Man Stabs Himself So He Doesn't Have To Work At Blockbuster

calvin · External Since: Feb 07, 2009 Posts: 91

On Nov 6, 11:29 am, Tom <drso... RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote:
> On Nov 5, 10:14 am, calvin <cri... RemoveThis @windstream.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 5, 9:46 am, "The Giant Brain" <gi... RemoveThis @brain.invalid> wrote:
> > > "calvin" <cri... RemoveThis @windstream.net> wrote:
> > > > So, you think denial of secret ballots in union elections,
> > > > and other things on which they vote, is okay?
> > > ------------------------------------------------
> > > Please provide proof.
>
> > Here ya go:
> > http://www.uschamber.com/issues/index/labor/cardchecksecrbal.htm
>
> Calvin, the low esteem with which many large American companies hold
> the Chamber of Commerce is a big signal the Chamber's opinion is of
> little value.
>
> Large companies are leaving the Chamber in droves because it is so out
> of touch with modern business thought.
>
> How about another, more credible, source?

Okay, I'll Google some others, as you could do for
yourself. This is a simple matter of fact, however.
Having to publicly sign a card saying whether you
want a union in your place of work is a non-secret
ballot. It doesn't matter whether the institution
complaining is right-wing or not.

In general, when reporting an outrage, the reporter
is more likely to be on the ideological side that most
dislikes the outrage. Those who don't mind the outrage
don't bother to report it.

I once told a poster here about Sandy Berger taking
documents from the National Archives, and I documented
it with reports by Rush Limbaugh and Brit Hume. But
the poster declared, "I know those guys", and refused
to believe therefore that Berger did anything wrong.
Apparently he will believe only what Keith Olbermann thinks
is wrong.

The Giant Brain · External Since: Aug 19, 2009 Posts: 25

"moviePig" <pwallace DeleteThis @moviepig.com> wrote in message
news:9a57c023-4827-44db-9846-e2d27fe600ee@o13g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> (...i.e., similar to the motive, right or wrong, claimed by some
> Polanski-pursuers).

Polanski admitted to committing a heinous crime then fled the country.
He deserves some type of punishment solely for that.
If it provides a deterrence lesson for others, well that's just the icing on the
cake.

moviePig · External Since: Aug 08, 2005 Posts: 1701

On Nov 6, 1:16 pm, calvin <cri....RemoveThis@windstream.net> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 11:29 am, Tom <drso....RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 5, 10:14 am, calvin <cri....RemoveThis@windstream.net> wrote:
> > > On Nov 5, 9:46 am, "The Giant Brain" <gi....RemoveThis@brain.invalid> wrote:
> > > > "calvin" <cri....RemoveThis@windstream.net> wrote:
> > > > > So, you think denial of secret ballots in union elections,
> > > > > and other things on which they vote, is okay?
> > > > ------------------------------------------------
> > > > Please provide proof.
>
> > > Here ya go:
> > >http://www.uschamber.com/issues/index/labor/cardchecksecrbal.htm
>
> > Calvin, the low esteem with which many large American companies hold
> > the Chamber of Commerce is a big signal the Chamber's opinion is of
> > little value.
>
> > Large companies are leaving the Chamber in droves because it is so out
> > of touch with modern business thought.
>
> > How about another, more credible, source?
>
> Okay, I'll Google some others, as you could do for
> yourself. This is a simple matter of fact, however.
> Having to publicly sign a card saying whether you
> want a union in your place of work is a non-secret
> ballot. It doesn't matter whether the institution
> complaining is right-wing or not.
>
> In general, when reporting an outrage, the reporter
> is more likely to be on the ideological side that most
> dislikes the outrage. Those who don't mind the outrage
> don't bother to report it.
>
> I once told a poster here about Sandy Berger taking
> documents from the National Archives, and I documented
> it with reports by Rush Limbaugh and Brit Hume. But
> the poster declared, "I know those guys", and refused
> to believe therefore that Berger did anything wrong.
> Apparently he will believe only what Keith Olbermann thinks
> is wrong.

If I had a "fact" that I could document only with, say, Olbermann and
DailyKos, I'd present it as, at most, rumor.

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

calvin · External Since: Feb 07, 2009 Posts: 91

On Nov 6, 2:24 pm, moviePig <pwall... DeleteThis @moviepig.com> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 1:16 pm, calvin <cri... DeleteThis @windstream.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 6, 11:29 am, Tom <drso... DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 5, 10:14 am, calvin <cri... DeleteThis @windstream.net> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 5, 9:46 am, "The Giant Brain" <gi... DeleteThis @brain.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > "calvin" <cri... DeleteThis @windstream.net> wrote:
> > > > > > So, you think denial of secret ballots in union elections,
> > > > > > and other things on which they vote, is okay?
> > > > > ------------------------------------------------
> > > > > Please provide proof.
>
> > > > Here ya go:
> > > >http://www.uschamber.com/issues/index/labor/cardchecksecrbal.htm
>
> > > Calvin, the low esteem with which many large American companies hold
> > > the Chamber of Commerce is a big signal the Chamber's opinion is of
> > > little value.
>
> > > Large companies are leaving the Chamber in droves because it is so out
> > > of touch with modern business thought.
>
> > > How about another, more credible, source?
>
> > Okay, I'll Google some others, as you could do for
> > yourself. This is a simple matter of fact, however.
> > Having to publicly sign a card saying whether you
> > want a union in your place of work is a non-secret
> > ballot. It doesn't matter whether the institution
> > complaining is right-wing or not.
>
> > In general, when reporting an outrage, the reporter
> > is more likely to be on the ideological side that most
> > dislikes the outrage. Those who don't mind the outrage
> > don't bother to report it.
>
> > I once told a poster here about Sandy Berger taking
> > documents from the National Archives, and I documented
> > it with reports by Rush Limbaugh and Brit Hume. But
> > the poster declared, "I know those guys", and refused
> > to believe therefore that Berger did anything wrong.
> > Apparently he will believe only what Keith Olbermann thinks
> > is wrong.
>
> If I had a "fact" that I could document only with, say, Olbermann and
> DailyKos, I'd present it as, at most, rumor.

