|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Lt. Michael L. Byrd /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1625763610 Message started by WebsterMark on 07/08/21 at 10:00:10 |
|
Title: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by WebsterMark on 07/08/21 at 10:00:10 is the man who shot and killed unarmed Ashli Babbitt. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by Eegore on 07/08/21 at 11:28:49 Can you specify your reference? |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by T And T Garage on 07/08/21 at 20:37:26 She got what she deserved. I saw the video. She was a traitor. As we're ALL of those that broke into the Capitol. Supposing you're information is correct? What do you hope happens?? |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by WebsterMark on 07/09/21 at 04:21:28 She got what she deserved. “We’ve all have it coming kid.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPwuulUQpxw |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by MnSpring on 07/09/21 at 07:29:17 Concerning Babbitt, You believe she was a Traitor and got what She deserved. Quote:
Do you also believe Justin Damond “got what she deserved” at the hands of Mohamed Noor ? Because clearly you believe, a career Criminal, and a convicted Felon. Is a inspiration. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by WebsterMark on 07/09/21 at 09:44:44 George Floyd deserve it? Breonna Taylor? Michael brown? How about Gabby Giffords? I’d be careful about saying someone deserves to get shot and killed. Who are you to say? Deserves a relative term |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by T And T Garage on 07/11/21 at 07:48:45 615354454253447B57445D360 wrote:
No, it's a fitting term. I thought you neo-cons believe in "consequences for your actions"?... |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by WebsterMark on 07/12/21 at 03:40:31 [quote author=4E505F5E534E55483A0 link=1625763610/0#6 date=1626014925][quote author=615354454253447B57445D360 link=1625763610/0#5 date=1625849084]George Floyd deserve it? [color=#0000ff] Let’s use your logic: We all saw him resisted arrest. He instigated, he got what she deserved. Breonna Taylor? We know she was heavily involved in boyfriends drug business which targeted mostly young blacks who were addicted, She instigated, she got what she deserved. Michael brown? We all know he assaulted and robbed a store owner minutes before. He instigated, he got what she deserved. How about Gabby Giffords? We all know she pissed that kid off by disrespecting him. She instigated, she got what she deserved. See how that works. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by T And T Garage on 07/12/21 at 06:13:35 0D3F38292E3F28173B28315A0 wrote:
[color=#0000ff]Your logic is not only flawed, it's asinine. The only one that may have instigated was Brown. You're going to sit there and justif/compare an assassination attempt to a traitor breakinginto the capitol??? I thought you couldn't be more ignorant. I was wrong.... |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by WebsterMark on 07/13/21 at 08:42:32 Should the Texas legislators who abandon their positions be shot as traitors too? |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by Eegore on 07/13/21 at 10:55:31 If they are forcefully entering a room with a gun pointed at them I'd expect that outcome. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by Serowbot on 07/13/21 at 11:53:37 Regarding the "unarmed" protestors. Some of those flagpoles had sharpened tips... What was the POINT of that? (pun intended) |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by T And T Garage on 07/13/21 at 13:35:42 764443525544536C40534A210 wrote:
You just wanna see everyone get shot, huh? Tells us mark, why did you feel compelled to post this guy's name? Did your proud boys leaders tell all you other boys to do it? Maybe get his name out there so one of your boys could locate him and assassinate him?.... Seriously, why did you do it? Why post his name?.... |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by WebsterMark on 07/14/21 at 04:22:29 4650475A42575A41350 wrote:
What?! Sharpened flagpole tips?! Oh my God this is terrible! Yea, an insurrection against The United States was based on pointy flagpoles….For f’ks sake dude…. It’s obvious even after listening to Biden stuttering through a ridiculous statement that legislation that requires people to prove who they are before voting is Civil War-ish, that scary as it seems, Biden’s not even the nuttiest Democrats / leftist / commie there is. Sharp flagpoles…… |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by Serowbot on 07/14/21 at 07:53:58 For what possible reason would one sharpen the tip of a flagpole?... That shows absolute proof of premeditation. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by Eegore on 07/14/21 at 10:46:59 Sharpening metal to a point in an object that has no reasonable reason to be sharp is premeditation. If I sharpened both sides of a metal pen, I would be considered armed. But this argument is going against an instance that requires firearms to consider somebody armed by law. For instance the guy swinging a hockey stick should get assault charges, but not armed assault because only on this day at this location being armed requires firearms. So he was unarmed. By that logic there is no need to address sharpened flagpoles as stabbing someone with one is equal to punching them by legal definition at this one location on this one date. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by Serowbot on 07/14/21 at 10:56:36 One day a year, the rules don't apply. That's basically the plot of "The Purge". Life imitates art. ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by WebsterMark on 07/14/21 at 13:05:57 It wasn’t an insurrection. Stop it. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by Eegore on 07/15/21 at 05:12:45 It was an insurrection. Stop it. See how that argument sounds? I am not saying the event was an insurrection. I am saying people who went there to stop an election process for the purpose of keeping Trump in power were part of an insurrection. They admit it, they acquired gear and weapons, they organized themselves travelled and entered the Capitol, by force, in an attempt to stop the election process. That's an armed insurrection, specifically for those who took specific actions. To claim they "only" took selfies and expecting us to ignore the videos of them also destroying property and assaulting the police is ridiculous. The selfie protesters were not part of an insurrection. The Oath Keepers that planned their actions are insurrectionists. In all reality they most likely won't even be charged with that anyway. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by WebsterMark on 07/15/21 at 05:30:15 They won’t be charged because it wasn’t an armed insurrection. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by Eegore on 07/15/21 at 05:43:35 It was an armed insurrection. See how that argument sounds? Would that be enough information for you to accept as fact? Why in this case are people, like the hockey stick guy, to be considered unarmed? Why if the purpose of one's presence is to stop an election, for the purpose of altering the leadership of the Nation, would that not be considered insurrectionist behavior? |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by WebsterMark on 07/15/21 at 07:34:08 No, it wasn’t. If that’s an insurrection then every time BLM and antifa showed up at the White House but were kept out by police and federal agents, then that too was an armed insurrection because had they gotten past the line, they would have killed Trump. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by Eegore on 07/15/21 at 08:43:53 Yes it was. See how that works yet? "If that’s an insurrection then every time BLM and antifa showed up at the White House but were kept out by police and federal agents, then that too was an armed insurrection because had they gotten past the line, they would have killed Trump." If I break a window I can't say I didn't break a window because the cops didn't do anything when you broke a window. The issue here is insurrection is a relatively complex definition to apply to modern law, but people want to just say "Yes it was!!!" and others say "No it wasn't!!!" instead of having a real conversation. So instead of reaching a personal compromise, people look for ways to downplay or exaggerate the event to better suit their assessment. Nothing is wrong with comparing BLM protests to Jan 6th protests. What's wrong is the immediate response to the above sentence being overly defensive and saying non-productive things like: "But Jan 6th WAS an insurrection!" or "BLM protests are NOT an insurrection!!" or "If that event is not an insurrection then this event can't be!" We can't just claim a guy hitting people with a hockey stick was unarmed because BLM did this or ANTIFA did that. People need to stop grouping everyone on Jan 6th together if they want to have a real adult discussion. Some had different motives, strategies and goals. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by WebsterMark on 07/15/21 at 12:57:52 So some at the White House fence were guilty of insurrection? But, the only reason they are not identified is 1) the line held and they were unable to move their insurrectionist plans past stage one and 2) the FBI did not investigate participants at the White House fence anywhere near to the degree with the Jan 6 Capitol event because the Democratic Party controlled media did not push the narrative that the event was an insurrection. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by Eegore on 07/15/21 at 13:33:35 "So some at the White House fence were guilty of insurrection?" I wouldn't say guilty, but I would say the possibility of being charged with insurrection is possible. If they meet the legal standards contained here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-115 https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/part1/chapter115&edition=prelim To me, some of, the White House group is closer to insurrection by my assessment and, some, of the Jan 6th group is closer to sedition. Insurrection: An act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance against civil authority or an established government. I would say a lot of Jan 6th was an "instance of rising in revolt" against both the police (civil authority) and an established government. People there to complain were pretty much protesting. People who planned for weeks to get into the Capitol for the purpose of stopping the election process, were closer to revolt against an established government than they were to peacefully voicing their concerns. Planning constitutes sedition. A narrower application is required. Assisting or generally being part of any "group" revolting or rising up against the government is insurrection. This is a broader application. It is far easier to be an insurrectionist than a seditionist. Seditious Conspiracy: If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both. This requires two or more. Therefore individual prosecution may be more difficult for sedition, than insurrection. The White House group seemed to me, to be less interested in general government proceedings and more interested in only the President. The Jan 6th group had a mix of planning and spontaneity. The interesting thing, to me, about all this is people hang on the word insurrection but nobody seems to care about sedition. If it were me I'd want to defend myself against insurrection charges since it is so much harder to prove than sedition. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by MnSpring on 07/15/21 at 15:36:30 Quote:
... in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government ... ... or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States... ... they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both... Sure does sound like what BLM/ANTIFA had done NUMEROUS times !!!!! But na, the UL DFI Socialists call all that destruction and stealing, 'Peaceful' ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by Eegore on 07/15/21 at 16:35:07 Sure does sound like what BLM/ANTIFA had done NUMEROUS times !!!!! Well it just depends on the viewpoint. For instance I think there are plenty of crimes committed in Portland, but I don't think many, if any, intended to overthrow the US Government as much as they want to destroy sh!t in Portland. So they are more destruction of property than seditionist, to me. Just like many of the protesters on Jan 6th were more protester than insurrectionist. But like I said before, saying other people also broke windows is a weak argument, and not even a discussion really. It's more like complaining. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by WebsterMark on 07/16/21 at 04:05:11 But like I said before, saying other people also broke windows is a weak argument, and not even a discussion really. It's more like complaining. Not true. What it speaks to is the power of the corporate news media to directly influence(dictate?) policy and law enforcement. Again, it’s absolutely true had Jan 6th occurred and all the players involved switched party affiliation, no one would be in jail, there’d be very few charges, the officer who died would have died of (unfortunate timing but) natural causes and you Eegore would not trying to convince anyone this was an insurrection because the word would never had been mentioned. It would have been a mostly peaceful protest. And this is true too; Republicans are evil so if the peaceful protestors had cornered Cruz or Hawley and killed them, well, really not that big of a deal. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by MnSpring on 07/16/21 at 08:24:15 :-/ 546661707766714E627168030 wrote:
A-yep, just like we-all gonna DIE because the 'new' Delta variant, unless we get a vaccine ! Create FEAR !!!!!! But ... Portland, was NOT a 'insurrection' to overthrow the government. It was a, 'peaceful protest' ! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Ah their is good news, Just like it cost's about $100.00 to get a really good, fake, 'Green Card' (Which are VERY Prevalent) A New industry for 'fake', vaccine cards, will pop up. (Well until the, 'thought' police send you off to the Gulug, and until you, 'change your mind, and see, their, light) |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by Eegore on 07/16/21 at 13:51:45 "and you Eegore would not trying to convince anyone this was an insurrection because the word would never had been mentioned. It would have been a mostly peaceful protest. " Except I'm not using the "news" to make my assessment, I am using US law. If you actually look at my references instead of just assuming I am wrong, or assuming I came to insurrection because of "media" or even assuming I am attempting to convince anyone of anything we might actually have a discussion. Did I bring up sedition and cite CNN, or did I bring up sedition and cite actual US law? How many times do I have to agree that some of the people along the White house fence could be guilty of insurrection and outline, using US law, why I came to that agreement? What exactly am I trying to "convince" people of in that instance? You want to talk about letting media change our views about laws, explain why that guy swinging a hockey stick is unarmed only on this one day at this one event. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by Serowbot on 07/17/21 at 08:36:07 To define them as unarmed is to deny 3.000 years of history. Rome concurred the world with the spear. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by Eegore on 07/17/21 at 10:58:11 Well I to a degree understand Webstermark's point that this is being overblown in "the news" which is why criminal court cases do not use CNN or FOX as exclusive evidence, and why actual statutes are used for guidelines and not what a for-profit private business thinks. So my point is acknowledging that the term "insurrection" is being overused does not require we do things like underplay what is obvious crime. Yes this goes for ANTIFA too, so lets not pretend I have ever said ANTIFA gets a pass. We don't need another Billy broke a window too! defense. Saying it's not an "insurrection" so the guy with the hockey stick could not be an "armed insurrectionist" is one thing, (Armed + Insurrection) but to say "firearms are required" for anyone there to be considered "armed" is an obvious attempt to downplay the actual facts. Just like saying everyone just took selfies, expecting us to be so ignorant that we ignore the video taped assaults as if we are impressionable children that can't assess video footage accurately. People there were armed. I have yet to see an argument that would allow for the guy with a hockey stick to be considered "unarmed" because he very specifically didn't have a firearm. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by Serowbot on 07/17/21 at 11:03:44 5442554850454853270 wrote:
conquer --- voice to text failure ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by WebsterMark on 07/18/21 at 04:20:32 So the next time a cop shoots and kills someone coming after them in a car, or with a bat or a knife, and the news reports police kill an unarmed suspect, I can count on all of you to object huh? |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by WebsterMark on 07/18/21 at 04:29:25 6141434B5641240 wrote:
Here’s the reality, you like to point out that you’re not influenced or your agenda is not dictated by news media or entertainment culture but the reality is…it absolutely is. Saying you don’t rely on Fox News or CNN the base decisions on is ridiculous because they drive the conversation. Like it or not. Again, change the parties 180° and what happened at the capital would be recorded in history as something entirely different. That’s the truth and it’s the undeniable truth. You cannot fight City Hall and you cannot go against the main stream media and entertainment culture. You can, but it requires somebody like Donald Trump. And it’s worse now because the current administration is using tech Giants to censor speech they don’t agree with. And many Democrats are going along with it. I remember when I first read the diary of Anne Frank, how could anybody turn that family into the Nazis. Now I understand. We have tens of millions of people shaking their head in agreement and saying yes those people can’t put their opinion out into the public space. “Disinformation“ is a definition that’s in the hands of a few. We got to find a way to turn this nonsense around or we really will go over a cliff that we can’t recover from. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by Eegore on 07/18/21 at 07:31:33 "So the next time a cop shoots and kills someone coming after them in a car, or with a bat or a knife, and the news reports police kill an unarmed suspect, I can count on all of you to object huh?" Yeah, just like I did last time. The difference is I don't bring up other incorrect situations to justify how correct I am. Should we bring up more "Billy didn't get in trouble!" arguments? There are thousands and thousands of these and not one answers the question of why guns are required on Jan 6th for people to be "armed". Again, why on this day, at this location is the hockey stick guy considered "unarmed" because he did not have a gun? If one is going to hold to this argument why even bring up unfairness in other situations? This is an obvious attempt to downplay the video taped violence. "Again, change the parties 180° and what happened at the capital would be recorded in history as something entirely different. That’s the truth and it’s the undeniable truth." I know, I said that previously. That however does not change law or definitions of words. Can you reference where I am defining the actions of individuals by using CNN or FOX instead of actual US law? I remember when I first read the diary of Anne Frank, how could anybody turn that family into the Nazis. Now I understand. We have tens of millions of people shaking their head in agreement and saying yes those people can’t put their opinion out into the public space. “Disinformation“ is a definition that’s in the hands of a few. We got to find a way to turn this nonsense around or we really will go over a cliff that we can’t recover from. And saying people with objects besides their body, using them, on video, to assault other people are "unarmed" is a good way to turn this nonsense around? How exactly is that? Saying people "only" took selfies when they didn't does what exactly? |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by WebsterMark on 07/19/21 at 03:47:16 Your opinions and actions are academic, they don’t matter big picture. The armed insurrection narrative was publicized repeatedly so there is no national debate among 95% of those in position to influence the national discussion. We have no real national debate and few honest answers on almost every major topic today because our media and the Democratic Party are essentially one and the same. Given other violent protest lately can you honestly refer to Jan 6 as an armed insurrection and hold some participants without bail, did the 2020 election procedures result in fraud, did we count Covid deaths accurately, are you protected from Covid equally via vaccination or recovery, did social media giants collude and change the 2020 Presidential election, did Biden sell access to his v.p. office, is climate change really the number one issue, do gun laws really change murder rates, whoever said black lives don’t matter except young black men who kill other blacks regularly, is the constant black/white narrative on every topic helpful to the country, why are blacks committing most of the crimes against Asians and why are we pretending that’s not true, why are we letting illegal immigration across the southern border but threatening Cuba refugees? |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by Eegore on 07/19/21 at 06:45:33 "Your opinions and actions are academic, they don’t matter big picture. The armed insurrection narrative was publicized repeatedly so there is no national debate among 95% of those in position to influence the national discussion." How many of those people, on either side of the story, agree that a man hitting someone with a hockey stick, on video, is unarmed exclusively on this day at this location? How any narratives will say he "only" took selfies, no matter their political affiliation? My point is when anyone sits here and tries to claim people "only" took selfies and that firearms are required for anyone there to be armed has no business talking about the inaccurate reporting of any news source anywhere. They are obviously downplaying the situation in an attempt to combat the over-playing done by others. This is why the only response to "Why is the guy using a weapon considered unarmed?" is "But Billy had two hockey sticks!". Answer this question, on this topic. Anyone can dig up another crime and another bad decision. Why does the law need to be applied differently on this one day at this one location? Both by incarcerating people who don't need to be, and by requiring firearms for anyone to be considered armed? "We have no real national debate and few honest answers on almost every major topic today because our media and the Democratic Party are essentially one and the same." I think this works both ways. I have decades of data, that won't be looked at, that shows all political organizations propagate inaccurate information. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by WebsterMark on 07/19/21 at 08:10:40 The Democratically controlled media uses the phrase “armed insurrection” because they know the impression it leaves is guns were used. They are knowingly doing that to exaggerate the violence of the event. They are not giving a second’s thought to a technical definition as you say you’re using. So when you object to using the phrase an unarmed insurrection because a stick can be a weapon, you are inadvertently playing along with them and exaggerating, even if that’s not your intention. And our fair and balanced moderator can make jokes about Roman spears not qualifying as being armed, but tomorrow, if a white cop shoots a black man coming at him with a baseball bat, that cop will have shot an unarmed man. And our fair and balanced moderator will pretend to be all upset at the injustice of another white cop shooting an unarmed black man. The cop in Columbus shot and killed an unarmed woman. She had a knife about to stab another woman, but she was unarmed. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by WebsterMark on 07/19/21 at 08:13:18 And no, there is no balanced field when comparing the left to the right for violent protest so don’t even pretend you’ve got data that shows both sides are to blame because the scales tip dramatically in one direction. That’s like saying the Israelis and Palestinians commit equal atrocities. That’s just simply not true. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by Eegore on 07/19/21 at 08:46:13 "The Democratically controlled media uses the phrase “armed insurrection” because they know the impression it leaves is guns were used." I agree. So the way to combat this is to say guns must be present only on Jan 6th at the Capitol for the term "armed" to be used? That's the ideal choice here? That somehow makes the person's argument who is saying this the one I should agree with? Why is that? "So when you object to using the phrase an unarmed insurrection because a stick can be a weapon, you are inadvertently playing along with them and exaggerating, even if that’s not your intention." And saying firearms are required on Jan 6th to be armed is what exactly? More truthful and accurate? How is saying people with objects, like hockey sticks, or stolen police shields, and Bear Spray are armed an "exaggeration"? If your wife was sprayed with Bear Spray would you want an armed assault charge on the guy? Would you accept "Well CNN is over doing their reporting so for your wife's assault we will consider the guy unarmed."? If I have the choice of using proven academic definitions of words and applying them to the empirical evidence of Jan 6th, or choosing to alter the word's meanings to fit a narrative, which one should I choose? |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by Serowbot on 07/19/21 at 08:53:34 774542535445526D41524B200 wrote:
Your opinions don't matter either. The opinions that do matter are those of the FBI, the courts, the WHO, the CDC, the US military leaders,... Giving equivalence to Facebook conspiracy nuts opinions is not okay. There aren't two sides here. There's what is, and what ain't. When you refer to the "Left Wing Media" you leave out the vast majority of countries, leaders, and scientists in the world. The scale is not remotely balanced. We should not give equal weight. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by Eegore on 07/19/21 at 08:57:30 I was referring to the manipulation of information. I agree that BLM/ANTIFA etc. have public destructive impact on a larger scale. We have no real national debate and few honest answers on almost every major topic today because our media and the Democratic Party are essentially one and the same. By using this section of words that I quoted I would assume you are referring to "national debate" in regards to "honest answers on almost every major topic today" when assessing "media and the Democratic Party". The Republican party also propagandizes and influences national debate to skew information where one would reasonably expect honest answers when utilizing media. The metrics of social media are astounding. Anyone that thinks, (after actually looking at the information) that Republicans are less manipulative with the dispersal of information is simply unable to do basic math. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by WebsterMark on 07/19/21 at 10:02:13 The opinions that do matter are those of the FBI, the courts, the WHO, the CDC, the US military leaders,... Giving equivalence to Facebook conspiracy nuts opinions is not okay. There aren't two sides here. Your faith in government agencies is 100% dependent on your political party being in charge. So when some said there were no WMDs but all the official agencies said otherwise, you were good with that? No WMD because the military leaders, domestic and international said so. Were the objectors back then, perhaps you, conspiracy nuts? Go back a few more years and when it was said “don’t listen to those people, we would never do syphilis experiments on African-Americans.” You talk like someone who’s on the same side as Pravda. Believe what you’re told. Period. End of discussion. You don’t see questions because right now you’ve got the hammer. You think Kavanaugh raped multiple girls while he was a 17 year old don’t you? Seriously, what credibility do you have? |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by WebsterMark on 07/19/21 at 10:05:41 The metrics of social media are astounding. Anyone that thinks, (after actually looking at the information) that Republicans are less manipulative with the dispersal of information is simply unable to do basic math. Bull$hit. That’s like when people say more people have died in the name of religion than anything else. OK fine, World War I and World War II (neither of which had anything to do with religion ) killed 70 million people. Start there, beat that number before I bring in other wars. So when you talk about manipulation, start with the three major networks for the last 20 years plus CNN plus MS NBC plus the entire entertainment culture, television shows and movies. That’s your starting point. Do some basic math and show me where republican manipulation over that time period is equal. Good luck. