This is not an apples to apples comparison of course. Activist groups are not like fireman groups. Not like I feel like continuing to go into the weeds over this, but a fireman is a specific job with specific and formal acceptance regulations, training, physical base of operations, rank, etc. etc.
Even within that, the personnel of a fire department can change quite a bit and it will still be the same group, "Ladder Company # 23" or whatever.
Or consider the music group King Crimson. Over the past nearly 40 years there's only been one consistent member, Robert Fripp. But it's still the same musical group. Fripp himself has referred to the band as a "way of doing things". One might consider Anonymous the same. It may have only a few consistent members or it may even have none. It still has activists doing what they think of as activist things, within a group of similar-minded activists. Therefore it's a group of activists. Q.E.D.
]
A group of people doing activist things like busting open HB Gary, shutting down the Tunisian government websites and protesting Scientology - what else could they be but a group of activists?
And the Republicans will vote for it. Would have already, if Bush had realized there was an Internet.
Don't get me wrong, no President should have that power. But to imply this reach for censorship is something specific to Obama is inaccurate in my view.
That said, if the Republicans manage to keep Obama from adding that power to the Executive Branch, they will for once be doing America a favor.
I get that Anonymous has presented itself as a collective direction that any one person can join. But I doubt this is an initiative of their core members. It seems off the reservation and out of the plan. Phelps is a complete ass doing his best to spread hate and stupidity; but he's not oppressing the poor or breaking the law.
Banks, corporations and oppressive governments are far more worthy targets. This is random time-wasting crap. I doubt it's a false-flag, 'cause there's no way an attack on Phelps would inspire any sympathy from anyone; but I do expect it's a teenager wanting to be a bad ass and not bothering to apply intellect towards finding more important targets.
"...then when we get older, get a job, get responsibilities, get taxed, we tend to selfishly want to keep the money which we have been working so hard to get."
Just don't touch our social security or medicare. For people who need it, that somehow is never considered a government handout. Isn't that something?
I'd like to propose an alternate theory: when people are young, they realize what they need to succeed. Once people get older and they've had help succeeding all their lives, they like to forget the help they had getting there - schools, school loans, education system, roads, etc. - and want to pretend they got there all by themselves.
But they can only do that if the rest of the country and a self-interested media lets them because it'll help media owners get lower taxes. And screw what's best for the country's long-term interests in the process...
Al Gore is fact-based. You can dispute the facts he presents, but you will be going against the overwhelming majority consensus of experts in their fields. Michael Moore is opinionated, but the facts he bases his opinions on are also actually very well-documented and real. The right-wing would love to catch Michael Moore in an actual relevant misstatement. The best I've seen them come up with is that he changed the title of a newspaper article in a graphic in "Fahrenheit 911" - and the title was actually more accurate than the original.
As for Moveon's campaign, if defunding will hurt public broadcasting then it's certainly reasonable to say they want to save it. And defunding will definitely hurt public broadcasting.
But really, none of these examples map because none of them are broadcasters with high-profile daily and weekly shows of their own, from something that purports to be a news channel.
The political universe does not require any kind of symmetry. One side really can be worse than another. In this way, the Right wing really is worse than the Left. That's just how it is.
I think Beck began by letting out his crazy for entertainment value...but I think the crazy is starting to slip its leash and run things. And when he finally does melt all the way down, it will not be pretty.
And rather than deal with the fallout of admitting and fixing whatever the cause of the negative comment was, the City Council would rather make sure no one with direct knowledge can talk about it.
Probably something to do with someone paying someone else they're also exchanging bodily fluids with, is my guess.
All conjecture that I can engage in because I'm not talking about where I work...God help us if the companies keep merging until they're all one company and no one can talk shit about their employer anywhere.
Mr. Reeves is a sequel whore committed to leaching money off of success or even moderate success.
Have to disagree with this. Whatever his limits as an actor, he does good work within those limits *and* he cares about it. Not only was "A Scanner Darkly" a bold choice that I can't see how he was talked into; and for the money part, he actually shared a *huge* part of his own profits from Matrix with the special effects guys who's work really made it stand out. This was voluntarily on his part, and not something I can think of any other movie star doing.