Okay, it has been rumored that Sandy Berger was caught
removing documents from the National Archives, and it has
been rumored that the Obama Administration has supported
non-secret ballots on the question of whether workplaces
shall become unionized or not.

moviePig · External Since: Aug 08, 2005 Posts: 1701

On Nov 6, 2:38 pm, calvin <cri....DeleteThis@windstream.net> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 2:24 pm, moviePig <pwall....DeleteThis@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 6, 1:16 pm, calvin <cri....DeleteThis@windstream.net> wrote:
> > > On Nov 6, 11:29 am, Tom <drso....DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 5, 10:14 am, calvin <cri....DeleteThis@windstream.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 5, 9:46 am, "The Giant Brain" <gi....DeleteThis@brain.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > > "calvin" <cri....DeleteThis@windstream.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > So, you think denial of secret ballots in union elections,
> > > > > > > and other things on which they vote, is okay?
> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > Please provide proof.
>
> > > > > Here ya go:
> > > > >http://www.uschamber.com/issues/index/labor/cardchecksecrbal.htm
>
> > > > Calvin, the low esteem with which many large American companies hold
> > > > the Chamber of Commerce is a big signal the Chamber's opinion is of
> > > > little value.
>
> > > > Large companies are leaving the Chamber in droves because it is so out
> > > > of touch with modern business thought.
>
> > > > How about another, more credible, source?
>
> > > Okay, I'll Google some others, as you could do for
> > > yourself. This is a simple matter of fact, however.
> > > Having to publicly sign a card saying whether you
> > > want a union in your place of work is a non-secret
> > > ballot. It doesn't matter whether the institution
> > > complaining is right-wing or not.
>
> > > In general, when reporting an outrage, the reporter
> > > is more likely to be on the ideological side that most
> > > dislikes the outrage. Those who don't mind the outrage
> > > don't bother to report it.
>
> > > I once told a poster here about Sandy Berger taking
> > > documents from the National Archives, and I documented
> > > it with reports by Rush Limbaugh and Brit Hume. But
> > > the poster declared, "I know those guys", and refused
> > > to believe therefore that Berger did anything wrong.
> > > Apparently he will believe only what Keith Olbermann thinks
> > > is wrong.
>
> > If I had a "fact" that I could document only with, say, Olbermann and
> > DailyKos, I'd present it as, at most, rumor.
>
> Okay, it has been rumored that Sandy Berger was caught
> removing documents from the National Archives, and it has
> been rumored that the Obama Administration has supported
> non-secret ballots on the question of whether workplaces
> shall become unionized or not.

If you're trying to make a point with irony, I gotta say I'm receiving
it instead as inadvertent honesty...

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

calvin · External Since: Feb 07, 2009 Posts: 91

On Nov 6, 3:09 pm, moviePig <pwall... DeleteThis @moviepig.com> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 2:38 pm, calvin <cri... DeleteThis @windstream.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 6, 2:24 pm, moviePig <pwall... DeleteThis @moviepig.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 6, 1:16 pm, calvin <cri... DeleteThis @windstream.net> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 6, 11:29 am, Tom <drso... DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 5, 10:14 am, calvin <cri... DeleteThis @windstream.net> wrote:
> > > > > > On Nov 5, 9:46 am, "The Giant Brain" <gi... DeleteThis @brain.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > > > "calvin" <cri... DeleteThis @windstream.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > So, you think denial of secret ballots in union elections,
> > > > > > > > and other things on which they vote, is okay?
> > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > Please provide proof.
>
> > > > > > Here ya go:
> > > > > >http://www.uschamber.com/issues/index/labor/cardchecksecrbal.htm
>
> > > > > Calvin, the low esteem with which many large American companies hold
> > > > > the Chamber of Commerce is a big signal the Chamber's opinion is of
> > > > > little value.
>
> > > > > Large companies are leaving the Chamber in droves because it is so out
> > > > > of touch with modern business thought.
>
> > > > > How about another, more credible, source?
>
> > > > Okay, I'll Google some others, as you could do for
> > > > yourself. This is a simple matter of fact, however.
> > > > Having to publicly sign a card saying whether you
> > > > want a union in your place of work is a non-secret
> > > > ballot. It doesn't matter whether the institution
> > > > complaining is right-wing or not.
>
> > > > In general, when reporting an outrage, the reporter
> > > > is more likely to be on the ideological side that most
> > > > dislikes the outrage. Those who don't mind the outrage
> > > > don't bother to report it.
>
> > > > I once told a poster here about Sandy Berger taking
> > > > documents from the National Archives, and I documented
> > > > it with reports by Rush Limbaugh and Brit Hume. But
> > > > the poster declared, "I know those guys", and refused
> > > > to believe therefore that Berger did anything wrong.
> > > > Apparently he will believe only what Keith Olbermann thinks
> > > > is wrong.
>
> > > If I had a "fact" that I could document only with, say, Olbermann and
> > > DailyKos, I'd present it as, at most, rumor.
>
> > Okay, it has been rumored that Sandy Berger was caught
> > removing documents from the National Archives, and it has
> > been rumored that the Obama Administration has supported
> > non-secret ballots on the question of whether workplaces
> > shall become unionized or not.
>
> If you're trying to make a point with irony, I gotta say I'm receiving
> it instead as inadvertent honesty...

Well of course. Any honesty that comes from me would
have to be inadvertent (including this statement).

moviePig · External Since: Aug 08, 2005 Posts: 1701

On Nov 6, 3:57 pm, "steve" <st....DeleteThis@steve.com> wrote:
> On 6-Nov-2009, moviePig <pwall....DeleteThis@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
> > Well, in one manner of speaking, I'm not sure I have any
> > "beliefs" ...but rather merely guesses and estimates. And I'm always
> > ready to replace those with what seem sounder ones. (To me.)
>
> How can I discuss anything with you? You evade responsibility for your own
> statements, and refuse to define and defend. Here is your definition and
> ostensible clarifications on "censorship".
>
> *********************
> Censorship is when I expressly impede your access to a class of
> literature.
>
> ("Expressly impede" is when someone with power gives an iota more than
> a rat's ass about *my* opinion of what *you* should be allowed to
> watch.)
>
> In what I deem a worthwhile zeal to thwart censorship, I burden
> literature vendors with a responsibility to provide fully open
> access... and apply such burden in proportion to their dominance of
> the marketplace.
>
> **********************
>
> How could anyone apply that definition and determine if an action is or isnt
> censorship..unless virtually all marketing choices are censorship? As Ive
> pointed out before, each time you "clarify" something it becomes less clear.
> The second statement (in parenthesis) is particularly incoherent, as it
> refers not to action, but to attitude.

That's not "incoherent" ...it seems rather to have been dead on.
Censorship is *me* intentionally circumscribing *your* access to
certain classes of literature. ...i.e., 'attitude' is very much
involved (...although, without attendant 'action', who cares?)

> The third isnt related to the
> definition, but only a statement of what appears to be an arbitrary demand
> on your part. And now you give me this:
>
> > Well, in one manner of speaking, I'm not sure I have any
> > "beliefs" ...but rather merely guesses and estimates. And I'm always
> > ready to replace those with what seem sounder ones. (To me.)
>
> Even though, earlier, you said:
>
> > ...My "worthwhile zeal to thwart censorship" is predicated on 1) the
>
> evil of censorship
>
> So how am I to take your assertion that censorship is evil, and resolve that
> with your claim to have no "beliefs".

