99% of What? Apparently 99% of all the Morons!

reply to post by Americanist


And you believe Fox to be the singular instance of a vile, foreign owned, immoral corporate news outlet?

Hint: every single news outlet is just another facet of the exact same stone that Fox is a facet of. it is just that each one is made to be more agreeable to some, and less agreeable to others.

I don't like Fox, either. However, when someone starts comparing people they don't like to Fox News personalities, I generally tend to label that person many things, in my own mind. And your several page stream of ad hominems does little to dissuade my own personal labels.

So...lets get you back on topic: what do you have to say about his position regarding the Citizen's United ruling? Are you capable of concise, reasonable, and informed debate? Or will we see that one trick pony of ad hominem continue to be beat to death?

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Americanist

 

And you believe Fox to be the singular instance of a vile, foreign owned, immoral corporate news outlet?

Hint: every single news outlet is just another facet of the exact same stone that Fox is a facet of. it is just that each one is made to be more agreeable to some, and less agreeable to others.

I don't like Fox, either. However, when someone starts comparing people they don't like to Fox News personalities, I generally tend to label that person many things, in my own mind. And your several page stream of ad hominems does little to dissuade my own personal labels.

So...lets get you back on topic: what do you have to say about his position regarding the Citizen's United ruling? Are you capable of concise, reasonable, and informed debate? Or will we see that one trick pony of ad hominem continue to be beat to death?

And you believe Fox to be the singular instance of a vile, foreign owned, immoral corporate news outlet?

Yeah, of course I do... Man, listen to yourself. Fox just happens to take it to the next level. Again, too easy to pick apart.

Ad hominem attacks you mean? You perceive what you're familiar with or exhibit yourself. My input is slightly scattered inside the thread, but it goes in depth plus is written in plain English. Since you openly admit to skipping over several pages, the natural suggestion would be to look.

An interesting read:

Constitution or greatest Con-Job

On that note.... The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land, not the Paramount law. Understand? Here is the clue by William Penn: those people who are not governed by God will be ruled by tyrants. Another clue: People live in the country, not in The State.

reply to post by Americanist


I said my peace. Take it as you will. However, the wise person always is willing to reflect on themselves objectively. While i struggle with that myself, as a fellow human i am just reaching out to you in the same way I hope others do for me.

One additional observation to add re: Fox...

...putting a video of O'Reilly in a thread to substantiate a point you are making will only do three things:

1. Garner support from like minded people, who see Fox as the ultimate evil.

2. Create a knee jerk defensive response from people who are disillusioned enough to see Fox as the ultimate truth

3. Cause everyone else to just scroll right past your post.

So, you are only effecting people whose minds are already made up. It is not a convincing argument to someone who doesn't take political sides. Not at all.

Just from the outside looking in.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Americanist

 

I said my peace. Take it as you will. However, the wise person always is willing to reflect on themselves objectively. While i struggle with that myself, as a fellow human i am just reaching out to you in the same way I hope others do for me.

You have a blog. As evidence of today... You also have a strange way of reaching out to others. I'm not sure how immediately entering into conversation atop the labeling bandwagon accomplishes your goal.

I have a blog. A candid expression of my life and the many things to come. Call it intuition, hope, or what have you... It's starting to take shape. My primary effort has been to convey wise choices in us coming together as whole. Not to trump you in this case of course.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
One additional observation to add re: Fox...

...putting a video of O'Reilly in a thread to substantiate a point you are making will only do three things:

1. Garner support from like minded people, who see Fox as the ultimate evil.

2. Create a knee jerk defensive response from people who are disillusioned enough to see Fox as the ultimate truth

3. Cause everyone else to just scroll right past your post.

So, you are only effecting people whose minds are already made up. It is not a convincing argument to someone who doesn't take political sides. Not at all.

Just from the outside looking in.

Embarrass or bash the hell out of ego. Pour water or slap someone in the face... It makes no difference to me. I'm not here to make friends. I'm utilizing what's been proven to work the fastest.

reply to post by Americanist


So, back on topic, what is your take on the OP assertion that the SCOTUS decision actually protects freedom and speech, and that portion of the OWS Declaration is ill concieved and should be tailored to represent fact?

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Americanist

 

So, back on topic, what is your take on the OP assertion that the SCOTUS decision actually protects freedom and speech, and that portion of the OWS Declaration is ill concieved and should be tailored to represent fact?

JPZ's assertion is that the 99% are morons... Let's not overlook the title. My stance is very similar to the one Dylan Ratigan took earlier. NCAA rules across the board.