I disagree with the second and third movies being fine. The second's script was mediocre, and the third's was a *real* assault on humanity. How many times did one character turn to another and say, "But let me ask you a question..." - just ASK IT!!! for frak's sake. That crap shoulda been pulled out in the first draft.
I hope the Wachowski's realize they have something to prove now that Speed Racer tanked, and they will thus get back into putting the effort to write well.
If that's the case, then all that US money we pumped into keeping them afloat isn't good enough for them either. I'll take mine back please. I'll put in a local credit union that actually gives a crap about even a small part of America.
Of course, it'll be necessary to put in safeguards for the inevitable situations where someone tries to entrap, defraud or simply lie about an employer to get a green card.
I have heard of some computer companies hiring out to Mexico instead off India, and having success because the Mexican programmers have a better understanding of American culture and are also in the same time zone.
I think what also would have to happen is for the drug money problem to go away. And what I think would need to be done for that to happen is similarly straightforward, and similarly politically untouchable: jail time for the presidents of banks that launder drug money.
Of course, I realize that's even less likely than legal consequences for illegal employers.
And, you know, actually give out jail time, instead of just the occasional fine they'll deduct from their profits. So those jobs for illegals dry up, and they stop trying to come in.
I know, I know. That's crazy talk. Why would either party go after rich and powerful people, when they can just spend the sheeple's hard-earned cash? Otherwise they might have to spend it on health care, education, roads, or something else that might actually be useful.
First, it is not merely conjecture that the Right is using more extreme rhetoric, and more often, than the Left.
The stars of the Right are using more violent terms and terminology more often. If you'd like to refute this, than please find anyone on the Left who has anywhere NEAR the audience of Glenn Beck, who fantasized about killing someone. Such as Beck did re: Michael Moore. Or made unfunny jokes about beheading people, like Bill O'Reilly.
When you can't find these matching examples on the Left, I hope that you will realize your theory that the Left and Right are equally extreme has been disproven.
Second, yes the extreme rhetoric of the past was pretty awful. That means it's good to have it now? There used to be lunatics popping off back then, too. The difference was there weren't cars and machine guns and advanced marketing science.
I don't see how you can think that the atmosphere people are in doesn't affect people. I don't see how you can just reject out of hand the notion that those who are unbalanced are more easily, um, unbalanced by the environment around them. And I don't see why you think it's just fine to not try and tone down the rhetoric.
But we're not talking about direct influence. We're talking about creating an atmosphere of dire emergency and freaked-out anger, such as unbalanced nutballs will be susceptible to.
And the fact remains, even though those on the Right find this uncomfortable to face, that
1. there is **FAR** more extreme rhetoric is coming from the Right
2. it is far more extreme in content
3. it is coming from far more famous people - in fact, from the Right's star pundits and politicians
I'm sorry if that's a set of facts that you don't want to face. But you're not wanting to face them, doesn't change the facts. And the sooner those on the Right can realize this and stop rewarding these pundits and politicians by giving them votes in return for extreme rhetoric, the sooner the atmosphere in America can go back to say mid-1990's levels. Which were bad enough, but at least we could work together.
Exactly what has that to do with Sarah Palin's *online* campaign targeting district with bullseyes, or Gifford's opposing candidate having a local fundraiser on a gun range where people could shoot M-16's to stop Gifford?
Let's say someone in your town is an unbalanced looney tune. Would it be a good idea to start a political campaign comparing someone you disagree with to Cyclops, and put out posters showing that person being stabbed in the eye with a spear?
As opposed to saying you don't like her tax policy and how her party is on spear control - even though she herself fully supports people having spears in public?
I think we could both agree that the inflammatory fantastical rhetoric could be taken down a notch, right? Either that or improve the funding of mental health so people who are poor and insane can at least be treated, and not go out buying machine guns instead.
People shouldn't shout fire in crowded theatres; and people shouldn't shout "Hitler!!" in a nation crowded with lunatics.
No. I'm suggesting that this guy who, according to *one person* who claims to have known him personally was "left wing", was an unbalanced looney tune.
And I'm suggesting that unbalanced looney tunes can get influenced by extreme and inflammatory rhetoric, and are more likely to go off in that direction when they do.
Therefore it is irresponsible to go around shoving dire, violent, inflammatory, us-or-them, life-and-death rhetoric into the culture. I'm suggesting that basically you can disagree with people's policies without calling the opposing party's politicians evil and implying they should be removed with gunfire.