Ideally, you'll infer, in each instance, the appropriate context.
E.g.... "Censorship is evil" exists in the conversational context of
gut-level human reactions. At a more stilted level, though, I
question whether such reactions are ever to be trusted. And, at a
still further removed level, I might argue that evil is merely a
matter of differing priorities.

> > However, I built a definition of censorship that I judged, and judge,
> > appropriate to the context. Instead of complaining about its
> > preparation time, perhaps you could replay, with brevity, the trivial
> > arrow in its heart...
>
> I pointed out some absurdities and asked probing questions about your
> definition, and you gave me nothing. I'll repeat them here:
>
> *****************************
> So...how does BB "impede my access" to NC-17 films simply by not providing
> them? And isnt every person or business that doesnt rent or sell them (like
> your neighbor, the drug store, hardware store, clothing shops, car
> dealerships, etc.) "impeding my access" to NC-17 films just as much as BB?
> That's the absurdity I predicted.
>
> So... providing a service (selling books, DVDs, CDs) confers a duty? How
> so? What is the extent of that duty? And what meets the test of "fully
> open access"? And I notice you're now talking about what you "worthwhile
> zeal to thwart censorship" as your justification for a definition of
> censorship. That's circular, and gets you nowhere.
> *****************************
>
> You dont address my objections or answer my pointed questions. How can we
> make any progress that way?

I'll clarify more explicitly: If BB presents you with the choice of
driving either to the next county for the grown-up video you want or
two blocks for a Meg Ryan fairy tale BB carries, then they're impeding
your free intellectual access. And, if they do it because someone
deems the video you want to be "unsuitable" for you, then that's
censorship.

> > > You're waving hands again. Now the question becomes one of defining
> > > coercion.
>
> > > coercion = the use of violence or it's credible threat.
>
> > > What is your definition?
>
> > I almost daren't say, lest we stoop to defining "hand waving".
>
> hand waving = avoiding or failing to address relevant issues

("Hand waving" connotes something different to me. But never mind.)

> > Suffice to note that I thought (and think) that the definition of
> > 'coercion' is our sticking point ...as I said. And, as I thought my
> > example showed, 'coercion', for me, includes persuasion by external
> > means (...whether or not that persuasion's successful). You limit
> > coercion to violence ...which seems to me unrealistically narrow, as
> > many victims would choose (say) broken limbs over hungry offspring.
>
> Please define coercion. Telling me my definition is "unrealistically
> narrow" doesnt help me much. You must draw some distinctions rather than
> simply blurring lines.

I'll rephrase the subsequent example I provided: If I understand you,
threatening to break someone's arm is coercion ...whereas threatening
his finances (so that, e.g., his children might go malnourished) is
not. To my mind, a presence/absence of hard violence in the equation
is a sufficient-but-not-necessary condition of 'coercion'.

> > > Hand waving, again?
>
> > Hard to lay down your new hammer and pick up your spectacles?
>
> Sometimes I think that you believe argument is just the art of the quip.

Hmm, you raise this objection to a quip that merely responded to
yours...

> Im charging, repeatedly, that you are avoiding addressing issues. Why?
> Because you have repeatedly avoided addressing issues.
>
> The fault in the repetition is yours, not mine.

If I deliberately avoid an issue, I say so, and why. Rather, in
addressing some issues with you, my communications seem merely
unsuccessful, for whatever reason.

> > I think fooling with the free market is usually dicey, often
> > 'thuggish', and seldom to my benefit. Still doesn't mean that free
> > markets are always the answer... imo...
>
> I agree, but the exceptions are few and extremely limited. But I wont go
> further, as this will only become a distraction. I will note that you seem
> to be contradicting yourself, as you are a supporter of BHO, who is hostile
> to markets as a matter of course and policy.

Then, reciprocally, I will note my guess that BHO would, with complete
candor, strongly dispute your summary insight into his hostilities...
er.. principles...

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

calvin · External Since: Feb 07, 2009 Posts: 91

On Nov 6, 3:09 pm, moviePig <pwall....DeleteThis@moviepig.com> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 2:38 pm, calvin <cri....DeleteThis@windstream.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 6, 2:24 pm, moviePig <pwall....DeleteThis@moviepig.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 6, 1:16 pm, calvin <cri....DeleteThis@windstream.net> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 6, 11:29 am, Tom <drso....DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 5, 10:14 am, calvin <cri....DeleteThis@windstream.net> wrote:
> > > > > > On Nov 5, 9:46 am, "The Giant Brain" <gi....DeleteThis@brain.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > > > "calvin" <cri....DeleteThis@windstream.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > So, you think denial of secret ballots in union elections,
> > > > > > > > and other things on which they vote, is okay?
> > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > Please provide proof.
>
> > > > > > Here ya go:
> > > > > >http://www.uschamber.com/issues/index/labor/cardchecksecrbal.htm
>
> > > > > Calvin, the low esteem with which many large American companies hold
> > > > > the Chamber of Commerce is a big signal the Chamber's opinion is of
> > > > > little value.
>
> > > > > Large companies are leaving the Chamber in droves because it is so out
> > > > > of touch with modern business thought.
>
> > > > > How about another, more credible, source?
>
> > > > Okay, I'll Google some others, as you could do for
> > > > yourself. This is a simple matter of fact, however.
> > > > Having to publicly sign a card saying whether you
> > > > want a union in your place of work is a non-secret
> > > > ballot. It doesn't matter whether the institution
> > > > complaining is right-wing or not.
>
> > > > In general, when reporting an outrage, the reporter
> > > > is more likely to be on the ideological side that most
> > > > dislikes the outrage. Those who don't mind the outrage
> > > > don't bother to report it.
>
> > > > I once told a poster here about Sandy Berger taking
> > > > documents from the National Archives, and I documented
> > > > it with reports by Rush Limbaugh and Brit Hume. But
> > > > the poster declared, "I know those guys", and refused
> > > > to believe therefore that Berger did anything wrong.
> > > > Apparently he will believe only what Keith Olbermann thinks
> > > > is wrong.
>
> > > If I had a "fact" that I could document only with, say, Olbermann and
> > > DailyKos, I'd present it as, at most, rumor.
>
> > Okay, it has been rumored that Sandy Berger was caught
> > removing documents from the National Archives, and it has
> > been rumored that the Obama Administration has supported
> > non-secret ballots on the question of whether workplaces
> > shall become unionized or not.
>
> If you're trying to make a point with irony, I gotta say I'm receiving
> it instead as inadvertent honesty...