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by Eegore on 07/19/21 at 10:38:50 So when you talk about manipulation, start with the three major networks for the last 20 years plus CNN plus MS NBC plus the entire entertainment culture, television shows and movies. That’s your starting point. Do some basic math and show me where republican manipulation over that time period is equal. I'm willing to get a team started on that. What are the 3 networks and what timeframe are you thinking? We would need to develop a parameter for what is accepted as "entire entertainment culture" and break that down into categories that are easier to input information into. What suggestions do you have? One thing also is we need to come to an agreement on how to analyze the political affiliation, if any, of every movie, TV show ever made. UCS and CU in Boulder are willing to run these inputs through their supercomps once we have a way to decide. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by WebsterMark on 07/19/21 at 11:25:12 It’s like porn, you know it when you see it….. Let’s start with entertainment. Think of a major movie or TV show where it’s not just that the bad guy exposes liberal talking points, but that the real world negative effects of liberalism are on display and the heros in the show reject them in a manner the audience is expected to agree with. For example, where’s the right wing version of West Wing with a Ronald Regan type President and the positive effects of tax cuts are shown being responsible for a business starting that allows families to prosper through hard work? Because I can find dozens, hundreds that show the opposite. For example, an American president was on TNT, USA or one of those stations a few months ago. I remember that movie. A liberal left-wing president fights against false allegations directed his way from a Republican candidate and at the end of the movie is the hero for pushing through gun control legislation in which he promises to “get the guns”. Find me the right wing version of that movie. If you do, and I would be surprised but maybe, I’ll give you five more like that one and then you should be able to easily find me five more on the right side of the political spectrum to balance it right? |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by Eegore on 07/19/21 at 13:12:57 "It’s like porn, you know it when you see it….." This again. Let's say its true unless it's climate related, than only your anecdotal walk to a lake is applicable. My references of crop changes over 25 years require empirical evidence that have a direct nexus to the topic, I can't know it when I see it right? Can I get the name of that movie/TV show? I know two analysts that work at IMDB that could get a spreadsheet of similar movies. We could then categorize the first 500 or so based off our opinion of what political influence they have, create an average and use that to create a temporary scale. None of this would help though because your argument is "Billy got away with it!" and my argument is "How does it apply in law and culture in this circumstance and no other circumstance?" Also from before: If I have the choice of using proven academic definitions of words and applying them to the empirical evidence of Jan 6th, or choosing to alter the word's meanings to fit a narrative, which one should I choose? |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by WebsterMark on 07/19/21 at 15:28:13 If you can’t even acknowledge the obvious like the media and entertainment culture’s default position is left of center, you’re blinded by a desire to see everything as equally balanced. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by Eegore on 07/19/21 at 18:10:47 If you can’t even acknowledge the obvious like the media and entertainment culture’s default position is left of center, you’re blinded by a desire to see everything as equally balanced. I agreed with you. Multiple times already. My question, again, is why is the strategy to combat this left of center media nonsense becoming this method of saying things like firearms are "required" on this one day, at this one event, for a human to be considered armed? That's the appropriate strategy to gain an advantage? Stack more inaccuracy on top of the initial inaccuracy. Why on earth would someone spraying Bear Spray be considered "unarmed" in any situation? The only answer I get is ANTIFA didn't get in trouble! Bottom line is "the media" is exaggerating one way, (again agreeing with you) and you are appearing to downplay the instances of violence the other way. There's no way I am going to watch those videos and think people only took selfies. There's no way I am going to watch those videos and say everyone there was an insurrectionist. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by MnSpring on 07/19/21 at 21:15:25 08282A223F284D0 wrote:
Great ! Please tell us the average age of that team. Was their household Left or Right politically, what Collage did they go to, what social media outlets do they participate in, what political group do they associate with, what protests or riots have they gone to, what political party did they campaign for, which political party are they registered with ? You see, all those factors will determine the outcome of what they ‘discover’. Just like a person who makes Pillows, any ‘discovery’ he makes it totally worthless. NOT, the information. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by Eegore on 07/19/21 at 21:36:14 "Just like a person who makes Pillows, any ‘discovery’ he makes it totally worthless. NOT, the information." I agree with your point that Lindell's information should be looked at prior to judgement being made. Predictions of public statement however I am ok with. Lindell's software investigation I can not see how an accurate prediction could be made given the lack of available information. The following statement however I feel we have enough information to accurately predict it is very unlikely to happen: "We have a clear path to pull this election down. And it's a fact we have evidence that will be not 8-1, remember, it will be 9-0, down comes election. In August, here comes Donald Trump, our real president who won this election by 80 million to 68 million." How much credibility are we to give Lindell on this? The same amount we give to climate change predictions that never come true. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by WebsterMark on 07/20/21 at 05:18:41 My question, again, is why is the strategy to combat this left of center media nonsense becoming this method of saying things like firearms are "required" on this one day, at this one event, for a human to be considered armed Because, again, when placed in context and presented as an insurrection to essentially overthrow the new administration before it can begin, to say a few showed up with hockey sticks and flagpoles makes that a legitimate attempt at an insurrection is ridiculous especially in light of the fact we had a summer of insurrection by a group who were not treated as political prisoners. It is incorrect to refer to the Jan 6th participants as armed. When arguments against the 2nd Amendment are put forth, the right to keep and bear arms isn’t confusing, arms means firearms, not hockey sticks or flagpoles. You can be part of the club and call Jan 6th an armed insurrection if you want, go ahead. There’s obviously no changing your mind, but I think you’re wrong. If Jan 6th had been an actual armed insurrection, it would have looked nothing like that. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by Eegore on 07/20/21 at 06:14:30 "It is incorrect to refer to the Jan 6th participants as armed. When arguments against the 2nd Amendment are put forth, the right to keep and bear arms isn’t confusing, arms means firearms, not hockey sticks or flagpoles." I see what you are saying in regards to the 2nd Amendment, however this isn't a 2nd Amendment issue. This is an issue of having two choices: Armed, or Unarmed. Insurrection, by definition, does not require firearms. I will gladly pay for any consultation you need to find a practicing legal firm that would agree that Jan 6th participants were not armed. I will offer financial assistance on this for one year, or a maximum value we can discuss in private. It's about "armed" as legal definition. Mass ignorance of the local populace because CNN is trash news is no defense in court, and is not a reason for anyone to start changing the definitions of words, or making exceptions to criminal behavior. Armed does not require firearms by definition, in any situation. If a man uses Bear Spray on anyone at any time in any area of the US, he is armed. That's it. Jan 6th, or any other day ever, that man is armed with Bear Spray, and if he uses it illegally he has committed an armed assault. If you are legally carrying a firearm - you are armed. If you are legally carrying a hockey stick - you are armed. We don't remove the "armed" part when debating things like self-defense, or right to carry. If you defend your wife from two men using a hockey stick, you were armed, and within your rights to do so. Nobody will go to court and say you were "unarmed" since that is obviously untrue, and unnecessary. You simply use Affirmative Defense, that's part of why this exists, so we don't have to go around making up lies to defend against lies. I agree, again, that we should not call every person an armed insurrectionist. I do not agree that we should change the definition of being armed because the news is inaccurately labeling everyone as an insurrectionist, or because BLM is not being appropriately prosecuted. "You can be part of the club and call Jan 6th an armed insurrection if you want, go ahead." Again I never said Jan 6th was an insurrection. I said some people, who acted within the guidelines of US law, and provided legal reference for this (Not news reports) are possibly insurrectionists, by definition. I won't change the definitions of words to fit the actions of others, even if I agree with their actions. This is why, without motivation from "the media" I came to the conclusion, on my own, that sedition is a more accurate term for some actions, and treason is not really applicable at all. "If Jan 6th had been an actual armed insurrection, it would have looked nothing like that." I'd be willing to hear your assessment but so far all I hear is "ANTIFA got away with it" as your reasoning. Using the US legal definition of insurrection, why would it not apply to anyone there? |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by Serowbot on 07/20/21 at 08:59:27 093B3C2D2A3B2C133F2C355E0 wrote:
When you realize everything is left of center, it's time to adjust your definition of center. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by MnSpring on 07/21/21 at 11:18:08 Quote:
Why do you want to, Move The Goal Post ????????? |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by Serowbot on 07/21/21 at 11:29:52 I said "your definition of center" It has already been moved by the religious right and the NRA and Trump. People prancing around with guns and flags spouting racist tropes and hate. It's time to put it back. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by MnSpring on 07/21/21 at 13:35:51 7462756870656873070 wrote:
Not even remotely close. The 'center', has been moved by the Winy ultra Left FDS, for YEARS. And now you want to move the goalposts, again ! |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by Eegore on 07/21/21 at 20:07:34 I think believing a center exists is part of the problem. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by WebsterMark on 07/22/21 at 05:01:34 6472657860757863170 wrote:
Serowbot, I think it’s possible you have the narrowest perspective of any regular on here, which is saying something. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by WebsterMark on 07/22/21 at 05:07:53 2606040C1106630 wrote:
I agree. Not sure who said it, but a moderate is a cowardly Democrat. To my point on the entertainment culture being decidedly left of center (actually, dramatically left of center) I saw the end of anchorman last night and it’s one of those movies where they show pictures of the characters and how their futures turned out. Same thing with animal House . In both cases, the characters in the movies portrayed as fools or bad people are always associate as being in the Republican party. Always. Challenge: find me a movie where a character in a movie who is either universally understood to be dumb or a very bad person, is jokingly associated with the Democratic Party in their future. Good luck. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by Eegore on 07/22/21 at 08:23:12 I wonder how much impact these two comedy movies have on the overall view of the Republican party over time. For instance I've seen both of those movies and never even noticed the political party of the characters, but that's just me. How are you evaluating the sociological impact these films have? More important how do you define "associated with" in regards to a political party? What are the parameters you would accept? Are these characters only fictional, or are interpretations of real humans allowed? What do you define as "Dumb or very bad" and is the character only to contain these traits? For instance is "violent" exempt if the violence is not interpreted as "very bad"? How is "very bad" differentiated from "bad"? An example is character Harley Quinn in the movie Birds of Prey voted for Bernie Sanders in the 2016 caucuses. We need to establish if this makes her associated with the Republican Party, and if she is interpreted by the majority of viewers as being dumb, or very bad. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by WebsterMark on 07/22/21 at 08:36:08 You didn’t notice because it’s normal. If a joke was made about a dumb character at the end of a movie going on to work in the Obama Whitehouse, there would be a fuss. That demonstrates the impact the left of center entertainment culture has. Now you could argue it’s meaningless but it’s not. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by WebsterMark on 07/22/21 at 08:38:03 An example is character Harley Quinn in the movie Birds of Prey voted for Bernie Sanders in the 2016 caucuses Never saw that, but voting for Sanders is politically acceptable to the entertainment culture so not sure what your point is. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by Eegore on 07/22/21 at 08:44:46 " In both cases, the characters in the movies portrayed as fools or bad people are always associate as being in the Republican party. Always." We need to define "associated" (I assume that's a typo) so I don't bring up film character after film character where you say that's not what you mean, also so we aren't changing things each time. What do you mean by associated with? I think voting for Bernie Sanders associated one with the Democratic party. This is important because you have just entered a new parameter that was not in your first request: "but voting for Sanders is politically acceptable to the entertainment culture" So now we have to define what "politically acceptable" is and what "entertainment culture" is. I propose we define first what "associated with" is specifically. Then if the character is "Dumb", "Bad" or "Very bad" and if "Bad" is acceptable. Then we can apply characters that meet those parameters to the "Acceptable to entertainment culture" filter and discuss that specific character's impact on humans that watched the movie. For instance in the movie "Boyhood" (2014) Mason Evans Sr. is portrayed negatively throughout the film. He steals McCain signs in the film, this, to me, associates him with the Democratic party and theft is generally not acceptable, but is it acceptable to the Entertainment Culture? Is the character Mason Evans Sr. considered "dumb" because he is a general screw up in his life? The problem here is he is not associated in the "future", and it is not "jokingly" done. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by Eegore on 07/22/21 at 09:08:45 In the movie Dogma Jay and Silent bob are typically portrayed as being unintelligent. To me, this qualifies them as "dumb". They indicate they are pro-choice. This, to me, associates them with the Democratic party. So we need to define if Jay and Silent Bob are dumb. If pro-choice associates them with the Democratic party. If pro-choice is acceptable to the Entertainment Culture. How impactful is the movie Dogma to the viewers that watched it? The most difficult part is your parameter that they be associated with the Democratic party "in the future" versus in current or past time, and "jokingly" so that creates severe limits to the content. In Dogma there is comedy, but they lack being associated in the "future", it is present day for the film's timeframe. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by Serowbot on 07/22/21 at 09:31:15 526067767160774864776E050 wrote:
