Media Matters declares victory

[Pogo]

You're confusing mob mentality with common-sense.

Now you're probably gonna make fun of the phrase because it's used in so many instances when arguing with a liberal. For some reason using common-sense is something to ridicule these days. I guess it's because it doesn't evolve enough mental gymnastics to be a valid concept.

You keep asking for us to prove something that is simply common-sense. Well, that's the point. Common-sense is something that doesn't need proving.......unless you're a person that won't accept common-sense. Your examples of what is terrorism doesn't work because it requires a biased viewpoint. However those of us who oppose your views on what is terrorism don't have the bias you obviously exhibit. Personally, I think you're just trying to argue a point that has little or nothing to do with the topic in order to distract folks. Start a discussion on an unrelated issue and you figure you're winning. I've seen this used too many times for it not to be on purpose. You are a classic time-waster. Sorry if I haven't invented a better word for what you are.

Now, you're gonna say something like "you just can't argue the point effectively".

Am I right?

Actually I have and others have. You just won't acknowledge it. If you did then you would lose the argument, and you can't have that.

Now I expect you'll have something to say about how stupid I am, how angry I am, or how I can't face the fact that I can't prove my point. Well, you can take a horse to water but you can't make them drink. Same goes for know-it-alls that can't face the truth.

*patiently waiting for your smarmy response*

No, you're not right. For one thing I came here, as I always do, out of an interest in media, which is my particular area of interest-- not to rehash this old topic. Nothing would make me happier than to get back on the topic -- which is, again, where I started here until the CNN nonsense came up. So I have no interest in distracting away from an area of my own interest.

I haven't used the term common sense but it is my very basis here. I don't really care if the masses believe Nero fiddled while Rome burned since I know what he played was a lyre. Once I know better I don't see a point in retreating to fables. So no I'm not confusing mob mentality with common sense; on the contrary I'm drawing a contrast between them.

The bottom line on this grand tangent, where we started, is the question of whether CNN was being less than honest in declining to describe the Boston bombing as "terrorism". I have demonstrated that they were not, in that there was no reason to term it thus. And AFAIK nobody else was describing it that way either in the moment. Because once again, the object of terrorism is to strike fear into the public mind. You can't really do that retroactively and say, "oh by the way that bombing a few weeks ago? that was terrorism, so be afraid, be retroactively afraid". Doesn't work. I think the burden of proof remains where it always did, with you, since you made the assertion that their declining to jump on the terrorism bandwagon was somehow irresponsible. I don't see where you've done that.

(/offtopic)

The fear is that it will happen again. That is the message.

If you ask anyone who was there when the first bomb went off they were in shock. When the second bomb went off all they wanted to do was un-ass the AO, get the fuck out of there. That sounds like terror to me.

I have no idea what "un-ass the AO" means but back to definitions, and we did this before too, the mere presence of terror doesn't make terrorism as a political term. A tornado incites terror; that doesn't make it a terrorist. The kids and teachers at Sandy Hook were undoubtedly terrorized -- who wouldn't be -- but again, we don't describe Adam Lanza as a terrorist. We don't do that because Lanza was not sending a political message. No message, no terrorism. Fear alone does not make a message.

 

[mudwhistle]

No, you're not right. For one thing I came here, as I always do, out of an interest in media, which is my particular area of interest-- not to rehash this old topic. Nothing would make me happier than to get back on the topic -- which is, again, where I started here until the CNN nonsense came up. So I have no in terest in distracting away from an area of my own interest.

I haven't used the term common sense but it is my very basis here. I don't really care if the masses believe Nero fiddled while Rome burned since I know what he played was a lyre. Once I know better I don't see a point in retreating to fables. So no I'm not confusing mob mentality with common sense; on the contrary I'm drawing a contrast between them.

The bottom line on this grand tangent, where we started, is the question of whether CNN was being less than honest in declining to describe the Boston bombing as "terrorism". I have demonstrated that they were not, in that there was no reason to term it thus. And AFAIK nobody else was describing it that way either in the moment. Because once again, the object of terrorism is to strike fear into the public mind. You can't really do that retroactively and say, "oh by the way that bombing a few weeks ago? that was terrorism, so be afraid, be retroactively afraid". Doesn't work. I think the burden of proof remains where it always did, with you, since you made the assertion that their declining to jump on the terrorism bandwagon was somehow irresponsible. I don't see where you've done that.

(/offtopic)

The fear is that it will happen again. That is the message.

