words from a cacaphony of crowd noises. Lewis said he was called nigger more than once and those who know Lewis believe him. Others in his entourage heard the word as well. The inability of the mikes at the scene to pick out individual words from crowd noises was used by Tea Party defenders to deny that the incident never happened. Bullshit.
Yes that is entirely bullshit.
Microphones that did pick up the dread word would have been proof for something , no?
Microphones in a ring arond a person that pick up no such thing are proof of nothing?
Microphones are indeed superior to the human ear in the same respect that cameras are superior to the human eye, they are dispassionate. AS a camera cannot refuse to see, a microphone cannot refuse to hear.
BTW Mr. Lewis was not called by any epithet by the OWS croud that he tried to adress , he was merely told to shut up and go away, they were not listening .
Are you as prone to be offended by an actual disrespect as you are a pretended one?
-
<< Syrians getting shot and then arrested in the hospital pretty sincere too.>>
............................ are of an ambush. So what's going on in Syria is very complex and you and I don't know enough about it to discuss it intelligently. My best guess is that peaceful protestors are being attacked and also that Syrian army units are being ambushed by armed gangs under foreign influence. Your attempt to simplify the events so that you can draw simplistic conclusions from them is something I would not agree with.
That the government of Syria is in place by dint of force and not by consent of the governed simplifies the questions.
Assad and his Baathistsare not any better than the government of Rhodesia.
And Assad complaining of foreign meddling is kinda funny, poetic justice would have a Lebaneese plant an Iranian bomb under his motorcade.
-
<<Plane, give it up. These commies have their agenda and no matter what facts you provide they don't care or make any difference to them.>>
LMFAO. If this newsgroup is any indication, it is you and your conservative friends who consistently and repeatedly ignore facts and arguments that you have no way of getting around.
In every thread in which I debate you and plane, I take special care to answer each and every point you guys make, in detail. I think there was one post from plane where I forgot to respond to something he said, and was just too tired or too lazy to go back and offer a complete response. But as far as I know that is something that happened just once.
On the contrary, every time that I provide an answer to something that either one of you has said, that you probably have no answer for because there is no answer for it, you totally ignore the point I just made, and go on to talk about something else, as if my point had never been made. This happens so often that I have lost count of the number of times.
So you accuse me of doing something that is exactly the way you and plane operate and not at all like the way I operate. Here's a challenge for you: WHAT FACTS did you or plane provide me with, that I did not bother to reply to, to answer, or to rebut? Show me ONE post where you offered a fact to me that I did not respond to, in detail.
<<They are not the sweet loving peace loving diverse free speech crowd they claim to be. >>
They don't CLAIM to be anything. They have rights to free speech and they are exercising them. This one guy claims to be a revolutionary, not a sweet loving peace loving etc. so what is your problem with that? He says revolution is the only way to change things, if I hear him correctly. So what? He's right, IMHO. When the rich have bought up both political parties AND the judiciary AND the MSM, how else do you expect to get out from under a system which showers huge rewards on the top 1% and shit all over the other 99%? Ask the one percent nicely to give it all up and stop buying politicians? But that's exactly what they're doing now, asking nicely. Lotta good THAT'LL do.
<<They are seriously dangerous and would rather slit your throat than have a debate. They hate you, they despise you, and they want you dead and will then take your belongings and move right into your house right after they blow your brains out. >>
Settle down, Kramer. He said no such thing. Don't let your irrational fears shut down your whole brain. You're actually projecting your own negative emotions onto them - - you hate them, you'd rather slit their throats than debate them, you despise them and you want them dead. Those demonstrators, even the one talking about revolution, don't sound as violent and hate-filled as you do.
Know what else? That you hate them because they show more courage than you ever will - - you're probably just as fucked by the system as they are, but they're standing up and fighting back while you're just bending over and taking it in the ass. You hate them because you don't have the courage to stand with them, so your only choice is to either hate them or to face up to your own lack of courage and the misery that inevitably follows that. Just remember, Kramer: they don't hate you. You're nobody to them. They'd admire and respect you if you had the balls to join them, but if you don't, you're just an irrelevance to them. You're not even a class enemy.
-
<<Microphones that did pick up the dread word would have been proof for something , no?>>
If they picked up the "dread word," then that would prove that the "dread word" had been uttered.
<<Microphones in a ring arond a person that pick up no such thing are proof of nothing?>>
Wrong. They are proof - - in this particular case - - of several things:
1. That there was a big crowd of people around Mr. Lewis making a lot of noise;
2. That from all the crowd noise around Mr. Lewis, those microphones were not capable of picking out one
distinguishable word.
Which permits us to draw the following conclusion:
1. If "nigger" had been one of the words coming from that crowd, the microphones would not have been
able to distinguish that particular word any more than they were able to distinguish any other particular word
coming from that crowd;
2. Therefore, the inability of the mikes to pick out the word "nigger" neither proves nor disproves that the
word was said at that particular time and place.
<<Microphones are indeed superior to the human ear in the same respect that cameras are superior to the human eye, they are dispassionate.>>
You don't know what you are talking about -- the brain has an input as well, filtering and linking different sounds to make meaning where to the mike, all is noise. Nobody as far as I am aware has studied all of the circumstances necessary to determine whether sound recordings can convey meaning through sound as well as the human ear can. As well as, specifically, John Lewis' ear can. Your conclusions are based on pure speculation as to microphone performance, noise added to the mike by the sound system feeding it or defects therein, etc. You have absolutely no way of knowing how well or how poorly the mike was functioning at the time, nor do you even know how it could perform relative to John Lewis' ears-brain combination at the scene.
<< AS a camera cannot refuse to see, a microphone cannot refuse to hear.>>
Cameras can record an image of a face which you may not recognize but which if you were there in person you might recognize. Cameras often record images not in accordance with what is seen - - poor contrast, odd depth of field, etc. Otherwise you'd never know if you were looking at a real person or a photograph. Most of us can tell the difference.
<<BTW Mr. Lewis was not called by any epithet by the OWS croud that he tried to adress , he was merely told to shut up and go away, they were not listening .>>
So what, that's better than being called a nigger by a bunch of Tea Party racists.
<< Are you as prone to be offended by an actual disrespect as you are a pretended one?>>
I dunno, so far we've only been discussing actual disrespects. Let me know when you find an example of a pretended one.
-
MT
I don't and I think you should not ,feel obliged to respond in detail to each and every detail.
Life is way too short for me to carry a copy of your brain around with me.
-
<<MT is willing to defend the indefensible , which allows you and I to enjoy shooting fish in a barrell.>>
Really? Well I've said this to Kramer, so I might as well say it to you too. I don't know whether you've noticed this or not, but I've replied in detail to every one of your posts and Kramer's posts, but I can't say that this diligence has been reciprocated. Quite a few times, I've noticed that I came up with answers to things that you or Kramer have said, to which you've presumably had no answer. So then instead of conceding the point, or acknowledging it, you then move on to new sets of allegations or arguments, which I then demolish - - unacknowledged or conceded again - - and you move on to some new unrelated point again.
Well, I don't know how you define "shooting fish in a barrel" but however you do it, I have to tell you it bears absolutely no relation to what has been going on between us, or between Kramer and I. It seems to me that in every one of our debates, you and Kramer ultimately become the fish in the barrel, and I am the one best described as "shooting fish in a barrel." Just for the record. I didn't appreciate the cheap shot, I made my point and I'm prepared to leave it at that.
-
<<MT
<< I don't and I think you should not ,feel obliged to respond in detail to each and every detail.
<< Life is way too short for me to carry a copy of your brain around with me.>>
Fair enough, plane, but then if you don't respond to rebuttals that I have made, I have trouble seeing how you can legitimately make any claim to "shooting fish in a barrel."
-
I am an electrician.
Please do take my word for this .
Microphones are superior to human hearing , or at least can be.
Or don't take my word for it and become an electrician yourself, specialise in audio circuits and speak the lingo better than I do.
If I were to surround you with the sort of microphone that reporters normally carry , you would be surrounded with microphones adapted to the frequencys of the human voice .
It would then be impossible for me to shout any message at all to you without the message being recorded.
If indeed the croud noise was too intense for the microphones to pick out any words , then necessacerily the croud noise would be too intense for any human ear to distinguish any particular word also.
This is proven beyond any reasonable doubt, I cannot continue to answer your unreasonable doubts forever.
If you do not answer this particular point of this particular post I will be understanding.
I don't have an answer for everything either, try tho I might.
-
Which permits us to draw the following conclusion:
1. If "nigger" had been one of the words coming from that crowd, the microphones would not have been
able to distinguish that particular word any more than they were able to distinguish any other particular word
coming from that crowd;
2. Therefore, the inability of the mikes to pick out the word "nigger" neither proves nor disproves that the
word was said at that particular time and place.
No.
No microphone ever does distinguish any word.
They make no value judgement and choose no favoriates.
A microphone and recorder will record the sound as it is and later when it is played back a human being will ascribe meaning to the noise. If a dog whistle was blown no one would have known at the time but a dog later could listen.
The human ear and brain is the active element for ascribeing meaning in any case.
It is possible to build a circuit that can use computer power for picking words out of sound , but I don't see the need for that complication. Human ears are still the interface for the human brain.
Te microphones on the scene were much , very much, more competant to sense and record exactly what the noise was like than any ear present , but only ears and brains were there to understand then or later.
Have you ever seen portraits in the grain of wood? Pictures in the tile of a floor?
Whirlpools in the hash of a TV between channells? Eyes do this , they can impose order where there is none as they react to a noisy signal and the brain.
Ears do it too.
-
<<If indeed the croud noise was too intense for the microphones to pick out any words , then necessacerily the croud noise would be too intense for any human ear to distinguish any particular word also.>>
Ii get that, and thanks for the insight, but what you don't get is that you're still talking in ideal circumstances, talking of what should be and not necessarily what was.
"Surrounded by microphones" for example, if taken literally there'd be a 360 degree bank of microphones around him with no space between him. In reality, no more than a few mikes, at what angle, at what height who the hell knows? They were probably in constant motion around the Congressman, so determining the precise configuration for all possible times when the N-word could have been uttered or repeated is just impossible. Similarly who knows if the mikes were functioning at maximum capability or otherwise?
I have no problem at all with the idea that Congressman Lewis heard a word that the mikes didn't pick up, for whatever reason. I'm also unimpressed by your total rejection of the eyewitness evidence of the Congressman and at least one member of his entourage. As far as I know, the Congressman at least is a credible witness of good repute - - why are you so adamant that what he says he heard, and what at least one member of his entourage corroborates, can not be believed?
I believe the Congressman and I am totally unimpressed by the failure of the mikes to pick out the word when they couldn't pick out any other word either. They weren't adequate to the purpose and we don't even have enough knowledge of the circumstances to determine how likely or unlikely they would have been to pick out the word. I also have a major problem with the idea that the Congressman was "surrounded by mikes." That is clearly an overstatement that can't be maintained.
-
plane, you posted two in a row on this topic. I replied to the first, but was too tired to hold the reply till I read the second. Then when I read the second, it didn't say much that I disagreed with. I think we're both in agreement on the brain component of the ear-brain combination. So much so that I'll even concede the possibility of Lewis' ear-brain combination picking out "nigger" from the crowd noise where nobody ever said it. And the entourage guy too, especially if Lewis told him he heard it.
However, with all due respect to your electrical expertise, which has to be a hell of a lot more than mine, I don't think we have enough technical knowledge to assert whether or not the mikes around the Congressman would have been able to pick out and record "nigger" from the crowd noises better than Lewis' own ear-brain combination. Put another way, there might be some optimum operational state and configuration of the mikes that WOULD have "heard" better than the Congressman, or even equally well as him, but we don't actually know if that operational state and configuration was achieved at the time that Lewis claimed to have heard the N-word or not.
-
I don't think that this is of much importance, to start with.
I agree that some mikes can pick up sound more accurately than a human ear, but of course, unless the mike and the ear are in the same location, comparing them for a specific event is not going to work. Lewis may or not have heard something that was maybe said and maybe not.
The Teasies were hostile to him, in any event.
-
I read the Bio for John Lewis recently .
Forty five years ago he was repeatedly exposed to hostility that left him injured , he never quit.
He deserves the honor due such valor.
But on this occasion his ears were in the same environment as literally dozens of professional equipment recording devices.
No ones eyes are better witnesses than camera, no ones ears are better witness than microphone.
Nancy Pelosi and John Lewis and entourage had an alternative route than marching right through the crowd but in their judgement they were safe. They were right about the safety , they were wrong about the ease of applying calumny.
-
<< No ones eyes are better witnesses than camera>>
ridiculous. If that were true, you wouldn't know if you were looking at a portrait or a person.
<<no ones ears are better witness than microphone. >>
Perhaps, but if the ears were better positioned than the handful of mikes around them, they would hear a word that the mikes failed to pick out from the din of the howling mob.
<< Nancy Pelosi and John Lewis and entourage had an alternative route than marching right through the crowd but in their judgement they were safe.>>
Not safe against spittle and racist insults.
<< They were right about the safety , they were wrong about the ease of applying calumny.>>
Calumny is you and others calling a hero like John Lewis a liar, but I don't think they were wrong about it at all. In all of Lewis' civil rights struggles, he and his comrades must have been called liars and much worse, many times over, by all the racists inside and outside of the South. This would not be the first time he ever was called a liar, I am sure of that. I'm sure that even before he spoke about his ordeal, he must have known that there were plenty of racists and their sympathizers who would once more attempt to smear him as a liar. He wasn't born yesterday.
-
I'm not sure Lewis ever claimed he was called nigger at the health bill voting.
-
Lewis claimed he was called the N-word walking through a Tea Party crowd where microphones covering the event did not seem to pick up the insult over the din of a howling mob. At least one member of his entourage also claimed to have heard the same insult.
At an Occupy! site, Lewis was basically called irrelevant and told to go home by the demonstrators. This was fairly recently.
The above are the only two incidents to which plane and I (and XO) made reference. The recent event I don't think was in connection to a health bill voting, but the first event might have.
Unless there was a third event involving Lewis, the health bill vote would have been where Lewis was racially insulted.
-
Lewis claimed he was called the N-word walking through a Tea Party crowd where microphones covering the event did not seem to pick up the insult over the din of a howling mob. At least one member of his entourage also claimed to have heard the same insult.
From what i have read a colleague of Lewis mad the claim. I haven't found where Lewis either made the claim nor repeated it.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2010/mar/20/congressman-claims-health-care-bill-protesters-hur/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2010/mar/20/congressman-claims-health-care-bill-protesters-hur/)
-
How does one be better positioned than sensors that encircle one?
Why am I assuming that MT is right about Mr. Lewis's claims?
I actually just realised that I never did read of these accusations from any better than third hand.
-
<<So the reaction of the police is a measure of authenticity?>>
Well, that's one theory. The Tea Party is never maced or beaten and your bullshit explanation for this (it's because they don't litter) is just plain ludicrous. Would you like to try again or do you give up?
My theory is that nobody is ordering the violent dispersal of the Tea Party because they are the catspaw of the GOP, they represent no threat at all to the current Kleptocracy of thieving Wall Streeters, thieving bankers and thieving politicians of both parties and in fact are doing their best to preserve and strengthen the status quo.
The Occupy Wall Street! people are, of course, a wholly different breed, and they're gonna get the full treatment, starting with MSM blackout, escalating to MSM slanders, marginalization, trivialization and ridicule, escalating to police violence , escalating to deadly violence from police and/or National Guard and/or Northern Command military forces.
Media Embrace 'Noble' Extremists Occupying Wall Street, Ignore Radicalism 88% of the Time
Communists, anarchists and revolutionaries fight to destroy capitalism, while journalists praise the 'Zen-like' encampment.
By Julia A. Seymour Monday, October 10, 2011
Extremists in Guy Fawkes masks, Code Pinkers and "professional anarchists," have camped out in New York City to protest Wall Street, greed and the capitalist system. Through social media the first protest in New York's financial district has sparked copycat protests in more than a hundred cities.
In a video posted on The Blaze, organizer Nelini Stamp made it clear that what she wants is "to change the capitalist system that we have today because it's not working for any of us." Moments later she said the conversation needed to begin about how "to reform and bring, you know, sort of revolutionary change to the States." She also labeled the OWS events part of a "new age radical movement."
Yet that is not the sense you'd get from reading stories about the protest in national newspapers or watching ABC, CBS and NBC. In those stories, you'll barely hear the word "liberal" mentioned in connection with the protesters, much less the more appropriate "socialist" label. Out of 69 national news reports (newspaper and broadcast) about "Occupy Wall Street" or "wall street protests," only eight stories have used described the protesters or protests with words indicative of the left-wing extremism represented. That's only 12 percent of the time.
Protester complaints reported by The New York Times ranged from the absurd:
"I want to get rid of the combustion engine," (a man named John McKibben said,)
to the genuinely sad:
"[I am] extremely disappointed and angry that I have no future," 22-year-old student Sid Gurung told the Times.