Is there something about that which seems **unreasonable** to you? If so, what?
Perhaps this is beyond your grasp, but your attempted refutation didn't actually refute anything.
Do you understand the difference I'm pointing out? The dailykos article was seen by maybe 100 web users, maybe 3 of which where in Arizona. The Palin ad was seen by at least tens of thousands, and possibly hundreds of thousands of web users, discussed further with others, and solicited donations from many of the same.
Especially as even *I* saw the Palin ad - and I'm an evil liberal.
Do you then understand how the dailykos article existing and then being deleted by the owner, in no way could have anywhere near the same kind of effect on this nutball - as he was nearly certain NOT to have seen the dailykos ad, and was at least pretty likely TO have seen the Palin ad?
If you had presented something from the Left that had received anywhere near as much eyeballs as Palin's, that might be a different story.
Exactly what part of that first link says this was encouraged by a dailykos blogger?
So, please take the second link to heart. Even when exposed to repeated evidence that the dailykos article could hardly have been influential on this nutcase, you would prefer to believe it's the case.
And you would even take this to the extreme of accusing *someone else who points this out to you*, of refusing to change their opinion when confronted with the facts.
Um, this is being done to me? Therefore:
a) it's not something that only progressives do
b) if it's wrong, then it's wrong whether or not progressives allegedly do it also.
Btw, have you heard of an incident at Rand Paul's event where a leftist protester was briefly held down for about one second by a Tea Party member who placed his foot on her shoulder. I'm sure you have, because it was all over headline news, while the other two incidents were never mentioned at all on MSNBC, and barely so on CNN.
You mean the video where a protester exercising her alleged rights to free assembly tried to get a picture of Paul with a sign that would embarass him, and was chased by Paul supporters until she was thrown to the ground and stomped on? The stomper actually working for Paul's campaign?
Yeah I saw it. Unfortunately the video itself and the cavalcade of lame excuses that followed did not surprise me. Including the BS that the guy was "placed his foot on her shoulder". Which is only true if punching some in the face is "caressing their cheek".
Slashdot Mirror
This is not an apples to apples comparison of course. Activist groups are not like fireman groups. Not like I feel like continuing to go into the weeds over this, but a fireman is a specific job with specific and formal acceptance regulations, training, physical base of operations, rank, etc. etc.
Even within that, the personnel of a fire department can change quite a bit and it will still be the same group, "Ladder Company # 23" or whatever.
Or consider the music group King Crimson. Over the past nearly 40 years there's only been one consistent member, Robert Fripp. But it's still the same musical group. Fripp himself has referred to the band as a "way of doing things". One might consider Anonymous the same. It may have only a few consistent members or it may even have none. It still has activists doing what they think of as activist things, within a group of similar-minded activists. Therefore it's a group of activists. Q.E.D.
Um, what?
] A group of people doing activist things like busting open HB Gary, shutting down the Tunisian government websites and protesting Scientology - what else could they be but a group of activists?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_(group)
And the Republicans will vote for it. Would have already, if Bush had realized there was an Internet.
Don't get me wrong, no President should have that power. But to imply this reach for censorship is something specific to Obama is inaccurate in my view.
That said, if the Republicans manage to keep Obama from adding that power to the Executive Branch, they will for once be doing America a favor.
I get that Anonymous has presented itself as a collective direction that any one person can join. But I doubt this is an initiative of their core members. It seems off the reservation and out of the plan. Phelps is a complete ass doing his best to spread hate and stupidity; but he's not oppressing the poor or breaking the law.
Banks, corporations and oppressive governments are far more worthy targets. This is random time-wasting crap. I doubt it's a false-flag, 'cause there's no way an attack on Phelps would inspire any sympathy from anyone; but I do expect it's a teenager wanting to be a bad ass and not bothering to apply intellect towards finding more important targets.
Just don't touch our social security or medicare. For people who need it, that somehow is never considered a government handout. Isn't that something?
I'd like to propose an alternate theory: when people are young, they realize what they need to succeed. Once people get older and they've had help succeeding all their lives, they like to forget the help they had getting there - schools, school loans, education system, roads, etc. - and want to pretend they got there all by themselves.