If you ask anyone who was there when the first bomb went off they were in shock. When the second bomb went off all they wanted to do was un-ass the AO, get the fuck out of there. That sounds like terror to me.

I have no idea what "un-ass the AO" means but back to definitions, and we did this before too, the mere presence of terror doesn't make terrorism as a political term. A tornado incites terror; that doesn't make it a terrorist. The kids and teachers at Sandy Hook were undoubtedly terrorized -- who wouldn't be -- but again, we don't describe Adam Lanza as a terrorist. We don't do that because Lanza was not sending a political message. No message, no terrorism. Fear alone does not make a message.

Adam Lanza wasn't trying to make a political statement. He was attacking those he hated. Politics wasn't involved

The same can't be said about the Boston bombings. Their reason was purely political. The target, Western influence, Western sporting events that didn't adhere to Islamic beliefs in modesty. The goal was maximum death and destruction.

And un-assing an AO is getting the Hell out of Dodge.

 

[Pogo]

The fear is that it will happen again. That is the message.

If you ask anyone who was there when the first bomb went off they were in shock. When the second bomb went off all they wanted to do was un-ass the AO, get the fuck out of there. That sounds like terror to me.

I have no idea what "un-ass the AO" means but back to definitions, and we did this before too, the mere presence of terror doesn't make terrorism as a political term. A tornado incites terror; that doesn't make it a terrorist. The kids and teachers at Sandy Hook were undoubtedly terrorized -- who wouldn't be -- but again, we don't describe Adam Lanza as a terrorist. We don't do that because Lanza was not sending a political message. No message, no terrorism. Fear alone does not make a message.

Adam Lanza wasn't trying to make a political statement. He was attacking those he hated. Politics wasn't involved

Agreed, in full. Which is exactly what I'm saying about the Tsariechnikov Brothers.

The same can't be said about the Boston bombings. Their reason was purely political. The target, Western influence, Western sporting events that didn't adhere to Islamic beliefs in modesty. The goal was maximum death and destruction.

You've got no basis for that. The brothers in no way set themselves apart from "Western immodesty". They were themselves immersed in it. Doesn't work. And more to the point, they put out no message by what they did -- which is exactly the same amount of message Lanza put out. Again, a message isn't a message if you've kept it to yourself. "Message", by definition, means somebody's on the receiving end. You've already got the answer right above.

 

[mudwhistle]

I have no idea what "un-ass the AO" means but back to definitions, and we did this before too, the mere presence of terror doesn't make terrorism as a political term. A tornado incites terror; that doesn't make it a terrorist. The kids and teachers at Sandy Hook were undoubtedly terrorized -- who wouldn't be -- but again, we don't describe Adam Lanza as a terrorist. We don't do that because Lanza was not sending a political message. No message, no terrorism. Fear alone does not make a message.

Adam Lanza wasn't trying to make a political statement. He was attacking those he hated. Politics wasn't involved

Agreed, in full. Which is exactly what I'm saying about the Tsariechnikov Brothers.

The same can't be said about the Boston bombings. Their reason was purely political. The target, Western influence, Western sporting events that didn't adhere to Islamic beliefs in modesty. The goal was maximum death and destruction.

You've got no basis for that. The brothers in no way set themselves apart from "Western immodesty". They were themselves immersed in it. Doesn't work. You've already got the answer right above.

The older brother was radicalized. He recently had begun converting to a more clean lifestyle. Turning over a new leaf. Both of them hated Western influence, even though they sometimes took advantage of it. Many Muslims in the ME go to Lebanon for the same reason. To chase hookers. This kind of hypocrisy is frowned upon, yet mostly tolerated. Men can be forgiven. Women, not so much.

Regardless if the brothers were hypocritical they felt killing Americans was something Allah demanded. Perhaps it might help cleanse their souls. A few less infidels in the world to them was a blessing from Allah and part of his will. Most Muslims don't think of death like we do. They figure it's all preordained.

 

[Pogo]

Adam Lanza wasn't trying to make a political statement. He was attacking those he hated. Politics wasn't involved

Agreed, in full. Which is exactly what I'm saying about the Tsariechnikov Brothers.

The same can't be said about the Boston bombings. Their reason was purely political. The target, Western influence, Western sporting events that didn't adhere to Islamic beliefs in modesty. The goal was maximum death and destruction.