But the socialist cry for "a more equal economy" and government handouts that seem to be the overwhelming theme of the protests which have been livestreamed online from "Global Revolution." Despite that, national newspapers and the three broadcast networks have ignored or downplayed the left-wing extremism of the protests by focusing instead on the camaraderie and "street-fair" like feeling of protests.
The Business & Media Institute analyzed coverage in The New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, USA Today and on ABC, CBS and NBC and found that out of 44 newspaper stories about the protests only eight used any of the following words to describe the protests or protesters: liberal, left-wing, radical, extreme, communist, socialist, anarchist, revolutionary or progressive.
The 25 network broadcast reports on the protests didn't use any of them, although one report did quote a protester who declared: "This is the beginning of the people's revolution." Two additional reports suggested that without a leader the "rage" of the protests might turn to "revolution." Opinion pieces and stories that mentioned the protests, but were focused on other topics were not included in the analysis.
Occupiers Angry about Debt, Foreclosures, Outsourcing and Income Inequality
The "Declaration of the Occupation of New York City" reveals how far left-wing the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) crowd really is, despite the media's praise of them as "noble" and well-intentioned. The Los Angeles Times actually claimed on Oct. 6 that "the leaderless organization" has "few specific demands." Clearly that newspaper hasn't been listening to the protesters.
The OWS's long list of complaints against corporations (some of which really don't make sense) included: "illegal foreclosures," bailouts and bonuses, "inequality and discrimination in the workplace," a "poisoned" food supply, the monopolization of farming, cruelty to animals, holding "students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right," outsourcing, "block alternate forms of energy," "block generic forms of medicine" and many others.
Yet there has been very little criticism of the protests among the national newspapers and three broadcast networks and plenty of lighthearted descriptions.
USA Today called it a "carnival atmosphere."
The Washington Post said it "had the feeling of a street fair."
The Los Angeles Times said on Sept. 30, the "settlement has gelled into an organized community that hums along almost Zen-like …" Nevermind that the protesters are illegally squatting in a private park, offending neighbors and local businesses with noise, trash and displays of exhibitionism.
Ginia Bellafante of The New York Times called the Occupy Wall Street effort "a noble but fractured and airy movement of rightly frustrated young people," on Sept. 25. While there are some legitimate frustrations being expressed by OWS protestors, they seek to blame banks and capitalism for everything, rather than the government for its involvement in the financial collapse. Many of them want the government to take from corporations and rich people and give them handouts.
The three broadcast networks have gushed over the left-wingers by calling it the "protest of this current era." Funny, the networks didn't think that about the conservative grassroots movement called the Tea Party. The news media ridiculed, obscenely nicknamed and attempted to discredit the Tea Party movement.
But the networks like this radical left-wing protest effort. On NBC October 5, correspondent Mara Schiavocampo gushed, "Three weeks in, and no signs of slowing. The 'Occupy Wall Street' protest growing in size and scope." Onscreen NBC declared: "Gaining Ground; 'Occupy Wall Street' Protests Spreading."
Signs of Extremism
If you're in doubt that OWS rallies are fueled by an entitlement mentality or that these protesters want the government to forcibly take from the rich (or worse), just listen to what some OWS protesters and their supporters say.
The We Are the 99 Percent website which shares individuals' stories includes complaints like "Knowledge should be free," "Teachers don't get the support and pay they deserve," "My high-speed internet and new car loan are likewise CRUSHING me …" and "I work for a Fortune 100 Company. My manager makes literally 10x more money than I do …"
One Occupy Chicago protester, complete in Guy Fawkes mask, held up a sign that warned: "Hungry People Don't Stay Hungry for long. They get Hope from fire and smoke as the weak grow strong."
Another sign at that protest read: "One day the poor will have nothing to eat but the rich."
Anti-capitalist and anti-bank signs abound at the protests including: "Capitalism is the Crisis," "Nazi Banks," "Tax the Billionaires" and "Capitalism Cannot be Reformed." Violent imagery like signs that depicted a tie turned into a noose could also be found. Other extremists signs like "End financial aid to Israel" and "America Failed As a Society Because of So Called Christians" also turn up in an image search for Occupy Wall Street protests.
Far left-wing billionaire George Soros and Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, have made statements supportive of the protests. Actress and comedian Roseanne Barr showed her support by appearing at the New York protest. In an interview with Russia Today about OWS and bankers, Barr said, "I am in favor of the return of the guillotine," for the "worst of the worst of the guilty." She said she believes in a "maximum wage of $100 million."
While that might sound extreme, Barr's views fit right in at the protests. Some of the people protesting (or supporting the protests) actually want the violent destruction or overthrow of the capitalism system, like the Bolshevik revolution.
The loose-knit anarchist hacker group Anonymous joined the Occupy Wall Street movement in August, long before people showed up to occupy a park in New York City on Sept. 17. In an Oct. 1 video from AnonGuyNYC the creepy voice coming from behind a Guy Fawkes costume declared that "bankers are the problem." He called international bankers the "scum of the earth" and argued they have to be "brought to account." One of several possibilities he mentioned was "a real run on Wall Street where the public goes into their offices and dispenses frontier justice on their person."
With such an unorganized group of nameless individuals it is impossible to know if AnonGuyNYC is really part of Anonymous or simply adopting its theatrics to make a point. Certainly, Anonymous has plans to deal with Wall Street. ABC News.com (and other news organizations) reported the threat from Anonymous to "erase" the New York Stock Exchange from the Internet on Oct. 10.
So much for the notion of some "MSM Blackout" and their supposed "slanders" of the OWS goons (http://www.mrc.org/bmi/articles/2011/Media_Embrace_Noble_Extremists_Occupying_Wall_Street_Ignore_Radicalism__of_the_Time.html)
-
HELP! I can't reply to sirs' last post. Every time I try, I get a full screen saying "You do not have access to php server number....." and more stuff about errors. Jeeeziz. I put a lot of time into that reply too.
-
As an experiment, I just tried to respond to sirs' post one paragraph at a time. Don't want him to think I'm ignoring him.
SHIT!!!!! I tried and got this message: VERBOTEN! (Actually, Forbidden) You don't have permission to access /new3dhs/index.php on this server.
Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
Fuck it, I'll just wait a day.
-
Don't worry Tee. I'm quite accustom, as Kramer had referenced before, how facts to a liberal, is like kryptonite to Superman. I'm sure you'll manage your rationalization mojo, soon enough. Likely, it'll be a full scale attack on the messenger, while ignoring the factual message presented, and combine that with irreverent, albeit copious articulate commentary, on what the definition of is, really is
-
Well, the attack on the messenger was for stupidity, not for being corrupt. The reply basically analyzed your own post, or rather the article that you quoted, because it supports in every way what I was saying. The basic idea is that the MSM attack on the OWS is not aimed at people like you, who already hate the demonstrators, but at the 18-to-35 demographic most likely to support them. Thus they don't tend to use words like "radical, revolutionary," etc. as an attack, because the demographic is not as turned off by those words as you are. The attack is based more on ideas like "scatter-brained, naive, unfocused, addled, aimless" and in another subset, "dirty, smelly, messy, littering." Your article actually backs me up in a lot of ways. Calling the demonstrators "noble," for example, is NOT an endorsement, it's a way of patronizing them and belittling them at the same time, because the "noble" is always followed by a "but" and then the REAL defamation follows: "noble but misguided, ill-informed, chaotic," etc. The "noble" is only meant to show the benevolent attitude of the writer and his or her supposed reluctance to trash these poor befuddled folk.
-
Actually it supports, what you were saying, in the polar opposite direction
NO, the MSM hasn't been slandering the OWS protests
NO, the MSM hass't been blacking out their marching
Compared to how they treated the Tea Party Movement, it's been a well intentioned, even "noble" cause
The reason YOU OPINE of blackouts and slander, is that it's not biased enough. You want them to literally be a propoganda machine, to ENDORSE their actions, which ironically, they already are close to being, at this point in history. They're giving them great coverage with a great spin, but its not great enough in your eyes, so it must be because they're run by Corprate America, Republicans.......and....oh yea, the Jews
But the facts remain, and those facts debunk the notion of some form of ongoing blackout or slander by the MSM
-
<< . . . as Kramer had referenced before, how facts to a liberal, is like kryptonite to Superman. >>
Very clever, sirs, but I'm sure you noticed how, the last time Kramer pulled that shit on me, I immediately challenged him to point out one instance in our (Kramer's and my) debates where he did NOT turn away from the debate after I had rebutted his "facts" with facts or arguments of my own. Kramer still has not answered that challenge.
The debates have a kind of erratic trail to the: Kramer makes some ridiculous accusation or allegation, I rebut with facts or arguments, and then Kramer, unable to answer the rebuttal, jumps to newer and even crazier allegations, which I rebut and he tries to defend, until he reaches an argument or a fact of mine that he can't rebut, at which point he jumps again to an even newer and crazier allegation.
"Facts are Kryptonite to liberals" is a mantra which you and your fellow conservatives love to chant but it's really ridiculous. Your "facts" are mostly shit, and when they're exposed as such, you just return to the mantra. I'd suggest respectfully, give up the mantra, and try to defend all your arguments with facts and logic. The mantra can't save your ass from anyone who is following the course of the debate, it can only make you feel better every time I have you stumped for an answer.
-
Not ridiculous, when its so consistently demonstrated to be accurate......this thread being a good example....that being your opinion of some MSM blackout, when not slandering the OWS protesters, debunked by facts.....Ergo, factual kryptonite to your supposed superman knowledge of what is, is
Thank you for playing
-
Your own article proves that the MSM does in fact slander the OWS - - it doesn't slander them by calling them all the names the writer says they are - - radicals, communists, revolutionaries, extremists, etc. It slanders them in a different way, by saying that they are addled, confused, ineffective, chaotic, leaderless, etc. The article you posted proves that - - just read it. Their biggest tool in the slander is to post a list of the demonstrators' grievances and demands; in the example that you yourself produced, all kinds of silly demands were reproduced, but the key demands and grievances were left out, the ones you hear most often from the demonstrators all the time, were not in the "list" - - things like Wall Street and the corporations crashed the economy, looted the Treasury, bought the politicians who allowed them to do so, promote wars. You yourself quoted directly a perfect example of the lies and distortions by which the MSM . You obviously don't know what you're reading and the stupid bitch who wrote it doesn't even realize what she was writing.
The Tea Party might have been trashed by the press, but I don't think so. In the beginning they had a lot of racist and fascist signs that showed up on the internet, then the signs disappeared. There were some racist and violent incidents, then they cleaned up their act. The MSM reacted late to the racism and fascism, but they were embarrassed into covering that angle of the story by the prevalence of coverage it had already gotten on the internet.
The MSM has only used the word "noble" when followed by the word "but" - - noble but confused, noble but naive and chaotic, etc. "Noble" is a put-down - - it lets the writer look benevolently inclined and unprejudiced towards the OWS, and then immediately launches into all the usual MSM criticisms of the movement.
I was in NYC when the Occupation went down and believe me, there was an almost total blackout, right up to Sept. 30. I read the NY Post daily, as well as the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal every few days, and most of the time the stories were buried deep in the inside pages. All of them were the same - - a couple of hundred youths instead of the thousands expected had shown up to "occupy" Wall Street from Zucotti Park. They had dozens of inarticulate demands of every nature imaginable, but mostly against Wall Street, the banks and Big Business aka corporate America. I didn't watch any TV. I had absolutely no idea what was going on there. Late one afternoon, I had to take the ferry from the foot of Wall Street to the Brooklyn IKEA store. I came out of the Wall Street subway station and saw cops all over the place, moving around big steel barricades and talking to a few kids. I was absolutely amazed, reading a newspaper every day and had no fucking idea that this had been going on in the city. On the Saturday, October 1, when the cops arrested 700 people on the Brooklyn Bridge, a lot of people were shocked at the number of arrests - - the media had made it look like only a couple of hundred, total, were involved.
-
No, it does no such thing. You see, that's your rationalizion of trying to redifine what is, is. NOBLE and WELL INTENTIONED are NOT SLANDEROUS. Rarely, was the term ever applied to a Tea Party protest.
What would be is if articles and reports on them included the more accurate words of radical, progressive, socialist, anarchist. They don't, in fact, apparently only around 12% of reports include any of those words. And compared to how the MSM represented the Tea party movement, its a slam dunk demonstration with kryptonic FACTS, quite the polar opposite of your debunked superman allegation of what is, is
-
Noble and well-intentioned are synonymous with naive and utopian.
-
Yea, right, because history books were in the business of portraying medieval knights and heroes as naive ::)
Someone want to pass on a link to the Liberal dictionary, so I can keep up with these redefinition efforts. I'm sure its next to the reference of Wrangle where the Republicans don't say "S...." or "N....." any more, they just say "let's cut taxes"
-
This thread is a good example of you posting an article that actually supports what I have said on the MSM attempts to destroy the Occupy! movement.
The "blackout" - - i.e., the initial coverage of the occupation in the early days - - is not really discussed in the only meaningful way that a blackout can be discussed, i.e. in the amount of press coverage (which can be measured in column inches) given to the early days of the rally, as opposed to how much coverage even the smallest Tea Party protest used to garner.
The "slander" - -
First of all, the article admits that 8 out of 44 sources studied DID describe the movement as leftist, extremist, revolutionary, communist, etc. I am sure that those 8 considered that these words were defamatory and would hurt the movement by turning folks away from it. But there for sure you have a segment of the MSM engaged in outright trashing of the movement.
For the rest of the MSM studied in your article, the overall effect was to portray the movement, with or without the "noble, but" in front, as misguided, confused, addled, silly, chaotic, naive, etc. One of the sources in that same article purported to provide a "list" of demands and grievances, all of which were, or could easily be considered to be, trivial and silly. Left off the list were key complaints or grievances, noted at virtually every rally every day, such as looting the Treasury, crashing the economy, buying the polticians, causing wars, etc. By presenting a "list of demands" made exclusively of the silliest and least resonating, and leaving out the main demands fuelling the protest, a conscious effort was made to defame the movement as silly and frivolous.
The very article you posted proves everything I said about the MSM's approach to the Occupy Wall Street! movement and you STILL don't get it? Gimme a break! And stop pretending that "Noble but . . ." isn't a put-down. You're establishing nothing but your own ignorance by maintaining that.
-
and Tee's redifinition of is, is is. No matter the irrationalization efforts and claims that it does, what amouts to just the opposite of your claim, FACTS are FACTS
NO, they are not slandering
NO, they are not producing a blackout
YES, they ARE providing far more favorable coverage than the Tea party could have ever wished to have garnered. Your problem is the lack of propoganda endorsing of their actions, which one could argue that their coverage is providing that
so
YES, the very article I posted, provides precisely that, your redefining efforts not withstanding.
-
I think maybe the problem between us might lie in the word "slander" so I'll take it out of the equation. It was a bad choice of words.
The MSM's current treatment of the Occupy! movement is to portray it in an unfavourable light. I used the word "slander," a bad choice because it might imply that an accusation was untrue and then we just get embroiled in disputes about the truth or falsity of each allegation.
So I should have said that the MSM has a current policy of portraying the movement in an unfavourable light.
Would sirs disagree with that as well?
Would sirs disagree with my contention that the article he posted shows a consistent trend in the MSM to portray the movement in an unfavourable light?
-
Mikey,
The article Sirs posted came from the Media Research Center which is a conservative publication whose sole mission in life is to point out a liberal bias in the media. I'm pretty sure Sirs has adopted that same mission.
-
I know that, BT. I'm just trying to see if I can back sirs into a corner where he has no choice but to admit that the article, whatever its intentions, actually backs up exactly what I've been saying. Probably because of the unwitting stupidity of whoever wrote it.
-
Can't back facts into a corner, I'm afraid to say, superman, which I'm alao afraid to tell you, backs up exactly what I'm saying while debunking the bogus notion of the MSM painting the OWS gang as anything other than righteous
Once again, your problem is they don't go far enough, they don't openly endorse the OWS "cause". Much like Obama isn't socialist enough, despite his best efforts, and an electorate that was unwilling to lurch that far left. Since they don't go that extra mile, you have to paint them as not even trying, if not opposing...again, despite overwhelming Kryptonic FACTS to the contrary
-
All a very interesting description of what I'm really thinking and what my real motives are, sirs, and I thank you for it, to be sure, but would you mind answering the very simple question that I just put to you?
Would you or would you not agree with my contention that the policy of the MSM towards the Occupy! movement since they first began to report on it has been to portray it in an unfavourable light?
-
Based on current FACTS (meaning not a predisposition of what is, is, and then rationalizing anything and everything to fit that template), not at all
You see, it has nothing to do with "reading minds". You are the master of the template. And you should consider that an honor. You conclude X, and from that point on, everything demonstrates X. Red is not blue, unless you say it is. If you turn it, and twist it, and distort it, and squint really hard, whalaa, red is blue.
