^^you should probably bone up on the recent history of leftist protests if you want to continue to play a "leftist" on TWW.

7/7/2017 7:49:18 PM

I'm not a "leftist". I'm me. Why do you have to put everyone into a box?

7/7/2017 10:16:57 PM

Sorry friend.

It's just that:

Quote :

" Its pretty simple and is only a matter of time before these sorts of protests become regular. People will demand freedom eventually. Normally, they would hold meetings like this in a secure, remote location to keep the proles away but they made a big mistake putting this G20 in an urban center. "

Is so ignorant of the history of protest at G20 (and it's various predecessors). This isn't anything new.

7/8/2017 6:09:14 AM

The last G20 was in the remote village of Hangzhou. Other tiny outposts it's been in the last decade are London, Toronto, Seoul, D.C. and Brisbane.

7/8/2017 7:04:20 AM

This is the first time in this era something like this has been held in a city in Europe (specifically germany where the people are woke and active). Obviously, this sort of thing wouldn't happen anywhere on this scale in China. G20 isn't the only gathering of world leaders. World economic forum is held in Davos, Switzerland. G8 was in a village of like 10,000. There are always protests, but this is different.

The point is that the media is trying to paint this as a "typical, historic, anarchist, leftist, extremist" protest when it is much more than that. Sure that is part of it, but this is much bigger and involves many more groups of protesters. You guys are just spouting off what the CNN/FOX/American-corporate media is saying, but I also have people on the ground.

They have given no mention to the peaceful solidarity without borders protest which is 100,000 strong
http://www.dw.com/en/tens-of-thousands-at-peaceful-g20-protest-but-trouble-looms/a-39611819

If you google search the name of this protest, only like 2 articles come up. Google has probably actively limited search results. No media outlets have mentioned it either.

There have already been two other large (nonextreme) protests during the week. One that Greenpeace was involved with was about climate change/donald trump, and one was organized by students about inequality. They all had tens of thousands of people show up but the media coverage is solely of the 1000 or so black bloc anarchists hooligans.

The media is lazy and classifying unique events into old categories is intellectual lightwork for the viewers and easy propaganda for the powers that be. I can already see how many of you are completely controlled by the media.

[Edited on July 8, 2017 at 2:38 PM. Reason : say its the same one more time.]

7/8/2017 2:37:11 PM

Jesus, I literally remember the 2009 G20 protests in London, which last I checked was in Europe. Just admit you were wrong. It's easy. You clearly didn't mean "urban center in Germany" originally.

FWIW, I hate that they focus on the small minority of those who are violent and/or destructive and never talk about WHY there are protests.

7/8/2017 2:54:17 PM

Of course I was wrong and I made that clarification last post. The only reason people nitpick minor details and zero in on who was wrong when and where is because they don't want to actually discuss the original points (which still stand) or the overall topic.

Great diversion tactic but I'd rather not waste time arguing with you about something as trivial as continental vs political Europe.

7/8/2017 4:20:05 PM

The second part of my post clearly states that I agree with your point that the media ignores the very real and important reasons that these protests occur.

Just pointing out that you are just doing what you rail about other people doing with regards to Trump's shortcomings -- exaggerating at best and completely making stuff up at worst.

7/8/2017 5:44:57 PM

Earl goin' HAM ITT.

7/8/2017 5:46:40 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/29/opinions/hurricane-harvey-abbott-needs-to-resign-sachs/index.html

What a shameful argument.

8/29/2017 9:06:02 PM

a) an op-ed can't be proof of bias for a news organization

and

b) what exactly is shameful about it?

8/29/2017 9:23:50 PM

Trying to connect the governor's support of fossil fuels to the tragedy in Houston. Pretty weak argument, if you ask me.

8/30/2017 6:22:34 PM

Why did they all talk about Malania's shoes? Its like they want to feed right-wing media. They really are fake news.

[Edited on August 30, 2017 at 7:39 PM. Reason : incompetence and lack of journalistic integrity. ratings ratings ratings.]

8/30/2017 7:39:19 PM

Meanwhile actual right wing media is asking where Obama was during Katrina and having to apologize for falling for shark memes.

[Edited on August 30, 2017 at 8:41 PM. Reason : And aside from a passing tweet where was this a thing? ]

8/30/2017 8:40:54 PM

^^^ that piece did way more than just that

what do you disagree with, specifically?

[Edited on August 30, 2017 at 9:02 PM. Reason : .]

8/30/2017 9:02:10 PM

The really breeze over the real problems (poor zoning and development regulations, concrete everything, etc...) to try to tie the damage in this storm to their support for the oil industry

8/31/2017 6:40:02 AM

^Exactly.

There may be many reasons why a Texas gov. may suck, but you can't expect a governor in Texas - Texas - of all places, to get elected in Texas without supporting the oil industry in Texas. That kind of thinking is just folly.

Because did I mention Texas?

From what I can tell the governor did just about all he could for the storm. There isn't a whole lot of prep you can do for a record breaking storm. I mean, didn't this hit like a 500 or 1000 year flood level?