You've got no basis for that. The brothers in no way set themselves apart from "Western immodesty". They were themselves immersed in it. Doesn't work. You've already got the answer right above.

The older brother was radicalized. He recently had begun converting to a more clean lifestyle. Turning over a new leaf. Both of them hated Western influence, even though they sometimes took advantage of it. Many Muslims in the ME go to Lebanon for the same reason. To chase hookers. This kind of hypocrisy is frowned upon, yet mostly tolerated. Men can be forgiven. Women, not so much.

Regardless if the brothers were hypocritical they felt killing Americans was something Allah demanded. Perhaps it might help cleanse their souls. A few less infidels in the world to them was a blessing from Allah and part of his will. Most Muslims don't think of death like we do. They figure it's all preordained.

We may have a breakthrough here -- I don't disagree with any of this. There's no doubt they had such motives. But without that motive expressed outwardly, we don't have an act of terrorism, that's all I'm saying. There's a difference between terrorism (a public political statement) and simple vengeance (which is personal). It can't be terrorism if it's constrained to the personal.

Ergo -- CNN was correct not to jump on the 'terrorism' bandwagon. Which is all it is.

 

[GreenBean]

Yes, Media Matters won by repeatedly slamming their face into Fox News' fist.

As recently as last month, a poll showed that Fox News is the most trusted source of information about the most important issue in America today: ObamaCare. Fox News beat "friends and family," NPR, President Obama, and every rival news network. As recently as last month, Fox News absolutely crushed CNN and MSNBC in the ratings. In both total viewers and the all-important 25-54 age demo, Fox News beat both of them combined. Moreover, out of over 100 channels, Fox News is #2 in all of cable..... Fox News isn't just dominant; it's competition is in deep, deep water and either drowning or barely treading water. If that's a victory for Media Matters, I'd love to know what defeat looks like. - breitbart.com - Media Matters Declares 'Victory' over Fox News

Media Matters for America Dictates the content of many mainstream media reports

MMfA Engages in underhanded mud-slinging tactics against conservatives attempting to label them as liars and racists

MMfA attempts to create the illusion that conservatives dominate the mainstream media

MMfA Had regular contact and strategy sessions with political operatives within the Obama Regime

MMfA conspired with Attorney General Eric Holder's office in an effort to discredit and suppress news stories about scandals plaguing the Justice Department
Media Matters for America

 

[Pogo]

Yes, Media Matters won by repeatedly slamming their face into Fox News' fist.

As recently as last month, a poll showed that Fox News is the most trusted source of information about the most important issue in America today: ObamaCare. Fox News beat "friends and family," NPR, President Obama, and every rival news network. As recently as last month, Fox News absolutely crushed CNN and MSNBC in the ratings. In both total viewers and the all-important 25-54 age demo, Fox News beat both of them combined. Moreover, out of over 100 channels, Fox News is #2 in all of cable..... Fox News isn't just dominant; it's competition is in deep, deep water and either drowning or barely treading water. If that's a victory for Media Matters, I'd love to know what defeat looks like. - breitbart.com - Media Matters Declares 'Victory' over Fox News

Media Matters for America Dictates the content of many mainstream media reports

MMfA Engages in underhanded mud-slinging tactics against conservatives attempting to label them as liars and racists

MMfA attempts to create the illusion that conservatives dominate the mainstream media

MMfA Had regular contact and strategy sessions with political operatives within the Obama Regime

MMfA conspired with Attorney General Eric Holder's office in an effort to discredit and suppress news stories about scandals plaguing the Justice Department
Media Matters for America

Ratings don't come from credibility. They never have. They come from sensationalism. Emotional candy. Because that's all television is capable of.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If GMO beets are targeted, clearly the message is GMO.

When a couple of dickheads bomb a sporting event, the message is nonexistent. Unless you think the idea of sports in controversial.

And when that message has to be pieced together a week or a month later only after investigation and combing through their e-mails, clearly they had no message in mind. A message isn't a message if you have to make it up as a best guess. A terrorist doesn't make us jump those hoops or leave any doubt. And if there is any immediate doubt, that's the whole purpose of the public claim of responsibility.

None of that existed in Boston.

The fact that you don't get the message does not mean they didn't have one, why is that so hard for you to understand? Does the fact that you don't get it mean I am not actually telling you?

It's not that *I* don't get it. Terrorism doesn't exist for "me". It's that WE don't get it.

Nobody here has been able to articulate what that message was. I'm the one saying that that's because no such message exists.

