- Banned
- #101
I understood the question.....You're a mod....Get it?
I just don't understand how that partisan lib hack became a mod.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I understood the question.....You're a mod....Get it?
Because opinion has nothing to do with mod duties.I understood the question.....You're a mod....Get it?
I just don't understand how that partisan lib hack became a mod.
Because opinion has nothing to do with mod duties.I understood the question.....You're a mod....Get it?
I just don't understand how that partisan lib hack became a mod.
Really – there is nothing wrong with him becoming a MOD – there is a lot wrong with the continuous idiotic whining that he is one. IF he came down with mod decisions based around opinion (like banning a conservative because he does not like that posters postings or favoring one group over another) then those bemoaning his mod status would have something to stand on but there is no such problems.
You are simply lucky that the rules even allow this because I would (if I were the owner of the site) make it DIRECTLY against the rules to attack a mod’s status – it is not helpful to the health of the site or kind to those that actually DONATE their time to keep this place running smoothly FOR FREE (AFAIK).
I appreciate the mods here even if I think their opinions are those of partisan hacks (this is not in reference to THIS particular mod). Such an opinion does not reduce the job they do here. There are plenty of right winger mods here anyway – it is clear that opinions on the political section of this board is not the dictating factor in modship.
Do you guys believe the woman in the ad is not an actress, and is actually having her house broken into in the above video?
Don't play ignorant. The difference is extremely obvious - the OP video claims quite directly to be genuine and contain actual buyers. That was false. They use 'hidden' cameras and a completely false gun store.
Essentially they DIRECTLY lied.
The video you link to does noting of the sort. It is a clear dramatization. If it had been prefaced with 'hidden' cameras catching a real criminal then you might have a point.
Oh my GOD. The basstids!
Oh wait....
Seriously?
Think about it -- all "hidden camera" has to mean is that the cameras are not in plain sight.
Really?So that looks like a "real" gun store to you?
Question: Why would anyone think it's a fake gun store? No one thinks a shop in NYC is fake, especially when the real-estate/rent is mad expensive.
More importantly, why does it matter whether people thought it was "real" or not?
Because the OP vid clearly tries to send a message that these are real purchasers and that is a direct lie.
---- So do all the commercials posted just above.
...........And??
Do you believe the general (viewing) public --- wherever this spot might be shown --- is so impressionable and bereft of anything like free will that they're going to slavishtly robot out to whatever the Telescreen tells them?
Because if so, that's an awful lot of power; do you therefore advocate for some kind of editorial control authority to regulate media content?
Did the makers of any of those commercials ever have an interview with the Washington Post claiming that the commercial involved the actual reactions of real buyers?
Do you guys believe the woman in the ad is not an actress, and is actually having her house broken into in the above video?
Don't play ignorant. The difference is extremely obvious - the OP video claims quite directly to be genuine and contain actual buyers. That was false. They use 'hidden' cameras and a completely false gun store.
Essentially they DIRECTLY lied.
The video you link to does noting of the sort. It is a clear dramatization. If it had been prefaced with 'hidden' cameras catching a real criminal then you might have a point.
Oh my GOD. The basstids!
Oh wait....
Seriously?
Think about it -- all "hidden camera" has to mean is that the cameras are not in plain sight.
Really?So that looks like a "real" gun store to you?
Question: Why would anyone think it's a fake gun store? No one thinks a shop in NYC is fake, especially when the real-estate/rent is mad expensive.
More importantly, why does it matter whether people thought it was "real" or not?
Because the OP vid clearly tries to send a message that these are real purchasers and that is a direct lie.
---- So do all the commercials posted just above.
...........And??
Do you believe the general (viewing) public --- wherever this spot might be shown --- is so impressionable and bereft of anything like free will that they're going to slavishtly robot out to whatever the Telescreen tells them?
Because if so, that's an awful lot of power; do you therefore advocate for some kind of editorial control authority to regulate media content?
Do you honestly expect a straight answer when you are being so fucking dishonest?
Of course you do – you expect me to swallow the BS that those are comparable when they clearly are not. Try again Pogo – without being so dishonest – or continue to be ignored.
I wouldn't know, but I'd be surprised if they did. We kind of take for granted that when you see a TV commercial spot, the message by definition has a bias and an agenda -- "buy this product", "support this candidate", "give to this charity", etc. It's not exactly a news program.
Gun grabbers invent their own facts to make up for the utter lacks of actual facts.
I stand by my view.I understood the question.....You're a mod....Get it?
I just don't understand how that partisan lib hack became a mod.
Point taken.Because opinion has nothing to do with mod duties.I understood the question.....You're a mod....Get it?
I just don't understand how that partisan lib hack became a mod.
Really – there is nothing wrong with him becoming a MOD – there is a lot wrong with the continuous idiotic whining that he is one. IF he came down with mod decisions based around opinion (like banning a conservative because he does not like that posters postings or favoring one group over another) then those bemoaning his mod status would have something to stand on but there is no such problems.
You are simply lucky that the rules even allow this because I would (if I were the owner of the site) make it DIRECTLY against the rules to attack a mod’s status – it is not helpful to the health of the site or kind to those that actually DONATE their time to keep this place running smoothly FOR FREE (AFAIK).
I appreciate the mods here even if I think their opinions are those of partisan hacks (this is not in reference to THIS particular mod). Such an opinion does not reduce the job they do here. There are plenty of right winger mods here anyway – it is clear that opinions on the political section of this board is not the dictating factor in modship.
Do you guys believe the woman in the ad is not an actress, and is actually having her house broken into in the above video?