Which is how you can take facts that demonstrably refute your allegation, tweak the terms, redefine as necessary, add copious amounts of rationalization, and whalaa, facts that actually refute your allegation, somehow support them now.
It's quite an impressive feat. The only assumption on my part is that the MSM doesn't go far enough in their propoganda efforts for you. It's the only rational conclusion I can make with your red is blue efforts
-
SIRS....there are more people all over the country today lined up to get
the new iPhones that dwarf the collection of useful idiots protesters being directed
by Leftwing frauds at "Adbusters Media Foundation" in Canada. People are buying
in droves what corporations are selling, not what those losers are attempting to sell!
The iPhone 4S release:
(http://www.rushimg.com/cimages//media/multimedia/iphone4slines/891053-1-eng-GB/Iphone4sLines.jpg)
-
Wow........greedy rich Americans, how dare they ;)
-
Well, we are progressing. sirs does not admit << that the policy of the MSM towards the Occupy! movement since they first began to report on it has been to portray it in an unfavourable light.>>
So, let's go back to the article that sirs himself posted here. Let's see if sirs' own posted article shows a policy by the MSM towards the Occupy! movement to portray it in an unfavourable light. One paragraph, one allegation at a time.
from the article:
<<G. Bellafante of the NYT . . . "A noble but fractured and airy movement of rightly frustrated young people">>
Q1: "noble but fractured and airy" - - is this favourable or unfavourable to the movement?
from the article
<<The three broadcast networks called it "The protest of the current era.">>
Q2: Is "The Protest of the Current Era" favourable or unfavourable to the movement?
from the article
<<The LA Times actually claimed on Oct. 6 that the "leaderless organization" has "few specific demands."
Q3: leaderless organization: favourable or unfavourable?
Q4: few specific demands: favourable or unfavourable?
from the article
NYT reports on a protester who wants to do away with the internal combustion engine
Q4: a demand to do away with the internal combustion engine: favourable or unfavourable to the movement?
In at least four instances of MSM coverage deemed to favour the protest movement, the reports cited are actually trashing the movement by portraying it as aimless, not knowing what to ask for, crazy (abolish the internal combustion engine) and "airy" i.e. scatterbrained, impractical, unrealistic.
Remember this is from a bunch of idiots who think they are exposing mainstream SUPPORT of the movement.
-
Your redefinitions, selected terms, and rationalizations not withstanding, the article in question continues to rebutt precisely your original allegation of widespread MSM slander and blackout. But by golly Superman, cudos with sticking with the template
Q1, yes, as they justify the movement as rightly frustrated
Q2, yes
Q3, yes, as in the Tea party is a movement with no leader either
Q4, yes, you yourself have indicated that the demands are few and focused
Q4 (again) yes, to those who support the notion
If you wish, I can demonstrate far more reports that echo the rebutt as well. But alas, I think we can all safely assume how you'd demonstrate how red is blue
-
The Mian Street Media is itself leaderless and addled , but they move as a heard.
With no evidence of racism the MSM attacked the TEA party as a racist movement .
With no evidence of aims they portray the OWS as aimless.
-
To the demonstrators concerned about joblessness (a real unemplyoyment rate of about 20%,) six million home foreclosures, the looting of the U.S. treasury, non-stop corporate and Wall Street fraud and endless war:
Don't worry, be happy! Buy an i-phone 4S and all will be well
<<there are more people all over the country today lined up to get
the new iPhones that dwarf the collection of useful idiots protesters being directed
by Leftwing frauds at "Adbusters Media Foundation" in Canada. People are buying
in droves what corporations are selling, not what those losers are attempting to sell!>>
Consumerism at its finest! One bold conservative's ringing endorsement of John Maynard Keynes and his supply-side economics.
Corporate America's toys are rapidly polluting the earth and killing the exploited workers that make them in places like Taiwan and China. Problems that never seem to concern the mindless boosters of these shiny but socially worthless products.
http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2011/09/01/apple-takes-hit-pollution-its-supply-chain (http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2011/09/01/apple-takes-hit-pollution-its-supply-chain)
It's a $200 item with a lot of the purchase price probably financed by the re-sale of an older i-phone in the used consumer electronics market, since Apple products traditionally maintain high re-sale value; all easily within the reach of the top 1% or 2% of the population, conferring no real benefit on anyone, while tens of millions are still lacking jobs, adequate health-care and housing.
A better example of misplaced societal priorities would be hard to find. Kinda reminds me of drinking champagne on the Titanic.
-
. Kinda reminds me of drinking champagne on the Titanic.
"The Titanic" are the shithole places that don't embrace free enterprise, thriving privately owned business, & democracy.
The failed policies of Marx wil never be able to stay up
Some people change the world...some people bitch and moan and fall further behind
Watch the video below showing how innovation fuels changing peoples lives....
Sorry Commies....it aint happin in your obviously disaster results...(see Human Development Index)
Apple iPhone 4S official product video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHoQL9K2dJM#ws)
-
Yeah the Titanic was a Marxist ocean liner, piloted by Marxists.
Mike is right about the over hyped Iphone.
Originally, you had to get a connection to these things from ATT, the most expensive and unreliable network in the country. All my friends that have these effing things call and their calls get dropped, over and over. Plus you get to pay $400 for the stupid gadget and $100 a month for the awful service. T-Mobile costs $40 a month. But they do not have iPhone.
Big Whoop!
And yet, the suckers keep coming back for more and more.
They could put an iPhone 5 sticker on the iPhone 4 and sell millions more.
Jobs was a marketing genius: he understood suckers better than anyone.
-
<<Watch the video below showing how innovation fuels changing peoples lives....>>
CU4, first I gotta admit, I am probably going to buy a 4S in the next few months, but not if I gotta go on ATT to use it. I think Sprint and another carrier have been signed up this time along with ATT.
That said, I have to tell you I laughed all the way through the video. Don't you get that iPhones are just little toys? They don't change anyone's lives. They just add to the self-indulgence of the most over-indulged class of worthless drones that any society has ever seen.
The schmuck who juggles his appointments while driving (driving???) or jogging, for example; with a pencil, a pocket Day-Timer and little better planning and scheduling, he can make and change appointments without an iPhone. How do you think appointments were made and changed before? How many times in a week or a month does something have to be rescheduled anyway? I was a very busy professional in a very busy office with deadlines everywhere, yet never had to do what is effectively secretarial work in my private recreational time because I honoured my commitments to meetings and did not make appointments that I wouldn't be likely to keep. "Remind me about buying a gift for . . ." Mindless schmuck can't remember by himself? can't just note the fucking thing in a Day-Timer when he thinks of it? Why not? Is he fucking illiterate?
To talk of shit like this changing lives is obscene. Lives are changed when the homeless get a home, when the foreclosure is called off and the bank is told to take a haircut, when the sick and dying poor get the medical care they deserve, when the jobs (including the ones outsourced to Taiwan, Japan, China etc. to make iPhones) are brought back home to the jobless - - THAT is how "lives are changed."
You spout a lot of BS about "Marxist shit-holes," but it's just parroting the corporate state's crypto-fascist propaganda that you don't bother to think through. You point to "human development indexes" that basically prove how heavily socialist Scandinavian nations do better than heavily capitalist nations like the USA and don't seem to realize how they just prove that capitalism is a failure. Most of all you twist and turn every way you can to avoid having to recognize the fact that the Marxist-Leninist People's Republic of China has the fastest-growing economy in the world, while your own is headed down the shitter.
-
Don't you get that iPhones are just little toys? They don't change anyone's lives. They just add to the self-indulgence of the most over-indulged class of worthless drones that any society has ever seen.
==================================================
Toys for easily amused simpletons. Precisely
-
<<Your redefinitions, selected terms, and rationalizations not withstanding, the article in question continues to rebutt precisely your original allegation of widespread MSM slander and blackout.>>
Let's just back this up to where the discussion went off the tracks in the first place. The issue was how the MSM was going to trash the Occupy! movement, and I suggested, as in fact happened, that they'd start with an initial black-out, followed by something I called "slander."
"Slander" was an admittedly poor choice of words on my part, because it could include spreading malicious falsehoods, which wouldn't be necessary as long as other methods like selective editing were available. This doesn't mean that the MSM wouldn't use slander, only that if they did, it would not have to be the only arrow in their quiver.
However, I could see where the discussion could easily get bogged down in endless, pointless discussions as to whether a particular MSM article or newscast was or was not slanderous, when the real issue was my contention that the MSM would try to trash the Occupy! movement, not the particular method that they would employ in doing so.
So, I apologized for my poor choice of words (or if I didn't already apologize for it, I do now,) withdrew the word "slander" from the discussion, and phrased it instead as "portraying the movement in an unfavourable light," something which might or might not include slander but was certainly not limited to slander.
sirs then graciously (or more accurately with his usual griping and grousing) consented to continue the debate over the issue as re-phrased, whether the MSM was portraying the movement in an unfavourable or favourable light.
So all sirs' bitching about my "redefinitions, selected terms and rationalizations" apparently relates to my withdrawal of the term "slander" and replacing it with "to portray in an unfavourable light," which includes slander but not necessarily. All that bitching about such a relatively insignificant matter. But nevertheless, I felt that the record might as well be set straight here and now.
<<But by golly Superman, cudos with sticking with the template>>
Thanks, sirs, and kudos to you for sticking with yours. Nothing like two stubborn bastards locking horns. And now finally, let's see what you've admitted or not - - does the article which you yourself posted really show that the MSM is portraying the movement favourably, or does the article (albeit unintentionally) show that in fact the MSM has been portraying the movement unfavourably?
Q1: so you think that describing the movement as "noble but fractured and airy" is a favourable portrayal of a movement? That is absolutely ridiculous. The movement was just "damned with faint praise." What on earth is favourable about a movement that is "fractured and airy?" Simply that it's "noble?" But there must be plenty of noble movements that are NOT "fractured and airy." This is really a condemnation of the movement hiding behind the meaningless word "noble." Because of what use is the nobility if the whole thing is "fractured and airy?"
Q2: "The protest of the current era" is also favourable treatment? Again, ridiculous. By the same logic, "flavour of the month" applied to an opinion would also be "favourable." That's bullshit. What it means really is that in every era, a protest arises, and these guys are flocking to this one because it's the only game in town, it's "in," it's "trendy," and not because of any intrinsic merit in the cause itself.
Q3: So you think "leaderless" is favourable treatment? OK, I actually reconsidered that one, and I think it's neutral. First of all because the movement in fact is leaderless, secondly because the absence of a leader could indicate that the movement is spontaneously arising out of genuine and wide-spread outrage.
Q4: So you think that "few specific demands" are favourable? Again, that's ridiculous. It indicates that all these people come together to make a lot of noise and create a spectacle but when asked what do they want changed, have few specific demands. In other words, they are not really serious.
I indicated that the demands were few and focused in contrast to the general attempts in some MSM reports to portray the demands as manifold and spread all over the map, which would have indicated a random collection of screwballs rather than people attracted by a set of common grievances.
Q4: (again) You indicated that a demand to abolish the internal combustion engine would portray the movement in a favourable light, "to those who support the notion." What a ridiculous caveat. A demand that all parents should be killed and eaten would portray the movement in a favourable light "to those who support the notion" as well, but the issue isn't whether the MSM was portraying the movement in a favourable light to those who supported any one reported aspect of it or not, but to the general public.
<<If you wish, I can demonstrate far more reports that echo the rebutt as well.>>
Thanks, but I'm sticking to the one report that you yourself posted, apparently in support of the proposition that the MSM tries to portray the movement in a favourable light. And yet we see how even THAT article inadvertently reveals how the MSM in fact tries to portray the movement in an unfavourable light.
<<But alas, I think we can all safely assume how you'd demonstrate how red is blue>>
Well, of course, that's your POV, and I thank you for it, but I think any reasonable person reading what I write would have to admit that I try to show that what's red is red and what's blue is blue, and that you are the person trying to prove that red is blue, or in this case, that unfavourable is favourable. But I don't think we're going to agree on that either, so let's leave it at an agreement to disagree.
-
plane sez: <<With no evidence of racism the MSM attacked the Tea Party as a racist movement.>>
Yeah, that's almost correct, plane. With no evidence of racism except maybe for some of these Tea Party signs:
http://tinyurl.com/3vwzbbd (http://tinyurl.com/3vwzbbd)
For some reason, not all of these signs are racist but you can find plenty which are.
-
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2010/04/racist-leftist-infiltrators-driven-from-tea-party-rallies-video/ (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2010/04/racist-leftist-infiltrators-driven-from-tea-party-rallies-video/)
-
I already said, here or in another thread, that the racist signs disappeared after the MSM had commented on them. The Tea Party cleaned up its act for the cameras. BFD.
If you want to go on believing that all of those signs were due to infiltrators, go right ahead. If they were infiltrators, how could the Tea Party stop them? It was only by appealing to their own members, making them see that the racist signs were counter-productive, that the signs stopped appearing. Real fast, too. Everyone could see this was in the best interests of the Tea Party itself.
-
Maybe the FBI infiltrators got the word out.
-
The Tea Party might have FBI advisors, but not FBI infiltrators. They're both on the same team, remember? Koch Brothers!!!!
-
Koch Brothers have little to do with the Tea Party.
-
If the Koch Brothers were to disappear from the face of the earth tomorrow, the Tea Party and the FBI would still be on the same team.
-
If the Koch Brothers were to disappear from the face of the earth tomorrow, the Tea Party and the FBI would still be on the same team.
Doubtful. Small government folks don't need no federales.
\
-
They're a special breed of small government folks. They're small government on a kind of selective basis - - small when it comes to regulating big business or Wall Street or helping the poor and the sick, big when it comes to dominating the world with an ever more powerful military.
They're the kind of "small government" folk that the military-industrial complex and Wall Street love. People who keep wavin' that flag (Confederate sometimes, but never mind that for now) and who "support the troops." Believe me, nobody in the 1% is losing any sleep over these "small government" folks. Least of all the FBI.
-
They're a special breed of small government folks. They're small government on a kind of selective basis - - small when it comes to regulating big business or Wall Street or helping the poor and the sick, big when it comes to dominating the world with an ever more powerful military.
They're the kind of "small government" folk that the military-industrial complex and Wall Street love. People who keep wavin' that flag (Confederate sometimes, but never mind that for now) and who "support the troops." Believe me, nobody in the 1% is losing any sleep over these "small government" folks. Least of all the FBI.
This post just goes to show how little you understand about the tea party. Many are downright isolationist.
-
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_8yBmwXW4XEM/THBBu0_nd6I/AAAAAAAAJ-Y/pS8c7QQ5O3Q/s1600/RACIST+SIGNS,+OBAMACARTOON.jpg)
-
<<This post just goes to show how little you understand about the tea party. Many are downright isolationist. >>
I understand them perfectly. Some are isolationist but they never were a majority and their influence in the movement is being steadily reduced. As a matter of fact, Occupy! speakers have mentioned the possibility of reaching out to TP rank-and-file, one of the bridge issues being anti-war or military downsizing.
-
Nazis and Communists Throw Their Support Behind Occupy Wall Street Movements
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/10/figures-nazi-party-throws-support-behind-occupy-wall-street-movement/ (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/10/figures-nazi-party-throws-support-behind-occupy-wall-street-movement/)
-
Anti-Semitic Protester at Occupy Wall Street - LA
Anti-Semitic Protester at Occupy Wall Street - LA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMjm4LxFa1c#ws)
-
Nazis and Communists Throw Their Support Behind Occupy Wall Street Movements
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/10/figures-nazi-party-throws-support-behind-occupy-wall-street-movement/ (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/10/figures-nazi-party-throws-support-behind-occupy-wall-street-movement/)
Oh Man.
Everyone wants on.
-
Meanwhile Sean Penn Calls Tea Party the ‘Get the N-Word Out of the White House Party’ Which Wants to ‘Lynch’ Obama” while Herman Cain is the leading beneficiary of the anyone but Romney crowd.
go figure
-
Really, BT, who did you expect the Communists would throw their support to? The banks? Wall Street. The YCL had to be in on this almost from the start, as soon as local organizers began building around the ideas emanating from Adbusters in Vancouver.
The Nazis were already on the fringe of this thing - - Kramer already posted a video of some guy in the Wall Street Occ yelling that the Jews own Wall Street. (Actively denounced by every other demonstrator in sight, I might add.) Any protest that attacks banks, speculators, Wall Street, etc. will naturally attract Nazis and other anti-Semites, simply because the protest is aimed at a system, and Nazi ideology preaches that the Jews are behind the system. The problem with the Nazis is, they just want the Jews out of the system and the Aryans in, so the system remains intact, only with Aryan bloodsuckers replacing Jewish bloodsuckers. Of course, in real life (as opposed to Nazi theory) the system already had plenty of room for everybody, Jews, Aryans, Turks, Chinese, etc., so the bloodsuckers are already multi-racial and include plenty of Aryans. The demonstrators will have a problem marginalizing the Nazis and keeping them out of the limelight, but I think (from Kramer's video) they're already doing a pretty good job of it - - they just shout down the guy's message and make it clear that the Nazis aren't a part of the movement.
