billcoe Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 Clearly we are witnessing two forces of repulsion that are repelling each other, proving the math theroim that although a negative and negative is not a positive, multiplying two negatives gives a positive. However, it seems to be a bunch of negative shit positively stated in this case. Hmmm... Move over, I'm getting some popcorn and sitting back to watch the fur fly once the engineers show up to explain this stuff to everyone. Probably involves "dual negative innernut assclown clownpunching disagreement hysteria" syndrome..... ....spicy! Warm regards to all: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 Impressive contribution to this thread by the right wing dipshits Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 You know what, fuckwad? I grew up watching coverage of the Vietnam war. I watched it pretty closely...my 2nd grade classmate's brother died there, and me pops was there for 2 years. The news didn't pull any punches in telling it like it was. Reporters risked and lost their lives telling it like it was. If your lilly-livered, I've-done-fuck-all-but-whine post modern ego requires denigration of that kind sacrifice, that's cool. And you also need to fuck off, you pusillanimous little fucking insect. Clear enough, or would you like another 'anecdotal' opinion? I don't see how any of this means the media reported on the antiwar movement and relayed its message. Cronkite declaring that Vietnam was a stalemate in 68, and reporters dying to report on what happened in Vietnam doesn't mean that much reporting questioned the logic, tactics and the language of war. You'll have to add more insults next time, perhaps it'll be more convincing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sobo Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 like 2 negative electrons that touch and demolish each other. I don't even know what to say is THAT what killed that still uncertain guy's cat? Nonononono, ivan... two different people. The cat didn't belong to the uncertain guy, fer sure. The cat belonged to this guy: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 I don't see how any of this means the media reported on the antiwar movement and relayed its message. Cronkite declaring that Vietnam was a stalemate in 68, and reporters dying to report on what happened in Vietnam doesn't mean that much reporting questioned the logic, tactics and the language of war. You'll have to add more insults next time, perhaps it'll be more convincing. naw, by the time kronkite bailed on the MACV damn near everyone else in the field was on his heels - michael herr, who makes an especially good study of the language of the military in 'dispatches,' made a good name for himself after then, for example, but there was a ton of anti-war coverage still to come, especially w/ laos n' cambodia, all of which the media gave nixon hell over. still, of course it took 3 years of hardcore shit being shoved down their throat for the big boys to catch up, and that intervening period did have plenty of independent, "new" media holding it up (like rolling stone?) and making it happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 The first is that the Americans “lost” the war because the media coverage in the United States, notably on television, undermined the military and political effort. The second is that most journalists and broadcasters opposed the war. Neither is true. Indeed the truth may well be the opposite ... that on the whole the American media, while questioning the way in which the war was being fought, supported what Stanley Karnow, formerly of the New York Times, has since called “a failed crusade” In his classic study of war correspondents, Phillip Knightley described the reporting from Vietnam during the early 1960s as ... not questioning the American intervention itself, but only its effectiveness. Most correspondents, despite what Washington thought about them, were just as interested in seeing the United States win the war as was the Pentagon. What the correspondents questioned was not American policy, but the tactics used to implement that policy... Myth about the media: Media and the War Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 ha, yes. If only we could make the homeless disappear. They could take a shit in the woods and nobody would notice. I suspect nobody can deny anymore we have a homelessness problem, thanks to OWS. The homeless will disappear when the human race disappears. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 there is no alternative to differentiating the trivial from the general. That's the first time I ever heard an innernutz assclown label Cronkite as 'trivial'. I don't think you did your already somewhat...um...tenuous credibility any favors there, laddie. It's unfortunately not the first time I see an assclown who doesn't understand what he just read. One incidence is trivial evidence by opposition to the behavior in general. You know what, fuckwad? I grew up watching coverage of the Vietnam war. I watched it pretty closely...my 2nd grade classmate's brother died there, and me pops was there for 2 years. The news didn't pull any punches in telling it like it was. Reporters risked and lost their lives telling it like it was. If your lilly-livered, I've-done-fuck-all-but-whine post modern ego requires denigration of that kind sacrifice, that's cool. And you also need to fuck off, you pusillanimous little fucking insect. Clear enough, or would you like another 'anecdotal' opinion? As has been par for you, after misunderstanding and/or obfuscating the point argued, the sole need to appear to win an argue requires ad hominem attack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 As has been par for you, after misunderstanding and/or obfuscating the point argued, the sole need to appear to win an argue requires ad hominem attack. "i swear to god i'll pistol whip the next man who says sheenanigans ad hominem" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 Glad to see things are back to abynormal 'round here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 if the "mainstream media" wanted to see the occupy movement defeated, why would they stories like this on msnbc? http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/19/8884405-lobbying-firms-memo-spells-out-plan-to-undermine-occupy-wall-street Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlpineK Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 I'm sure the Koch bros are putting money into putting out that fire too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 Warning, 4th estate at work: Getting to the Bottom of Poop- and Pee-Gate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 if the "mainstream media" wanted to see the occupy movement defeated, why would they stories like this on msnbc? http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/19/8884405-lobbying-firms-memo-spells-out-plan-to-undermine-occupy-wall-street I don't know. MSNBC is somewhat of an anomaly. They have a fairly progressive non-prime time line up between hayes, Maddow and O'Donnell. We'll see how long this lasts (remember they fired Olbermann and NBC fired Donahue over the Iraq war) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 Spicy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted November 22, 2011 Author Share Posted November 22, 2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 To be fair, the police chief was fired and the department is under investigation. I know, I know, its not an isolated incident. Here's Norm Stamper's (former SPD Chief during the WTO) take on things: The policing of OWS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZimZam Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 In law enforcement, there are three types of force an officer can use. In escalating order: physical force, mechanical force, ending w/ deadly force. I believe there should be four, with the first being mental force. I have witnessed this work to diffuse numerous potentially volatile situations. Like I've said before though, it seems these cops are just bullies who were pussies when they were younger, and now think they have something to prove. They're sick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 Here's Norm Stamper's (former SPD Chief during the WTO) take on things: The policing of OWS "the continuing madness of the drug war" holy shit, a cop w/ a grip on reality! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crux Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 The mainstream media was declaring continually "OWS has no message". Frustrated, I simply asked them. I began soliciting online "What is it you want?" answers from Occupy. In the first 15 minutes, I received 100 answers. These were truly eye-opening -- The shocking truth about the crackdown on Occupy | Naomi Wolf | guardian.co.uk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted November 26, 2011 Author Share Posted November 26, 2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 ironic that the alternate cover-story seems to be just why they shoulda kept the international one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 Just saw "J. Edgar" last night. I'd give it a miss, the oldmanmakeup sucked, but the GF thought it alright. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 I just can't believe she's still hangin' in there after what, six months? Gotta be having doubts about now, I'd bet. (Or maybe just low self esteem.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 I just can't believe she's still hangin' in there after what, six months? Gotta be having doubts about now, I'd bet. (Or maybe just low self esteem.) you been gone 6 whole months? didn't know the co2 re-education camp graduated its prophets in such a hurry! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.