Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
User Journal

Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: Crucial matters 127

Journal by smittyoneeach
The Codpiece Media must circle the wagons and maintain the blackout of the Planned Parenthood videos.
Absolutely nothing--not even Iran nuking Tel Aviv--must be permitted to threaten the most crucial media priority of all: Jenner/Kardashian coverage.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Crucial matters More

Crucial matters

Comments Filter:

  • the blackout of the Planned Parenthood videos.

    They have been seen, they have been analyzed, they have been seen and analyzed again. What blackout are you referring to? Do we need a VH1 pop-up videos remix of them now or something? The only thing that has had more attention in the media in the past month than the planned parenthood videos is The Donald. I am a little concerned that my TV might implode if it should ever feature him telling us his thoughts on or narrating the videos.

    • Such coverage as I've seen has been given the O'Keefe Treatment: point out that There Is This Thing, then shift the analysis to whether the legal system can be used to crush people busy pointing out the truth.
      Today's Democrats are having as easy a time facing the evil of the abortion industry as Democrats of the early 19th century had facing the evil of chattel slavery.

      • then shift the analysis to whether the legal system can be used to crush people busy pointing out the truth

        I am not aware of any such effort. You are the first person I have ever heard to suggest such an effort. Meanwhile the videos themselves have been analyzed by an ever-increasingly-long list of media sources. Just because one of your rising stars is pretending that the videos have content that is not in the videos (and has been called out on her BS by a very minor news outlet) does not mean that your new conspiracy has any merit.

        • Ah, your favorite 'C' word.
          • Do you have a preferred term I could use to describe your fact-free description of a (non-existent) coordinated effort?

            If you want anyone who isn't already in your camp and subscribing to your conspiracies to think that they are anything other than conspiracies, you would do well to provide factual evidence to back them up. Running away from those opportunities every time they come up does not help your ambitions.

            • Do you have a preferred term I could use to describe your fact-free description of a (non-existent) coordinated effort?

              "Investigative journalism" will do, though I'm confident you'll object to any non-Codpiece Media effort.

              • Do you have a preferred term I could use to describe your fact-free description of a (non-existent) coordinated effort?

                "Investigative journalism" will do

                Do you mean you would like some investigative journalism to be done? If so, into what? The videos - in edited or unedited form - were neither investigative nor journalism. If you want find a legitimate research journalist to investigate the books or the numbers at planned parenthood, be my guest. Pretending that your videos actually uncovered some meaningful truth doesn't do yourself any favors. Pretending that they are being buried by some great conspiracy theory does even less.

                • If so, into what?

                  IBOTETMCO (It's blatantly obvious to even the most casual observer) that nothing approaching the truth is acceptable to you, so shag it: let's go with The Center for Medical Progress [centerform...ogress.org], on the theory that investigative quality is proportional to the silent, aborted-baby-like screams you emit.

                  • approaching the truth

                    At what point, when they are pushing the agenda that you support, do you see lies as still qualifying for "approaching the truth"? Conversely, at what point when they are able to support an agenda that you do not support do you see actual facts as not simply being "approaching the truth"?

                    silent

                    Who is being silent here? Your videos are getting only slightly less media attention than Trump. Nothing that Michael Moore did ever got this much attention for this long, nor has anything from any of the major news ne

                    • What lies?
                    • As if there is any shortage of them. I'm sure you'll be launching a new conspiracy relating to the end of the Kevlar Kandidacy soon.
                    • Yeah. I heard Walker is a Christian!
                    • Oh come on now. I'm sure you can find some way to tell us that The Kevlar Kandidacy was torpedoed by Obama's Illuminati Reptoids or Hillary's secret Arab IRS forces.

                    • The Kevlar Kandidacy was torpedoed by Obama's Illuminati Reptoids

                      Only in the sense that voters have been conditioned to focus on style, and ignore substance. However, it would be a stretch to say that #OccupyResoluteDesk started that trend; he merely capitalized on it. Does that make the no-talent rodeo clown a capitalist?

                    • Only in the sense that voters have been conditioned to focus on style, and ignore substance.

                      But you have previously insisted that the voters from your party are vastly more enlightened than those who are not. If that were the case, then they should have immediately seen through the circus and supported the Kevlar Kandidate and his ambitions, right? The issues that were most central to the Kevlar Kampaign have been given almost no attention from the Donald, so it is unlikely that many supporters broke in that direction.

                      Or are you now saying that your party mates are not universally the most

                    • I get a big kick out of you and f-bomb and the whole "your" business.
                      As I was saying on Twitter:

                      NUTSHELL: @GOP is Charlie Brown, Dems are Lucy van Pelt, and Americans are tired of being Pushed Progressive Peanuts. [twitter.com]

                      From my vantage, the GOP is like the Roman Catholic Church: while Christian, I'm totes heretic. The GOP is kind like the Scribes & Pharisees; those of us who'd serve the Messiah just have to understand that some form of crucifixion, while not pleasurable under the sun, is part of doing that which is correct.