-
<< . . .while Herman Cain is the leading beneficiary of the anyone but Romney crowd.
<<go figure>>
Go figure? It's a no-brainer.
If the white racist Tea Party needs to run an Uncle Tom to beat Obama by peeling off his last firm support, the black vote, then Herman's their uncle.
-
<< . . .while Herman Cain is the leading beneficiary of the anyone but Romney crowd.
<<go figure>>
Go figure? It's a no-brainer.
If the white racist Tea Party needs to run an Uncle Tom to beat Obama by peeling off his last firm support, the black vote, then Herman's their uncle.
It worked so well for the Democrats , in exactly these terms.
So you are trying out a little racism now?
-
It worked well for the Democrats? What are you talking about? When were the Democrats trying to beat a black incumbent? When did the Democrats need to peel black votes off a GOP rival? I just don't get it. You'll have to explain this to me, if you don't mind.
And no, I'd never try racism. I leave that to the Tea Party, to the GOP and to its Southern Strategy. They can keep it and they can go to Hell with it.
-
It worked well for the Democrats? What are you talking about? When were the Democrats trying to beat a black incumbent? When did the Democrats need to peel black votes off a GOP rival? I just don't get it. You'll have to explain this to me, if you don't mind.
And no, I'd never try racism. I leave that to the Tea Party, to the GOP and to its Southern Strategy. They can keep it and they can go to Hell with it.
You just did. Referring to a black man as an uncle tom is presumptive of a certain standard of behavior and belief based simply on skin color and any deviation from a prescribed norm is worthy of derision.
-
If you don't like Herman Cain , it is more than just likely that it is your racism at the core of your dislike and all the rest is after the fact excuses.
Matter of fact you seem to be a very hard case , you don't really like any of the black canadates , this is the main thing that Obama and Cain have in common and you like neither of them? Next step is wearing a sheet in the parade.
(THAT is what worked so well for the Democrats)
-
CU4, first I gotta admit.....that said, I have to tell you I laughed all the way through the video.
Don't you get that iPhones are just little toys?
They don't change anyone's lives.
To talk of shit like this changing lives is obscene.
Michael.....you really seem a bit out of touch.
You've got to be kidding?
The iphone and other wireless devices are much more that mere "toys".
The iphone and handheld devices all conceived in free capitalist countries are indeed
changing people's lives.
Michael at my company customers, management, employees can all track shipments,
track the status of process servings, bill orders, recieve orders,
put in "proof of deliveries" all over their i-phones or other wireless devices.
Our process servers send clients pictures of houses or vehicles in driveways of people
they are most likely dodging service or to give a client a "better clear picture". Sometimes
they can show a judge pictures that allows a Judge a better picture before the Judge
issues a "106".
I have a friend that works for the Fire Department and he says often
at the scene of fires, accidents, and while treating emergency patients
they can send info/pictures to allow doctors or the central Fire Station
vital info to help them make a better informed critical decision.
Anyone that has a car accident these days takes pictures with their phones
of the accident scene to support their version of the accident.
Anyone lost or needing directions can Google map any location.
People can watch incoming weather conditions and avoid
danger from their phones when a television or radio is
not handy.
People can access important email from almost anywhere
and get emergency news via email, text, or voice on their
wireless devices.
Plumbers, electricians, real estate agents, workers
in all industries can send pictures of high importance
in lightening speed back to their home office that
can lead to a better informed decision that has to
be made.
There are tons of applications like
"Close Call" that has a person or kids
emergency medical info that can help
emergency responders know for example
in seconds "this kid is having a peanut allergy
emergency breathing situation".
"Silent Bodyguard" iphone app is a silent alarm
that alerts your emergency contacts of your location
without alerting an onlooker or an attacker.
The SOS distress signal is sent along with GPS coordinate
to help potential rescuers find you if you're lost, hurt or kidnapped.
iDistress for iPhone Makes Getting Help More Efficient
Sudden heart attack
Old-fashioned robbery
A psycho shooter
A terrible car accident
An unexpected injury while in the outdoors
A child away at college who is in a dangerous situation
Imagine a loved one in any of these scenarios. How can these victims increase their chances of receiving assistance more quickly? "There's an app for that." Dubbed "The app we hope you never have to use" iDistress provides users with comfort that if something terrible should occur, they have a chance of notifying authorities and three loved ones with a slide of a button.
iDistress features
-Sends an SMS (text message) and email to three loved-ones along with the user's location for added response time.
-Dials a pre-selected number avoiding the need to find the contact in the address book.
-If no number is selected, the country's emergency number will become the default number, eliminating the need to know each country's emergency number.
-Great subtle backup alarm for transit workers, police officers, and bank managers among other professions.
-Highly recommended for travelers, wilderness lovers, the physically challenged, users with health issues, college students, and anybody looking for added peace-of-mind with their loved ones.
iDistress is available on the Apple iTunes store and for $2.99.
The list of applications that are changing people's lives could go on forever.....it really could.
Lives are changed when the homeless get a home,
when the sick and dying poor get the medical care they deserve,
THAT is how "lives are changed."
Michael of all the things you list nothing has led to more life changing medical breakthroughs,
people without homes getting a home, and the betterment of people's standards of living
more than free enterprise, democracy, and capitalism.
-
<<Referring to a black man as an uncle tom is presumptive of a certain standard of behavior and belief based simple on skin color and any deviation from a prescribed norm is worthy of derision.>>
I don't expect a black man to advance his own position in life by siding with Whitey against his own people any more than I expect a Jew to aid anti-Semites or Nazis. It's just plain despicable. It has to be called out and calling it out is not racism. Not according to how I define racism, and I don't accept your definition of racism. It's ridiculous.
-
<<Referring to a black man as an uncle tom is presumptive of a certain standard of behavior and belief based simple on skin color and any deviation from a prescribed norm is worthy of derision.>>
I don't expect a black man to advance his own position in life by siding with Whitey against his own people any more than I expect a Jew to aid anti-Semites or Nazis. It's just plain despicable. It has to be called out and calling it out is not racism. Not according to how I define racism, and I don't accept your definition of racism. It's ridiculous.
It is racism!
A belief that each race has a duty to its own race is the very definition of racism.
How could you define racism better?
-
<<Referring to a black man as an uncle tom is presumptive of a certain standard of behavior and belief based simple on skin color and any deviation from a prescribed norm is worthy of derision.>>
I don't expect a black man to advance his own position in life by siding with Whitey against his own people any more than I expect a Jew to aid anti-Semites or Nazis. It's just plain despicable. It has to be called out and calling it out is not racism. Not according to how I define racism, and I don't accept your definition of racism. It's ridiculous.
It's not your call to judge the behavior of a black man based simply on some stereotype of how that black man should act. A white man calling a black man uncle tom is as racist as calling him a nigger.
-
<<A belief that each race has a duty to its own race is the very definition of racism.>>
I think you are very confused, and in your confusion, you have failed to analyze the situation properly. Everybody has a duty to defend every race against racism and racial attacks. This is why I defend the blacks against racists in and out of the Tea Party and this is why Herman Cain ought to be defending the blacks against racists and racism instead of endearing himself to the Tea Party. NOT because Herman Cain is a black man and therefore obligated to defend blacks only against racism; he should defend EVERY race against racism because he is a human being. Period.
Now the racists who are attacking the blacks of America, albeit through code words, and however underhandedly they now must proceed, may in a larger sense be traitors to the human race because they've abandoned their larger humanitarian obligations to peoples of all colours and all races, but they are not strictly speaking traitors to the race under attack because they are not members of that race. Herman Cain, in helping Whitey in his racist attacks on blacks, is not only a despicable human being, as is ANY racist, but he is ALSO a traitor to his own race. He's attacking his own people! So he's doubly despicable - - as a human being of ANY colour who facilitates racism against others and also as a black man who sells out other blacks for his own advancement. Thus justifying the name Uncle Tom. Nothing racist about using the term where it fits - - it is fighting racism, and the WORST kind of racism, the racism where a member of the targeted group aids and abets the oppressor.
-
<<It's not your call to judge the behavior of a black man based simply on some stereotype of how that black man should act. A white man calling a black man uncle tom is as racist as calling him a nigger.>>
It's my call as much as it's anyone's call. I'm a human being and I'm against racism. I hope you're not telling me that my white skin limits me as to what kind of racism I can call out. Now THAT would be offensive!
-
I think you are very confused .
In what respect is Herman Cain attacking his own race?
By disagreeing with his races official leadership?
Or by disagreeing with the self appointed caretakers, guardians and substitute parents of his race.
When you find disagreement with the main stream of your race is that trechery?
-
“Post-intentional racism.”
Defined as that racism which resides there in the sub-conscious, and that is only evident when others see it and determine it to be racism.
In other words, the perception itself (even if it is a politically motivated consensus that claims a politically motivated perception) is evidence of a thought crime — though one committed often unwittingly — because racism is to determined by the group who sees it or susses it out of the “coded language”, not by the intent of those who are to be charged with it.
-
You no more have a right to call Cain an Uncle Tom than you do to call him a House Nigger.
And yes being white has a lot to do with minimizing your choice of words.
-
<<A belief that each race has a duty to its own race is the very definition of racism.>>
I think you are very confused, and in your confusion, you have failed to analyze the situation properly. Everybody has a duty to defend every race against racism and racial attacks.
No!
There is no such duty to any race but the Human race.
The human race has a basic unit , the individual, all other subdivisions are mischief.
-
Thanks, I'd call him a house nigger too, only I don't like the word "nigger." I think "nigger" ought to vanish from the language. I'll stick with Uncle Tom. I've got every right to call him that, the words exist because they describe real people like him who conform to the original fictional model, who was eponymous for servility to Whitey even to the detriment of other blacks.
Both the GOP and the Tea Party appeal deliberately, albeit carefully, in subtle ways, to white racists, and most people get that. So serving either the GOP or the TP is serving white racism. If Herman chooses to serve white racism to the detriment of his own people, then he deserves to be called what he is, an Uncle Tom.
-
No!
There is no such duty to any race but the Human race.
The human race has a basic unit , the individual, all other subdivisions are mischief.
=======================================================================
Take your head out of the sand, plane, that is ridiculous. It wasn't the human race or random individuals thereof that was banned from the polling booths of the South, it was black people. And, black and white, the civil rights fighters of the Sixties weren't fighting so that "the human race" could vote, but to stop discrimination against the black subset of that race.
-
If Cain were white we wouldn't be having this discussion. So his skin color is the deciding factor. And judging a man based solely on his skin color is racist, no matter how you justify it in your racist little mind. Next think we know, you'll be calling him uppity.
-
CU4, I've been kept so busy fighting off charges of racism that I never got a chance to answer your last post, which I've been trying to do for the past hour or so. Sorry, but I'm calling it a night and will get back to it sometime tomorrow.
-
If Cain were white we wouldn't be having this discussion. So his skin color is the deciding factor. And judging a man based solely on his skin color is racist, no matter how you justify it in your racist little mind. Next think we know, you'll be calling him uppity.
===================================================================
According to that logic, if a white registrar is charged with preventing Joe Blow, a black man, from voting in Amite County, Mississippi because he (Joe Blow) is black, then the whole prosecution is racist because if it weren't for the colour of Blow's skin, we wouldn't be having this prosecution. Next thing we know, you'll be calling Blow uppity.
-
If Cain were white we wouldn't be having this discussion. So his skin color is the deciding factor. And judging a man based solely on his skin color is racist, no matter how you justify it in your racist little mind. Next think we know, you'll be calling him uppity.
===================================================================
According to that logic, if a white registrar is charged with preventing Joe Blow, a black man, from voting in Amite County, Mississippi because he (Joe Blow) is black, then the whole prosecution is racist because if it weren't for the colour of Blow's skin, we wouldn't be having this prosecution. Next thing we know, you'll be calling Blow uppity.
Actually the white registrar would be prosecuted based on the current version of the voters rights act.
Voting rights are guaranteed no matter the color of ones skin. Although Holder's failure to prosecute the New Black Panthers for intimidating white voters may have set new precedent on that aspect of the law.
-
<<Although Holder's failure to prosecute the New Black Panthers for intimidating white voters may have set new precedent on that aspect of the law. >>
Believe me, that is NOTHING compared to Holder's failure to prosecute Cheney, who ADMITTEDLY authorized the torture of prisoners, in open defiance of the USA's binding treaty obligations to prosecute those who authorize torture.
-
<<Although Holder's failure to prosecute the New Black Panthers for intimidating white voters may have set new precedent on that aspect of the law. >>
Believe me, that is NOTHING compared to Holder's failure to prosecute Cheney, who ADMITTEDLY authorized the torture of prisoners, in open defiance of the USA's binding treaty obligations to prosecute those who authorize torture.
If Holder went after Cheney he would have to go after Obama. And that subject is not in the same arena as the discussion concerning your blatant racism.
-
<<If Holder went after Cheney he would have to go after Obama.>>
Really? And where exactly did Obama admit to torturing or authorizing torture? Inquiring minds need to know.
<< And that subject is not in the same arena as the discussion concerning your blatant racism. >>
THAT'S for God-damn sure!!! My "blatant racism" exists only in your imagination, whereas Cheney's torture has real victims in a real world.
-
Really? And where exactly did Obama admit to torturing or authorizing torture? Inquiring minds need to know.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/4425135/Barack-Obama-to-allow-anti-terror-rendition-to-continue.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/4425135/Barack-Obama-to-allow-anti-terror-rendition-to-continue.html)
My "blatant racism" exists only in your imagination
Actually it is evidenced by your posts in this forum.
-
Do we have a definition of racism, one that is subjective and clear, hopefully a definition that makes us agree that we are discussing the same phenominon and not speaking past each other.
-
<<Actually it is evidenced by your posts in this forum.>>
The existence of my posts in this forum is undeniable. What exists only in your imagination is the racist character that you have given to them.
-
It actually exists in reality.....posts that single out a person's race as a means of criticizing, is racist by nature. Calling a person an uncle tom is no better than calling a person a n.....
Simple as that
So the only place that your comments are NOT racist, is in your imagination, I'm afraid
-
<<Actually it is evidenced by your posts in this forum.>>
The existence of my posts in this forum is undeniable. What exists only in your imagination is the racist character that you have given to them.
Is this really just a perception problem?
-
In the vernacular, is calling someone Uncle Tom used to designate a sell out in any other but the American Negro subset?
-
You know, CU4, you make a pretty good case, but ONLY for the proposition that the iPhone and other devices for electronic communications are not EXCLUSIVELY toys, that there are some "serious" uses for them. I guess I characterized them a little too broadly.
However, I feel that a lot of the uses you have told me about are at bottom just trivial and inconsequential, falling into the BYC category ("because you can") but otherwise of no real use. Some of the devices clearly do nothing more than duplicate the functions of pre-existing technology such as digital cameras. As an example, from your own business, which I understand is process serving:
- <<customers, managers or employees can track the status of process servings>>
BFD. In most cases, the customer doesn't give a shit. He hands over the claim, summons, whatever in plenty of time, and expects to get it back, with proof of service, sometime in the next 7 to 10 days. If time is crucial, a shorter deadline is given and the process server is told to call the customer and report at the end of each working day till completion, or immediately if a serious problem develops. Closer supervision is an unnecessary frill.
As for the rest of your uses for iPhones, a simple digital camera would do the trick. A lawyer who gives out a claim for service doesn't give a shit where the guy is served or what his house looks like. He just wants the fucking thing served. Period. End of story. He doesn't have the time to look at pictures of the guy's home. It is not the lawyer's problem where the guy lives, that is the process server's problem. A good process server can provide an affidavit to satisfy the judge that a party is dodging service. Photos can't just be shown to a judge, they first have to be entered into evidence through an authenticating procedure that just wastes the court's time and pisses off the judge, who is probably thinking, are these guys morons? Don't they know how to make an affidavit? Pictures are useless without an affidavit or other evidence explaining them. A picture of a guy crouching down behind a car is no more proof that he is avoiding service than that he is looking for dropped keys or getting up after a slip and fall. In any event, there are plenty of cheap devices to record such events.
You make a valid point about the transmission and receipt of critical medical information, but this is mainly limited to emergency situations and it's hard to think of many iPhone 4S being purchased by EMS for the workplace.
- people in car accidents take cell-phone pictures to substantiate their version of how it happened:
LOL, if some schmuck hops out of the car and immediately starts snapping cell phone pictures of the accident at the scene, he's going to have a helluva time later convincing a jury that he suffered major injuries that have fucked him up for life. If it's a major crash with major injuries, the cops will be all over the scene, measuring, photographing, interviewing witnesses, etc. In any event, the property damage adjusters will take a full set of pictures of each car that they insure, before any repairs are started. Most jurisdictions are now now-fault auto liability, meaning that unless someone has suffered really major injuries, it doesn't matter whose fault the accident was, so pictures taken at the scene are much less important than they previously were.