My point is only that these are news items, not
editorials.

moviePig · External Since: Aug 08, 2005 Posts: 1701

On Nov 6, 5:27 pm, calvin <cri....TakeThisOut@windstream.net> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 3:09 pm, moviePig <pwall....TakeThisOut@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 6, 2:38 pm, calvin <cri....TakeThisOut@windstream.net> wrote:
> > > On Nov 6, 2:24 pm, moviePig <pwall....TakeThisOut@moviepig.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 6, 1:16 pm, calvin <cri....TakeThisOut@windstream.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 6, 11:29 am, Tom <drso....TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Nov 5, 10:14 am, calvin <cri....TakeThisOut@windstream.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Nov 5, 9:46 am, "The Giant Brain" <gi....TakeThisOut@brain.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > > > > "calvin" <cri....TakeThisOut@windstream.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > So, you think denial of secret ballots in union elections,
> > > > > > > > > and other things on which they vote, is okay?
> > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > Please provide proof.
>
> > > > > > > Here ya go:
> > > > > > >http://www.uschamber.com/issues/index/labor/cardchecksecrbal.htm
>
> > > > > > Calvin, the low esteem with which many large American companies hold
> > > > > > the Chamber of Commerce is a big signal the Chamber's opinion is of
> > > > > > little value.
>
> > > > > > Large companies are leaving the Chamber in droves because it is so out
> > > > > > of touch with modern business thought.
>
> > > > > > How about another, more credible, source?
>
> > > > > Okay, I'll Google some others, as you could do for
> > > > > yourself. This is a simple matter of fact, however.
> > > > > Having to publicly sign a card saying whether you
> > > > > want a union in your place of work is a non-secret
> > > > > ballot. It doesn't matter whether the institution
> > > > > complaining is right-wing or not.
>
> > > > > In general, when reporting an outrage, the reporter
> > > > > is more likely to be on the ideological side that most
> > > > > dislikes the outrage. Those who don't mind the outrage
> > > > > don't bother to report it.
>
> > > > > I once told a poster here about Sandy Berger taking
> > > > > documents from the National Archives, and I documented
> > > > > it with reports by Rush Limbaugh and Brit Hume. But
> > > > > the poster declared, "I know those guys", and refused
> > > > > to believe therefore that Berger did anything wrong.
> > > > > Apparently he will believe only what Keith Olbermann thinks
> > > > > is wrong.
>
> > > > If I had a "fact" that I could document only with, say, Olbermann and
> > > > DailyKos, I'd present it as, at most, rumor.
>
> > > Okay, it has been rumored that Sandy Berger was caught
> > > removing documents from the National Archives, and it has
> > > been rumored that the Obama Administration has supported
> > > non-secret ballots on the question of whether workplaces
> > > shall become unionized or not.
>
> > If you're trying to make a point with irony, I gotta say I'm receiving
> > it instead as inadvertent honesty...
>
> My point is only that these are news items, not
> editorials.

My point is only that, for convincing others of something, citing only
Limbaugh and Hume might not be maximally efficient.

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

moviePig · External Since: Aug 08, 2005 Posts: 1701

On Nov 6, 5:51 pm, "steve" <st....DeleteThis@steve.com> wrote:
> On 6-Nov-2009, moviePig <pwall....DeleteThis@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
> > That's not "incoherent" ...it seems rather to have been dead on.
> > Censorship is *me* intentionally circumscribing *your* access to
> > certain classes of literature. ...i.e., 'attitude' is very much
> > involved (...although, without attendant 'action', who cares?)
>
> It's incoherent in context, i.e. I cannot relate it to the issue at hand.
> And, of course, since you refer to attitude and NOT action, it says nothing
> about censorship which, we apparently agree (and I might add... duh),
> requires action. You toss in that admission as a parenthetical comment,
> when it is, in fact, the crux of the problem!

No. E.g., BB might abjure 'NC-17's because those are more expensive
rather than because they're naughty. In either instance, BB's
'action' is the same. It's their 'attitude' in the second instance
that makes it censorship.

> > Ideally, you'll infer, in each instance, the appropriate context.
> > E.g.... "Censorship is evil" exists in the conversational context of
> > gut-level human reactions. At a more stilted level, though, I
> > question whether such reactions are ever to be trusted. And, at a
> > still further removed level, I might argue that evil is merely a
> > matter of differing priorities.
>
> The bottom line is that none of this is of any value to the discussion. In
> intellectual terms, you're just blathering.

No, I'm anwering a seeming inconsistency you perceived and queried
(and elided).

> > I'll clarify more explicitly: If BB presents you with the choice of
> > driving either to the next county for the grown-up video you want or
> > two blocks for a Meg Ryan fairy tale BB carries, then they're impeding
> > your free intellectual access.
>
> But BB doesnt give me that choice. They give me the choice of renting or
> not renting whatever they offer. Market forces (assuming they are not
> thwarted by govt) determine if I have to drive to rent something else.
>
> BB is not impeding anything. They are simply offering less than you would
> like them to offer. Likewise, the local hardware store fails to offer NC-17
> videos (or any videos, in fact). So, by your logic, they censor. That is
> where your reasoning breaks down.

So, if the local KKK purchases and burns all the town's copies of
'Uncle Tom's Cabin', they're just giving me the *choice* of not
reading it or moving? But, yes, if the local hardware store installs
a Redbox, but pulls its pro-Conservative titles, they're censoring.
(Look! Local hardware has repaired my broken-down reasoning!)

> > > hand waving = avoiding or failing to address relevant issues
>
> > ("Hand waving" connotes something different to me. But never mind.)
>
> I picked that up in college. How did you understand it?

'Hand waving', afaik, is when potentially complex details of a
presentation are deceptively dismissed as patently trivial ...i.e.,
with the wave of a hand.

> > > Please define coercion. Telling me my definition is "unrealistically
> > > narrow" doesnt help me much. You must draw some distinctions rather
> > > than
> > > simply blurring lines.
>
> > I'll rephrase the subsequent example I provided: If I understand you,
> > threatening to break someone's arm is coercion ...whereas threatening
> > his finances (so that, e.g., his children might go malnourished) is
> > not.
>
> You have to be specific. What is threatening their finances? If they are
> violating property rights, the many consequences are all a result of that
> injustice. If they are not violating prop rights (or making a credible
> threat to do so)...how are they threatening finances?

E.g., your town's ultra-major employer chooses to terminate you for
supporting global-warming initiatives. You can relocate, but only at
huge financial burden...

> > Hmm, you raise this objection to a quip that merely responded to
> > yours...
>
> I didnt quip. I characterized your argument. Substitute my definition for
> the phrase, and there is no doubt.
>
> > > The fault in the repetition is yours, not mine.
>
> > If I deliberately avoid an issue, I say so, and why. Rather, in
> > addressing some issues with you, my communications seem merely
> > unsuccessful, for whatever reason.
>
> Look back through the thread. In many instances you either ignored pointed
> questions or your reply was unresponsive. The former is obviously
> intentional as I know you can read. The latter may not be.