JPZ doesn't take into full account our 1st Amendment was heavily tainted by the legislative and judicial branches. I would include the executive branch, but it's evolved into a muppet's movie even hairier than your avatar. The ruling grants open season on what's been prosecuted for centuries. Bribes, blackmail, and force.

When the Constitution was authored the signers had no concept of flat screen HD TV's piping all sorts of subliminal messages. You didn't have McDonald's dotted all over the Country with color schemes inducing quick in and outs... These were unknown conditions. They were also unconsidered as a result.

I sum it up a couple of pages back, so be sure to capture my post(s).

reply to post by Indigo5


Look, your shamefully deceitful tactic of attempting to diminish the rights of the People by insisting that because "press" was distinguished from speech is not just a mistake of fact, and misinterpretation of law, it is an argument for suppression. This is glaringly obvious.

At the time the Bill of Rights was written, libel was a well established legal tort. Do you understand? A distinction between slander and libel had all ready been made prior to the passage of the First Amendment. Slander was not considered to be some form of non economic injury but libel an economic form of injury. They were two different and distinct forms of injury.

However, this is just one facet of your fallaciousness. You love to make remarks such as:

The first amendment specified protecting “the press”, not “Corporate Entities” and for good reason.

Yet, in order to remain "blindly committed to (your) view", you necessarily and willfully ignore seminal case law, such as New York Times Co. v. Sullivan that established the actual malice test in regards to libel and was undeniably a corporation relying upon the First Amendment for protection of the press. You ignore New York Times Co. v. United States which was Nixon's attempt to suppress both the New York Times and the Washington Post over the Pentagon Papers claiming "national security". Finally, You ignore Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Fallwell in order to remain "blindly committed" to your stance. But hey, why let a few little facts of history and case law get in the way of your praise of suppression?

It is also worth considering just exactly what the Framers of the Constitution thought about the First Amendment and indeed, the Bill of Rights as a whole. Consider Alexander Hamilton's words in the Federalist Papers #84 (although the authorship of this particular pamphlet is in contention, the words are not):

The most considerable of the remaining objections is that the plan of the convention contains no bill of rights. Among other answers given to this, it has been upon different occasions remarked that the constitutions of several of the States are in a similar predicament. I add that New York is of the number. And yet the opposers of the new system, in this State, who profess an unlimited admiration for its constitution, are among the most intemperate partisans of a bill of rights. To justify their zeal in this matter, they allege two things: one is that, though the constitution of New York has no bill of rights prefixed to it, yet it contains, in the body of it, various provisions in favor of particular privileges and rights, which, in substance amount to the same thing; the other is, that the Constitution adopts, in their full extent, the common and statute law of Great Britain, by which many other rights, not expressed in it, are equally secured.

....

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?

It is interesting, no? That Hamilton warned against the very thing you are advocating. Simply enumerating certain rights has become a modern day ambition for politicos to excuse tyranny.

OBE has all ready made the point that cannot be made often enough, what you and others are attempting to do is to limit the freedoms of certain people by their association. This is not anything to be proud of, nor is it anything to pat oneself on the back and believe themselves erudite for countenancing. Taking such a position can only leave you, as it has, scrambling for fallacious arguments, and continually repeating yourself (ad nauseum) in some hopeless belief that if you write bold enough and long enough people will begin to believe it.

reply to post by Americanist

When the Constitution was authored the signers had no concept of flat screen HD TV's piping all sorts of subliminal messages. You didn't have McDonald's dotted all over the Country with color schemes inducing quick in and outs... These were unknown conditions. They were also unconsidered as a result.

This remains the same tired defense of tyranny, an arrogant assertion that our Founders, and the Framer's of the Constitution couldn't possibly conceive of a world as it is today. It has been the evolution of technology that all three branches of government have used as an excuse to make end-runs around the Constitution, and the result has been an unsustainable Leviathan of a government.

More insidious in your assertions is that the Founders would have been sympathetic to Marxist idealism, and would never have wanted flat screen HDTV's, and would have never ever taken a bite out of a Big Mac and washed it down with a diet Coke. The absurdly naive belief that had the Founders known that McDonald's and Sony were to become fixtures in American culture they would have never "granted" the rights they did.

It is subtle in its assertions, but it is no doubt based upon several erroneous assumptions. No rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights were "granted" to anyone, and were simply just acknowledged as being those actions outside of the purview and scope of jurisdiction of government.