                    • I get a big kick out of you and f-bomb

                      I would like to see a clarification on what you mean by the f-bomb here. I did not use it in the previous comment. I'm not sure what you are referring to.

                      the whole "your" business.

                      The your is referring to the fact that you are a more reliable cheerleader for the GOP than I am for the democrats. You put on a nice faÃade early on, telling us that you will vote for some third party candidate, but then reliably every time you go back around and vote for whoever the GOP has picked for you. More so, your party has told you that

                    • I get a big kick out of you and f-bomb

                      I would like to see a clarification on what you mean by the f-bomb here. I did not use it in the previous comment. I'm not sure what you are referring to.

                      fustakrakich

                      the whole "your" business.

                      The your is referring to the fact that you are a more reliable cheerleader for the GOP than I am for the democrats. You put on a nice fade early on, telling us that you will vote for some third party candidate, but then reliably every time you go back around and vote for whoever the GOP has picked for you. More so, your party has told you that there is nothing in the universe worse than a democrat, and that has become your central philosophy and one of the key driving forces behind all your an

                    • I stated that I'd vote for a 3rd party Trump in case of a JEB nomination.

                      You say that in the hopes of convincing someone - but who? - that it is true. I don't believe it, you don't believe it either. If it came down to Jeb vs Democrat in the general election, we both know you would vote for Jeb because there is nothing you hate more than a Democrat.

                      Your Vast Commie Utopia

                      And I can almost foresee where the Commies have come close to grokking this and, out of sheer hormonal spite, decided to trash everything.

                      ... and right back to conspiracy you go.

                    • And real commie utopia is: *If you can have it, we all can have it.*

                      There you go, using reality and facts to challenge his fact-free assertions about communism. How dare you! He might have to go back to pretending to have read some part of the Manifesto if you keep that up.

                    • I stated that I'd vote for a 3rd party Trump in case of a JEB nomination.

                      You say that in the hopes of convincing someone - but who? - that it is true. I don't believe it, you don't believe it either. If it came down to Jeb vs Democrat in the general election, we both know you would vote for Jeb because there is nothing you hate more than a Democrat.

                      Gosh, chief, I don't rightly know. I could as readily waste time trying to convince you that the event we call "sunrise" occurs in the direction referred to as "east" by all sane English speakers. But why would I waste time on these plain facts, like what I said concerning a JEB heckler veto in the direction of a 3rd party Trump. It's what I said. Get stuffed if you don't believe me--I just don't give a Rhett Butler.

                      Your Vast Commie Utopia
                      And I can almost foresee where the Commies have come close to grokking this and, out of sheer hormonal spite, decided to trash everything.

                      ... and right back to conspiracy you go.

                      Nope. Your attention is drawn to "almost". It's as if you get some quasi-sexual satisfaction

                    • Not a bad restatement of my point at all, notwithstanding the Linus cheap shot.

                    • Get stuffed if you don't believe me--I just don't give a Rhett Butler.

                      You are trying to put on a good show, here. However you have a long list of comments and JEs that plainly show there is nothing in this world that you hate more than a politician with a (D) after their name. That cursed letter is the only basis for your hatred of the POTUS today.

                      Your Vast Commie Utopia

                      I and others have shown a great number of times that you know less about that than does a random fish.

                      And I can almost foresee where the Commies have come close to grokking this and, out of sheer hormonal spite, decided to trash everything.

                      ... and right back to conspiracy you go.

                      Nope. Your attention is drawn to "almost".

                      Well, being as you have no factual basis for any part of that statement...

                      It's as if you get some quasi-sexual satisfaction from the use of the word 'conspiracy'.

                      Conspiracy, conspiracy, conspiracy, conspiracy, co

                    • Yeah, the simple truth is a good show. Gotta go.

                    • That would, however, require you to start only posting notions that you have a factual basis for.

                      Yeah, yeah, yeah. Then you pick it apart to question whether I was an eye-witness.
                      If I didn't hold your intellectual honesty in the highest possible regard, I might be moved to think that you're just so much smokescreen. . .

                    • Yeah, the simple truth is a good show.

                      How would you know when you almost never use truth in your comments? Tie that to the fact that you keep rejecting truth out of hand any time that it doesn't match your aims, and I'm not sure if you would recognize truth if it was literally right in front of you.

                    • That would, however, require you to start only posting notions that you have a factual basis for.

                      Yeah, yeah, yeah. Then you pick it apart

                      How would you know? I can't remember the last time you posted something factual in one of our discussions, and I'm not sure that you can, either.