Oh, yes. *Now* I see all those pointed questions I ducked... Are you
kidding?

> > Then, reciprocally, I will note my guess that BHO would, with complete
> > candor, strongly dispute your summary insight into his hostilities...
> > er.. principles...
>
> I have no doubt he would dispute. He is more Orwellian in his blatant
> contradictions than even Bill Clinton. But his actions are clear, as are
> his many past statements and actions (all consistent with his current
> actions), that he now disavows. He's a lying, anti-capitalist, power
> hungry, political thug. And I'm just getting started.

No, you're past getting started and stopped... i.e., on an issue you
claimed you wouldn't pursue.

(But I'm pleased you, too, look back fondly on the Clinton years...)

> I'm out for the weekend.

Over and.

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

steve · External Since: Dec 09, 2004 Posts: 1267

On 6-Nov-2009, moviePig <pwallace.RemoveThis@moviepig.com> wrote:

> Well, in one manner of speaking, I'm not sure I have any
> "beliefs" ...but rather merely guesses and estimates. And I'm always
> ready to replace those with what seem sounder ones. (To me.)

How can I discuss anything with you? You evade responsibility for your own
statements, and refuse to define and defend. Here is your definition and
ostensible clarifications on "censorship".

*********************
Censorship is when I expressly impede your access to a class of
literature.

("Expressly impede" is when someone with power gives an iota more than
a rat's ass about *my* opinion of what *you* should be allowed to
watch.)

In what I deem a worthwhile zeal to thwart censorship, I burden
literature vendors with a responsibility to provide fully open
access... and apply such burden in proportion to their dominance of
the marketplace.

**********************

How could anyone apply that definition and determine if an action is or isnt
censorship..unless virtually all marketing choices are censorship? As Ive
pointed out before, each time you "clarify" something it becomes less clear.
The second statement (in parenthesis) is particularly incoherent, as it
refers not to action, but to attitude. The third isnt related to the
definition, but only a statement of what appears to be an arbitrary demand
on your part. And now you give me this:

> Well, in one manner of speaking, I'm not sure I have any
> "beliefs" ...but rather merely guesses and estimates. And I'm always
> ready to replace those with what seem sounder ones. (To me.)

Even though, earlier, you said:

> ...My "worthwhile zeal to thwart censorship" is predicated on 1) the
evil of censorship

So how am I to take your assertion that censorship is evil, and resolve that
with your claim to have no "beliefs".

> However, I built a definition of censorship that I judged, and judge,
> appropriate to the context. Instead of complaining about its
> preparation time, perhaps you could replay, with brevity, the trivial
> arrow in its heart...

I pointed out some absurdities and asked probing questions about your
definition, and you gave me nothing. I'll repeat them here:

*****************************
So...how does BB "impede my access" to NC-17 films simply by not providing
them? And isnt every person or business that doesnt rent or sell them (like
your neighbor, the drug store, hardware store, clothing shops, car
dealerships, etc.) "impeding my access" to NC-17 films just as much as BB?
That's the absurdity I predicted.

So... providing a service (selling books, DVDs, CDs) confers a duty? How
so? What is the extent of that duty? And what meets the test of "fully
open access"? And I notice you're now talking about what you "worthwhile
zeal to thwart censorship" as your justification for a definition of
censorship. That's circular, and gets you nowhere.

*****************************

You dont address my objections or answer my pointed questions. How can we
make any progress that way?

> > You're waving hands again. Now the question becomes one of defining
> > coercion.
> >
> > coercion = the use of violence or it's credible threat.
> >
> > What is your definition?
>
> I almost daren't say, lest we stoop to defining "hand waving".

hand waving = avoiding or failing to address relevant issues

> Suffice to note that I thought (and think) that the definition of
> 'coercion' is our sticking point ...as I said. And, as I thought my
> example showed, 'coercion', for me, includes persuasion by external
> means (...whether or not that persuasion's successful). You limit
> coercion to violence ...which seems to me unrealistically narrow, as
> many victims would choose (say) broken limbs over hungry offspring.

Please define coercion. Telling me my definition is "unrealistically
narrow" doesnt help me much. You must draw some distinctions rather than
simply blurring lines.

> > Hand waving, again?
>
> Hard to lay down your new hammer and pick up your spectacles?

Sometimes I think that you believe argument is just the art of the quip.

Im charging, repeatedly, that you are avoiding addressing issues. Why?
Because you have repeatedly avoided addressing issues.

The fault in the repetition is yours, not mine.

> I think fooling with the free market is usually dicey, often
> 'thuggish', and seldom to my benefit. Still doesn't mean that free
> markets are always the answer... imo...

I agree, but the exceptions are few and extremely limited. But I wont go
further, as this will only become a distraction. I will note that you seem
to be contradicting yourself, as you are a supporter of BHO, who is hostile
to markets as a matter of course and policy.

steve
--
"DONT TREAD ON ME"
Gadsden Flag

calvin · External Since: Feb 07, 2009 Posts: 91

On Nov 6, 6:08 pm, moviePig <pwall... RemoveThis @moviepig.com> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 5:27 pm, calvin <cri... RemoveThis @windstream.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 6, 3:09 pm, moviePig <pwall... RemoveThis @moviepig.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 6, 2:38 pm, calvin <cri... RemoveThis @windstream.net> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 6, 2:24 pm, moviePig <pwall... RemoveThis @moviepig.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 6, 1:16 pm, calvin <cri... RemoveThis @windstream.net> wrote:
> > > > > > On Nov 6, 11:29 am, Tom <drso... RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Nov 5, 10:14 am, calvin <cri... RemoveThis @windstream.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Nov 5, 9:46 am, "The Giant Brain" <gi... RemoveThis @brain.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > "calvin" <cri... RemoveThis @windstream.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > So, you think denial of secret ballots in union elections,
> > > > > > > > > > and other things on which they vote, is okay?
> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > Please provide proof.
>
> > > > > > > > Here ya go:
> > > > > > > >http://www.uschamber.com/issues/index/labor/cardchecksecrbal..htm
>
> > > > > > > Calvin, the low esteem with which many large American companies hold
> > > > > > > the Chamber of Commerce is a big signal the Chamber's opinion is of
> > > > > > > little value.
>
> > > > > > > Large companies are leaving the Chamber in droves because it is so out
> > > > > > > of touch with modern business thought.
>
> > > > > > > How about another, more credible, source?
>
> > > > > > Okay, I'll Google some others, as you could do for
> > > > > > yourself. This is a simple matter of fact, however.
> > > > > > Having to publicly sign a card saying whether you
> > > > > > want a union in your place of work is a non-secret
> > > > > > ballot. It doesn't matter whether the institution
> > > > > > complaining is right-wing or not.
>
> > > > > > In general, when reporting an outrage, the reporter
> > > > > > is more likely to be on the ideological side that most
> > > > > > dislikes the outrage. Those who don't mind the outrage
> > > > > > don't bother to report it.
>
> > > > > > I once told a poster here about Sandy Berger taking
> > > > > > documents from the National Archives, and I documented
> > > > > > it with reports by Rush Limbaugh and Brit Hume. But
> > > > > > the poster declared, "I know those guys", and refused
> > > > > > to believe therefore that Berger did anything wrong.
> > > > > > Apparently he will believe only what Keith Olbermann thinks
> > > > > > is wrong.
>
> > > > > If I had a "fact" that I could document only with, say, Olbermann and
> > > > > DailyKos, I'd present it as, at most, rumor.
>
> > > > Okay, it has been rumored that Sandy Berger was caught
> > > > removing documents from the National Archives, and it has
> > > > been rumored that the Obama Administration has supported
> > > > non-secret ballots on the question of whether workplaces
> > > > shall become unionized or not.
>
> > > If you're trying to make a point with irony, I gotta say I'm receiving
> > > it instead as inadvertent honesty...
>
> > My point is only that these are news items, not
> > editorials.
>
> My point is only that, for convincing others of something, citing only
> Limbaugh and Hume might not be maximally efficient.