More importantly, it is not acceptable this argument that technology functions as some sort of tragic Pandora's Box where once was freedom, but now technology out of the box, People must make a choice: Do you want freedom, or do you want your HDTV's, blow driers, microwaves, cell phones, and electronic sex toys? Make up your mind, America, it is one or the other, but you cannot have both.

America, I say to you, you can have both! These sycophants of tyranny would have you believe that you cannot have your cake and eat it too, but this is demonstrably wrong, since the only way one can eat a cake is to have it first. What you cannot do is eat your cake and have it too, but this is a different argument, and has nothing to do with the either or scenarios the advocates of tyranny love present.

You can have your HDTV's and iPads and iPods and cell phones and microwaves and still be as free as lawful behavior allows. That choice is, as it always has been, yours.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

America, I say to you, you can have both! These sycophants of tyranny would have you believe that you cannot have your cake and eat it too, but this is demonstrably wrong, since the only way one can eat a cake is to have it first. What you cannot do is eat your cake and have it too, but this is a different argument, and has nothing to do with the either or scenarios the advocates of tyranny love present.

You can have your HDTV's and iPads and iPods and cell phones and microwaves and still be as free as lawful behavior allows. That choice is, as it always has been, yours.

The problem you're having is you don't keep up with technology. You fail to truly understand its role in shaping our bio-acoustic brains. Mood and behavioral traits are induced by frequency alone. I won't bother getting into the psychological aspects. This would all fall under free speech mind you. Oh, and let's not forget a $40 microwave can be stripped and easily weaponized.

I have a feeling there was a good reason I graduated to sound engineer. With a contrastable view we have the walking-talking-breathing contradiction. You would chastise congress, but not the SCOTUS for ruling in favor of corporate entities invariably manipulating the scene.

Simply put... You don't know what you don't know. You've failed at your attempt to categorize the 99% as morons. Especially considering your "emotionally challenged" responses. I look back to some of your older posts which resemble Crayola commercials pitching sidewalk chalk.

"Nuh-uh! I didn't lose. You lost! Loser, loser, loser! You're the loser, because your not the laborer and everyone knows that labor is the means of production, so you lose, loser! See? See how you lost? La la la la la I can't hear you - loser - La la la la"

More insidious in your assertions is that the Founders would have been sympathetic to Marxist idealism, and would never have wanted flat screen HDTV's, and would have never ever taken a bite out of a Big Mac and washed it down with a diet Coke.

I never said wouldn't have wanted... Didn't conceptualize. And do you even know what's in diet drinks?

Don't answer that... Keep sipping away at e-coli feces.

reply to post by Americanist

The problem you're having is you don't keep up with technology.

Ha ha ha ha! Please.

You fail to truly understand its role in shaping our bio-acoustic brains.

Well, there you go then, this certainly explains why the Founders, and indeed certainly me, do not buy into your crap! In order to understand technology and its role in shaping the bio-acoustics of a brain, the Founder's, and I, would have to necessarily reject any idea of spirituality and that the mind is separate from the body, and accept your monism as the only possible reality, even though the mind/body problem remains a "problem" to this day in that neither the dualist nor the monist can prove their positions.

If you want to be nothing more than a biological construct this is your choice, but you have no right to impose your religiosity on anyone else. You certainly have no Constitutional authority to do so.

Mood and behavioral traits are induced by frequency alone. I won't bother getting into the psychological aspects of manipulation.

You just did get into the "psychological" aspect of it. Your assertion that "mood and behavioral traits are induced by frequency alone" is psychobabble only and not borne of any hard scientific evidence. It is the operative "alone" that undoes you. You will not be able to provide any hard scientific data to support this contention that mood and behavioral traits are a function of biology alone.

This would all fall under free speech mind you. Oh, and let's not forget a $40 microwave can be stripped and easily weaponized.

A spoon is easily "weaponized", but the point is moot since People have the right to keep and bear arms.

Poor, poor, pitiful Americanist. All he can do is keep blustering and flustering and screaming:

"But, but, but, look! JPZ called the 99% morons and nothing else said matters, just that he called them morons, see?"

If the shoe fits....

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Americanist

 

The problem you're having is you don't keep up with technology.

Ha ha ha ha! Please.

You fail to truly understand its role in shaping our bio-acoustic brains.

Well, there you go then, this certainly explains why the Founders, and indeed certainly me, do not buy into your crap! In order to understand technology and its role in shaping the bio-acoustics of a brain, the Founder's, and I, would have to necessarily reject any idea of spirituality and that the mind is separate from the body, and accept your monism as the only possible reality, even though the mind/body problem remains a "problem" to this day in that neither the dualist nor the monist can prove their positions.