How are you identifying characters as Conservative? Are they identifying as Conservative or are you? Do you ID them by behavior and see that as "dumb" or "bad"? The prophecy seems self-fulfilling. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by WebsterMark on 07/22/21 at 10:53:05 How are you identifying characters as Conservative? Are they identifying as Conservative or are you? Do you ID them by behavior and see that as "dumb" or "bad"? The prophecy seems self-fulfilling. I didn’t say they were identified as conservative, quite the opposite. I was pointing out that at the end of the movie often times, the weirdest, most disliked people in the movie, if there’s a comedy bit at the end where they show their future, they’re almost always if not always associated with Republicans, Richard Nixon, George Bush, etc. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by Serowbot on 07/22/21 at 13:20:18 If you are writing a character that is a loser,.. you will associate him with losers. Trump has a great future in this genre. He will reign as king. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by WebsterMark on 07/22/21 at 15:43:28 You are in so deep, you personify the saying can’t see the forest for the trees. You should stick to clever little sayings and cute emojis. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by WebsterMark on 07/22/21 at 15:44:02 I think it’s time for a vacation. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by Serowbot on 07/22/21 at 15:45:06 :-* |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by Eegore on 07/22/21 at 16:30:20 Any input on the movies I have presented? |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by WebsterMark on 07/23/21 at 03:42:41 That’s a poor example. My example was in two movies I recently re-watched that had a flash forward at the end to portray where the characters ended up, in both cases the least desirable character was portrayed as being part of Republican administration White House. I have never ever seen that portrayed the other way. In the case of silent Bob and Jay, they make no reference to the fact that they are part of the Carter administration for example. Are you going to argue or try to put up a defense that the entertainment culture is not left of center (or actually dramatically left of center)? Do you really believe you have a chance to make that case? Your example is a poor one but let’s say I go ahead and give you a mercy point in your favor just for fun. You’re down 2-1. I can pull up 10 more on my side. Can you find 10 more on your side? The answer is no of course. This would be like putting Serowbot in charge of a movie. As the Director, if the movie called for a flash forward scene at the end, do you think he would take at least desirable character and portray him as going on to be a central part of the Biden ministration? No, of course not. Conservative ideology doesn’t fit in with Hollywood and it certainly doesn’t make it to the top where decisions like that are made. That’s obvious. You can’t argue against that. You can make the argument that it doesn’t matter which I would refute but you can’t argue that the infrastructure is in place for movies that attack political parties to attack the Republican Party 99% of the time. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by Eegore on 07/23/21 at 06:17:18 "My example was in two movies I recently re-watched that had a flash forward at the end to portray where the characters ended up." Yeah that's what I am pointing out as well, that you are not allowing the negative portrayal of a Democrat in any other way than specifically in the future, only "jokingly" and only at the end of a movie. Then on top of that they must be "Very" bad, or "Dumb". That drastically reduces the availability of content, but it also excludes overall negative portrayals of Democrats, which I find very convenient. If a movie portrayed a present day elderly Democrat as a complete PoS, this wouldn't qualify under your parameters as an anti-Democrat portrayal in film. "Are you going to argue or try to put up a defense that the entertainment culture is not left of center (or actually dramatically left of center)? Do you really believe you have a chance to make that case?" No. Actually I have agreed with you multiple times. "Your example is a poor one but let’s say I go ahead and give you a mercy point in your favor just for fun. You’re down 2-1. I can pull up 10 more on my side. Can you find 10 more on your side? The answer is no of course." I can. Do you just want the titles or the breakdown of the character and how they are potentially negatively portrayed and how they are associated with the Democratic party? I would prefer your 10 have a breakdown of the character's role in the film and how they are associated with the Republican party. Or are you saying you can find 10 more movies that specifically portray a character in their future, jokingly, at the end of a film, that is very bad, or dumb? "Conservative ideology doesn’t fit in with Hollywood and it certainly doesn’t make it to the top where decisions like that are made. That’s obvious. You can’t argue against that." Yeah, I agreed with you on that multiple times already. "You can make the argument that it doesn’t matter which I would refute but you can’t argue that the infrastructure is in place for movies that attack political parties to attack the Republican Party 99% of the time." I don't think it is 99% of the time. We would have to come to an agreement on how to define "attack" in film portrayals and infrastructure then choose a timeframe to assess every film made in the US during that timeframe. I propose the past 3 years to get started, then refine the process for another 7 years, then push for decade by decade after that. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by WebsterMark on 07/23/21 at 08:55:32 Okay, here you go. Match me tit-for-tat: Greg Marmalard in Animal House, one of the most disliked characters in the movie. In the epilogue,it was stated he served as a Richard Nixon White House aide and was raped in prison in 1974. Brick Tamland what is the doofus character played by Steve Carell in anchorman. At the end of the movie, when he’s in a bear pit getting hugged by a Kodiak bear, the caption says he went on to work at the Bush White House. TV series West Wing. Find me a TV series (heck, find me a single episode on any show) about a Republican President presented in a positive view. There you go. Match those three. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by MnSpring on 07/23/21 at 09:09:09 [edit] 735351594453360 wrote:
Perhaps ‘redefining’ a question, to include parameters, and assigning a ’team’ , (Government or Private funded) to discover information, on that simple question is required. The Question: A Hollywood, movie/TV show, is made. That movie/TV show depicts the actors in that movie/TV show as, ‘dumb’. If that movie/TV shows/depicts, those actors later in life, (Which the Movie/TV show already, implied/shown/depicted them, as DUMB) What % does it depict, ‘Republican or Democrat’, as DUMB. Of course, if the, ’team’, has a pillow maker on it, the results are all wrong, just because. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by Eegore on 07/23/21 at 09:42:55 "Your example is a poor one but let’s say I go ahead and give you a mercy point in your favor just for fun. You’re down 2-1. I can pull up 10 more on my side. Can you find 10 more on your side? The answer is no of course." So by "10 more" you meant the same ones, not 10 more as in 10 additional. If I place to you 3 apples and tell you I will offer 10 more would you expect 3 apples, or 13 apples? You now are adding TV series, another change to your original request. You also have changed "associated with" to "part of" the Dem/Rep party: "In the case of silent Bob and Jay, they make no reference to the fact that they are part of the Carter administration for example." So the character has to be "part of" or "associated with"? This is why I asked for clarification which you won't provide. This comes across as moving the goal posts. Are you going to answer any of my questions or just wait for me to offer films, and now apparently TV shows, and then say "Nope" or are we going to actually have an evaluation and discussion? How does West Wing apply to your parameters of "future", "jokingly" "Very Bad" and at the end of a movie? You did not accept a violation of those exact parameters from me. Yet you present West Wing. Are you ever going to acknowledge I already agreed with you multiple times? You present a challenge and all I do is ask for specifics and you refuse to answer any of my questions. Then you offer the challenge again, still refusing to clarify what you would find as acceptable, and with each request you change the rules. Why is that? |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by Serowbot on 07/23/21 at 14:04:36 Republican administrations turn out to be crooks and fools. Just can't change reality. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by WebsterMark on 07/23/21 at 16:19:20 5B7B79716C7B1E0 wrote:
Challenge: find me a movie where a character in a movie who is either universally understood to be dumb or a very bad person, is jokingly associated with the Democratic Party in their future. Good luck. That was my original challenge after I mentioned Anchorman as an example. You brought up Jay and Silent Bob which was a poor retort. You seemed to suggest it would be easy to match instances in movies and TV shows where Democrats were portrayed as fools as often as Republicans. I gave you a couple of epilogue instances and asked you to list similar epilogues 180 degrees opposite. As of yet, you haven’t. We agree on a lot of things, most things in fact. No, I don’t acknowledge everyone. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by Eegore on 07/24/21 at 11:58:01 "That was my original challenge after I mentioned Anchorman as an example. You brought up Jay and Silent Bob which was a poor retort." I also asked multiple questions in an attempt to clarify what you mean. For instance "associated with" which you won't answer. This was an attempt to avoid rule-changing or misinterpretation. You changed "associated with" to "Part of". Jay and Silent Bob, I very clearly indicated did not meet your criteria. However instead of imagining up a complete hypothetical movie I used an actual film to assist in reaching an answer to my question: More important how do you define "associated with" in regards to a political party? What are the parameters you would accept? I also asked: Are these characters only fictional, or are interpretations of real humans allowed? What do you define as "Dumb or very bad" and is the character only to contain these traits? For instance is "violent" exempt if the violence is not interpreted as "very bad"? How is "very bad" differentiated from "bad"? How would I know what you will accept as information if you do not tell me? How does the West Wing meet the criteria you put forth to us? (Us meaning all known humans that are not Webstermark) Then you added "acceptable to Entertainment Culture", so I think it's fair to add that to your current challenge question and not bring it up randomly. Given your responses I read your actual challenge to be this: Challenge: find me a movie where a character in a movie who is either universally understood to be dumb or a very bad person, is jokingly associated with and part of the Democratic Party in their future and that character's actions are not acceptable to current Entertainment Culture. "You seemed to suggest it would be easy to match instances in movies and TV shows where Democrats were portrayed as fools as often as Republicans." I have never mentioned any words such as balanced, equal, same, matching etc. in regards to this topic. I agree with you. Now if you ever actually acknowledge that (I don't mean words, I mean not continuing to defend your stance that I already agree with) I might be able to work on what you asked, but you need to give me enough information to do this instead of trying to indicate I have an answer before I even do research. How much sense does that make? I have, repeatedly, indicated I am under the impression you meant films based off of this: "find me a movie" You brought up TV shows, so how you have assessed I did that is not clear to me. "I gave you a couple of epilogue instances and asked you to list similar epilogues 180 degrees opposite." And also presented West Wing. How is that TV show, that has literally zero of your required criteria applicable here? At least Jay and Silent Bob is an actual movie. So am I allowed to present TV shows and ignore the parameters of your challenge also? |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by WebsterMark on 07/25/21 at 04:44:20 Eegore my friend, let’s drop this. The entertainment industry is dominated by the left and heavily dominated by the wacho left, Rob Reiner is perfect example. It wouldn’t matter what criteria we agreed to, the evidence would overwhelmingly prove my point and you’ve said so. Everyone knows this. My bigger point is Democratic operatives who used Covid to both legally and mostly illegally change election procedures to take advantage of what can only be described as a huge population of stupid, unengaged people and got them to check the box against The Bad Orangeman because, in part, that was drilled into their little heads everywhere they turned for 4 years. “News, movies, TV, anywhere. Had normal, reasonable election procedures been followed, Trump wins easily. Democrats used comprehensive strategies to steal this election and they got by with it. And now we have a bumbling jello brained old fool in office who thinks handing out as much government money as possible has no negative effects on the economy. I listen to part of his townhall, the man is a dumbfxxk. I think the entertainment topic is one we can move on from. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by Eegore on 07/25/21 at 21:16:03 "Eegore my friend, let’s drop this. The entertainment industry is dominated by the left and heavily dominated by the wacho left, Rob Reiner is perfect example. It wouldn’t matter what criteria we agreed to, the evidence would overwhelmingly prove my point and you’ve said so. Everyone knows this." I agreed with a majority but not 99% as you indicated. Of course if we are isolating this strictly to movies that jokingly show association that is specifically part-of the Republican party at the end of the film that is representing a dumb or very bad character's future in a way that is not conducive to being acceptable to entertainment culture by your assessment of what "acceptable" is. Then sure I would say that may be 100% as you indicated. I imagine you might not find a lot of films if I placed enough criteria on my request. For instance find some that have 2 males that are depicted as having undesirable behavior in comedic tone that between 30 and 37 minutes after the film begin and, show a depiction of strong association to the Democratic party in a way that I feel is acceptable to modern entertainment culture. That's vey specific, and obviously is designed that way to eliminate opposing information. Then once you do offer a film I will bring up TV shows even though I specifically asked for movies. Then I will offer 10 "more" films and just repeat the one I already offered. My point here is that avoiding clarifying questions, altering the rules, and then not following them is not exactly a good way to prove your view. Its plausible, to me, that Democratic associated characters exist in film and are negatively portrayed. I question how much impact Animal House and Weatherman truly had on election decisions. As for illegal procedures, I posted the entirety of the PA case and have yet to hear back on what was illegal there. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by WebsterMark on 07/26/21 at 05:32:59 I guess we’re not gonna let this go….. The characters of Jay and Silent Bob in Dogma are not viewed by the audience as evil or undeserving of their position of influence as Greg in animal house or Brick in Anchorman. Here’s the parameters then. Fast forward epilogues to show what became of the characters is not uncommon in movies so you should be able to easily find dozens of examples. Show me one where a character in a major movie who’s role to the audience is understood to be abhorrent, evil or a mental case undeserving of his position, and where the epilogue shows them in the future as taking a position in a Democratic administration. If you were to undertake that challenge, which if you did, you have way to much time on your hands, I doubt you’ll find one. If you did and I felt like wasting my time proving that water is wet, I’d find five more on my side. And yes, little things like jokes in movies and tv shows do matter, if they didn’t, marketing wouldn’t spend millions on product placement, one liners in shows, etc. In the case of movies, the intent is to relay the understanding that Democratic Party ideology is normal,mainstream and the default position. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by MnSpring on 07/26/21 at 08:14:58 4E7C7B6A6D7C6B54786B72190 wrote:
I agree. Just yesterday watching the, 'Law & Order' reruns. At the end of one, the DA and his lead Prosecutor were talking about the last case. It was in the foyer of a building, both were wearing Tuxes, and the sign on the door behind them said, 'Democratic Club Dinner', and they were (verbally), patting each other on the back stating how 'smart' they were. Then they went in to that room. Hmmmm, what political affirmation do you think that showed ? Now before someone, 'Spins', and another does a 'Drive-By', Their are 'Political' ""Suggestions"", given in many TV/Movie shows. The POINT IS, Lately, (last 15 + years), They are a VERY high number of, Democrat is good, Republican is bad. And no amount of defining minutia paramours to the n'th degree, will change that ! |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by Eegore on 07/26/21 at 10:06:07 "Here’s the parameters then. Fast forward epilogues to show what became of the characters is not uncommon in movies so you should be able to easily find dozens of examples. Show me one where a character in a major movie who’s role to the audience is understood to be abhorrent, evil or a mental case undeserving of his position, and where the epilogue shows them in the future as taking a position in a Democratic administration." Ok so my question is will you bring up TV shows while not accepting them if I do? Why does it have to be an epilogue, versus a person who is undeserving of their position in current time? As for my time I already said I will assign others to do this since it is their job. It will be done alongside people who already work in the industry like IMDB. Also my point has been that anyone can pick a movie and put enough parameters on it that no other movie will meet the criteria of matching it's content. If those parameters must be followed, then the "influence" upon the consumer should be analyzed by only those parameters which means only that movie since no other films match those exact parameters. Not all other movies and TV shows as well. If you add in other components to prove your point, other people should be allowed to as well. Other people being all know humans besides Webstermark. If I present a challenge that you find a movie where a modern day male is presented as a lifelong screw-up, a Republican, and that they steal political signs between 47 and 57 minutes in the film, what exactly is that proving? The only thing it proves, with that level of restriction, is that no other movie matches those exact parameters. What can that level of specifics actually prove unless we start adding in additional data? What good is the conversation if I hold you to the challenge parameters in exclusivity but use any other data that I choose to support my stance that Republicans are typically idiots in movies? |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by WebsterMark on 07/26/21 at 19:47:36 Why does it have to be an epilogue, Cause I was the one who brought it up to begin with. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by Eegore on 07/27/21 at 05:46:40 "Cause I was the one who brought it up to begin with." Ok and any comments on the other questions? If I have to stick to the parameters you place, do you have to as well, or can you add in other media while stating I can only use the parameters for the challenge? See what I am getting at? You pose a challenge and want to reinforce it with content outside of your own parameters. I'm willing to have the discussion, but if you get to bring in TV shows, so should I. Your challenge is essentially to find movies that match your parameters and I am wondering how influential those two films really are since they are the only one's we know of that match your parameters. I guess my challenge is to show how influential those two movies are by using information only contained within the parameters of your challenge and no other additional information. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by WebsterMark on 07/27/21 at 10:32:23 This whole thing is moot. It’s like going through an exhausting exercise to prove water is wet. Liberalism dominates Hollywood and the entertainment culture. I contend for every example you could find that disputes that I could find 100 that proves it. Seriously, I’m done with this. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by Eegore on 07/27/21 at 10:58:09 You presented the challenge, I am just clarifying that it makes little sense to add in data outside the parameters unless you let us do it too. Us being all known humans besides Webstermark. Why offer this challenge if you won't follow through? |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by Serowbot on 07/27/21 at 11:10:05 Conservatism is humorless... |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by WebsterMark on 07/27/21 at 15:39:10 2505070F1205600 wrote:
