hahahaha. there's nothing to be mad about here. duh aficionado, we already know he thinks like this and hate this dude for this. everyone does. this is as good as marky mark claiming he would have stopped 9/11. I'm so happy right now.
hahaha. look man. YOU fucking started this. YOU'RE the troll here. You had 1 thing of mild substance to contribute to this - which was quoting facetaco's lie, 180 degrees backwards. You got that so wrong you basically proved you're an idiot cause only an idiot could come up with it your way.
And so far you've told me:
"calm the fuck down"
"'Here’s your troll chum"
"...personally insulting you for your trollish, selective understanding ways, which were pretty on point"
"you are behaving very badly"
"Wow… just wow. You need a break, dude"
Are you a fucked-up teacher or something? You're definitely an only child, right? Seriously, what is the explanation for your bossy, condescending personality disorder? you fucking cunt.
I love how your last line is that I was all over the place. I addressed YOUR FUCKING ARGUMENTS you fucking troll. I concisely explained how you were pretending to have the fucking situation ass-fucking-backwards you fucking retard.
You're a piece of fucking shit Kajus X and Chainsaws. Always feel bad about how retarded you are, cause you should.
dude, he wrote "YOUR logical errors and poor argument tactics:" and he wrote "...your radical convictions make you look totally unreasonable." That is a direct, perfectly clear, accusation that I was expressing a radical conviction. you saying that he wasn't accusing me of being a radical leftist is so obviously completely dishonest - there's no way you could actually think that. you're lying.
I have no fucking idea what you think I was saying when I clearly said that I correcting Chris' errors ABOUT the what the truth is. "correcting the truth" doesn't make any sense. you said it, I never did.
then I think facetaco realized he was wrong. I hadn't said anything extremely leftist. I'd just pointed out Chris' errors about OWS. That's why facetaco had to pussy out and try to change the subject.
now, what the fuck is wrong you? why are you pretending you don't understand this obvious shit, and why are you being such a fucking dick?
yeah, he did. he definitely wasn't accusing me of being on the extreme right. by process of elimination, and his comment after that ("You can’t even distinguish between “extreme leftist opinions” and “truth?”"), he did imply that I was being radically leftist, which is incorrect, I wasn't. It was totally valid of me to show that he was making that argument and it was totally hollow.
Dude you seriously need to work on your reading and critical thinking skills if you don't get that. You're not very smart.
dude, you know sometimes it's funny when you start talking in circles to me cause I can tell you're fucking around. but right now you actually missed it. you started this:
you: you're saying things that are extremely leftist
me: that's not true
you: yes, it is
me: what did I say that was extremely leftist?
you: what did I say that wasn't true?
me: well, here's a quote of you saying I was saying things that were extremely leftist
you: all you're doing is quoting me
seriously facetaco, did you think you had anything to say right now? do you still want to try to say it? do you at least have anything funny to say? why are we doing this? you started it, you gotta answer that.
here's my money:
"- Holding opinions to the extreme left... make you look totally unreasonable"
""You can’t even distinguish between “extreme leftist opinions” and “truth?”"
well, sorry to put you so much on the defensive, man. hope you're not feeling too bad about it.
on the other hand, you did put down what could be considered a fucked up opinion on a public blog. your problem if you get called on something you put down that that freaks you out.
as for what you and I wrote:
you: "As far as the proposals, how do you know where I have argued?"
you also: "Now, if someone would say to me OWS is about making Wall Street responsible AND we have a plan then I would be more willing to go down and take time from my job and show up for the cause. I don’t know maybe something like require companies making above an X amount of money to disclose financial records in the same way non-profits have to? Require a minimum tax? Something (exclamation mark)"
you: "You call me lazy because I ask legitimate questions instead of attacking anyone who disagrees with me?":
you also: "...willing to go down and take time from my job and show up for the cause."
you: "I’m not acting like I don’t understand the goal, I don’t.":
me, now: You've had 2 months to figure it out. here: www.dailykos.com
I'm not suggesting that website cause it's leftist. I'm suggesting it cause it's written by the people at OWS.
you: "you consistently attack commenters who don’t agree with you 100%"
me now: You put an incorrect spin on the percentages there. That makes it sound like I'd call you out if we agreed 80%. What you did above was the old tactic of implying there is something hypocritical about wanting to hold investment banks accountable for the destruction they caused while using an iphone or drinking starbucks coffee. I hear people say that every day. I don't agree with it 50%. I don't agree with it 1%. I disagree with it 100%. That's my threshold for calling someone out. It's actually very high. When I think they are 100% wrong.