Don't play ignorant. The difference is extremely obvious - the OP video claims quite directly to be genuine and contain actual buyers. That was false. They use 'hidden' cameras and a completely false gun store.
Essentially they DIRECTLY lied.
The video you link to does noting of the sort. It is a clear dramatization. If it had been prefaced with 'hidden' cameras catching a real criminal then you might have a point.
Oh my GOD. The basstids!
Oh wait....
Seriously?
Think about it -- all "hidden camera" has to mean is that the cameras are not in plain sight.
Really?Question: Why would anyone think it's a fake gun store? No one thinks a shop in NYC is fake, especially when the real-estate/rent is mad expensive.
More importantly, why does it matter whether people thought it was "real" or not?
Because the OP vid clearly tries to send a message that these are real purchasers and that is a direct lie.
---- So do all the commercials posted just above.
...........And??
Do you believe the general (viewing) public --- wherever this spot might be shown --- is so impressionable and bereft of anything like free will that they're going to slavishtly robot out to whatever the Telescreen tells them?
Because if so, that's an awful lot of power; do you therefore advocate for some kind of editorial control authority to regulate media content?
Do you honestly expect a straight answer when you are being so fucking dishonest?
Of course you do – you expect me to swallow the BS that those are comparable when they clearly are not. Try again Pogo – without being so dishonest – or continue to be ignored.
Just answer the question --- are people (the general public) so completely powerless that they'll simply follow whatever orders the Telescreen gives them, like androids? Because if that's the case, there should be some major head explosions as soon as that Telescreen gives them contradictory info, should there not? In other words do you actually believe potential first-time gun buyers are going to make their decision (either way) based on what some stranger on a TV set decided?
I'm assuming here that your issue with the PSA is that the reactions of the "gun buyers" are scripted rather than personal. If that's not your issue then please clarify.
Do you guys believe the woman in the ad is not an actress, and is actually having her house broken into in the above video?
Don't play ignorant. The difference is extremely obvious - the OP video claims quite directly to be genuine and contain actual buyers. That was false. They use 'hidden' cameras and a completely false gun store.
Essentially they DIRECTLY lied.
The video you link to does noting of the sort. It is a clear dramatization. If it had been prefaced with 'hidden' cameras catching a real criminal then you might have a point.
Oh my GOD. The basstids!
Oh wait....
Seriously?
Think about it -- all "hidden camera" has to mean is that the cameras are not in plain sight.
Really?More importantly, why does it matter whether people thought it was "real" or not?
Because the OP vid clearly tries to send a message that these are real purchasers and that is a direct lie.
---- So do all the commercials posted just above.
...........And??
Do you believe the general (viewing) public --- wherever this spot might be shown --- is so impressionable and bereft of anything like free will that they're going to slavishtly robot out to whatever the Telescreen tells them?
Because if so, that's an awful lot of power; do you therefore advocate for some kind of editorial control authority to regulate media content?
Do you honestly expect a straight answer when you are being so fucking dishonest?
Of course you do – you expect me to swallow the BS that those are comparable when they clearly are not. Try again Pogo – without being so dishonest – or continue to be ignored.
Just answer the question --- are people (the general public) so completely powerless that they'll simply follow whatever orders the Telescreen gives them, like androids? Because if that's the case, there should be some major head explosions as soon as that Telescreen gives them contradictory info, should there not? In other words do you actually believe potential first-time gun buyers are going to make their decision (either way) based on what some stranger on a TV set decided?
I'm assuming here that your issue with the PSA is that the reactions of the "gun buyers" are scripted rather than personal. If that's not your issue then please clarify.
Lets get something straight.
In no way is this video a PSA.
it is a not so carefully crafted program created with the intent of presenting a particular political agenda.
Let's get something straight: yes it is.
Is it selling a product or service? No it isn't. Therefore it's a PSA. Whether you agree with its point or not is irrelevant.
So I never got an answer -- from anyone -- as to why certain POVs should not have a voice. Guess I won't wait.
Let's get something straight: yes it is.
Is it selling a product or service? No it isn't. Therefore it's a PSA. Whether you agree with its point or not is irrelevant.
So I never got an answer -- from anyone -- as to why certain POVs should not have a voice. Guess I won't wait.
They can in fact have a voice, so long as in exercising that voice they do not intentionally try to mislead their intended audience or violate the law in presenting their POV. If they do, we have the right to criticize them for doing so.
Criticize the message, absolutely.
But silence it?
"Mislead" is entirely subjective.
And btw I read over your WaPo article, which as you note clearly indicates the customers are real, random customers:
-- but what I haven't seen is any definitive proof that said customers were hired actors. .
And btw I read over your WaPo article, which as you note clearly indicates the customers are real, random customers:
So you believe their lie as well? SEE!!
-- but what I haven't seen is any definitive proof that said customers were hired actors. .
From their television permit license issued by the City of New York: "Actors are interviewed on camera in a fake gun store".
A copy of their license to shoot the commercial obtained via a FOI request:
PSA Permit 312
So you think they lied on their license?
"Gun Grabbing Group hires actors to fake video, violates NY guns laws in process..Is this typical of Gun Grabbers?"
This is a typical lie propagated by most on the right, given the fact there is no such thing as a 'gun grabber,' that guns can't be 'grabbed' (2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments), and that there are no laws in place now nor proposed in any jurisdiction authorizing the myth 'gun grabbing.'
This is typical of the ignorance and stupidity of the OP and those who agree with him, that anyone is seeking to 'grab guns,' as the notion is ignorant idiocy.
And this is typical of the OP, who has started yet another ridiculous, failed thread predicated on hyperbolic nonsense and demagoguery.