Author Topic: Tea Party vs Wall Street Hippy/Thug/Handout Crowd Campout  (Read 31071 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Tea Party vs Wall Street Hippy/Thug/Handout Crowd Campout
« Reply #165 on: October 17, 2011, 03:42:49 PM »
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
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Christians4LessGvt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11139
    • View Profile
    • "The Religion Of Peace"
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Tea Party vs Wall Street Hippy/Thug/Handout Crowd Campout
« Reply #166 on: October 17, 2011, 03:44:13 PM »
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!

"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - Ronald Reagan - June 12, 1987

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Tea Party vs Wall Street Hippy/Thug/Handout Crowd Campout
« Reply #167 on: October 17, 2011, 03:56:49 PM »
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.

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Tea Party vs Wall Street Hippy/Thug/Handout Crowd Campout
« Reply #168 on: October 18, 2011, 12:53:26 AM »
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

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.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Tea Party vs Wall Street Hippy/Thug/Handout Crowd Campout
« Reply #169 on: October 18, 2011, 01:46:39 AM »
Weak, albeit exhaustive effort to shoot the messenger.  Damn, don't let those facts get in the way, superman
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Tea Party vs Wall Street Hippy/Thug/Handout Crowd Campout
« Reply #170 on: October 18, 2011, 07:24:14 AM »
<<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.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2011, 07:33:35 AM by Michael Tee »

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Tea Party vs Wall Street Hippy/Thug/Handout Crowd Campout
« Reply #171 on: October 18, 2011, 11:37:17 AM »
Quote
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 worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Tea Party vs Wall Street Hippy/Thug/Handout Crowd Campout
« Reply #172 on: October 19, 2011, 05:10:14 AM »
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  and www.oneBrightpearl.com

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Tea Party vs Wall Street Hippy/Thug/Handout Crowd Campout
« Reply #173 on: October 19, 2011, 10:57:09 AM »
................................and?  Is someone stopping you from donating your time & money
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Tea Party vs Wall Street Hippy/Thug/Handout Crowd Campout
« Reply #174 on: October 19, 2011, 02:14:34 PM »
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Tea Party vs Wall Street Hippy/Thug/Handout Crowd Campout
« Reply #175 on: October 19, 2011, 05:13:14 PM »
<<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.

 
« Last Edit: October 19, 2011, 05:36:57 PM by Michael Tee »

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Tea Party vs Wall Street Hippy/Thug/Handout Crowd Campout
« Reply #176 on: October 19, 2011, 05:33:07 PM »
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 worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Tea Party vs Wall Street Hippy/Thug/Handout Crowd Campout
« Reply #177 on: October 19, 2011, 06:22:05 PM »
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.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Tea Party vs Wall Street Hippy/Thug/Handout Crowd Campout
« Reply #178 on: October 19, 2011, 06:29:48 PM »
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


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
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Tea Party vs Wall Street Hippy/Thug/Handout Crowd Campout
« Reply #179 on: October 19, 2011, 08:59:05 PM »
<<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.