I don't care whether you actually respond or passive aggressively respond dude. I'm glad you read what I wrote cause maybe after you think about it you'll realize that you have a lot to learn about OWS.
I didn't write anything that was even slightly radically leftist. I pointed out distortions Chris Trash made in what the point of OWS is. That has nothing to do with being on the left, it has to do with correcting typical errors about truth.
your logical errors and poor argument tactics:
- admitting an incredible accomplishment of OWS ("a symbol that people are pissed about the way things are going and such") but blowing right by and not actually giving that amazing accomplishment any real due
- acting like the ron paul end-the-fed types or the anarchist smash-capitalism types really are what this is about
- acting like OWS against using computers
- acting like OWS is against starbucks coffee
- acting like you think they has no goal or concrete things it is trying to accomplish
- making proposals for what OWS should try to accomplish on a comedy blog instead of going to one of the GAs where people make proposals, and listeninging to them
- excusing your own laziness
- telling an anecdote about some idiots that you cousin knows that proves nothing
suggestion: spend a few days reading the daily kos which you have the opportunity to do, and then come back and tell us if you think this is a movement against starbucks
wait, Axel Foley ends up being chief of police? then who's going to ask him for his badge every episode? what is this bullshit? Did Eddie Murphy even SEE Beverly Hills Cop?
that shit sucks. really.
ok, fine, the concept of the movie "Vampire Dog" is that the dog likes red jello, not blood. yep, sounds like a kids movie title and concept. for an 8 year old, yep, that's a great mystery. you writers just up and stole the concept a Bunnicula, Howliday Inn, and the Celery Stalks at Midnight, didn't ya? good for you, fuck-holes.
except... those were actually MYSTERIES. they led you on and THEN revealed shit, m. night s.-style.
VERY uncool then that your FUCKING catch phrase that GIVES AWAY that the dog DOESN'T actually suck blood.
I mean, to the uninformed it is weird and doesn't give everything away. We're all adults here, and we didn't actually get what the fuck this all meant, till the friend of the girl that visited the set of the movie spilled the beans for us all (what?).
but still, now that we know: how about a fuckin' full on SPOILER ALERT on your catch phrase, you fuck-holes?
the equivalent of that kind of spoiler as far as adult movies:
THE DEPARTED - All on the right side of the law... and no bullet proof vest ON HIS FACE!
yeah, the idea that she would go home, watch that, and be like "this will help the cause I was speaking for!" - just seems impossible.
I'm not actually up on her craziness. maybe her life is some kind of Borat-style hoax. except kind of in reverse, where the satire makes good people look good, instead of making racist-ish people look very racist.
I clicked play on this yesterday figuring I'd watch 30 seconds of it - but ended up watching all of it. It's actually a pretty great video. I know she's actually insane, but it's almost like she's undercover pretending to be insane and actually making a video to help the protest. She picks the sweetest, smartest dude to recite Glenn Beck talking points to, which (even though they make no sense in the first place) she doesn't even understand enough to really even get right. And each time he really calmly and and nicely debunks each one as the bullshit it is. And then, no response to his debunking of course, she just moves on to the next one. Until he's called her out on every inch of that nonsense, and she shows that only a mentally-challenged kid could actually continue believe any of it. fucking beautiful.
if we're done, we're done. but if you ask me, you are not on the team that you think you are on. Saying "but I'm not a republican" does not reverse the damage you do by publicly, anonymously, characterizing an entire movement as "slackers" and "not smart." Fucking INCREDIBLE that you're willing to give some psychological study about how "this type of activity" (you mean, fighting for a cause?) is counterproductive to the cause, yet repeating the conventional wisdom about it which is obviously being spread by the other side as far and wide as they can, is NOT counterproductive to it.