Googling directions and checking weather conditions are very, very minor accomplishments. Most folks do that before leaving home. If you're a commercial fisherman, of course, you'll take many more precautions, have marine radio with on-board transmission, etc. For the odd schmuck going out for the evening who forgets to check for weather or directions before leaving home, or gets lost, I'm sure it comes in handy, but I'd hardly describe it as life-changing.
The rest of your examples are just, unfortunately, a mixture of the truly trivial and the statistically insignificant. The real-estate agents flashing information at lightning speed for example was just ridiculous. People don't make real estate decisions at lightning speed and it would only be on the rarest occasion imaginable that there would be any need for such speed. The iBodyguard, peanut alert, etc. are just gimmicks. Unless the apps come factory-installed, I bet they are the LOWEST-selling of all of the apps available. Mario Brothers games probably outsell all of them by a margin of 10,000 to 1.
These devices are, as I originally said, basically toys. A few applications are put together for them, basically BYC. Probably the number of lives saved by the peanut alert app, the iBodyguard and the iDistress apps could all fit into a telephone booth.
-
RE: Michael the Racist
Sorry, guys, but I've just reached the limit of the time I'm prepared to expend defending myself against these absurd charges. We're all starting to repeat ourselves and the discussion is going nowhere.
If you think that calling Herman Cain an Uncle Tom makes me a racist, it appears that there is nothing I can do to dissuade you. That's your opinion, and so be it.
Personally, I say that Herman Cain is an Uncle Tom and I say it in good conscience, not accepting any blame or guilt for saying it, and not in any way conceding that I am a racist in whole or in part. And I'll continue calling him an Uncle Tom because that is EXACTLY what he is.
And now, let's move on. If anyone wants the last word on this, it's theirs.
-
absurd in YOUR imagination, perhaps
-
In the vernacular, is calling someone Uncle Tom used to designate a sell out in any other but the American Negro subset?
That is the only way I have ever heard it.
If I called someone an Unkle Tom for being a White toady to Black intrests would this be understandable? Is the meaning so specific that it can't be adapted?
Quisling seems universally applicable , provided there is a little knoledge of WWII history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncle_Tom's_Cabin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncle_Tom's_Cabin)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/UncleTomsCabinCover.jpg/345px-UncleTomsCabinCover.jpg)
".................Stowe, a Connecticut-born teacher at the Hartford Female Academy and an active abolitionist, featured the character of Uncle Tom, a long-suffering black slave around whom the stories of other characters—both fellow slaves and slave owners—revolve. The sentimental novel depicts the reality of slavery while also asserting that Christian love can overcome something as destructive as enslavement of fellow human beings.[2][3][4]
Uncle Tom's Cabin was the best-selling novel of the 19th century,[5] and the second best-selling book of that century, following the Bible.[6] It is credited with helping fuel the abolitionist cause in the 1850s.[7] In the first year after it was published, 300,000 copies of the book were sold in the United States alone. In 1855, three years after it was published, it was called "the most popular novel of our day."[8] One million copies of the book were sold in Great Britain.[9] The impact attributed to the book is great, reinforced by a story that when Abraham Lincoln met Stowe at the start of the Civil War, Lincoln declared, "So this is the little lady who started this great war."[10] The quote is apocryphal; it did not appear in print until 1896, and it has been argued that "The long-term durability of Lincoln's greeting as an anecdote in literary studies and Stowe scholarship can perhaps be explained in part by the desire among many contemporary intellectuals ... to affirm the role of literature as an agent of social change."[11]
The book, and the plays it inspired, also helped popularize a number of stereotypes about black people,[12] many of which endure to this day. These include the affectionate, dark-skinned "mammy"; the "pickaninny" stereotype of black children; and the 'Uncle Tom', or dutiful, long-suffering servant faithful to his white master or mistress. In recent years, the negative associations with Uncle Tom's Cabin have, to an extent, overshadowed the historical impact of the book as a "vital antislavery tool."[13]............."
-
RE: Michael the Racist
Sorry, guys, but I've just reached the limit of the time I'm prepared to expend defending myself against these absurd charges. We're all starting to repeat ourselves and the discussion is going nowhere.
So what does characterise your racial feelings towards Herman Cain?
-
In the vernacular, is calling someone Uncle Tom used to designate a sell out in any other but the American Negro subset?
That is the only way I have ever heard it.
Ditto
-
Some of the devices clearly do nothing more than duplicate the functions of pre-existing technology such as digital cameras.
Kind of like the automobile didn't really "change lives"
because "heck boss we coulda rode our horsee to Chicago"!
::)
-
<<Kind of like the automobile didn't really "change lives"
because "heck boss we coulda rode our horsee to Chicago"!>>
Nope, not at all like that. The automobile was a helluva lot faster than the horse and buggy, probably shaved days off the trip.
For all the purposes you mentioned, there are virtually no differences at all in performance between the digital camera and the iPhone 4S.
Of all those crowds swarming to buy the 4S, I bet nobody was there to buy it for iDistress, iBodyguard or the other life-saving app you mentioned. They're flocking to buy it for recreational communication, optics (camera) and the "toy" nature of the Siris app. It's a purely frivolous purchase, and I stick by what I said about it being a textbook case of misplaced societal priorities.
-
Nope, not at all like that.
Yes exactly like that.
You are being an idiot Michael.
For all the purposes you mentioned, there are virtually no differences
at all in performance between the digital camera and the phone 4S.
Michael there are HUGE differences.
The iphone(wireless device) is much quicker at bringing images to relevance/reality.
You can be almost anywhere and send images and video all over the world.
Workers, doctors, rescue first responders, family, children can share data & images & video
images can be improved/edited on the spot....You can print images wirelessly.
A ten year old in Iowa can send a Dad in Hong Kong a video or picture of a science project due tomorrow.
An EMT can send a live picture of a unknown species of snake to a hospital that just bit a toddler.
A process server can send a pic/video of a defendent that is denying they are the defendent.
A witness can more easily film a historical event/accident/tragedy & help investigators discover cause & prevention
Camera stores like record stores are closing all over the country and not just because of the internet
because more and more people are finding wireless devices have changed the way they manage images
most retail cameras in a few short years for the most part will be like the album...
on the ash heap of history....
only used by collectors, nostalgia buffs, ad agencies, fashion shoots, military, and old timers, etc....
just like the iPod and other such devices have changed music
the i-phone and other wireless devices are changing other facets of life
the point isnt that many of these things cant be done without wireless
but devices like the iPhone make many of actions happen in lightening speed and ease
just like I could ride a horse to Chicago next weekend instead of an airplane
an EMT could take a digital camera picture of the snake bitten child & snake & go get it developed.
Of all those crowds swarming to buy the 4S, I bet nobody was there to buy it for iDistress, iBodyguard
or the other life-saving app you mentioned. They're flocking to buy it for recreational communication,
optics (camera) and the "toy" nature of the Siris app. It's a purely frivolous purchase, and I stick by
what I said about it being a textbook case of misplaced societal priorities.
They each have there own thousand reasons of why they want a great wireless device/computer
because in some way ..different with each user...has impact on their daily life.
it allows them to work better, work quicker, relax better, save time better, be more productive,
be more informed, share data, images, info, ect X 1o,ooo with colleagues as never before in human history.
-
More of that red is blue reporting, where Tee can claim the polar opposite
A Tale of Two Protests: Media Cheer Wall Street Occupiers But Jeered Tea Partiers
Study: ABC, CBS and NBC loaded their broadcasts with 33 full stories in just 11 days of coverage of the Occupy Wall Street protests.
By: Geoffrey Dickens
Thursday, October 13, 2011
The Occupy Wall Street protestors have received overwhelmingly positive coverage from the Big Three (ABC, CBS, NBC) news networks, as they used their airtime to publicize and promote the aggressively leftist movement. In just the first eleven days of October, ABC, CBS and NBC flooded their morning and evening newscasts with a whopping 33 full stories or interview segments on the protesters. This was a far cry from the greeting the Tea Party received from the Big Three as that conservative protest movement was initially ignored (only 13 total stories in all of 2009) and then reviled.
Where the Tea Party was met with skeptical claims of their motivations -- with some reporters claiming they were merely corporate backed puppets and others implying they were spurred on by their racist opposition to the first black president – the Occupy Wall Street crowd was depicted as an almost genial “grassroots” movement.
While network reporters weren’t hesitant to describe the Tea Party as conservative, only once did a reporter attach even the “liberal” label to the overtly leftist Wall Street protestors.
Network anchors like Brian Williams couldn’t be bothered with ideological labeling of the occupiers as he was, on the October 5 NBC Nightly News, too busy celebrating the arrival of the “massive protest movement” that “could well turn out to be the protest of this current era.”
ABC’s Diane Sawyer was so excited she tripped herself up in hyperbole as she proclaimed, on the October 10 World News, that the movement had “spread to more than 250 American cities, more than a thousand countries – every continent but Antarctica.” (Video) Sawyer would have to correct herself on a later edition of the program as she clarified it was “more than a thousand cities around the world – every continent but Antarctica.” That's still a tremendous exaggeration.
Most astoundingly, the networks’ Occupy Wall Street (OWS) stories were overwhelmingly sympathetic: Protesters and supporters of the movement dominated the soundbites, with 109 (87%) to just 8 critics (6%), with another 8 soundbites from neutral sources. Five of the eight soundbites unsympathetic to the protesters were brief clips of GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain blasting the occupiers. In addition to the 109 pro-OWS soundbites, seven times guests on the Big Three network morning shows expressed sympathy for the protestors. No guests opposed the protests.
MRC analysts tracked all the stories on the Big Three broadcast networks’ evening and morning news programs (ABC’s World News and Good Morning America, CBS’s Evening News and The Early Show, NBC’s Nightly News and Today show) and found that from October 1 through October 11 network anchors, and reporters, in addition to the 33 full stories, delivered 15 brief items and 14 mentions in other stories not devoted strictly to the Wall Street protest.
Very Few Liberal Labels for Lefty Protestors
In 2009 Tea Partiers were repeatedly but accurately described as conservative. Back on the April 15, 2009 Today show, NBC’s Chuck Todd’s labeling was typical when he introduced the Tea Party movement to viewers this way: “There’s been some grassroots conservatives who have organized so-called Tea Parties around the country, hoping the historical reference will help galvanize Americans against the President’s economic ideas. But, I tell you, the idea hasn’t really caught on.”
However, when it came to appropriately labeling the OWS crowd as leftist or liberals, it happened exactly one time, when on the October 11 edition of ABC’s Good Morning America, co-anchor George Stephanopoulous asked Obama campaign strategist David Plouffe if he thought the OWS protestors were the “liberal version of the Tea Party?” and wondered if that was a “good thing for the White House?”
The only other usages of the world “liberal” came when Columbia University’s Dorian Warren, on the October 1 NBC Nightly News asserted that the protesters were “a liberal version of the Tea Party” and obligingly offered: “I think this could potentially carry over into the 2012 elections and get people to the polls.” Then, on the October 9 edition of Sunday Morning, Rebecca Jarvis pegged Columbia University professor Todd Gitlin as “a liberal observer of the politics of the protest.”
In fact, as the MRC’s Business & Media’s Julia Seymour documented, not one network report has called the protesters "radical," "extreme," "left-wing," or "socialist."
‘Grassroots’ Wall Street Protestors vs. ‘Corporate’ Tea Partiers
Digging deeper into the stories, a clear double standard emerges. Where the Tea Party’s motives were met with skepticism, with some stories questioning if they were not a grassroots movement but rather an Astro-turf movement backed by corporations, the Occupy Wall Street crowd was repeatedly classified as “grassroots.”
Back on the April 15, 2009 edition of ABC’s World News, reporter Dan Harris told viewers that “critics on the Left say” the Tea Party was not “a real grassroots phenomenon at all, that it’s actually largely orchestrated by people fronting for corporate interests.”
But when labor unions started joining the OWS protests, reporters didn’t greet that information with jaundiced skepticism of a movement being taken over by well-funded, well-heeled union organizers, but treated it as recognition of the growing respect and influence they were gaining.
On the October 5 Today show, Mara Schiavocampo alerted viewers that on “Tuesday, several labor unions, including transit workers and teachers, joined activists for a march to Wall Street. Today they plan to join protesters in what could be their largest event yet, a rally and march in lower Manhattan.” In the very next sentence the NBC correspondent was careful to remind her viewers: “The grassroots movement has no official leaders.”
Racist Tea Partiers vs. Cookie Baking Grandmas
While the Tea Partiers were portrayed as racist and rude yokels, the OWS crowd has been portrayed in a decidedly more positive light with reporters highlighting cute school kids, spending their Columbus Day holiday holding up signs in opposition to corporate America and even featured a kindly grandmother baking cookies for the crowd.
On the October 10, NBC Nightly News, Mara Schiavocampo highlighted: “From school to the streets. On Day 24 of the Occupy Wall Street protest demonstrators were joined by a group of students on their day off.” Viewers were then presented clips of little children holding signs that read: “Tax the one percent, not the 99 percent!” and “Tax the greedy, feed the needy!”
Despite hundreds of arrests, the media have painted the Occupy Wall Street crowd as friendly, genial, even industrious folk who started their own newspapers, and taught Yoga classes to pass the time.
Over images of protestors stretching, on the October 10 Evening News, an impressed Jim Axelrod glowingly noticed: “The Occupy Wall Street protestors have set up a camp with a food court, newspaper, medical unit, Internet café, even yoga practice.”
Yep, more evidence on how the MSM was "blacking out" the protests, then portraying them in a supposed "unfavorable light" ::) (http://www.mrc.org/realitycheck/realitycheck/2011/20111013100045.aspx)
-
Look, CU4, I have already conceded that there is a significant role for the iPhone4S or similar devices to play in the EMS field. I hope you're not suggesting that all those droves of people turning out in droves to get the 4S are mainly EMS workers, which they are surely not. They are consumers, most of whom are buying it for social communications (cu@dive 8 2nite,) sending pictures (Look, Ma, I'm standing on the Great Wall,) surfing the web from anywhere the urge might strike them (who was that actor who . . . ?) and similar nonsensical bullshit. I said I was probably be getting one, but at least I admit it's a TOY for everyone but a handful of EMS workers and a few neurotic parents (as soon as word gets out, the first thing any perv will do is take the kid's iPhone and smash it to bits.)
Almost all of your descriptions of when the phone can be "life-changing" or even more useful than the older technology (digital cameras) range from the fanciful to the ludicrous. The fact that camera stores are going out of business means almost nothing - - a LOT of stores are going out of business, why not camera stores? More broadly, it gives you an indication of the DISADVANTAGES of an economy without central planning as opposed to a centrally planned economy. Where corporate America can make huge profits by making (in China) and selling (to America) worthless shit like this, the fast buck dominates and - - while six million homes are foreclosed to date and counting, millions can't pay for health insurance, 45,000 die every year for lack of health insurance and the true jobless rate approaches 20%, the economy is directed primarily towards producing frivolous toys like this for the mass market of the upper 1% or 2% who can afford this shit, or the dumb schmucks who can't and buy it anyway.
Getting back to your business, for all the examples you mentioned of guys dodging service, I was unable to find even one case where an iPhone would be any more effective than a digital camera, which private investigators and process servers have been using for years now. There is absolutely no need to submit the pictures of a dodger "at lightning speed" anywhere, because the court system does not move "at lightning speed" and still requires an affidavit, a hearing date, etc. "Lightning speed" in an environment where there is absolutely no need for "lightning speed" is a frivolous and wasteful expense, one more reason why your economy is headed towards the drain while China's centrally planned (let's produce what we actually need instead of endless consumer shit for the rich) economy is headed for the stars.
You keep going over a long list of possible uses for these things, but let's face it, both of us know who's buying them and what they're buying them for. The number of serious needs being met by these nifty little devices must be the reason behind about one-tenth of one per cent of all purchases to date. Actually, some of them are being bought for re-sale to third-world countries that don't have an Apple outlet, where young members of the local elites will pay a premium over US retail just to become early adopters. They're basically still toys, CU4.
When I say fanciful, I'm thinking of the snake-bite case - I suppose it's possible, but hardly an everyday occurrence. The kid would have to be bitten in broad daylight when it's possible to grab a camera and shoot the snake before or after the bite and yet in conditions where nobody can see enough of the snake to identify significant physical features that would identify the species. You're really looking at a once-in-a-lifetime scenario.
Wikipedia has a very interesting article on snake-bite. I had no idea that tens of thousands of people die of it annually, but relatively few in North America, Australia or Europe. The article contained the following statement: <<However in regions where polyvalent antivenoms are available, such as North America, identification of snake is not a high-priority item.>> I seriously doubt that any of the iPhones sold to date have been purchased on behalf of potential Third World snake-bite victims for future snake-ID, and apparently they're not such a valuable resource for American snake-bite victims after all.