When the mainstream media don't care enough
to report that which makes the left uncomfortable,
then Limbaugh and Hume become as efficient as
one will be able to find to cite.

Your innate cynical devining rod is always strangely
inert in the presence of mischief on the left.

calvin · External Since: Feb 07, 2009 Posts: 91

On Nov 6, 11:29 am, Tom <drso....RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote:
> On Nov 5, 10:14 am, calvin <cri....RemoveThis@windstream.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 5, 9:46 am, "The Giant Brain" <gi....RemoveThis@brain.invalid> wrote:
> > > Please provide proof.
>
> > Here ya go:

http://www.uschamber.com/issues/index/labor/cardchecksecrbal.htm
>
> Calvin, the low esteem with which many large American companies hold
> the Chamber of Commerce is a big signal the Chamber's opinion is of
> little value.
>
> Large companies are leaving the Chamber in droves because it is so out
> of touch with modern business thought.
>
> How about another, more credible, source?

I changed my mind. Google it yourself. Why
should I bother, when nothing I cite will impress
you except the mainstream leftist media, and they
certainly are not going to tell you about any
wrongdoing by union leadership.

steve · External Since: Dec 09, 2004 Posts: 1267

On 6-Nov-2009, moviePig <pwallace RemoveThis @moviepig.com> wrote:

> That's not "incoherent" ...it seems rather to have been dead on.
> Censorship is *me* intentionally circumscribing *your* access to
> certain classes of literature. ...i.e., 'attitude' is very much
> involved (...although, without attendant 'action', who cares?)

It's incoherent in context, i.e. I cannot relate it to the issue at hand.
And, of course, since you refer to attitude and NOT action, it says nothing
about censorship which, we apparently agree (and I might add... duh),
requires action. You toss in that admission as a parenthetical comment,
when it is, in fact, the crux of the problem!

> Ideally, you'll infer, in each instance, the appropriate context.
> E.g.... "Censorship is evil" exists in the conversational context of
> gut-level human reactions. At a more stilted level, though, I
> question whether such reactions are ever to be trusted. And, at a
> still further removed level, I might argue that evil is merely a
> matter of differing priorities.

The bottom line is that none of this is of any value to the discussion. In
intellectual terms, your just blathering.

> I'll clarify more explicitly: If BB presents you with the choice of
> driving either to the next county for the grown-up video you want or
> two blocks for a Meg Ryan fairy tale BB carries, then they're impeding
> your free intellectual access.

But BB doesnt give me that choice. They give me the choice of renting or
not renting whatever they offer. Market forces (assuming they are not
thwarted by govt) determine if I have to drive to rent something else.

BB is not impeding anything. They are simply offering less than you would
like them to offer. Likewise, the local hardware store fails to offer NC-17
videos (or any videos, in fact). So, by your logic, they censor. That is
where your reasoning breaks down.

> > hand waving = avoiding or failing to address relevant issues
>
> ("Hand waving" connotes something different to me. But never mind.)

I picked that up in college. How did you understand it?

> > Please define coercion. Telling me my definition is "unrealistically
> > narrow" doesnt help me much. You must draw some distinctions rather
> > than
> > simply blurring lines.
>
> I'll rephrase the subsequent example I provided: If I understand you,
> threatening to break someone's arm is coercion ...whereas threatening
> his finances (so that, e.g., his children might go malnourished) is
> not.

You have to be specific. What is threatening thier finances? If they are
violating property rights, the many consequences are all a result of that
injustice. If they are not violating prop rights (or making a credible
threat to do so)...how are they threatening finances?

> Hmm, you raise this objection to a quip that merely responded to
> yours...

I didnt quip. I characterized your argument. Substitute my definition for
the phrase, and there is no doubt.

> > The fault in the repetition is yours, not mine.
>
> If I deliberately avoid an issue, I say so, and why. Rather, in
> addressing some issues with you, my communications seem merely
> unsuccessful, for whatever reason.

Look back through the thread. In many instances you either ignored pointed
questions or your reply was unresponsive. The former is obviously
intentional as I know you can read. The latter may not be.

> Then, reciprocally, I will note my guess that BHO would, with complete
> candor, strongly dispute your summary insight into his hostilities...
> er.. principles...

I have no doubt he would dispute. He is more Orwellian in his blatent
contradictions than even Bill Clinton. But his actions are clear, as are
his many past statements and actions (all consistent with his current
actions), that he now disavows. He's a lying, anti-capitalist, power
hungry, political thug. And Im just getting started.