                    • Wait. So, you, 50% of this troll/counter-troll evolution, who has variously accused me of crimes from plagiarism to wanting public figures assassinated, are in Full On Alligator Tear Mode over the lack of factual content?
                      I think the French word to characterize your manner is panache. You're like some vast orifice from which panache flows. Some might even call you a panache-hole.
                    • "Truth" as in, "Jesus Christ"? I mostly like to be subtextual there. Who likes a Bible thumper?

                    • the lack of factual content

                      I am a man of very little faith but I do optimistically hold on to the ideal that some day I may see you present an argument that can be supported with facts.

                    • Even if we want to expand truth to be "all things supported by facts" and "anything connected to Jesus", you still don't use truth in your posts very often. However, Jesus really doesn't have anything to do with the allegation you levelled in this journal entry [slashdot.org] , in spite of the fact that the argument is supported entirely by your faith and not at all by any facts.
                    • Again, I can't fault you, considering paganism and materialism.
                      How do you expand your theory to include Christ, who crushes the serpent of religion's head, at the expense of a bruised heel?
                    • I follow the teachings as closely as possible. But please, help me out by pointing out, specifically, where you think I'm falling short here.

                      You're tagging along with the pagans and idol worshipers. There is no 'Christ' in a religion that preaches hate and bigotry.

                      No, Christ stood, literally, as truth. By all means explain where you think He endorsed your pet sins.

                    • No, but claiming a false equality sure is a sin. I'm led to understand that it feels good for the practitioner, and the State sure is happy to keep people on the plantation thereby, so your motives for pushing the falsehood have their sinful coherence.
                    • XX != XY, irrespective of legal/cultural insistence.

                    • You treat some people as less than human.

                      Holy parabolic strawman, Green Lantern! I don't abort people at Planned Parenthood. Whom (be specific) is it that you think I've treated "as less than human"?

                      All I ever said is that all human couples have the same rights to the same contracts.

                      And I've never disagreed with any contractual matter legally set forth.
                      But please: keep calling me a "bigot". Your inaccuracy underscores your general unreliability.

                  • The Center for Medical Progress

                    :-) A very fraudulent tax-exempt biomedicine *cough*charity.. tax evading money launderers (no doubt mixed with a few Josh Duggars in that crowd) taking lots of money from Operation Rescue (the Godfather) Shirley you're not serious!

                    And of course, the story about the story is the much bigger event. Even the media coverage gets media coverage. You guys are doing good. Despite the show from the "opposition", I have no doubt you can still win.

                    • A very fraudulent tax-exempt biomedicine *cough*charity

                      I'll admit I hadn't bothered to look up their background before now; wikipedia lists them as a 501(c)(3) [wikipedia.org] which indeed qualifies as a charity.

                      But of course, as the conservatives claim that the IRS is just an arm of President Lawnchair's Gestapo, certainly they won't exist that way much longer, right?

                    • Let me understand this: you're certain that the CMP is fraudulent, the videos are a hoax, and there is no factual basis contained in any of the CMP footage?
                    • See, now, there you go with the Godwin's Law violation on the good President. Tut tut, sir: tut tut.
                    • Well played, sir. You didn't actually say anything useful to add to the conversation. but your statement is actually valid.

                      Well, mostly valid anyways. And mostly is vastly better than your usual.
                    • *golf clap*
                      When you're strawmanning, you don't jack about, do you? Great work.
                      Your fan,
                      Chris
                    • You're at least mis-characterizing, if not falsely accusing, when you say:

                      Fraud is part and parcel to your business... a 10,000 year old shell game.

                    • Not denying anything. Merely serving the truth, and laughing at the hucksters such as yourself and their sad, ersatz wares.
                    • Which, of course, you absolutely never do, in your role as the Soul of Illumination.
                    • But you, of course, are the truly liberated spirit, no? You're absolutely not just replaying every tired atheist tape. Not you. Nope.
                    • Back to the matter at hand, it's one thing to accuse someone of "spreading lies"; it's quite another to elaborate on exactly what you feel the lies to be.
                      If you can't offer at least a hint of what you think dishonest about the CMP videos, one might wonder if you're the one with factual problems.

                    • The burden is on the film makers to prove the veracity of their accusations. They have failed miserably so far. They are fraudsters, and thieves since they don't pay taxes either.

                      I should think, given the centrality of the sacrament of abortion to our contemporary death cult, that what they're doing, simply putting out the video of what's occurring, should be enough. Calling them "film makers" debases them to the Michael Moore level, don't you think? ". . .thieves since they don't pay taxes either"? Surely the IRS targeting lasers would draw a bead on them, were lawbreaking underway?

                      So all the 'elaboration' in the world won't make the least bit of difference to you.

                      So, you're dodging?

                      It's just the nature of the beast, far too simplistic for you to understand.