So you're claiming that you never said that the people that are giving up their regular lives, donating 24/7 to living outdoors to fight this are "slacktivists." no, not what you said, but for the sake of argument, let's move on. But then you still have some problem that they are "allowing people to engage in slacktivism." Nothing about that complaint makes any sense. Nothing.
"Inside Job" was 2 hours of information. There were multiple hours of "This American Life" about what happened. "Too Big to Fail," and "The Big Short," and hundreds of other multiple-hundred paged books were written about what happened. Every day for the last 3 years there have been other versions of what happened in every newspaper and blog, in entirety.
Yes, most of the world gets some version of the idea that the investment banks in Wall Street did some very immoral and illegal things.
And you're complaining that thousands of people, many of whom have been following different parts of that information, for years, and are now fighting together in 100s of cities, with no leader, are not SO focused about it that they agree with your simple version of it - that it all may have "been prevented with appropriate regulation and more fed activity concerning interest rates."
You are the one that is misrepresenting what is going on with OWS, and what you said about it. You're adding to the chorus that this is a bunch of misinformed people, and it is influencing other people that hear you. Stop doing that.
Most of the world already understands what the complaint is about wall street. There has been plenty of very exact focus on what went wrong there, for years. That's obviously what this is about. The reason you think it’s not a far stretch to say that the protest lacks focus is cause you heard someone else say that.
You called them slacktivists. You agreed that the people there are not smart enough and need to be co-opted by someone smarter.
These people are sacrificing a lot to get in the fight. Your shit-talking is not helping.
you know, Gabe didn't have any problem summing things right about up, in a way that was pretty beautifully a "fuck you" to the people repeating the lazy-ass republican talking point that this protest is full of dumb, slacker, unfocused people. Here it was for you guys, again. You didn't have any problem with it above:
"...I was under the impression that Occupy Wall Street was about holding multi-national corporations and the financial services industry accountable for the grossly lopsided profits they enjoy off the fruits of other people’s labor, requiring them to both contribute more to the overall maintenance of our society as well as to take responsibility for their (often amoral) business practices, which have resulted in the near economic collapse of the modern world and countless other problems. That’s kind of what I was picking up from the whole Occupy Wall Street thing..."
why don't you guys from now on, instead of repeating republican talking points, just repeat THAT, with the tone of impatience for the people that say they don't get it. it's a lot cooler than being the people that don't get it.
yeah. First of all, comparing really short, out of context quotes that look superficially similar means nothing. And second, even given that, I don't even agree with the BBC's analysis, that they look remarkably similar. You can see the difference. The Sarah Palin one for instance - yes, she does vaguely mention big corporations there. But, dude, what about Sarah Palin in fucking reality is against big corporations? And even within that out of context one sentence, now given the context that it is Sarah Palin, you can see it was just her blaming Obama and the democrats.
the tea party is just a rebranding of republicans. they themselves are making statements that they have nothing in common with OWS. they started a bullshit "We are the 53% that pay taxes" movement against it. there is basically no overlap and nothing that can be agreed on with them.
dude, hate to tell you this, but I have never heard the tea party make a coherent statement about the problem of corporations having too much power to influence politics. there might have been a little lip service at the start about being against TARP, but everything else they stand for includes corporations being able to run amuck.
maybe it translates differently wherever she is, but I like how when she gets up and keeps going she gives the arm signal for "well what was I supposed to do?"
"what, you think I'm NOT going to hallucinate an obstacle, freak out and trip myself at full speed, and lose this race?"
oh good - "beach scene." scientifically proven to bring maximum contentment.
Amusement: When Harry Met Sally and Robin Williams Live
Anger: My Bodyguard and Cry Freedom
Contentment: Footage of waves and a beach scene
Disgust: Pink Flamingos and an amputation scene
Fear: The Shining and Silence of the Lambs
Neutral: Abstract shapes and color bars
Sadness: The Champ and Bambi
Surprise: Capricorn One and Sea of Love
Comments