Im out for the weekend.

steve
--
"DONT TREAD ON ME"
Gadsden Flag

S D · External Since: Dec 08, 2004 Posts: 712

is he part of the 10.2 % ?

moviePig · External Since: Aug 08, 2005 Posts: 1701

On Nov 6, 8:19 pm, calvin <cri....RemoveThis@windstream.net> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 6:08 pm, moviePig <pwall....RemoveThis@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 6, 5:27 pm, calvin <cri....RemoveThis@windstream.net> wrote:
> > > On Nov 6, 3:09 pm, moviePig <pwall....RemoveThis@moviepig.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 6, 2:38 pm, calvin <cri....RemoveThis@windstream.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 6, 2:24 pm, moviePig <pwall....RemoveThis@moviepig.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Nov 6, 1:16 pm, calvin <cri....RemoveThis@windstream.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Nov 6, 11:29 am, Tom <drso....RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Nov 5, 10:14 am, calvin <cri....RemoveThis@windstream.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Nov 5, 9:46 am, "The Giant Brain" <gi....RemoveThis@brain.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > "calvin" <cri....RemoveThis@windstream.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > So, you think denial of secret ballots in union elections,
> > > > > > > > > > > and other things on which they vote, is okay?
> > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > Please provide proof.
>
> > > > > > > > > Here ya go:
> > > > > > > > >http://www.uschamber.com/issues/index/labor/cardchecksecrbal.htm
>
> > > > > > > > Calvin, the low esteem with which many large American companies hold
> > > > > > > > the Chamber of Commerce is a big signal the Chamber's opinion is of
> > > > > > > > little value.
>
> > > > > > > > Large companies are leaving the Chamber in droves because it is so out
> > > > > > > > of touch with modern business thought.
>
> > > > > > > > How about another, more credible, source?
>
> > > > > > > Okay, I'll Google some others, as you could do for
> > > > > > > yourself. This is a simple matter of fact, however.
> > > > > > > Having to publicly sign a card saying whether you
> > > > > > > want a union in your place of work is a non-secret
> > > > > > > ballot. It doesn't matter whether the institution
> > > > > > > complaining is right-wing or not.
>
> > > > > > > In general, when reporting an outrage, the reporter
> > > > > > > is more likely to be on the ideological side that most
> > > > > > > dislikes the outrage. Those who don't mind the outrage
> > > > > > > don't bother to report it.
>
> > > > > > > I once told a poster here about Sandy Berger taking
> > > > > > > documents from the National Archives, and I documented
> > > > > > > it with reports by Rush Limbaugh and Brit Hume. But
> > > > > > > the poster declared, "I know those guys", and refused
> > > > > > > to believe therefore that Berger did anything wrong.
> > > > > > > Apparently he will believe only what Keith Olbermann thinks
> > > > > > > is wrong.
>
> > > > > > If I had a "fact" that I could document only with, say, Olbermann and
> > > > > > DailyKos, I'd present it as, at most, rumor.
>
> > > > > Okay, it has been rumored that Sandy Berger was caught
> > > > > removing documents from the National Archives, and it has
> > > > > been rumored that the Obama Administration has supported
> > > > > non-secret ballots on the question of whether workplaces
> > > > > shall become unionized or not.
>
> > > > If you're trying to make a point with irony, I gotta say I'm receiving
> > > > it instead as inadvertent honesty...
>
> > > My point is only that these are news items, not
> > > editorials.
>
> > My point is only that, for convincing others of something, citing only
> > Limbaugh and Hume might not be maximally efficient.
>
> When the mainstream media don't care enough
> to report that which makes the left uncomfortable,
> then Limbaugh and Hume become as efficient as
> one will be able to find to cite.
>
> Your innate cynical devining rod is always strangely
> inert in the presence of mischief on the left.

Jeez, and there I was thinking I'd *just* made somewhere up there an
analogous remark about Olbermann and DailyKos. Must've been an
artefact of Liberal DTs...

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

trotsky · External Since: Dec 07, 2004 Posts: 2503

calvin wrote:
> On Nov 6, 11:29 am, Tom <drso....TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 5, 10:14 am, calvin <cri....TakeThisOut@windstream.net> wrote:
>>> On Nov 5, 9:46 am, "The Giant Brain" <gi....TakeThisOut@brain.invalid> wrote:
>>>> "calvin" <cri....TakeThisOut@windstream.net> wrote:
>>>>> So, you think denial of secret ballots in union elections,
>>>>> and other things on which they vote, is okay?
>>>> ------------------------------------------------
>>>> Please provide proof.
>>> Here ya go:
>>> http://www.uschamber.com/issues/index/labor/cardchecksecrbal.htm
>> Calvin, the low esteem with which many large American companies hold
>> the Chamber of Commerce is a big signal the Chamber's opinion is of
>> little value.
>>
>> Large companies are leaving the Chamber in droves because it is so out
>> of touch with modern business thought.
>>
>> How about another, more credible, source?
>
> Okay, I'll Google some others, as you could do for
> yourself.

Translation: "I'll find some and get back to ya!"

calvin · External Since: Feb 07, 2009 Posts: 91

On Nov 6, 10:14 pm, moviePig <pwall... DeleteThis @moviepig.com> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 8:19 pm, calvin <cri... DeleteThis @windstream.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 6, 6:08 pm, moviePig <pwall... DeleteThis @moviepig.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 6, 5:27 pm, calvin <cri... DeleteThis @windstream.net> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 6, 3:09 pm, moviePig <pwall... DeleteThis @moviepig.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 6, 2:38 pm, calvin <cri... DeleteThis @windstream.net> wrote:
> > > > > > On Nov 6, 2:24 pm, moviePig <pwall... DeleteThis @moviepig.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Nov 6, 1:16 pm, calvin <cri... DeleteThis @windstream.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 11:29 am, Tom <drso... DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Nov 5, 10:14 am, calvin <cri... DeleteThis @windstream.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Nov 5, 9:46 am, "The Giant Brain" <gi... DeleteThis @brain.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > "calvin" <cri... DeleteThis @windstream.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > So, you think denial of secret ballots in union elections,
> > > > > > > > > > > > and other things on which they vote, is okay?
> > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > > Please provide proof.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Here ya go:
> > > > > > > > > >http://www.uschamber.com/issues/index/labor/cardchecksecrbal.htm
>
> > > > > > > > > Calvin, the low esteem with which many large American companies hold
> > > > > > > > > the Chamber of Commerce is a big signal the Chamber's opinion is of
> > > > > > > > > little value.
>
> > > > > > > > > Large companies are leaving the Chamber in droves because it is so out
> > > > > > > > > of touch with modern business thought.
>
> > > > > > > > > How about another, more credible, source?
>
> > > > > > > > Okay, I'll Google some others, as you could do for
> > > > > > > > yourself. This is a simple matter of fact, however.
> > > > > > > > Having to publicly sign a card saying whether you
> > > > > > > > want a union in your place of work is a non-secret
> > > > > > > > ballot. It doesn't matter whether the institution
> > > > > > > > complaining is right-wing or not.
>
> > > > > > > > In general, when reporting an outrage, the reporter
> > > > > > > > is more likely to be on the ideological side that most
> > > > > > > > dislikes the outrage. Those who don't mind the outrage
> > > > > > > > don't bother to report it.
>
> > > > > > > > I once told a poster here about Sandy Berger taking
> > > > > > > > documents from the National Archives, and I documented
> > > > > > > > it with reports by Rush Limbaugh and Brit Hume. But
> > > > > > > > the poster declared, "I know those guys", and refused
> > > > > > > > to believe therefore that Berger did anything wrong.
> > > > > > > > Apparently he will believe only what Keith Olbermann thinks
> > > > > > > > is wrong.
>
> > > > > > > If I had a "fact" that I could document only with, say, Olbermann and
> > > > > > > DailyKos, I'd present it as, at most, rumor.
>
> > > > > > Okay, it has been rumored that Sandy Berger was caught
> > > > > > removing documents from the National Archives, and it has
> > > > > > been rumored that the Obama Administration has supported
> > > > > > non-secret ballots on the question of whether workplaces
> > > > > > shall become unionized or not.
>
> > > > > If you're trying to make a point with irony, I gotta say I'm receiving
> > > > > it instead as inadvertent honesty...
>
> > > > My point is only that these are news items, not
> > > > editorials.
>
> > > My point is only that, for convincing others of something, citing only
> > > Limbaugh and Hume might not be maximally efficient.
>
> > When the mainstream media don't care enough
> > to report that which makes the left uncomfortable,
> > then Limbaugh and Hume become as efficient as
> > one will be able to find to cite.
>
> > Your innate cynical devining rod is always strangely
> > inert in the presence of mischief on the left.
>
> Jeez, and there I was thinking I'd *just* made somewhere up there an
> analogous remark about Olbermann and DailyKos. Must've been an
> artefact of Liberal DTs...