                      Is it more or less simple than a Laplace Transform?
                      Methinks you may be aware at a

                    • OK, we'll call it "f-dodging" when fustakrakich does it.
                    • Si.

        • CMP was laughingly sued by StemExpress. They nearly got the 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th videos censored; they were subject to a cease and desist order for a bit.

          • CMP was laughingly sued by StemExpress. They nearly got the 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th videos censored; they were subject to a cease and desist order for a bit.

            I have heard and seen lots of coverage of the videos and their content. You are the first person I have seen make any mention of any action taken against them.

    • NBC, CBS, ABC have all ignored them utterly.

  • You believe every lie out of your right wing tabloids that "confirms" your bias.

    • How do you "know" this? What if you're completely wrong? What difference does it make WRT to the poem I wrote about the Devil's mythology [slashdot.org]?

      • How do you "know" this?

        Precedent... It is standard procedure for people with a desire for wealth/power, with all the accompanying reasons to lie, just like your faction does now to sell your wars and austerity. The chain of custody is totally corrupt. Spreading your propaganda/mythology is the devil's work, not that it presents any hindrance to its success amongst the faithful.

        What if you're completely wrong?

        Then I am wrong. You just need to prove it, and so far, things are not in your favor, but I'm in no

        • Well ain't that a fishbowl full of red herrings? Pardon me while I laugh mabooty off, and thank you for some comic relief amidst the sea of human wreckage. Remind me--was Kermit Gosnell a hoax, too?

          • Yes, *Facts are stupid things*...

            You know, one of the sillier, more useless endeavors I've seen recently is people who bother to "fact check" your faction. Like the goggles, they do nothing. The ideology is simply overwhelming, your denials grow ever stronger, just like the textbooks say they would. Fascinating to watch.

            • I guess if one were stepping back and viewing the situation dispassionately, rather than going for the knee-jerk "othering" with

              people who bother to "fact check" your faction

              one might seem to be offering real consideration of the issue.
              Recalling my poem, you instantaneously accused me of "bearing false witness", without ever explaining against whom, specifically, I was bearing what precise "witness".
              That fiction seemed to melt, so you reverted to accusing me of regurgitating talking points, which was kinda weird for a wholly original piece.
              Do you ha

              • You can drone on and play the dummy all you want. You are still passing lies. Your film is a hoax, and you are trolling in denial.

                • You are at peak sexiness when sounding so Olympian and authoritative. Did you have any reasonably neutral URL pointing to analysis supporting your hoax claim you care to share? Or all you "all hat and no cattle", as they say in Texas?

                  • ...sounding so Olympian and authoritative.

                    Don't know what you mean. There is no point in arguing the same shit over and over when you just wave it off in denial. You are spreading lies, bearing false witness. What else is left to say?

                    You could have left it at "Derp"... It would have been the mature response...

                    • Don't know what you mean.

                      Yes, baby, yes! Keep it coy. The Joe Friday [wikipedia.org] shtick, combined with running interference for ultimate evil, takes you to geosynchronous orbit around Planet Dissonance.
                      Love you, man.

                    • ?
                      You're talking like a crazy person.

                    • Sorry, just enjoying your routine.
                    • The "nasty old statist sellout" routine. You mean. . .you're really that great a rusty ol' tool?
                    • Yet again you confuse source with load. No state has ever been a horse; always the cart.
                    • You need to read the Austrian School of Economics. Or not.

                    • The state is a servant to the aristocracy. It is created by the aristocracy. It has been that way since the beginning of time.

                      I had thought you a cranky old fart, but wow. . .

                    • The joke is that you're sufficiently older than time itself to make such an assertion.

                    • We all are. Everything is eternal.

                      Duuuuude. . .

                      Poor people don't create governments.

                      Irrefutable, in the case of Christians, who are spiritually rich, at least.

                      (I must confess, the Universalist pose seems a fresh one for you. Nice of you to vary your usual materialist stance a bit, even if the means of conveying information across time is totes unclear.)

                    • Spiritual riches can't finance a government.

                      I can only speak for my ilk.

                      What I love about this particular reply of yours is that you bemoan the limitations of the communications medium "You do a have real talent for clouding things up, even the explicit" and then commence to stumble all over it yourself "And why only Christians? That is a very biased assertion".
                      You're relatively less peevish than damn_registrars. Or maybe I just find you funnier. Keep it real, bruh.

                    • I made a positive statement about something I know. The one making it into a negative and/or pejorative statement is you. Maybe you're not intentional about this, but what we have here is a common form of cultural thuggery afoot these days. I guess I'm supposed to be a doormat and let myself be silenced, or something.

Slashdot Top Deals

So you think that money is the root of all evil. Have you ever asked what is the root of money? -- Ayn Rand

Close