I think you've made a heroic effort to turn something that is basically an entertainment device or a toy into some kind of useful, life-changing utility, which it clearly is not. It's a toy, CU4.
-
Camera stores are likely going out of business because of digital photography taking over from film photography. A lot of their business was in processing film: no longer necessary, and photoshop can do more than a film technician ever could to make an average photo a great one. No one is buying film, developer chemicals and supplies, and all that they do buy is available online at a lower price.
Phone cameras are not the main reason that camera stores are closing. Digital cameras are much more responsible for this.
There is nothing wrong with buying a hi-tech phone toy, but buying the absolute latest version for $400 or more every time they come out, THAT is obsessive.
-
just another example of how innovation changes peoples lives!
(http://www.breakwatersouthbeach.com/files/306/Nbc%20Miami.jpg)
Earthquake Survivor Calls iPhone a Life Saver
Man said he used health app on his iPhone to treat his injury while stuck under rubble
By Todd Wright | Thursday, Jun 30, 2011
Dan Wooley survived under the rubble of a hotel in Haiti after the earthquake by consulting a medical iPhone app to treat his wounds.
He used a medical app saved on his phone to treat a leg injury after the Hotel Montana in Port-au-Prince collapsed around him.
Woolley, who is from Colorado Springs, is one of the Americans who survived the massive earthquake that hit Haiti last week, and he did it with an iPhone application. Woolley is now recovering at Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami, but it was his fast actions with the app that may have saved his life.
Woolley used the light from his iPhone to show him his injuries and diagnosed it properly as a broken foot. Then, he used the instructions from the app to treat the excessive bleeding from cuts on his legs and the back of his head.
Woolley used his shirt to tie off the three-inch gash that was opened on his leg and a sock to bandage the back of his head. He said he also looked up ways to stop from going into shock.
"I kind of had some time to do some self-diagnosis down there," Woolley said. "God was with me."
Not bad for a film producer who was in Haiti filming a documentary on efforts to help the nation's poverty-stricken children.
Woolley also used his camera to take pictures of the surrounding rubble to piece together a way out. He eventually took refuge in an elevator shaft until rescue crews found him 65 hours after the earthquake.
"I took pictures all around me, then I would hold up the back of the camera to me and I could see what the picture was of a little," he said. "I was able to find an elevator in one of the pictures and that is where I decided to hobble to be in a more safe location."
On Tuesday, Woolley told The Today Show he knew he was going to die and decided to write a journal on his notepad to his wife and young kids in the event someone found his corpse under the rubble.
"I was in a big accident. Don't be upset at God. He always provides for his children even in hard times," Woolley wrote in the dim light. "I'm still praying that God will get me out but he may not but He will always take care of ya."
http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Earthquake-Survivor-Says-iPhone-a-Life-Saver--82081602.html (http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Earthquake-Survivor-Says-iPhone-a-Life-Saver--82081602.html)
-
Innovative iPhone App Tracks Wild Fires, Saves Lives
SFGate
October 3, 2011
FireWhat App supplies firefighters with critical information about wildland fires across the nation.
Dunsmuir, CA
The FireWhat Inc. and Pusher teams are proud to announce the launch of the FireWhat iPhone app in the Apple App Store. Together, the two companies have developed a truly revolutionary product for wildland firefighting. The FireWhat App puts critical incident information into the palm of the wildland firefighter's hand. Today's firefighters receive little to no information prior to arriving at the scene of a wildland fire, but with the game-changing FireWhat App, fire information, maps, reference guides and calculators are at the first responder's fingertips.
Spearheaded by professional firefighters Jeremy Orozco and Sam Lanier, the FireWhat iPhone app gives the user everything he or she needs to respond to wildland fire incidents. Orozco and Lanier, two of FireWhat Inc.'s co-founders, modeled the app to be a valuable tool on the fire ground where quick decision-making and rapid response are critical. FireWhat's third co-founder, MIT grad and data specialist, Sondra Suazo, streamlined the data collection process so that timely and accurate fire information is made available through the app. Nathan Johnston (Stanford & Harvard grad and former Apple employee) and Bryce Craig (visual artist and master designer) led the Pusher team in the technical development and design of the app. The result of this hodgepodge of industry experts? An app that is at once beautiful, innovative, data-rich and incredibly useful to its users.
The FireWhat App's key features are:
? Detailed wildland fire incident information from FireWhat.com.
? Active fire perimeter mapping.
? Fire calculators including Weather and FDFM/PIG.
? Quick reference guides for Safety, Weather, Operations, and Size Up reports.
? Fire maps with custom overlays including Severe Weather Warnings, Smoke Cover, and NEXRAD Radar.
The app provides life-saving information for firefighters, responders, and residents of fire prone areas. Current weather conditions at the scene of major incidents, perimeter tracking and Google Map imagery are provided to direct responders and commanders to areas in highest danger. These features give responders visibility of homes in the area, creeks for water sources and areas for staging before they even arrive on scene. With this app, firefighters and commanders will be able to make pre-arrival considerations, allowing more time for critical life-saving decisions. The vital information provided by this app will save lives and property and will reduce responder errors in a critical time of need.
The app also features a suite of wildland applications for firefighters in the field. Common guides, safety check lists and procedures, and fire calculators have been built into the app.
FireWhat and Pusher have been working to prepare for the next versions and updates. One of the most exciting future additions is the Fire Behavior Calculator which will help firefighters understand how the fire will burn, in what direction, and how intense the expected fire behavior may be based on manual data input.
For more information about the FireWhat App, visit www.firewhat.com/app (http://www.firewhat.com/app).
-
iPhone AED Locator May Help Save Lives in a Hurry
by Gene Ostrovsky on Jan 28, 2010 ? 11:06 am
First Aid Corps, an organization working on helping the public respond to sudden cardiac arrests, has unveiled an iPhone app that can pinpoint the location of the closest automatic external defibrillator (AED) within seconds.
Currently the database is just beginning to fill up but First Aid Corps has partnered with The Extraordinaries, a volunteer organization, to have people locate and photograph AED?s in their community.
The app is free and you can download it and get started mapping AED?s and maybe help save someone?s life.
Here?s a promo video for the project:
AED Nearby (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEw_ht-X-zs#)
-
CU4, I don't think you're getting my point. You already convinced me that this thing has some useful applications, although I started off believing it to be 100% toy.
In principle, I conceded that there was obviously a place for devices like this in limited fields of application, e.g., EMS. The guy in the Haiti earthquake - - and I'm very glad, with due credit to iPhone, that he got out OK - - was just an extension of this principle, but in real life, how many of us are ever going to be trapped in rubble and forced to treat our own injuries? How many people are flocking to buy the 4S because, jeeze this thing could save my life in an earthquake?
The forest fire app is brilliant. I wish them all the best. It's a great app - -if you are in the business of fighting forest fires.
The principle is something like the Hummer. Hummers are great if you're taking a fishing party into the bush in northern Alberta and other man-against-nature scenarios, but that doesn't explain their popularity among chartered accountants, lawyers and dentists. It's way more technology than they have any real need for, but regardless of that, you used to see them and their clones clogging city streets.
You're taking a product of very limited and specialized utility and citing its massive sales as proof of the vitality of the American economy. Wrong on several counts - - first because it seems to be made and assembled mostly in Asia, so most of the purchase price goes out of the country as payments to subcontractors, second because for 99% of the buyers, it serves no useful purpose, third because as I've previously stated, it shows a massive misallocation of resources and planning. To speak of this as life-changing when people need jobs (it's a classic illustration of outsourced jobs) or housing (it does nothing for the millions kicked out of their own homes) or health care (it's a boon for emergency health care, but that's just a small part of total health care needs) is just plain foolish. It helps in ways that at best are non-critical, and is symptomatic of some of the major social ills (joblessness) that ARE plaguing the country.
-
"I was in a big accident. Don't be upset at God. He always provides for his children even in hard times," Woolley wrote in the dim light. "I'm still praying that God will get me out but he may not but He will always take care of ya."
=============================================================================
And imagine, he did not even have the 4s version iPhone. He was lucky to have that iPhone. If I were in Haiti, I'd have one, too.
It always amazes me that people in disasters of this sort never think that God had anything to do with the disaster, but continue to rely on God as omnipotent to put things caused by disasters that by definition were divinely preventable back in order.
-
process server at house knocks on door trying to serve a time sensitive
subpoena to a "Michael T. Communisti" for a Monday court case.
Guy that answers door claims "Michael T Communisti" "doesn't live here anymore".
Process Server takes quick i-phone pick at door of guy and sends picture immediately
via i-phone internet to client attorney who then forwards pic to Michael T. Communisti's
soon to be ex-wife who can immediately verify that the guy denying he is
Michael T. Communisti is actually Michael T. Communisti.
So the process server can go ahead and serve the guy at the door and
the hearing can be carried out on Monday as scheduled and the court
system has one less failure and postponement.
a process server countless times is told....
"Jim Smith just moved over a few blocks"
from his car the process server can access
data banks with his iPhone that allows him
to look up a Jim Smith's relatives house a
few blocks away....the process server
can access vehicle license plates from
a data bank from his iPhone...
the list really is endless on how these
devices change our every day lives....
many of these millions of great applications on an i-phone or
wireless device may or may not be earth shattering actions
by themselves...some are...some are not....but taken in their
totality which is enormous, they certainly are life changing for
millions of people that use their i-phones in lots of different
facets of their lives including business, education, entertainment,
fun, family.....of course thats no surprise to most people and that
why we just saw 4 million unit sales in the first weekend alone
of the newest iphone.
-
You're taking a product of very limited and specialized utility and citing its massive sales as proof of the vitality of the American economy.
Not really.....I am using it as an example of American ingenuity and innovation.
Non-pro-business societies will never have that level of innovation.
The fools protesting Wall Street are using devices like computers and wireless
devices that Wall Street played a huge part in capitalizing and make the devices
available for widespread use. They "hate" Wall Street while they talk on their
wireless phones and type on the laptops that Wall Street capitalized to make
possible.
It's like the dumbass IslamoNazis hate Western Democracy, Freedom, and Democracy
and then they use technology mainly invented by the West to carry out their hatred
and attacks on the West.
-
Hatred of the bankers and mortgage peddlers getting huge bonuses for selling worthless bundles of mortgages is not the same as a repudiation of technologically advanced products. There is little connection between the two. AIG was incompetent at what it did and should have failed. Apple may be selling overpriced phones to people who do not actually need them, but Apple has an excellent business model, and certainly selling iPhones and iPods dose not harm to the economy as AIG's fraudulent transactions did. Just as an automobile can be both essential and fatal, capitalism can be both useful and fatal. T claim that we must accept AIG and Goldman Sachs and the TBTF banks in order to have IiPhones is simply absurd.
-
<<Process Server takes quick i-phone pick at door of guy and sends picture immediately
via i-phone internet to client attorney who then forwards pic to Michael T. Communisti's
soon to be ex-wife who [ID's the pic.]>>
Yeah, CU4, I got that. I got that before you wrote it.
What YOU don't get is that there's almost never any need to flash the picture around at the speed of light. The process server still has to come to the lawyer or notary to swear an affidavit, "this is the guy I served." The guy's ex-wife still has to come in to swear an affidavit, "this is Michael T. Communisti." When the process server comes in to swear the affidavit is when the photo in his camera can be printed out and attached as an exhibit to the affidavit the guy is going to swear. Both the affidavit and the Exhibit sheet to which the photo will be attached will have already been printed out as a result of information phoned into the office by the server.
It would be nice if the ex-wife had an iPhone too because it would save the server the extra time taken to swing by her place at the end of the day and show her the picture in the camera, but usually one of the lawyer's clients knows the guy who is being sued and the client, not the ex-wife, is the one who makes the photo ID. Digital cameras are fine in 99.9999% of all cases. In the remainder, a simple cell phone camera, not a 4S, will do the trick. In the once-in-a-lifetime scenario where the only person who can ID the process server's photo lives in a remote cabin in Appalachia and doesn't want to fly all the way to California only to find it's a picture of the wrong guy, there are plenty of cell phones short of the 4S that will do the trick and the pic can go cell phone to cell phone. In any case, innovations in the process serving business are hardly life-changing. This business has been around for centuries and in one way or another, good lawyers and good process servers always managed to get their man. Still do, and only in the most exceptional cases do they need any kind of photo ID to assist them.
You are just busting a gut trying to find scenarios in justification of the 4S as a business must-have, but it ain't working. You're just coming up with once-in-a-lifetime scenarios that make no real sense, like a guy trying to justify the use of a pocket Bible by claiming how one in his shirt pocket once stopped a bullet.
-
<<I am using it as an example of American ingenuity and invention.>>
Well, it's a perfect example of misdirected ingenuity and invention. You have a society with massive unemployment, health-care deficits, homelessness and foreclosures and instead of applying capital and ingenuity to solve the problems that hurt the most, somebody is getting rich developing a toy that can also double as a life-saver if you're caught in the rubble of an earthquake, etc.
I'll give you an example of real, non-capitalist ingenuity and invention.
1. During the Vietnam war, US B52 bombers coming in at very high altitudes could surprise the peasant guerrillas who had no warning they were coming until their bombs started exploding on the ground. What hi-tech sophisticated electronic early warning systems did the guerrillas devise to counter these attacks? They found out that by digging conical depressions into the ground and positioning a man or woman at the point of the cone deep in the ground, he or she could hear the advance of the B52s from a long way off, warning the intended targets of the coming strike. Reports from different pits gave away the American line of attack.
2. To counter the illegal use of poison gas by the US invasion forces, what sophisticated chemical antdotes did the people's guerrillas develop in their underground laboratories? Gas masks made of simple plastic garbage bags with a breathing slit, and in the slit, two layers of surgical gauze sandwiching a layer of crushed activated charcoal made from simple wood fires.
Americans don't have the monopoly they like to think they have on ingenuity and invention. What talent they have in that area needs direction, so that it's not wasted on frivolous bullshit. This is the advantage of a centralized economy. This explains why greed-driven capitalism is so obviously failing everywhere, and why socially driven systems like communism or even socialism are surpassing it.
<<They "hate" Wall Street while they talk on their wireless phones and [use laptops] that Wall Street capitalized to make possible.>>
They use Wall Street toys because they have access to them. But they recognize that jobs, homes and health are more important than toys. Some fucking bunch of crooks take away their jobs, kick them into the street and raise the cost of health-care to the point where it either extorts all their spare cash or simply becomes unavailable to them, but, "Here kid, play with these toys after we've fucked you up the ass and stolen everything we can steal." Are the kids dumb enough to fall for it? No.
<< . . . dumbass IslamoNazis hate Western Democracy, Freedom, and Democracy and then they use technology mainly invented by the West to carry out their hatred and attacks on the West.>>
That is total bullshit. They hate the West for its theft of Muslim lands, its invasions, its arrests, torture and murder of all who resist the Western invasion, and the exploitation by the West of Muslim natural resources. They hate the West for its interference in their domestic lives, the support of tyrannical dictators and the support it gives Israel. They have every logical reason on earth to hate the West, not the bullshit reasons you claim they have.
-
You are just busting a gut trying to find scenarios in justification of the 4S as a business must-have, but it ain't working. You're just coming up with once-in-a-lifetime scenarios that make no real sense, like a guy trying to justify the use of a pocket Bible by claiming how one in his shirt pocket once stopped a bullet.
Michael you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.
I am not trying to justify anything because I in fact personally
have first hand knowledge and experience of how wireless
devices and the iPhone in particular has changed my business
operation. Process servers, couriers, legal copy experts,
real estate prep workers, dispatching, order tracking,
lost order recovery, offsite inventory control, routing
and directions....really just in my own case the examples
go on and on and on....I am one one tiny little company!
Many of my business associates rave about how wireless
devices have in fact changed their business as well.
A good friend of mine owns a roofing company.
She told me all her inspectors now can take pictures
of hail damage or other roof problems send in the pictures
immediately from the field and plug data and pics into
template forms for customers or insurance companies
instead of wasting fossil fuel driving back to the office.
Also her work crews can send data and image updates
back to the office throughout the day.
Another wife and husband team need to be out in the
field most of the day but they also need to buy and
sell products on e-bay and CraigsList as a part of
their business. They can list, buy, sell products
and answer inquiries all day from out in the field
on their i-Phone. They say this has made a huge
difference in the way they can operate.
Data, document, image, inventory management
has never been easier for large and small companies
using devices like the iPhone. Small 1,2,3 man operations
can utilize the i-phone or other wireless devices to
be like a virtual office....they can literally be working
in the field and be in the office at the same time.
There are literally millions of examples of how these
cutting edge devices invented within the capitalist
world that change the way we live our lives in
work, play, and countless others parts of our lives.
Sure we could live without them just like we
lived with out the airplane, car, MRI machine,
telephone, computer and countless other
devices that have been invented.....but who wants to?