We who? I get the message of terrorism, they hate. That is their only message, even if they dress it up in pretty clothes for people like you that need pretty clothes to see things.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They might. I dunno. But I do my own thinkin'. As they used to tell us in grade school, "if everybody else' jumped in the lake, would you jump in too?"

Mob mentality can take us weird places.

You're confusing mob mentality with common-sense.

Now you're probably gonna make fun of the phrase because it's used in so many instances when arguing with a liberal. For some reason using common-sense is something to ridicule these days. I guess it's because it doesn't evolve enough mental gymnastics to be a valid concept.

You keep asking for us to prove something that is simply common-sense. Well, that's the point. Common-sense is something that doesn't need proving.......unless you're a person that won't accept common-sense. Your examples of what is terrorism doesn't work because it requires a biased viewpoint. However those of us who oppose your views on what is terrorism don't have the bias you obviously exhibit. Personally, I think you're just trying to argue a point that has little or nothing to do with the topic in order to distract folks. Start a discussion on an unrelated issue and you figure you're winning. I've seen this used too many times for it not to be on purpose. You are a classic time-waster. Sorry if I haven't invented a better word for what you are.

Now, you're gonna say something like "you just can't argue the point effectively".

Am I right?

Actually I have and others have. You just won't acknowledge it. If you did then you would lose the argument, and you can't have that.

Now I expect you'll have something to say about how stupid I am, how angry I am, or how I can't face the fact that I can't prove my point. Well, you can take a horse to water but you can't make them drink. Same goes for know-it-alls that can't face the truth.

*patiently waiting for your smarmy response*

No, you're not right. For one thing I came here, as I always do, out of an interest in media, which is my particular area of interest-- not to rehash this old topic. Nothing would make me happier than to get back on the topic -- which is, again, where I started here until the CNN nonsense came up. So I have no interest in distracting away from an area of my own interest.

I haven't used the term common sense but it is my very basis here. I don't really care if the masses believe Nero fiddled while Rome burned since I know what he played was a lyre. Once I know better I don't see a point in retreating to fables. So no I'm not confusing mob mentality with common sense; on the contrary I'm drawing a contrast between them.

The bottom line on this grand tangent, where we started, is the question of whether CNN was being less than honest in declining to describe the Boston bombing as "terrorism". I have demonstrated that they were not, in that there was no reason to term it thus. And AFAIK nobody else was describing it that way either in the moment. Because once again, the object of terrorism is to strike fear into the public mind. You can't really do that retroactively and say, "oh by the way that bombing a few weeks ago? that was terrorism, so be afraid, be retroactively afraid". Doesn't work. I think the burden of proof remains where it always did, with you, since you made the assertion that their declining to jump on the terrorism bandwagon was somehow irresponsible. I don't see where you've done that.

(/offtopic)

What I don't get is, since you insist that you live in the real world, and never pay attention to fables, why you insist that CNN didn't describe the bombing as terrorism. Here is an article posted to their website the day of the attack, and it uses the word terrorism to describe it.

Terrorism strikes Boston Marathon as bombs kill 3, wound scores - CNN.com

Like I said earlier, the fact that you don't get the message does not mean the message does not exist.

 

[mudwhistle]

Agreed, in full. Which is exactly what I'm saying about the Tsariechnikov Brothers.



You've got no basis for that. The brothers in no way set themselves apart from "Western immodesty". They were themselves immersed in it. Doesn't work. You've already got the answer right above.

The older brother was radicalized. He recently had begun converting to a more clean lifestyle. Turning over a new leaf. Both of them hated Western influence, even though they sometimes took advantage of it. Many Muslims in the ME go to Lebanon for the same reason. To chase hookers. This kind of hypocrisy is frowned upon, yet mostly tolerated. Men can be forgiven. Women, not so much.

Regardless if the brothers were hypocritical they felt killing Americans was something Allah demanded. Perhaps it might help cleanse their souls. A few less infidels in the world to them was a blessing from Allah and part of his will. Most Muslims don't think of death like we do. They figure it's all preordained.

We may have a breakthrough here -- I don't disagree with any of this. There's no doubt they had such motives. But without that motive expressed outwardly, we don't have an act of terrorism, that's all I'm saying. There's a difference between terrorism (a public political statement) and simple vengeance (which is personal). It can't be terrorism if it's constrained to the personal.

Ergo -- CNN was correct not to jump on the 'terrorism' bandwagon. Which is all it is.