If you want to be nothing more than a biological construct this is your choice, but you have no right to impose your religiosity on anyone else. You certainly have no Constitutional authority to do so.

Mood and behavioral traits are induced by frequency alone. I won't bother getting into the psychological aspects of manipulation.

You just did get into the "psychological" aspect of it. Your assertion that "mood and behavioral traits are induced by frequency alone" is psychobabble only and not borne of any hard scientific evidence. It is the operative "alone" that undoes you. You will not be able to provide any hard scientific data to support this contention that mood and behavioral traits are a function of biology alone.

This would all fall under free speech mind you. Oh, and let's not forget a $40 microwave can be stripped and easily weaponized.

A spoon is easily "weaponized", but the point is moot since People have the right to keep and bear arms.

Poor, poor, pitiful Americanist. All he can do is keep blustering and flustering and screaming:

"But, but, but, look! JPZ called the 99% morons and nothing else said matters, just that he called them morons, see?"

If the shoe fits....

Seriously, go buy some Crayola... You're a natural!

You just did get into the "psychological" aspect of it. Your assertion that "mood and behavioral traits are induced by frequency alone" is psychobabble only and not borne of any hard scientific evidence. It is the operative "alone" that undoes you. You will not be able to provide any hard scientific data to support this contention that mood and behavioral traits are a function of biology alone.

Alone - (by itself). At least I don't have to make you look bad. You do it all by your lonesome. Homework assignment: 6hz - 11hz range. The rest of your post runs in circles. No need...

reply to post by Americanist

Alone - (by itself). At least I don't have to make you look bad. You do it all by your lonesome. Homework assignment: 6hz - 11hz range. The rest of your post runs in circles. No need...

Quickly, for anyone actually confused by the Americanist's claims, it is because a self proclaimed "sound engineer" prefaces such claims with assertions of "weaponized" microwaves. Sound and radio frequency are not the same thing. Sound is produced by objects and their vibrations and radio waves are produced by charged particles.

A "sound engineer" would know this.

What is his point?

"Run! Run for your lives! The bio acoustic brain manipulators are coming! The bio-acoustic brain manipulators are coming! Be afraid, be very afraid, but worry not, for I and others more erudite than you will save you from this monstrosity known as the bio-acoustic manipulators...all you have to do is surrender your sovereignty and your rights, and let us take care of you."

He is a technocrat preaching technocracy, not freedom.

He is desperately trying to use misdirection to avoid owning up to the fact that he despises your freedom. Not his, yours. Pay no attention to the frightened little man behind the curtain. There is no Great and Powerful Oz, and you are not at risk of maniacal bio-acoustic brain manipulators turning you into zombie slaves. You have a mind of your own, and you can use this mind to defeat any and all bio-acoustic brain manipulators.

Be free, and do not be afraid of the bio-acoustic brain manipulators.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Americanist

 

Alone - (by itself). At least I don't have to make you look bad. You do it all by your lonesome. Homework assignment: 6hz - 11hz range. The rest of your post runs in circles. No need...

Quickly, for anyone actually confused by the Americanist's claims, it is because a self proclaimed "sound engineer" prefaces such claims with assertions of "weaponized" microwaves. Sound and radio frequency are not the same thing. Sound is produced by objects and their vibrations and radio waves are produced by charged particles.

A "sound engineer" would know this.

What is his point?

"Run! Run for your lives! The bio acoustic brain manipulators are coming! The bio-acoustic brain manipulators are coming! Be afraid, be very afraid, but worry not, for I and others more erudite than you will save you from this monstrosity known as the bio-acoustic manipulators...all you have to do is surrender your sovereignty and your rights, and let us take care of you."

He is a technocrat preaching technocracy, not freedom.

He is desperately trying to use misdirection to avoid owning up to the fact that he despises your freedom. Not his, yours. Pay no attention to the frightened little man behind the curtain. There is no Great and Powerful Oz, and you are not at risk of maniacal bio-acoustic brain manipulators turning you into zombie slaves. You have a mind of your own, and you can use this mind to defeat any and all bio-acoustic brain manipulators.

Be free, and do not be afraid of the bio-acoustic brain manipulators.

You are way out of your element, and it severely shows. That's the JPZ I've come to loathe...