But they can only do that if the rest of the country and a self-interested media lets them because it'll help media owners get lower taxes. And screw what's best for the country's long-term interests in the process...
I don't see how those counter-examples map.
Al Gore is fact-based. You can dispute the facts he presents, but you will be going against the overwhelming majority consensus of experts in their fields. Michael Moore is opinionated, but the facts he bases his opinions on are also actually very well-documented and real. The right-wing would love to catch Michael Moore in an actual relevant misstatement. The best I've seen them come up with is that he changed the title of a newspaper article in a graphic in "Fahrenheit 911" - and the title was actually more accurate than the original.
As for Moveon's campaign, if defunding will hurt public broadcasting then it's certainly reasonable to say they want to save it. And defunding will definitely hurt public broadcasting.
But really, none of these examples map because none of them are broadcasters with high-profile daily and weekly shows of their own, from something that purports to be a news channel.
The political universe does not require any kind of symmetry. One side really can be worse than another. In this way, the Right wing really is worse than the Left. That's just how it is.
I think Beck began by letting out his crazy for entertainment value...but I think the crazy is starting to slip its leash and run things. And when he finally does melt all the way down, it will not be pretty.
And rather than deal with the fallout of admitting and fixing whatever the cause of the negative comment was, the City Council would rather make sure no one with direct knowledge can talk about it.
Probably something to do with someone paying someone else they're also exchanging bodily fluids with, is my guess.
All conjecture that I can engage in because I'm not talking about where I work...God help us if the companies keep merging until they're all one company and no one can talk shit about their employer anywhere.
Have to disagree with this. Whatever his limits as an actor, he does good work within those limits *and* he cares about it. Not only was "A Scanner Darkly" a bold choice that I can't see how he was talked into; and for the money part, he actually shared a *huge* part of his own profits from Matrix with the special effects guys who's work really made it stand out. This was voluntarily on his part, and not something I can think of any other movie star doing.
http://www.hellomagazine.com/celebrities/200305283652/keanu/reeves/matrix/1/
I disagree with the second and third movies being fine. The second's script was mediocre, and the third's was a *real* assault on humanity. How many times did one character turn to another and say, "But let me ask you a question..." - just ASK IT!!! for frak's sake. That crap shoulda been pulled out in the first draft.
I hope the Wachowski's realize they have something to prove now that Speed Racer tanked, and they will thus get back into putting the effort to write well.
That, and perhaps you're not buying jeans that are a bit too small for you...like I am. ahem.
Unreal.
If that's the case, then all that US money we pumped into keeping them afloat isn't good enough for them either. I'll take mine back please. I'll put in a local credit union that actually gives a crap about even a small part of America.
I think that's a *fantastic* idea.
Of course, it'll be necessary to put in safeguards for the inevitable situations where someone tries to entrap, defraud or simply lie about an employer to get a green card.
I'm with that if it works.
I have heard of some computer companies hiring out to Mexico instead off India, and having success because the Mexican programmers have a better understanding of American culture and are also in the same time zone.
I think what also would have to happen is for the drug money problem to go away. And what I think would need to be done for that to happen is similarly straightforward, and similarly politically untouchable: jail time for the presidents of banks that launder drug money.
Of course, I realize that's even less likely than legal consequences for illegal employers.
And, you know, actually give out jail time, instead of just the occasional fine they'll deduct from their profits. So those jobs for illegals dry up, and they stop trying to come in.
I know, I know. That's crazy talk. Why would either party go after rich and powerful people, when they can just spend the sheeple's hard-earned cash? Otherwise they might have to spend it on health care, education, roads, or something else that might actually be useful.
First, it is not merely conjecture that the Right is using more extreme rhetoric, and more often, than the Left.
The stars of the Right are using more violent terms and terminology more often. If you'd like to refute this, than please find anyone on the Left who has anywhere NEAR the audience of Glenn Beck, who fantasized about killing someone. Such as Beck did re: Michael Moore. Or made unfunny jokes about beheading people, like Bill O'Reilly.
When you can't find these matching examples on the Left, I hope that you will realize your theory that the Left and Right are equally extreme has been disproven.
Second, yes the extreme rhetoric of the past was pretty awful. That means it's good to have it now? There used to be lunatics popping off back then, too. The difference was there weren't cars and machine guns and advanced marketing science.