I noted that, but it was only hypothetical, not
based on an actual report by either of them that
you would need to offer only as rumor.

calvin · External Since: Feb 07, 2009 Posts: 91

On Nov 6, 10:33 pm, "The Giant Brain" <gi... DeleteThis @brain.invalid> wrote:
> The dittoheads are amusing when they complain about the "liberal press" but
> don't say a word about the rightwing nutjobs like Limbaugh, Hannity and
> O'Reilly...

The right has FoxNews and most of talk radio. The left has
NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, The New York Times, The
Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, Newsweek, Time, ...

Currently the media of the right care about what is happening
to the country. The media of the left (see above) care only
that the first black President succeeds in doing whatever he
wants to do. They couldn't care less what the horrific effects
might be, so long as he is a success. Do they care that the
near trillion dollar stimulus bill was only a pork bill? No, he
wanted it, so it was good. Do they care that the 'cap and trade'
bill will cripple U.S. industry? No, he wants it, so it will be
good. Do they care that the 2000 page healthcare bill that will
cost a trillion dollars is for the most part incomprehensible to
anyone who cares to read it? No, he wants it, so we can find
out after it passes whatever it is that it says, or they will claim it
says.

The Obama administration is absolute madness, destined to
wreck the country, but only the right cares; the left steamrolls
onward, blindly following their extremist leaders. They won the
election, so the country be damned.

The Giant Brain · External Since: Aug 19, 2009 Posts: 25

"moviePig" <pwallace.DeleteThis@moviepig.com> wrote in message
news:dbd34677-408e-4c51-9b20-9d1c976086a8@o13g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 6, 8:19 pm, calvin <cri....DeleteThis@windstream.net> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 6:08 pm, moviePig <pwall....DeleteThis@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 6, 5:27 pm, calvin <cri....DeleteThis@windstream.net> wrote:
> > > On Nov 6, 3:09 pm, moviePig <pwall....DeleteThis@moviepig.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 6, 2:38 pm, calvin <cri....DeleteThis@windstream.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 6, 2:24 pm, moviePig <pwall....DeleteThis@moviepig.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Nov 6, 1:16 pm, calvin <cri....DeleteThis@windstream.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Nov 6, 11:29 am, Tom <drso....DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Nov 5, 10:14 am, calvin <cri....DeleteThis@windstream.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Nov 5, 9:46 am, "The Giant Brain" <gi....DeleteThis@brain.invalid>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > "calvin" <cri....DeleteThis@windstream.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > So, you think denial of secret ballots in union elections,
> > > > > > > > > > > and other things on which they vote, is okay?
> > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > Please provide proof.
>
> > > > > > > > > Here ya go:
> > > > > > > > >http://www.uschamber.com/issues/index/labor/cardchecksecrbal.htm
>
> > > > > > > > Calvin, the low esteem with which many large American companies
> > > > > > > > hold
> > > > > > > > the Chamber of Commerce is a big signal the Chamber's opinion is
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > little value.
>
> > > > > > > > Large companies are leaving the Chamber in droves because it is
> > > > > > > > so out
> > > > > > > > of touch with modern business thought.
>
> > > > > > > > How about another, more credible, source?
>
> > > > > > > Okay, I'll Google some others, as you could do for
> > > > > > > yourself. This is a simple matter of fact, however.
> > > > > > > Having to publicly sign a card saying whether you
> > > > > > > want a union in your place of work is a non-secret
> > > > > > > ballot. It doesn't matter whether the institution
> > > > > > > complaining is right-wing or not.
>
> > > > > > > In general, when reporting an outrage, the reporter
> > > > > > > is more likely to be on the ideological side that most
> > > > > > > dislikes the outrage. Those who don't mind the outrage
> > > > > > > don't bother to report it.
>
> > > > > > > I once told a poster here about Sandy Berger taking
> > > > > > > documents from the National Archives, and I documented
> > > > > > > it with reports by Rush Limbaugh and Brit Hume. But
> > > > > > > the poster declared, "I know those guys", and refused
> > > > > > > to believe therefore that Berger did anything wrong.
> > > > > > > Apparently he will believe only what Keith Olbermann thinks
> > > > > > > is wrong.
>
> > > > > > If I had a "fact" that I could document only with, say, Olbermann
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > DailyKos, I'd present it as, at most, rumor.
>
> > > > > Okay, it has been rumored that Sandy Berger was caught
> > > > > removing documents from the National Archives, and it has
> > > > > been rumored that the Obama Administration has supported
> > > > > non-secret ballots on the question of whether workplaces
> > > > > shall become unionized or not.
>
> > > > If you're trying to make a point with irony, I gotta say I'm receiving
> > > > it instead as inadvertent honesty...
>
> > > My point is only that these are news items, not
> > > editorials.
>
> > My point is only that, for convincing others of something, citing only
> > Limbaugh and Hume might not be maximally efficient.
>
> When the mainstream media don't care enough
> to report that which makes the left uncomfortable,
> then Limbaugh and Hume become as efficient as
> one will be able to find to cite.
>
> Your innate cynical devining rod is always strangely
> inert in the presence of mischief on the left.

Jeez, and there I was thinking I'd *just* made somewhere up there an
analogous remark about Olbermann and DailyKos. Must've been an
artefact of Liberal DTs...

-----------------------------------------------------------

The dittoheads are amusing when they complain about the "liberal press" but
don't say a word about the rightwing nutjobs like Limbaugh, Hannity and
O'Reilly...