I get that it is an op-ed piece, I'm just trying to point out that the guy is an idiot. If you want him impeached than dig up a better reason than supporting fossil fuels in a state whose economy was basically born out of fossil fuels.

8/31/2017 7:25:58 AM

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a57290/texas-deregulation-harvey-chemical-plants/?src=socialflowTW

8/31/2017 12:06:14 PM

This is who the liberal youth gets their news from

Fuck the police! but also respect them!

There is bad on all sides...on all sides.

9/2/2017 8:41:25 AM

CNN banner on their website today:

Quote :

" CLINTON AND OBAMA SILENT ON WEINSTEIN. "

This is why we can't have nice thing we ended up with Trump.

10/10/2017 6:37:09 PM

it’s all so fucking gross

[Edited on October 10, 2017 at 6:39 PM. Reason : it wasn’t just CNN, either]

10/10/2017 6:39:24 PM

Yep,

And don't get me wrong, the story should be fully reported.

But there are multiple bizarre levels going on with this news cycle. This could be the worst I've ever seen (maybe I've blanked out the rest)


-Obama and Clinton? We (both right and left leaning folks) have asked Clinton to disappear and not speak up every chance she gets. It's traditional that previous presidents generally keep their mouths shut, and Obama has already been scolded by the right wing for this. CNN et al have already reported on these "controversies." So whose door is the media beating down to get a hot take: Obama and Hillary.

-I personally don't remember this "running around to get hot takes" level of reporting for Roger Ailes, Bill O, and the fact that Fox News is/was basically a sexual harassment nightmare. The reaction was "hm, makers sense tho."

-Weinstein should spend a lot of time in jail and burn in hell, but right now I can think of at least 10 stories that should be a headline over this celebrity shit.

10/10/2017 7:06:07 PM

Not sure where this goes but the audio of Harvey Weinstein is awful. Guy knew what he was doing men knew it was wrong. It sounds eerily similar to the tape of Trump. A bunch of entitled harrassers.

But for real, the media hottake merry go round of “Clinton needs to go away but why hasn’t Clinton responded?????” is the worst..

10/11/2017 10:55:47 AM

I find it interesting that people care about Weinstein but voted for a guy who was caught on tape during his campaign talking about grabbing women's pussies.

10/11/2017 10:57:43 AM

how often do you talk with trump voters?

10/11/2017 11:55:45 AM

ummm, they're not shy about voicing their opinions on the internet

10/11/2017 11:59:21 AM

Theres different levels of Trump voters. Yes, there are the ones who actually hate women and didn't mind the tape but most of the educated trump voters despise trump, always despised trump, and didn't like the trump vidoe or the weinstein tape. They have a problem with liberals defending the clintons for what they did to women, then telling them the trump video should be a deal-breaker. They now have a problem with those same people having allowed Weinstein to assault women for decades while riding the same high horse.

and don't try to derail the conversation by putting these beliefs on me.

10/11/2017 12:27:13 PM

Classic Earl troll post.

Earl - how often do you talk to trump voters
Bullet - often, they're all over the internet
Earl - I wasn't talking about those! How dare you assume who I was talking about! Clearly you are the one at fault in this conversation, not I who didn't specify which type of trump voters I was talking about! Also don't derail conversations!

Also, Obama and Clinton both denounced Weinstein. Obama let his daughter intern at the Weinstein company earlier this year... I think its safe that Obama didn't know about this.

10/11/2017 1:00:39 PM

Quote :

"but most of the educated trump voters despise trump"

the operative phrase in that statement is "trump voters," which leads me back to my statement:

I find it interesting that people care about Weinstein but voted for a guy who was caught on tape during his campaign talking about grabbing women's pussies.

Quote :

"Also, Obama and Clinton both denounced Weinstein. Obama let his daughter intern at the Weinstein company earlier this year... I think its safe that Obama didn't know about this."

Careful with that assumption - the right would have you believe he was simply assisting with Pizzagate.

[Edited on October 11, 2017 at 1:11 PM. Reason : a]

10/11/2017 1:10:20 PM

Quote :

" Obama let his daughter intern at the Weinstein company earlier this year... I think its safe that Obama didn't know about this."

Obama needs to be denouncing the trove of Democrats that knew how much of a piece of shit Wainstein was and didn't warn Obama when he sent his own daughter to intern with him.

[Edited on October 11, 2017 at 1:19 PM. Reason : .]

10/11/2017 1:19:12 PM

Quote :

"I find it interesting that people care about Weinstein but voted for a guy who was caught on tape during his campaign talking about grabbing women's pussies."

I agree. It is a very interesting ethical dilemma and understanding this is at the heart of understanding the nature of the current political situation in this country. Its called "lesser of two evils" and has created a race to the bottom where people on both sides put their values aside to make sure the other side loses.

At the same time, you also have tremendous peer pressure against voting for someone you actually support as a person because you'd be "wasting your vote" and "basically voting for the other side". The effectiveness of this type of peer pressure is not to be underestimated.

In their minds they are either voting for a guy who made some "locker room talk" eleven years ago, or letting democrats "destroy the country for decades to come".

10/11/2017 1:34:51 PM

I had only a vague inkling of who Weinstein was before this but it seems apparent that the rumors have always been there and politicians accepting his money should know that. Money talks though, unfortunately.