I don't see how you can think that the atmosphere people are in doesn't affect people. I don't see how you can just reject out of hand the notion that those who are unbalanced are more easily, um, unbalanced by the environment around them. And I don't see why you think it's just fine to not try and tone down the rhetoric.
But we're not talking about direct influence. We're talking about creating an atmosphere of dire emergency and freaked-out anger, such as unbalanced nutballs will be susceptible to.
And the fact remains, even though those on the Right find this uncomfortable to face, that
1. there is **FAR** more extreme rhetoric is coming from the Right
2. it is far more extreme in content
3. it is coming from far more famous people - in fact, from the Right's star pundits and politicians
I'm sorry if that's a set of facts that you don't want to face. But you're not wanting to face them, doesn't change the facts. And the sooner those on the Right can realize this and stop rewarding these pundits and politicians by giving them votes in return for extreme rhetoric, the sooner the atmosphere in America can go back to say mid-1990's levels. Which were bad enough, but at least we could work together.
And?
Exactly what has that to do with Sarah Palin's *online* campaign targeting district with bullseyes, or Gifford's opposing candidate having a local fundraiser on a gun range where people could shoot M-16's to stop Gifford?
Yes. And?
Let's say someone in your town is an unbalanced looney tune. Would it be a good idea to start a political campaign comparing someone you disagree with to Cyclops, and put out posters showing that person being stabbed in the eye with a spear?
As opposed to saying you don't like her tax policy and how her party is on spear control - even though she herself fully supports people having spears in public?
I think we could both agree that the inflammatory fantastical rhetoric could be taken down a notch, right? Either that or improve the funding of mental health so people who are poor and insane can at least be treated, and not go out buying machine guns instead.
People shouldn't shout fire in crowded theatres; and people shouldn't shout "Hitler!!" in a nation crowded with lunatics.
Yes. And?
No. I'm suggesting that this guy who, according to *one person* who claims to have known him personally was "left wing", was an unbalanced looney tune.
And I'm suggesting that unbalanced looney tunes can get influenced by extreme and inflammatory rhetoric, and are more likely to go off in that direction when they do.
Therefore it is irresponsible to go around shoving dire, violent, inflammatory, us-or-them, life-and-death rhetoric into the culture. I'm suggesting that basically you can disagree with people's policies without calling the opposing party's politicians evil and implying they should be removed with gunfire.
Is there something about that which seems **unreasonable** to you? If so, what?
Perhaps this is beyond your grasp, but your attempted refutation didn't actually refute anything.
Do you understand the difference I'm pointing out? The dailykos article was seen by maybe 100 web users, maybe 3 of which where in Arizona. The Palin ad was seen by at least tens of thousands, and possibly hundreds of thousands of web users, discussed further with others, and solicited donations from many of the same.
Especially as even *I* saw the Palin ad - and I'm an evil liberal.
Do you then understand how the dailykos article existing and then being deleted by the owner, in no way could have anywhere near the same kind of effect on this nutball - as he was nearly certain NOT to have seen the dailykos ad, and was at least pretty likely TO have seen the Palin ad?
If you had presented something from the Left that had received anywhere near as much eyeballs as Palin's, that might be a different story.
Exactly what part of that first link says this was encouraged by a dailykos blogger?
So, please take the second link to heart. Even when exposed to repeated evidence that the dailykos article could hardly have been influential on this nutcase, you would prefer to believe it's the case.
And you would even take this to the extreme of accusing *someone else who points this out to you*, of refusing to change their opinion when confronted with the facts.
Interesting. What do you make of that?
Um, this is being done to me? Therefore:
a) it's not something that only progressives do
b) if it's wrong, then it's wrong whether or not progressives allegedly do it also.
Just saying.
You mean the video where a protester exercising her alleged rights to free assembly tried to get a picture of Paul with a sign that would embarass him, and was chased by Paul supporters until she was thrown to the ground and stomped on? The stomper actually working for Paul's campaign?
Yeah I saw it. Unfortunately the video itself and the cavalcade of lame excuses that followed did not surprise me. Including the BS that the guy was "placed his foot on her shoulder". Which is only true if punching some in the face is "caressing their cheek".