Honestly, I’m saving you from spending a lot of time proving water is wet. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by WebsterMark on 07/27/21 at 15:44:26 4553445941545942360 wrote:
Seriously, you guys absolutely ruined comedy. Late night shows are basically MSNBC repcaps. You guys can’t laugh at anything. I on the other hand can still tell any joke. Face it, when it comes to humor, you guys are fags. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by WebsterMark on 07/27/21 at 15:51:07 Do you know when they say “they could never make that movie today“? It’s because of people like you. Blazing Saddles? Forget it. Little panties would get so bunched up you wouldn’t be able to breathe. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by Eegore on 07/27/21 at 19:34:14 "Honestly, I’m saving you from spending a lot of time proving water is wet." It's not my time you are saving. There's people that do this for a living. Look we both know that those two movies aren't enough information to prove your opinion, but by locking us, "us" being all known humans besides Webstermark, to those exact parameters it has become an issue of only proving that those exact cinematic parameters are hard to find matches to. Two movies out of hundreds of thousands is hardly a trend. This is no different than me challenging people to find a film that between 30 and 37 minutes a male is associated with the Democratic party by stealing political signs. That challenge is useless because that one movie is not enough to prove Democrats can be idiots in film. It means nothing without additional information, but we have to open that door to everyone. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by WebsterMark on 07/28/21 at 03:14:07 For fuxk’s sake Eegore, drop it. Water is wet. Hollywood’s default is left of center and a substantial portion dramatically left of center. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by Eegore on 07/28/21 at 05:19:23 "For fuxk’s sake Eegore, drop it. Water is wet. Hollywood’s default is left of center and a substantial portion dramatically left of center." I agree with that. I have been agreeing this whole time with that. I agree with you. I don't agree that two movies is enough evidence to show it. So the challenge, to me, lacks enough substance to be pertinent. However the question of how influential those two specific movies are is a valid question that could be examined. No more than I agree that one event gets it's own unique definition of "armed" because other events don't get enough news coverage or legal ramifications. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by Serowbot on 07/28/21 at 09:37:37 4C7E79686F7E69567A69701B0 wrote:
Made by one of the most Liberal writer/ directors in Hollywood. PS... "you guys are fags. " Really?.... You are so uncorked by this topic that you stoop to this?. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by WebsterMark on 07/28/21 at 10:26:57 697F68756D78756E1A0 wrote:
Made by one of the most Liberal writer/ directors in Hollywood. Exactly. Libs used to have a sense of humor. Not anymore. PS... "you guys are fags. " Really?.... You are so uncorked by this topic that you stoop to this?. [/quote] Not at all. It’s a good one to go to when leftist get uptight. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdSu6amfYcA |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by Serowbot on 07/28/21 at 10:59:07 You fit right in... Quote:
|
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by WebsterMark on 07/28/21 at 15:10:58 You want me to post transcripts of the vile, racist crap antifa and BLM scream in directly in the face of black officers?….. What’s the point of your post? Is this a challenge to see who can post the vilest language? |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by Eegore on 07/29/21 at 06:08:25 Isn't finding articles and videos of who broke the most windows a pretty common argument here? Your friend broke a window. Well those guys broke 4. Yeah but all your friends broke 7. Comparing sh!tty behavior has solved what problems exactly? |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by MnSpring on 07/29/21 at 08:12:43 Again, you completely, (or deliberately) miss the point. Quote:
That is comparison to a one time event, where people believe a election was crooked. vs a event that lasted two years, destroyed and stole billions of dollars of stuff, all because a police officer applied his training and subdued a drug addled Felon with a rap sheet as long as your arm. The POINT is. The vast majority of the MEDIA, have made a MOUNTAIN out of a molehill, over one. And ignored, brushed off, forgot about, the other. The POINT is. One event is treated with kid gloves, and the other is gloves off. The POINT is. Those I am TOLD to hate, the hammer comes down. Those I am TOLD to love, can do no wrong. Just as all the recent STEELING in Calf. Where is it reported on all the Nat, TV/big Media, ‘programs’? Why is it not 24/7 ? Why is it ‘hid’, one one has to look for it ? https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/05/14/shoplifting-california-prop-47-reduced-penalties/ https://hotair.com/jazz-shaw/2020/11/03/california-legalizes-shoplifting-predictable-results-n351372 https://needtoknow.news/2019/09/california-law-allows-grab-and-dash-theft-rings-to-steal-950-in-merchandise-before-facing-felony-charges/ https://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2020/03/no-penalty-for-shoplifting-under-950-in-california-heres-the-brazen-result.html https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-in-California-you-can-steal-anything-you-need-from-a-store-as-long-as-it-doesnt-add-up-to-over-900-dollars?share=1 “…the result is essentially zero punishment for shoplifting offenses, and the criminals know it. If there is no punishment for a particular crime, does that mean you can commit it? …” “… Anyway, since petty theft with priors is no longer on the books, as long as the suspect steals no more than $950 worth of stuff, they will be issued a ticket to appear in court on a misdemeanor charge. If convicted, the judge is unable to sentence them to additional jail time for prior offenses, no matter how many priors they may have, including serious theft related crimes. The conviction will appear on their record, but they won’t do a single day in jail since there is no place to put them and they are no longer eligible for prison. And the suspects know this. …” Golly Gee Wally, why dosen’t this, ‘news’ trump the ferrel donkey getting puled from a flooded stream ? Simple, the UL, FDS, Socialist mass media, is doing what it is TOLD to do, by the UL DFI FDS Pocket Stuffing Democrat’s. And yet again, The POINT is, “… say one thing, do another thing …” (as the current POTUS frequently does) |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by Rockn on 07/29/21 at 08:19:45 Nobody consumes more media they hate than you guys |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by Eegore on 07/29/21 at 09:31:09 "The POINT is. The vast majority of the MEDIA, have made a MOUNTAIN out of a molehill, over one. And ignored, brushed off, forgot about, the other." And the solution is to keep bringing up how many criminals committed crimes. Those guys committed crimes. Those other guys committed more crimes! The media isn't fair! Yeah we all know that. Why would anyone think "the media" is fair? If you choose to watch a media source and support it just deal with the information you choose to consume. What I am saying is the pattern here is to try to compare which criminals are more criminal and somehow try to convince people that their political affiliation is important. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by MnSpring on 07/30/21 at 16:15:19 Quote:
If you really don't think it is ! If you really think it does not matter ? Then you Really Need some Ocean front lots just N of Denver. |
|
Title: Re: Lt. Michael L. Byrd Post by Eegore on 07/30/21 at 20:20:54 If you really don't think it is ! If you really think it does not matter ? Then you Really Need some Ocean front lots just N of Denver. If a Democrat breaks my window and a Republican breaks my other window I want them charged for breaking my windows. I could care less who they voted for. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |