Jump to content

March for life coverage


japantiger

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, HVAU said:

That's bull****.  Everybody just wants to have something to point at and slobber out " see...see, they're not covering things fairly", while disregarding the the inconsistencies in their own news/entertainment outlets.  That you would piss on a news agency and follow that with "at least that's what I saw on the internet" just illustrates the pettiness of your sentiment here.

What it illustrates is how little regard I have for MSNBC and CNN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 294
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1 hour ago, Grumps said:

Fixed it for you.

"Drums are a part of NA culture so this isn’t the equivalent of a threat as you’d like to spin it."

Freedom to wear a hat is part of the non-NA culture.

"Bottom line, you don’t want to be labeled a racist then don’t wear a hat with a slogan by a racist and stand in front of a brown person smirking. "

Bottom line, you don’t want to be labeled a racist then don’t be white. 

You’re obsessed with false equivalencies. 

If you don’t want to be labeled a racist then don’t politically support one. I’m white and I’m not labeled a racist. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Grumps said:

Ha! So instead of correcting the completely bogus story blasted all over the world (#fakenews) the media can blast the Trumpsters for being racist anti-semites as well. Well played!

What "fake story"?  It is a photo/video.  It is what it is. 

You folks really don't get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Obvious Ben, Elle, HVAU, and Homey ate sh!t and liked it. What's new? (And pardon me if I missed any sh!t eaters)

You are clueless.

Like it or not, that piece of video - and the still shots derived from it - are independent of whatever preceded or followed them in time.

Iconic photos usually have a back story, but they exist independently. 

That may not be "fair", but that's the way it is and has always been.

For example:

image.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You are clueless.

Like it or not, that piece of video - and the still shots derived from it - are independent of whatever preceded or followed them in time.

Iconic photos usually have a back story, but they exist independently. 

That may not be "fair", but that's the way it is and has always been.

For example:

image.png

So let me see if I have this right...you and Elle; alone; are still hanging onto the "it was the kids fault" story?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, japantiger said:

So let me see if I have this right...you and Elle; alone; are still hanging onto the "it was the kids fault" story?

Do you lack reading comprehension or do you just like casting me in a warped role of your own creation?

I expressed disgust at the student’s actions but never stated anyone was at fault . 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, GiveEmElle said:

You’re obsessed with false equivalencies. 

If you don’t want to be labeled a racist then don’t politically support one. I’m white and I’m not labeled a racist. 

 

 

No but you are full of hate for the POTUS. Of couse you will say that's a false equivalency (i.e. standard excuse).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

No but you are full of hate for the POTUS. Of couse you will say that's a false equivalency (i.e. standard excuse).

Don't confuse "hate" with contempt. They aren't the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, japantiger said:

So let me see if I have this right...you and Elle; alone; are still hanging onto the "it was the kids fault" story?

I am not hanging on to any "story".  I am talking about the image, which, like it or not, exists independently of any background story. 

As for "fault", I suppose you could say it's his fault for allowing himself to be photographed in such a way, but I wouldn't describe it that way.  Perhaps the photo didn't actually capture his actual intent or what was in his heart.  Perhaps he didn't really feel like he was being arrogant and confrontational.  If so, that's his bad luck.  He would obviously have been better served by simply walking away.

Regardless, the photo captured something that exists independently of what might have led up to it.

(Just as in the photo I presented of General Loan executing the Viet Cong captain. The man getting shot is 36 years old and early that morning he killed a military officer, his wife and 80 year old mother and 6 of 7 children by cutting their throats. He was put on trial and confessed he was proud he killed them.) 

My point is that iconic photos convey a truth of the moment that stands in it's own right, independent of the back story behind them.  That's why photography is considered to be art.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

What "fake story"?  It is a photo/video.  It is what it is. 

You folks really don't get it.

They just love to jump on the Cult Leader’s false claim that news is fake. In some weird sense it validates them, just like those thumb down reactions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

They just love to jump on the Cult Leader’s false claim that news is fake. In some weird sense it validates them. 

I guess "they" is another of your generalizations and everyone who doesn't think like you is in a cult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

PT still hasn’t figured out I have him on ignore. 

Oh yes I do. It really tears me up because I can't threaten you anymore:drippingsarcasm7pa:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I am not hanging on to any "story".  I am talking about the image, which, like it or not, exists independently of any background story. 

As for "fault", I suppose you could say it's his fault for allowing himself to be photographed in such a way, but I would describe it that way.  Perhaps the photo didn't actually capture his actual intent or what was in his heart.  Perhaps he didn't really feel like he was being arrogant and confrontational.  If so, that's his bad luck.  He would obviously have been better served by simply walking away.

Regardless, the photo captured something that exists independently of what might have led up to it.

(Just as in the photo I presented of General Loan executing the Viet Cong captain. The man getting shot is 36 years old and early that morning he killed a military officer, his wife and 80 year old mother and 6 of 7 children by cutting their throats. He was put on trial and confessed he was proud he killed them.) 

My point is that iconic photos convey a truth of the moment that stands in it's own right, independent of the back story behind them.  That's why photography is considered to be art.

This is the biggest load of horse***t I've ever read; even for you....and you've posted some amazingly deep piles before...the photo convey's exactly 1/400th of a second of reality that meant nothing until a group of deranged leftists (you and Elle included) tried to make it something it wasn't...in other words; a lie.   Art my ass...

As for General Loan; Adam's, the man who took the "art" later apologized to Loan for failing to provide the context around the photo he took....perhaps you should be as circumspect as Adam's...

The general killed the Viet Cong; I killed the general with my camera. Still photographs are the most powerful weapon in the world. People believe them; but photographs do lie, even without manipulation. They are only half-truths. … What the photograph didn’t say was, ‘What would you do if you were the general at that time and place on that hot day, and you caught the so-called bad guy after he blew away one, two or three American people?”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, japantiger said:

This is the biggest load of horse***t I've ever read; even for you....and you've posted some amazingly deep piles before...the photo convey's exactly 1/400th of a second of reality that meant nothing until a group of deranged leftists (you and Elle included) tried to make it something it wasn't...in other words; a lie.   Art my ass...

As for General Loan; Adam's, the man who took the "art" later apologized to Loan for failing to provide the context around the photo he took....perhaps you should be as circumspect as Adam's...

The general killed the Viet Cong; I killed the general with my camera. Still photographs are the most powerful weapon in the world. People believe them; but photographs do lie, even without manipulation. They are only half-truths. … What the photograph didn’t say was, ‘What would you do if you were the general at that time and place on that hot day, and you caught the so-called bad guy after he blew away one, two or three American people?”

You are making my point, which obviously went over your head.

Thanks anyway.

 

(Oh, and your bellybutton is showing.)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You are making my point, which obviously went over your head.

Thanks anyway.

 

(Oh, and your bellybutton is showing.)

 

 

Apparently we agree; you're an unapologetic liar....whereas Adam's at least apologized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, japantiger said:

This is the biggest load of horse***t I've ever read; even for you....and you've posted some amazingly deep piles before...the photo convey's exactly 1/400th of a second of reality that meant nothing until a group of deranged leftists (you and Elle included) tried to make it something it wasn't...in other words; a lie.   Art my ass...

As for General Loan; Adam's, the man who took the "art" later apologized to Loan for failing to provide the context around the photo he took....perhaps you should be as circumspect as Adam's...

The general killed the Viet Cong; I killed the general with my camera. Still photographs are the most powerful weapon in the world. People believe them; but photographs do lie, even without manipulation. They are only half-truths. … What the photograph didn’t say was, ‘What would you do if you were the general at that time and place on that hot day, and you caught the so-called bad guy after he blew away one, two or three American people?”

Exactly what did Elle try to make it? 

You want to defend a male who went to march in support of the government controlling women’s bodies smugly smirking with his MAGA hat at a NA Vietnam Vet while his friends laugh and cheer be my guest. But please don’t sell him as a victim. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

Exactly what did Elle try to make it? 

You want to defend a male who went to march in support of the government controlling women’s bodies smugly smirking with his MAGA hat at a NA Vietnam Vet while his friends laugh and cheer be my guest. But please don’t sell him as a victim. 

Oh, Elle, you poor victim .... fighting for the right to do this must make you so very proud....

aborted-baby.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, japantiger said:

Apparently we agree; you're an unapologetic liar....whereas Adam's at least apologized.

Please quote the "lie" I told.

You don't have a clue.  I made a point about the nature of photos and you promptly supported it by providing more of back story on the General Load photo.  That photo was a major factor in turning American sentiment of the war.  But as you pointed out, it was generally justified and understandable once the full context was known.

My (only) point is such back stories are largely irrelevant to the impact of a iconic photo. The MAGA kid's expression and attitude are caught forever, regardless of what happened before.

(Ironically, you then offer up a tasteless photo of an illegal late term abortion without backstory to push an emotionally-based political position which has nothing to do with the discussion.)

Are you even capable of talking about something from an intellectual standpoint?  Or do you constantly have to lead with your belly button?

You are apparently over your head in such a discussion.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, japantiger said:

Oh, Elle, you poor victim .... fighting for the right to do this must make you so very proud....

aborted-baby.jpg

 

You are so damn clueless. You support a party that claims to be pro life yet puts children in cages, attempts to strip people of healthcare, despises programs that feed the hungry and has no regard for life outside the womb. If you’re so concerned about abortion then start by considering the reasons abortion is chosen. Your party will tell a woman she cannot have an abortion but put her rapist in the senate, the White House or the Supreme Court. Your party will tell a woman she has to be responsible for the life she created them work in direct opposition to her earning a living wage to support a child. Your party believes healthcare is a privilege and not a right. You can’t have an abortion and you can’t have healthcare for your child. Oh and forget about feeding that hungry child. They should work for their own food. You’re vipers and hypocrites. You want to prevent unwanted pregnancies and abortion, teach your gender to keep their dick in their pants because males are responsible for 100% of unwanted pregnancies. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

 You want to prevent unwanted pregnancies and abortion, teach your gender to keep their dick in their pants because males are responsible for 100% of unwanted pregnancies. 

 

If all my gender kept their dick in their pants you wouldn't be here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...