Sound engineer is a classification. "The inference don't fit, so you must acquit." I have no clue why you're trying to get the best of me. I'm triumphant at picking you apart until you act the fool... Time and time again.

reply to post by Americanist

Sound engineer is a classification. "The inference don't fit, so you must acquit." I have no clue why you're trying to get the best of me. I'm triumphant at picking you apart until you act the fool... Time and time again.

Yeah right. You just refuse to stay on topic and will avoid answering any direct questions to you like it was the plague, but go ahead sport pull out a plum and declare "what a good boy, am I?"

Sound engineering has nothing at all to do with the topic, it is just you dubiously using threads in this site to advertise yourself, of which you do too much while saying nothing.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Americanist

 

Sound engineer is a classification. "The inference don't fit, so you must acquit." I have no clue why you're trying to get the best of me. I'm triumphant at picking you apart until you act the fool... Time and time again.

Yeah right. You just refuse to stay on topic and will avoid answering any direct questions to you like it was the plague, but go ahead sport pull out a plum and declare "what a good boy, am I?"

Sound engineering has nothing at all to do with the topic, it is just you dubiously using threads in this site to advertise yourself, of which you do too much while saying nothing.

What you don't know will harm you under the guise of free speech. Trust me or not... It doesn't stop the fact my input relates. Sad to see you so bent out of shape, but these accustomed senses seek no bounds.

Moving on...

Originally posted by Americanist
You are way out of your element, and it severely shows. That's the JPZ I've come to loathe...

Sound engineer is a classification. "The inference don't fit, so you must acquit." I have no clue why you're trying to get the best of me. I'm triumphant at picking you apart until you act the fool... Time and time again.

Obviously this portion can splinter off into this but what do you mean "classification"? A sound engineer is typically someone that operates a sound-board, the mixing of various sounds, etc.

I have never seen anyone while I went to school for Electrical Engineering get a classification of Sound Engineer. An interesting career field in its own right for sure.

In terms of manipulation on the scale you are speaking of -- I am not sure what you are getting at. Now there are some "non-lethal" weapons employed by various military units that employ the use of sound. And you are correct that sound does have an effect upon the human body; but I guess I am missing this deep connection you are trying to make.

RF Engineering would be a much more scary prospect when it comes to the technological advances mankind has made. Considering the amount of data that we can compress into RF and how it has basically infiltrated all aspects of society, that would be much more fearful than some pycho-auditory bio engineered brain manipulation devices

reply to post by Americanist

What you don't know will harm you under the guise of free speech. Trust me or not... It doesn't stop the fact my provided input relates. Sad to see you so bent out of shape, but these accustomed senses seek no bounds. Moving on...

Under the "guise of free speech"? Keep revealing your agenda, sport. This is the topic. You hate others freedoms and you want to put an end to these "guises" as soon as possible. This is your agenda, and you have steadfastly remained the most ardent and vehement self proclaimed member of the 99% in this thread. No others from this so called "movement" seem to have any qualms about your claims, so should we take this as a sign that your advocacy of suppressing free speech is one of the agenda's of the so called 99%, or is this just your own personal bent?

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by Americanist
You are way out of your element, and it severely shows. That's the JPZ I've come to loathe...

Sound engineer is a classification. "The inference don't fit, so you must acquit." I have no clue why you're trying to get the best of me. I'm triumphant at picking you apart until you act the fool... Time and time again.

Obviously this portion can splinter off into this but what do you mean "classification"? A sound engineer is typically someone that operates a sound-board, the mixing of various sounds, etc.

I have never seen anyone while I went to school for Electrical Engineering get a classification of Sound Engineer. An interesting career field in its own right for sure.

In terms of manipulation on the scale you are speaking of -- I am not sure what you are getting at. Now there are some "non-lethal" weapons employed by various military units that employ the use of sound. And you are correct that sound does have an effect upon the human body; but I guess I am missing this deep connection you are trying to make.

RF Engineering would be a much more scary prospect when it comes to the technological advances mankind has made. Considering the amount of data that we can compress into RF and how it has basically infiltrated all aspects of society, that would be much more fearful than some pycho-auditory bio engineered brain manipulation devices

edit on 30-10-2011 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)

A category of study at such schools as Full Sail, Sound Lab, Recording Connection, etc., etc. You may reel JPZ in with your knowledge. I'm tired of pointing out his repetitive mishap and flailing responses.

The connection is frequency below normal hearing range along with what the eye interprets to our brain... Electromagnetic stimulation. All of which is delivered via our more modern conveniences. I'm supposed to accept hypnosis falls under free speech according to my pseudo nemesis here. I invite you to talk some common sense into the guy.

I'm calling it a night.