I think in this case they may have had personal animus but used religion as an excuse. Regardless, the effect is the same.

 

[Pogo]

The fact that you don't get the message does not mean they didn't have one, why is that so hard for you to understand? Does the fact that you don't get it mean I am not actually telling you?

It's not that *I* don't get it. Terrorism doesn't exist for "me". It's that WE don't get it.

Nobody here has been able to articulate what that message was. I'm the one saying that that's because no such message exists.

We who? I get the message of terrorism, they hate. That is their only message, even if they dress it up in pretty clothes for people like you that need pretty clothes to see things.

"We" = us, we the people, the public. No message conveyed to the public. "We hate" doesn't make a message without an object in the sentence. That's the missing element.
"We hate" what? People who run in races?

 

[Pogo]

You're confusing mob mentality with common-sense.

Now you're probably gonna make fun of the phrase because it's used in so many instances when arguing with a liberal. For some reason using common-sense is something to ridicule these days. I guess it's because it doesn't evolve enough mental gymnastics to be a valid concept.

You keep asking for us to prove something that is simply common-sense. Well, that's the point. Common-sense is something that doesn't need proving.......unless you're a person that won't accept common-sense. Your examples of what is terrorism doesn't work because it requires a biased viewpoint. However those of us who oppose your views on what is terrorism don't have the bias you obviously exhibit. Personally, I think you're just trying to argue a point that has little or nothing to do with the topic in order to distract folks. Start a discussion on an unrelated issue and you figure you're winning. I've seen this used too many times for it not to be on purpose. You are a classic time-waster. Sorry if I haven't invented a better word for what you are.

Now, you're gonna say something like "you just can't argue the point effectively".

Am I right?

Actually I have and others have. You just won't acknowledge it. If you did then you would lose the argument, and you can't have that.

Now I expect you'll have something to say about how stupid I am, how angry I am, or how I can't face the fact that I can't prove my point. Well, you can take a horse to water but you can't make them drink. Same goes for know-it-alls that can't face the truth.

*patiently waiting for your smarmy response*

No, you're not right. For one thing I came here, as I always do, out of an interest in media, which is my particular area of interest-- not to rehash this old topic. Nothing would make me happier than to get back on the topic -- which is, again, where I started here until the CNN nonsense came up. So I have no interest in distracting away from an area of my own interest.

I haven't used the term common sense but it is my very basis here. I don't really care if the masses believe Nero fiddled while Rome burned since I know what he played was a lyre. Once I know better I don't see a point in retreating to fables. So no I'm not confusing mob mentality with common sense; on the contrary I'm drawing a contrast between them.

The bottom line on this grand tangent, where we started, is the question of whether CNN was being less than honest in declining to describe the Boston bombing as "terrorism". I have demonstrated that they were not, in that there was no reason to term it thus. And AFAIK nobody else was describing it that way either in the moment. Because once again, the object of terrorism is to strike fear into the public mind. You can't really do that retroactively and say, "oh by the way that bombing a few weeks ago? that was terrorism, so be afraid, be retroactively afraid". Doesn't work. I think the burden of proof remains where it always did, with you, since you made the assertion that their declining to jump on the terrorism bandwagon was somehow irresponsible. I don't see where you've done that.

(/offtopic)

What I don't get is, since you insist that you live in the real world, and never pay attention to fables, why you insist that CNN didn't describe the bombing as terrorism. Here is an article posted to their website the day of the attack, and it uses the word terrorism to describe it.

Terrorism strikes Boston Marathon as bombs kill 3, wound scores - CNN.com

Like I said earlier, the fact that you don't get the message does not mean the message does not exist.

Because this entire grand tangent is based on Mudwhistle's point brought in from a site called "hot air", that CNN was "not being honest" when it declined to characterize Boston as terrorism. If they later succumbed to unthinking mob mentality, then that's to their discredit (and at this point we can call them less than honest).

But this whole tangent derives from that point in time. You'll have to ask Mudwhistle where it is or get him to re-link. It's not worth my time. So as far as the existence of a message, you and yours can go on proclaiming the Emperor's new clothes are fabulous but I can still see he's naked. And so can you if you care to look.

Bottom line, there's only one reason to characterize an event that isn't terrorism as terrorism, and that is that it creates fear, and fear sells papers. Look up at the puppet strings once in a while.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's not that *I* don't get it. Terrorism doesn't exist for "me". It's that WE don't get it.