Trump has had many rumors about him and many, many accusers. His shouldn’t be thought of as any less trustworthy than Weinstein or Bill Clinton’s. People are just hypocrites and tribal. How about you denounce it from all sides including your guy/girl? I mean it shouldn’t be too hard to pay back all the donations you’ve received from Weinstein over the years to a relevant charity.

Quote :

"In their minds they are either voting for a guy who made some "locker room talk" eleven years ago"

I get what you’re saying but this whole idea is so intellectually dishonest (I know it’s not you saying it) it makes my face hurt. Not only does Trump have multiple accusations over decades but he literally backed it up on tape. It couldn’t be more obvious. The hubris of both him and Weinstein is amazing.

[Edited on October 11, 2017 at 2:24 PM. Reason : X]

10/11/2017 2:22:32 PM

Quote :

"Its called "lesser of two evils" and has created a race to the bottom where people on both sides put their values aside to make sure the other side loses."

The "lesser of two evils" thing is a good point and bothers me more so because people are seemingly not capable of actually determining the lesser of two evils. More alarming, they aren't capable of determining the equivalence of evils. Amazes me that people think Trump was the lesser of two evils in this past race.

10/11/2017 2:29:33 PM

Its not as simple as you are making it out to be and you are insulting the Trump voters by pretending its that simple.
You have to understand their math.

They don't necessarily think Trump himself is the lesser of two evils, they think electing trump is the lesser of the two evils. They are doing the math with the supreme court factored into their calculations and at the end of the day are able to stomach Trump as long as he gets them more conservative justices. Even if he doesn't deliver on anything else, Gorsuch is already enough for them to vote again.

To them, its a trolley problem and voting trump is "pulling the lever". In an ideal world, they'd rather not have to do an evil act at all, but they think the supreme court is going to have more impact than the president could ever have and they also don' think "virtue signaling" with thier vote is constructive. Trump losing the election would not undo the harm to his victims but would damage the country.

10/11/2017 2:41:47 PM

Quote :

"To them, its a trolley problem and voting trump is "pulling the lever"."

That doesn't mean it actually IS a trolley problem, but I wholeheartedly agree with you in the respect that what really matters is understanding that they DO believe that and that has to be tackled first.

10/11/2017 6:08:51 PM

thats why telling them the lever is bad is a waste of time. They already know the lever is bad.

10/15/2017 7:12:07 PM

don't forget, folks

an apple is an apple

even if someone says it's a banana

it's still an apple

10/24/2017 10:04:51 PM

Quote :

"Garrison Keillor"

11/29/2017 2:05:21 PM

It would appear that article is someone's opinion. I've seen conservative opinions on CNN and WaPost, just as I've seen a few liberal opinions on Fox News. That picture really doesn't make a point.

11/29/2017 2:19:35 PM

lol, do you really not know who that is?

11/29/2017 2:22:29 PM

I know he doesnt host a radio show anymore. Maybe now he can spend his time defending more sexual predators with a D next to their name.

[Edited on November 29, 2017 at 2:27 PM. Reason : ^^He just got fired for sexual harrasment. Let me know if you need it spelled out more.]

11/29/2017 2:26:54 PM

what argument are you even attempting to make?

are you arguing that the Post should independently investigate every op-ed writer for sexual misconduct before publishing them?

and how in the world are you attempting to frame this as the “Liberal Media”?

11/29/2017 2:31:22 PM

You're right, probably belongs better in the Democrat Party credibility watch thread. Feel free to repost it there.

In the meantime, the Democrat party continues it's war on women, but all you can do is complain that I posted in the wrong thread. Sad!

11/29/2017 2:36:44 PM

Sorry, no, I honestly didn't know who he was, as I don't listen to NPR on a regular basis.

With the context, I guess your post makes a little more sense, but at the end of the day, it is still an opinion piece. You can choose not to listen/read his opinion, and the world isn't changed for it.

11/29/2017 2:38:16 PM

war on women? what?

11/29/2017 2:43:44 PM

just an internet-trolling political hack

11/29/2017 2:44:17 PM

Quote :

"but at the end of the day, it is still an opinion piece."

I'm going to need a whiteboard over here.

The point is exactly that it is an opinion piece, done by a guy who 2 days later was fired for the exact thing he is defending. Do you see the irony? But this probably could have fit better in the Democrat Party Credibility Watch thread, because this kind of hypocrisy (defending sex offenders with a D by their name) has been occurring in the Democrat party since the Kennedy's (and probably longer). And that is what I mean when I say the Democrats are waging a war on women.

11/29/2017 3:01:02 PM

what are the republicans waging on them? a nuclear war?

11/29/2017 3:02:18 PM

Neither Garrison Keillor or Al Franken are news media, but not knowing Keillor is like not knowing apple pie

[Edited on November 29, 2017 at 3:09 PM. Reason : .]

11/29/2017 3:08:24 PM

Quote :

"the Democrat party continues it's war on women"

Plz mansplain this to the next woman you meet (preferably under 40) and report back on her reaction.

11/29/2017 3:44:01 PM