-
CU4, all I can see from the examples that you yourself provided is that the iPhone is more of a gimmick than anything else. Specifically with regard to supposed difficulties in ID of persons to be served, in most cases there is almost no advantage of the iPhone over a digital camera. The only part that made sense was where the outside party who needs to identify the photo doesn't have to come down to the lawyer's office until she knows that the picture is the right guy. And even there, a cell-phone-to-cell-phone transmission is all it takes, the iPhone itself adds nothing into the equation. And without it, so BFD - - in one case out of 1,000, somebody's gotta take a trip down to the lawyer's office only to find the photo is not the right guy. The overwhelming majority of all process serving is done without any photography at all.
Simple telephone calls back and forth would be enough for your roofing friend's business, the iPhone adds little extras that are probably more of a BYC phenomenon than filling a genuine need.
All the "problems" that the iPhone supposedly "solves" are not problems that should be high on the national agenda: you are basically ignoring the big problems while focusing on the problems of the guy caught in the rubble of an earthquake, or the home-office roofer who needs a photo because she can't understand what the on-site guy is trying to tell her.
-
All the "problems" that the iPhone supposedly "solves" are not problems that should be high on the national agenda
Good thing the Government isn't behind it. Newsflash, its NOT an agenda item. It's the byproduct of a free society, one in which companies, PEOPLE, take risks, and its citizenry can reap the rewards of their successes.......IF they choose to
-
Michael I am must admit I am somewhat surprised
at how far out of touch you are with the business
world....day to day operations type stuff and how
wireless devices have revolutionized business
applications....in other words "changed how
people live, work, and play...and maybe even die".
There are tens of thousands of business applications
being sold for the i-phone. It's seems rather ridiculous
to dismiss this huge business application market
as "toys" and/or novelties. Business owners
are using these applications to help them
better run their business not because
they want to buy a "toy".
I never stated i-phones or wireless devices
solve every single problem a nation has,
i stated that technology mainly originating from
pro-business countries have changed people's lives
which is really not even debateable. The i-phone is
just one of millions of innovations that market
economies produce that change peoples lives
for the better. No where is paradise but one
can certainly compare standards of livings
in countries that are pro-business, that have
large banks, large corporations, large
capital formations to countries that have none
of the above and see what system is best
for people top to bottom. The bottom in
Germany, France, Italy, Japan, Canada,
the US and others would be considered
well off in many countries like North Korea.
I do wish they would ask those Wall Street protesters
who seem to be also protesting corporations...
who made and brought to the store shelf the shoes you're wearing?
who made and brought to the store shelf the mobile phone you're using?
who made & brought to the store shelf the jeans & underwear your wearing?
who made and brought to the store shelf the food you'll eat for dinner tonight?
who made and brought to the retail outlet the car, train, or plane that brought you here?
who made and brought to the store shelf the poster you wrote your message on?
who made/wrote the program on your computer that you connected to protesters with?
who made the machinery that built the roads/bridges/sidewalks you protest on?
and all the above companies, business, corporations were mostly funded by banks,
capital formation companies, and other Wall Street institutions that you now protest!
-
Well, in a nutshell, CU4, I think you're just blind to the very real and growing problems that America has, blind also to the causes of the problems (corporate greed and corruption) and blind to the disastrous effects of "economic freedom" or totally unregulated commercial development.
You're over-focused on whatever trivial benefits the Next New Thing confers on its users and can't see the forest for the trees. Sure somebody can track a shipment faster here, or identify a photo faster there, but who the hell gives a shit? Can't you see for yourself how trivial most of these "benefits" really are? If the price of having such benefits means abandoning the direction of the economy to the laws of the marketplace (i.e., corporate greed) all you'll ever get is a succession of shiny new gadgets, with new uses cropping up here and there (they fight forest fires! they save snake-bite victims!) and meantime the economy is unable to address the concerns of millions of its most vulnerable citizens -- kids who need an education, people in dire need of health care, of homes, of jobs.
The mere fact that you've already GOT iPhones and people occupying Wall Street at the same time ought to tell you something: that the production of all those shiny new gadgets hasn't done fuck-all for the economy or the country.
-
Well, took a while, but I finally got around to reading the crock of shit that sirs posted from the Media Research Center and/or its pretentiously named subsidiary, Business & Media Institute. Before getting into the content of the crock of shit, I think it's only fair to note that the founder and chief operator of the so-called "Media Research Center" is a pea-brained Neanderthal named L. Brent Bozell III, nephew of conservative commentator William Buckley and formerly a contributing editor to Buckley's conservative rag, The National Review.
Bozell, however, is probably best known for his advice to chaperones and parents about high school dances, where he discussed the correct approach to a boy caught dirty dancing with one of his daughters : <<I'd beat the stuffing out of him.>>
http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellColumns/entertainmentcolumn/2008/col20080606.asp (http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellColumns/entertainmentcolumn/2008/col20080606.asp)
Rationalwiki.org has this to say about Bozell: <<Most bloggers take no real notice of him, noting that he is a "right-wing conveyor belt of attacks on the press" that is "often loopy and fact-free . . . usually not worth rebutting in detail.>>
Anyway enough about L. Brent Bozell III and his asinine publications, Despite the warning from rationalwiki.org that it's not worth rebutting the guy in detail, I can't help myself. It's more like an exercise for me than a persuasive attempt, because I know that sirs has drunk the Kool-Aid and won't be persuaded of anything: what Bozell and his minions write is the word of God and what Tee writes in rebuttal is total nonsense. So, here's some "total nonsense:"
from the article:
<<In just the first eleven days of October . . . >>
Huh? Wait a minute. Did the Occupation not start on Sept. 17? So what happened to the first two weeks? Bozo's elaborate "study" of the media response starts a good two weeks after the occupation has begun. Not a good sign if you're looking for a comprehensive study of the event's MSM coverage.
from the article:
<<In just the first 11 days of October, ABC, CBS and NBC flooded their morning and evening newscasts with a whopping 33 full stories or interview segments on the protestors.>>
Uh, hold on, Bozo, can we stop here for a little math? Three networks, 33 stories; 11 stories per network, right? And over a period of, what? 11 days? I think what Bozo is trying to tell us is that the networks "flooded" their morning and evening newscasts with . . . wait for it! . . . ONE story per day, for 11 whole days. Is that right? Not exactly, because as Bozo says, the count was 33 "full stories or interview segments," so that on some of those 11 days, the network viewer would have been treated to, not a full story but an "interview segment." Wow. Shocking. How did the viewers cope with such an information barrage?
And amazingly enough, all of this "flood" of coverage began almost as soon as the occupation started. Well, nearly almost as soon as it started. Well, actually, TWO FULL WEEKS AFTER IT STARTED. Anyone remember what happened two weeks after the occupation started? Let me remind you - - on October 1, 2011, the NYPD arrested 700 demonstrators on the Brooklyn Bridge. Just imagine - - almost a full blackout on the occupation for the first two weeks, and then the networks "FLOOD" the airwaves with a "full report or interview segment" every day for 11 days, all because of some chickenshit bust of a mere 700 demonstrators on the Brooklyn Bridge. Go figure. If that doesn't indicate a friendly MSM, well I just don't know what does.
You know, on second thought, I am just going to take rationalwiki's advice and not bother to rebut this clown in detail. Everything he or his publications write is a crock of shit and since it's lie after lie after lie, it's a tough job repeating and rebutting everything in the article.
sirs, I think in L. Brent Bozell III, you've finally found the media commentator you deserve. Put your trust in him and his publications, believe in them and good luck to you. Just don't expect me or any other sane and rational human being to waste our time in answering any of his insane bullshit. He's all yours.
-
Weak, albeit exhaustive effort to shoot the messenger. Damn, don't let those facts get in the way, superman
-
<<Weak, albeit exhaustive effort to shoot the messenger.>>
Well, I'd hardly say it's exhaustive, since I stopped after just dealing with the Bozo's first two allegations and then indicated I'd leave the rest because it wasn't worth the effort. But I guess in sirs' world (where a word means anything that sirs chooses it to mean) an "exhaustive" effort could well be an effort that addresses only two paragraphs out of ten or twenty and leaves the rest of the piece unexamined. Sure, sirs, if you say my effort was "exhaustive," then who am I to argue with the man who defines the word? Thank you for the compliment.
I guess, if my effort is "weak," it shouldn't be all that hard for the great mind of sirs to point out, uh, the "weaknesses" of my effort. Mind you, I am not questioning your conclusions, O infallible one, I just need to know, for my own improvement, exactly WHAT was so "weak" in the conclusions I drew from the Bozo's report. Please do not withhold your enlightenment from me any longer, Master.
<<Damn, don't let those facts get in the way, superman>>
Uh, what "facts" would those be, sirs? The "facts" as published by the great L. Brent Bozell III? As I've said, the Bozo doesn't really deal in facts, my friend, but in something else. As I've adequately demonstrated in the first two issues that I encountered in his magnum opus. On the cockroach theory (that once you've found a cockroach on your plate, you don't stay in the restaurant hoping that maybe that was the only one) I am not going to waste my time further on the Bozo (in fact I was warned against wasting ANY time on him before I started) and I don't consider anything that the Bozo writes as remotely connected to fact. Nor should you, but that's your problem, and I know that you and the Bozo are very well suited to one another.
If you ever come up with any "facts" from a more reputable source, sirs, be sure to let me know.
-
Uh, what "facts" would those be, sirs?
Those would be the Kryptonite coverage being provided the OWS gang. Minus your attemps to redefine terms like "flooded", and try to discredit the messenger, (in which one of the articles isn't even by him), FACT remains that the MSM continues to provide FAR more, coverage to the OWS gang, then they ever did the Tea Party. And the vast majority of that coverage is far more compliant and supportive of their actions, than the Tea party could have ever hoped to have received
Dem be da facts, I'm afraid
-
The real significance of the iPod4S Sales Volumes
article reprinted in full from today's CounterPunch
========================================================
October 18, 2011
70,000 Children on the Streets of Kabul
Whatever Happened to Women and Children First?
by JOHNNY BARBER
“All wars, whether just or unjust, disastrous or victorious, are waged against the child.”
–Eglantyne Jebb, founder of Save the Children, 1919.
In Kabul, the children are everywhere. You see them scrounging through trash. You see them doing manual labor in the auto body shops, the butchers, and the construction sites. They carry teapots and glasses from shop to shop. You see them moving through the snarled traffic swirling small pots of pungent incense, warding off evil spirits and trying to collect small change. They can be found sleeping in doorways or in the rubble of destroyed buildings. It is estimated that 70,000 children live on the streets of Kabul.
The big news story on CNN this morning is the excitement generated as hundreds of people line up to buy the newest iphone. I can’t stop thinking of the children sitting in the dirt of the refugee camp, or running down the path pushing old bicycle tires, or the young boy sitting next to his overflowing sacks of collected detritus. He has a deep infection on the corner of his mouth that looks terribly infected. These images contrast with an image of an old grandfather, dressed in a spotless all white shalwar kameez squatting on the sidewalk outside a huge iron gate, embracing his beautiful young grand daughter in a huge hug, each smiling broadly, one of the few moments of joy I have witnessed on the streets of Kabul.
In Afghanistan, one in five children die before their 5th birthday, (41% of the deaths occur in the first month of life). For the children who make it past the first month, many perish due to preventable and highly treatable conditions including diarrhea and pneumonia. Malnourishment affects 39% of the children, compared to 25% at the start of the U.S. invasion. 52% don’t have access to clean water. 94% of births are not registered. The children are afforded very little legal protection, especially girls, who are stilled banned from schools in many regions, used as collateral to settle debts, and married through arranged marriages as young as 10 years old. Though not currently an issue, HIV/AIDS looms as a catastrophic possibility as drug addiction increases significantly, even among women and children. Only 16% of women use modern contraception, and children on the streets are vulnerable to sexual exploitation. This is why the “State of the World’s Mothers” report issued in May 2011 by Save the Children ranked Afghanistan last, with only Somalia providing worse outcomes for their children.
Retired Army Col. John Agoglia said, “A key to America’s long-term national security and one of the best ways for our nation to make friends around the world is by promoting the health of women and children in fragile and emerging nations”–in Afghanistan, this strategy is failing. Not a single public hospital has been built since the invasion. It is not an impossibility; it is a matter of will. Emergency, an Italian NGO, runs 3 hospitals and 30 clinics throughout Afghanistan on a budget of 7 million dollars per year. This is ISAF’s (NATO’s International Security Assistance Force) monthly budget for air-conditioning.
Polls have consistently shown that over 90 percent of Americans believe saving children should be a national priority. Children comprise 65% of the Afghan population. Afghanistan was named the worst place on earth to be a child. In Afghanistan children have been sacrificed by the United States, collateral damage in our “war on terror”.
The mothers of these at risk children are not faring any better. Most are illiterate. Most are chronically malnourished. 1 woman in 11 dies in pregnancy or childbirth, this compares to 1 in 2,100 in the US (the highest of any industrialized nation). In Italy and Ireland, the risk of maternal death is less than 1 in 15,000 and in Greece it’s 1 in 31,800. Skilled health professionals attend only 14% of childbirths. A woman’s life expectancy is barely 45 years of age.
Women are still viewed as property. A law has been passed by the Karzai regime that legalizes marital rape, and requires a woman to get the permission of her husband to leave the house. Domestic violence is a chronic problem. A women who runs away from home (even if escaping violence) is imprisoned. Upon completion of her sentence she is returned to the husband. Self-immolation is still common as desperate women try to get out of impossible situations.
Shortly after the U.S. invasion, Laura Bush said, “The plight of women and children in Afghanistan is a matter of deliberate human cruelty, carried out by those who seek to intimidate and control.” President Bush said, “Our coalition has liberated Afghanistan and restored fundamental human rights and freedoms to Afghan women, and all the people of Afghanistan.” Actually, the former warlords responsible for the destruction, pillage, and rape of Afghanistan were ushered back into power by the United States. In 2007, these very same warlords, now Parliamentarians, passed a bill that granted amnesty for any killings during the civil war. A local journalist said, “The killers are the ones holding the pens, writing the law and continuing their crimes.”
When Malalai Joya addressed the Peace Loya Jirga convened in December, 2003, she boldly asked, “Why are we allowing criminals to be present here?” She was thrown out of the assembly. Undeterred, she ran for Parliament, winning in a landslide. She began her maiden speech in Parliament by saying, “My condolences to the people of Afghanistan…” As she continued speaking, the warlord sitting behind her threatened to rape and kill her. The MP’s voted her out of Parliament and Karzai upheld her ouster. In hiding, she continues to champion women’s rights. She has stated that the only people who can liberate Afghan women are the women themselves. When we spoke briefly to her by phone, she stated that she was surprised to still be alive, and needed to cancel our meeting, as it was too dangerous in the current security situation. The Red Cross states that the security situation is the worst it has been in 30 years.
In America, as our total defense budget balloons to 667 billion dollars per year, women and children are faring worse as well. In the “State of the World’s Mothers” report, America has dropped from 11th in 2003 to 31st of the developed countries today. We currently rank behind such luminaries as Estonia, Croatia, and Slovakia. We fall even farther in regards to our children, going from the 4th ranked country to the 34th. Poverty is on the increase with an estimated 1 child in 5 living in poverty. More than 20 million children rely on school lunch programs to keep from going hungry. The number of people living in poverty in America has grown by 2.6 million in just the last 12 months.
Dear reader, I hesitate to bother you with so many statistics, I eliminated the pie charts and graphs, and this report is still dull. After all, the new iphone has Siri, a personal assistant that understands you when you speak. You can verbally instruct it to send a text message, and it does! Now that’s excitement! CNN states there is no need to panic; the Atlanta store has plenty of phones to fill the demand.
Looking only at numbers it is easy to avoid the truth of the enormous amount of human suffering they envelop. Drive through the streets of any American city and these statistics come alive in the swollen ranks of the homeless. Drive through the streets of Kabul and these statistics come alive in the forms of hungry children begging for change.
It is difficult to ascertain what benefit America is deriving from our continued military presence in Afghanistan, though exploitation of natural resources certainly plays a role. Hundreds of billions of dollars are being spent in a military strategy that is failing by all indicators. Yet the politicians in this country continue to back this strategy. Arms dealers and contractors, like G.E. and Boeing, all with lobbyists on Capitol Hill, continue to reap big financial rewards and in turn reward politicians with financial support. Our politicians claim to be “tough on terror” and profess we are “winning”. But by what measure do they ascertain this? The only Afghan people benefiting from our presence are the people supporting the occupation forces, the warlords, and the drug lords. As the poppy fields produce record yields “poppy palaces” are springing up all over Kabul, ostentatious signs that someone is benefiting from our interference.
One measure to judge the success of a nation is its ability to protect its most vulnerable populations. America is not succeeding. The plight of women and children in Afghanistan is still a matter of deliberate human cruelty, carried out by those who seek to intimidate and control. When will our politicians hear the desperate cry of the street children of Afghanistan, who, with all the incense in the world, simply can’t ward off the evil of our occupation?