Nobody here has been able to articulate what that message was. I'm the one saying that that's because no such message exists.

We who? I get the message of terrorism, they hate. That is their only message, even if they dress it up in pretty clothes for people like you that need pretty clothes to see things.

"We" = us, we the people, the public. No message conveyed to the public. "We hate" doesn't make a message without an object in the sentence. That's the missing element.
"We hate" what? People who run in races?

I get the message, so does 99.999999% of the public. Your "WE" is entirely restricted to you and the guy you see in the mirror.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, you're not right. For one thing I came here, as I always do, out of an interest in media, which is my particular area of interest-- not to rehash this old topic. Nothing would make me happier than to get back on the topic -- which is, again, where I started here until the CNN nonsense came up. So I have no interest in distracting away from an area of my own interest.

I haven't used the term common sense but it is my very basis here. I don't really care if the masses believe Nero fiddled while Rome burned since I know what he played was a lyre. Once I know better I don't see a point in retreating to fables. So no I'm not confusing mob mentality with common sense; on the contrary I'm drawing a contrast between them.

The bottom line on this grand tangent, where we started, is the question of whether CNN was being less than honest in declining to describe the Boston bombing as "terrorism". I have demonstrated that they were not, in that there was no reason to term it thus. And AFAIK nobody else was describing it that way either in the moment. Because once again, the object of terrorism is to strike fear into the public mind. You can't really do that retroactively and say, "oh by the way that bombing a few weeks ago? that was terrorism, so be afraid, be retroactively afraid". Doesn't work. I think the burden of proof remains where it always did, with you, since you made the assertion that their declining to jump on the terrorism bandwagon was somehow irresponsible. I don't see where you've done that.

(/offtopic)

What I don't get is, since you insist that you live in the real world, and never pay attention to fables, why you insist that CNN didn't describe the bombing as terrorism. Here is an article posted to their website the day of the attack, and it uses the word terrorism to describe it.

Terrorism strikes Boston Marathon as bombs kill 3, wound scores - CNN.com

Like I said earlier, the fact that you don't get the message does not mean the message does not exist.

Because this entire grand tangent is based on Mudwhistle's point brought in from a site called "hot air", that CNN was "not being honest" when it declined to characterize Boston as terrorism. If they later succumbed to unthinking mob mentality, then that's to their discredit (and at this point we can call them less than honest).

But this whole tangent derives from that point in time. You'll have to ask Mudwhistle where it is or get him to re-link. It's not worth my time. So as far as the existence of a message, you and yours can go on proclaiming the Emperor's new clothes are fabulous but I can still see he's naked. And so can you if you care to look.

Bottom line, there's only one reason to characterize an event that isn't terrorism as terrorism, and that is that it creates fear, and fear sells papers. Look up at the puppet strings once in a while.

Funny, I saw you arguing that the fact that they didn't call it terrorism proves it wasn't terrorism. Now you are blaming it all on someone else, and still saying that everyone who calls terrorism terrorism is part of an unthinking mob.

 

[Pogo]

We who? I get the message of terrorism, they hate. That is their only message, even if they dress it up in pretty clothes for people like you that need pretty clothes to see things.

"We" = us, we the people, the public. No message conveyed to the public. "We hate" doesn't make a message without an object in the sentence. That's the missing element.
"We hate" what? People who run in races?

I get the message, so does 99.999999% of the public. Your "WE" is entirely restricted to you and the guy you see in the mirror.

Then why did nobody call it terrorism until after the brothers' ramblings had been dug up?

Because they didn't leave a message, that's why. No message, not terrorism. When we have to dig it up after the fact, that's not a message. That's us making up a story.

Want proof?
If you "got the message" --- who did you get it from?


Exactly.

 

[Pogo]

What I don't get is, since you insist that you live in the real world, and never pay attention to fables, why you insist that CNN didn't describe the bombing as terrorism. Here is an article posted to their website the day of the attack, and it uses the word terrorism to describe it.

Terrorism strikes Boston Marathon as bombs kill 3, wound scores - CNN.com

Like I said earlier, the fact that you don't get the message does not mean the message does not exist.

Because this entire grand tangent is based on Mudwhistle's point brought in from a site called "hot air", that CNN was "not being honest" when it declined to characterize Boston as terrorism. If they later succumbed to unthinking mob mentality, then that's to their discredit (and at this point we can call them less than honest).