Johnny Barber just returned from Afghanistan as a member of a delegation from Voices for Creative Non-Violence. He has traveled to Iraq, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, and Gaza to bear witness and document the suffering of people who are affected by war. His work can be viewed at: www.oneBrightpearl-jb.blogspot.com (http://www.oneBrightpearl-jb.blogspot.com) and www.oneBrightpearl.com (http://www.oneBrightpearl.com)
-
................................and? Is someone stopping you from donating your time & money
-
(http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/111017ninetynineRGB20111019020108.jpg)
-
<<Those [facts on which sirs' opinion is based]would be the Kryptonite coverage being provided the OWS gang. >>
Huh? WTF he just say?
<<Those would be the Kryptonite coverage being provided the OWS gang. >>
OK, sorry, sirs, you're just going to have to re-phrase that one in standard English, for the less advanced debaters in this group, like myself for instance.
<<Minus your attemps to redefine terms like "flooded" . . . >>
moi? I "redefined terms like 'flooded?'" Let me remind you, sirs, it was YOUR source, the Bozo, or a writer in one of his loathesome right-wing rags, who used the term "flooded" to define a network's use of ONE - - I'll repeat that, ONE - - "full report or 'interview segment' per day," whatever an "interview segment" might be and however long or short it might last. I found that to be a very curious use of the term. "flooded," and particularly misleading when instead of stating the "flood" to consist of one item per day of indeterminate length, for 11 days by each major network, the Bozo or his rag preferred to lump the coverage by all major networks over the entire 11 days, to create a better impression of a so-called "flood," which never really happened. Yellow journalism at its worst, but only par for the course for the Bozo and his rags.
<<and try to discredit the messenger . . . >>
TRY to discredit the messenger? If I did "try," I would have been in a company which by now must be well in excess of 100,000. I did not have to TRY to discredit the messenger, sirs, Bozo discredited himself decades ago, and despite the well-meant warnings not to even bother to discredit the guy further, I took a shot at it myself and soon found that the first two points made in the article were demolished with minimal effort, something that I would expect any intelligent high-schooler could have done.
<< . . . (in which one of the articles isn't even by him)>>
What's the difference, it appeared in one of his rags, and a high school kid could have demolished the first two points made as easily as I did. It bears all of his trademark stupidity and whoever wants to write for one of his rags must by that fact alone sacrifice all of his or her credibility. Cockroach principle all over again - - if the first two plates are full of roaches, I sure as hell don't have to eat every fucking plate the guy serves up to find out that the whole menu is rotten. The first two points made were, as befits the Bozo, childish, stupid and easily demolished. Bet your ass that I am not going to read through all the rest of that shit to find out that every following point made is similarly childish, stupid and easily demolished. YOU read it, if you think it is such a fantastic article.
<<FACT remains that the MSM continues to provide FAR more, coverage to the OWS gang, then they ever did the Tea Party. >>
No, sorry sirs, that is NOT a fact, and putting it in caps doesn't make it a fact either. That was just your conclusion or opinion, not in any way a "FACT."
<< And the vast majority of that coverage is far more compliant and supportive of their actions, than the Tea party could have ever hoped to have received>>
Again, sirs, that last sentence was purely your conclusion or opinion. Not even CLOSE to a fact.
<<Dem be da facts, I'm afraid>>
Too bad, sirs, I just went through the entire post, and did not find a single "FACT" there. Would you like to rephrase yourself? May I suggest, "Dat be da shit, I'm afraid." Just my humble suggestion.
-
I hope that kryptonite isn't toxic. It obviously has a blinding effect, which allows someone as supposedly as intelligent as you ignorantly claim how favorable coverage is actually unfavorable, red is blue, yada yada.
It's been FACTUALLY demonstrated for all to see, of the MSM's far more favorable reporting of OWS gang vs the Tea Party, despite your copius opinionated best efforts at redefining and (ir)rationalizing, when you're not simply ignoring them, with claims that you haven't seen any (facts). I would have thought you to be smarter than that. Then I have to remind myself....he's got that template...everything must fit it. That then justifies the the above efforts of rationalizing & ignorance, while maintaining the appearance of intelligence. Only an intelligent person can take so much time and articulate such a flawed conclusion, in such a concise manner
-
The trademark sirs' "rebuttal" shows up, once again TOTALLY devoid of new facts or arguments, once again failing to respond to a single point made in my last post, but laden instead with sirs' patented "yadda"s, Kryptonite, red-is-blue and similar wailings and yammerings that perhaps in sirs' mind constitute some kind of rebuttal.
<<I hope that kryptonite isn't toxic. >>
Not unless you type it into every one of your replies five thousand times in a row. But I'd count back if I were you, you're starting to come dangerously close to the limit.
<<It obviously has a blinding effect, which allows someone as supposedly as intelligent as you ignorantly claim how favorable coverage is actually unfavorable, red is blue, yada yada. >>
Well, if you have coverage that in your opinion is favourable, I'll be happy to look it over and give you my opinion as to whether I think it's favourable or not. So far you have failed to produce even one single MSM article that you claim is favourable to the movement. You HAVE produced snippets from articles that you thought were favourable, which I indicated were actually unfavourable, such as the "noble but . . . " snippet, where you felt the word "noble" alone could be taken totally out of context with the words immediately following and constituted favourable coverage, an obviously ignorant and uninformed opinion which I don't think many people, even on the right, would agree with (well, apart from your favourite authority, Bozo the Clown, of course) and I on the contrary existed that the word "noble" had to be taken in context with the words immediately following, so that any intelligent reader would immediately recognize the whole phrase as unfavourable to the movement.d
As for the rest of that line, the "red-is-blue" and the "yadda yadda," I'll just take that for what it's become, part of your signature, because as argument, it's about as persuasive and as meaningful as the chattering of a treefull of monkeys.
<<It's been FACTUALLY demonstrated for all to see, of the MSM's far more favorable reporting of OWS gang vs the Tea Party . . . >>
Well, see, that's the thing, sirs, it HASN'T been "FACTUALLY demonstrated" at all. I mean, you certainly posted a lot of ludicrous bullshit, primarily from Bozo and his rags, which I took the trouble to demolish and demonstrate on representative portions that they were actually meaningless and ridiculous piles of shit, to which demonstrations you had no reply other than to claim yet again that the "FACTS" (capitalized, I suppose, for authenticity) backed up your contentions, but able to add no more "facts" than the ones you had offered up and seen demolished before your eyes.
<< despite your copius opinionated best efforts at redefining . . . >>
As we've already seen, sirs, it was your guru the Bozo who attempted to re-define "flood" or "flooding," which I called him out on. You yourself previously tried to re-define the word "exhaustive" so that it would apply to an effort that I made to analyze the first two paragraphs in a magazine article and left the rest of the article unexamined, and of course I also had to call you out on that obvious misuse of the word "exhaustive."
So as we can see, it is not I who re-defines any words, but you and your guru, Bozo the Clown, who are always stretching the meaning of words to and beyond their limits, and it is I who has to call you out on it and bring the discussion back to a level of rationality where words are used in accordance with their definitions and not otherwise.
<< . . . and (ir)rationalizing, when you're not simply ignoring them, with claims that you haven't seen any (facts).>>
Well, sirs, I admit that some "facts" that you have presented, I have tried to demonstrate that they were not facts, or if they were, they validated MY side of the argument and not YOURS. I am kind of disappointed that instead of taking issue with whatever I had said about your alleged "facts," you chose instead to ignore whatever argument I had made and merely to characterize it (on what basis, I can't imagine) as "rationalizing" or "irrationalizing." Obviously a cheap shot and a concession of defeat, but then I really was not expecting better from you.
<< I would have thought you to be smarter than that. >>
Uh, sirs, I wouldn't go there if I were you. I respect the intelligence of every debater, even you. We simply cannot or should not allow these debates to degenerate into name-calling. That would not be a good thing. So for the present, I am just going to ignore that little remark and suggest that you not pursue it.
<<Then I have to remind myself....he's got that template...everything must fit it. >>
Uh, yeah, sirs. Right. I think I've heard that before from you, probably five or six thousand times by now. I am certainly not going to deny that I have a point of view, one that provides me with certain analytical tools, and that the basic POV has remained pretty constant over the years, doesn't change much, and so my responses to specific arguments are, well, pretty similar to my earlier responses to the same arguments. I'm grateful for the analytical tools that I do possess, and I don't see any reason to apologize for them, or to justify the fact that my answers are coming from a certain definite POV that hasn't changed much over the years. I'm afraid you'll just have to get used to them. If you want answers coming from a different POV, talk to Kramer, talk to plane or BT, talk to XO or some of the other members of this group.
<<That then justifies the the above efforts of rationalizing & ignorance, while maintaining the appearance of intelligence. Only an intelligent person can take so much time and articulate such a flawed conclusion, in such a concise manner>>
Please see my above comments. I just don't happen to think it's good that we speculate on one another's intelligence. Take my word for it, it's not really an important or even interesting subject. Whenever you want to discuss the issues, I'm here.
-
And here's some more of that red is blue reporting
-----------------------------------------------
OWS Like Tiananmen Square, But Tea Party Protests Were Like Terrorist Weathermen
By: Clay Waters
October 18, 2011
The romantic treatment of the leftist sit-in at Wall Street by Michael Kimmelman in his Sunday Review “news analysis” “The Power of Place in Protest" was bad enough, with talk of Aristotle and “the size of an ideal polis” and how “Zuccotti Park has in fact become a miniature polis, a little city in the making.”
But the real offense came in the New York Times' choice of comparison photos.
The think-piece by the paper's architectural critic was accompanied by archive photos of other massive legendary protests;
Kent State in 1970;
the Central Park protest against the Vietnam War in 1967;
the famous man in front of the tank in Tiananmen Square in 1989;
the fall of the Berlin Wall that same year.
Of more recent vintage was the Tahrir Square protest in Cairo and Occupy Wall Street.
That’s pretty flattering company – as if standing up to Chinese Communist tanks was comparable to eating donated food in Lower Manhattan for a month. It’s also quite different from the kind of historical image the Times used in its Tea Party coverage.
A March 28, 2010 Times story by Benedict Carey carried an ominous title cribbed from the famous scene in the movie "Network," “RAGE's DNA: Mad As Hell. And...” The online headline was even blunter: “When Does Political Anger Turn to Violence?”
The story was accompanied by a photo illustration of an open book of matches, one of them lit.
There was also a really strange pair of photos on the jump page: an archive photo, courtesy of Getty Images, of the late-1960s left-wing domestic terrorist group The Weathermen, directly above a similar picture of marching Tea Party protesters. The caption suggested the two movements share some DNA: "VARYING DEGREES OF RAGE The Weathermen, including Bill Ayers, second from right, during the Days of Rage in 1969, and anti-health reform protesters in Washington on Sunday."
Article (http://www.mrc.org/timeswatch/articles/2011/20111018030924.aspx)
And heads up to Tee....the prior post of mine was merely a summary of the FACTS ALREADY PROVIDED. Your continued ignoring of those facts, with erroneous claims of having yet not seen them, is all you big fella
-
<<And heads up to Tee....the prior post of mine was merely a summary of the FACTS ALREADY PROVIDED.>>
Yeah, sirs, you've called them "facts" about seven or eight times already, but as I've already demonstrated in my post, they're mostly not facts at all. The first two "facts" in the article from a Bozo rag, I took the trouble (in vain, as it turns out) to show you what ludicrous bullshit they really were. I also said I am not going to bother debunking any more allegations from any of L. Brent Bozell III's rags, simply because the guy is an absolutely non-credible source of anything and I just don't want to waste any further time debunking a source known to be as phony and as unreliable as he is. If there are ANY facts that might have crept into Bozo's rag by accident (if for example he correctly mentions Raymond Kelly as Chief of the NYPD) then you should easily be able to find such facts in many other media sources. Bozo certainly has no monopoly on any truths that might accidentally have found themselves recorded in any of his rags.
Bottom line is, I believe that I've dealt honestly and respectfully with any "facts" that you alleged to be true, from any other source than Bozo and his rags, and will continue to do so. If you want to continue to waste your own time reading the shit that dribbles out of Bozo's ass, that of course is your privilege, just don't ask me to comment on them, cuz I am not going to waste my time on his garbage. If in pursuing your Bozo readings, you see any "factual" allegations that you think help your case, if you can validate these facts from any other source, by all means produce them if you are so minded and I will not ignore them.
<<For example, the additional examples >>
Thank you for them, and as long as they are from a reasonably reputable source, I will certainly look at them and comment in my next post or explain to you why they are, IMHO, not worth commenting on. (I'm certainly not expecting more Bozo-type shit, because Bozo is truly in a class of his own.)
<< Your continued ignoring of those facts . . . >>
Cut the crap, sirs. You know and I know that apart from the crap that you posted from Bozo, I have dealt with every "fact" that you presented (and demolished most of them.)
<< . . . with erroneous claims of having yet not seen them, is all you big fella>>
What "erroneous claims" are you talking about, sirs? Help me out here, I don't have a clue what you're talking about. In plain English, please. Try to keep expressions like "Kryptonite" and "red is blue" out of your explanation. Make it simple, keep it short.
-
Those would be the erroneous claims that no facts have been presented, when they clearly have. And despite your best opininated efforts, yes, they are, and the facts you do attempt to affirm, don NOT butress your notion of the MSM supposedly reporting the OWS gang in an "unfavorable" light
FACTUALLY, quite the polar opposite, Superman
-
<< . . . the erroneous claims that no facts have been presented, when they clearly have. >>
OK, sirs, it's possible that we are just talking past each other. If you have presented ANY facts (apart from those that I already dealt with and demolished) that I ignored (apart from Bozo's drivel) let me know which ones you presented, where you presented them, and if I haven't already dealt with them, I will do so now AND apologize to you for overlooking them. Otherwise, STFU about them.
<<And despite your best opininated efforts, yes, they are, and the facts you do attempt to affirm, don NOT butress your notion of the MSM supposedly reporting the OWS gang in an "unfavorable" light>>
This is just an attempt to start another "am not! are too!" round of so-called
"argument." You've expressed your POV and I've expressed mine. More than adequately. What each of us has said can stand on its own and as we don't agree, we can just leave it there.
-
Asked and answered already in the numerous prior posts, as well as the most recent one regarding the NYTimes.
Kind of reminds me of the Conrad Murry Trial, when after a Physician gave his testimony for the prosecution, the Defense attorny attempted to claim something along the lines of....Well, Dr, your testimony appears to be based on a lot of assumtions, correct? The Dr's response...Well, actually, no they are facts that my testimomy is based on. There was Propofol being used in the home. There was no monitoring device which is required in the use of Propofol. 911 was not initiated right away. And so on and so on and so on
Your ignoring of the facts presented, in no way dispells them or makes them as non existant. Furthemore the facts you do try to use to support your fatally flawed notion of how the MSM reports the actions of the OWS movement....well, I can't help you. Your template to bare, and at this point, I think we've run this into the ground
-
Yes, you may have the last word(s) Opine away. Still doesn't dispell the facts already presented on this topic, but I'm guessing you're itching to pull some more red is blue crud. fire away
-
MT: If you have presented ANY facts (apart from those that I already dealt with and demolished) that I ignored (apart from Bozo's drivel) let me know which ones you presented, where you presented them, and if I haven't already dealt with them, I will do so now AND apologize to you for overlooking them. Otherwise, STFU about them.
sirs' answer: <<Asked and answered already in the numerous prior posts . . . >>
In other words, no answer. sirs is not able to point to one single "fact" that he's presented to date (apart from what he found in some worthless crap rag whose reputation for truthfulness is well below zero) that I have ignored. Despite his innumerable complaints about facts (never specified then or now) that I have been ignoring. Except . . .
sirs' answer (continued): << . . . as well as the most recent one regarding the NYTimes.>>
In other words, the ONLY "facts" that sirs presented that I ignored or failed to deal with were the ones from his latest post three hours ago, which I haven't yet found time to answer. This in a thread in which his accusations of my ignoring his "facts" began just before 2 o'clock yesterday morning.
In other words, (this is hilarious) sirs has been accusing me all day yesterday and all day today of ignoring "facts" that he's posted, and yet (apart from some bullshit in a rag of zero credibility that I and apparently many others no longer even bother to rebut) the ONLY "facts" that sirs can claim I failed to respond to are those in his post of just a little over three hours ago!
sirs, excuse me, but: WHAT A CROCK OF SHIT. You make up shit, you can't back it up, and you force me to waste my time in defence of your bullshit accusations. I'm sorry, and really, no hard feelings, but I am just not going to bother debating with you again. It just isn't worth it. I'll answer the "facts" you raised in your post of about three hours ago because I said I would, but God-damn it sirs, you have absolutely no respect for my time and to think that I need to waste it on stuff like this is just nuts. Have a nice life.