But this whole tangent derives from that point in time. You'll have to ask Mudwhistle where it is or get him to re-link. It's not worth my time. So as far as the existence of a message, you and yours can go on proclaiming the Emperor's new clothes are fabulous but I can still see he's naked. And so can you if you care to look.

Bottom line, there's only one reason to characterize an event that isn't terrorism as terrorism, and that is that it creates fear, and fear sells papers. Look up at the puppet strings once in a while.

Funny, I saw you arguing that the fact that they didn't call it terrorism proves it wasn't terrorism. Now you are blaming it all on someone else, and still saying that everyone who calls terrorism terrorism is part of an unthinking mob.

That makes no sense at all.

I never argued that what anyone calls it or doesn't call it makes it anything. I argued that there's a definition for terrorism, and this event does not meet it.

"Blaming someone else" for what? No idea what the fuck you're babbling about here. Nor have I alluded to an "unthinking mob". On the contrary, a news purveyor using the terrorism bandwagon isn't unthinking at all, it's calculated manipulation. And as we said way back, CNN is not particularly good at that. OTOH Fox Noise is. That's why they're, to finally reach back to your OP, "number one". Because fear and loathing sells.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"We" = us, we the people, the public. No message conveyed to the public. "We hate" doesn't make a message without an object in the sentence. That's the missing element.
"We hate" what? People who run in races?

I get the message, so does 99.999999% of the public. Your "WE" is entirely restricted to you and the guy you see in the mirror.

Then why did nobody call it terrorism until after the brothers' ramblings had been dug up?

Because they didn't leave a message, that's why. No message, not terrorism. When we have to dig it up after the fact, that's not a message. That's us making up a story.

CNN called it terrorism the day of the attack, long before anyone knew who the bombers were, much less dug up their ramblings.

Ultimate Pogo fail.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Because this entire grand tangent is based on Mudwhistle's point brought in from a site called "hot air", that CNN was "not being honest" when it declined to characterize Boston as terrorism. If they later succumbed to unthinking mob mentality, then that's to their discredit (and at this point we can call them less than honest).

But this whole tangent derives from that point in time. You'll have to ask Mudwhistle where it is or get him to re-link. It's not worth my time. So as far as the existence of a message, you and yours can go on proclaiming the Emperor's new clothes are fabulous but I can still see he's naked. And so can you if you care to look.

Bottom line, there's only one reason to characterize an event that isn't terrorism as terrorism, and that is that it creates fear, and fear sells papers. Look up at the puppet strings once in a while.

Funny, I saw you arguing that the fact that they didn't call it terrorism proves it wasn't terrorism. Now you are blaming it all on someone else, and still saying that everyone who calls terrorism terrorism is part of an unthinking mob.

That makes no sense at all.

I never argued that what anyone calls it or doesn't call it makes it anything. I argued that there's a definition for terrorism, and this event does not meet it.

"Blaming someone else" for what? No idea what the fuck you're babbling about here. Nor have I alluded to an "unthinking mob". On the contrary, a news purveyor using the terrorism bandwagon isn't unthinking at all, it's calculated manipulation. And as we said way back, CNN is not particularly good at that. OTOH Fox Noise is. That's why they're, to finally reach back to your OP, "number one". Because fear and loathing sells.

Yes, there is a definition of terrorism, and the Boston marathon bombing meets it.

...the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).

Try again.

 

[Pogo]

I get the message, so does 99.999999% of the public. Your "WE" is entirely restricted to you and the guy you see in the mirror.

Then why did nobody call it terrorism until after the brothers' ramblings had been dug up?

Because they didn't leave a message, that's why. No message, not terrorism. When we have to dig it up after the fact, that's not a message. That's us making up a story.

CNN called it terrorism the day of the attack, long before anyone knew who the bombers were, much less dug up their ramblings.

Ultimate Pogo fail.

I didn't say they didn't. Mudwhistle did. I already told you that.

Ultimate Windbag failure (fail is a verb).

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Then why did nobody call it terrorism until after the brothers' ramblings had been dug up?

Because they didn't leave a message, that's why. No message, not terrorism. When we have to dig it up after the fact, that's not a message. That's us making up a story.

CNN called it terrorism the day of the attack, long before anyone knew who the bombers were, much less dug up their ramblings.

Ultimate Pogo fail.

I didn't say they didn't. Mudwhistle did. I already told you that.

Ultimate Windbag failure (fail is a verb).

I was wrong, the previous post wasn't the ultimate Pogo fail.