kelly09 said:

---

Blueblood said:

---

kelly09 said:

---

Blueblood said:

---

kelly09 said:

---

Blueblood said:

---

I hope O'Kelly09 doesn't get too much black paint on his brown shirt!

---

Yep, BB< you pegged me....I'm a Nazi.

---

Finally, real, not fake, news! But, hey, I'm only joshing you. I think you'd look better in your white hood.

---

And you are an *******!

---

******* =We know you mean A-lister , asswipe

I do have a question for you, asswipe, do you sleep with your hood on or just a cross?

---

The hood. But I wear it backwards so I don't wake up and see your mom.

---

Well, now I see why you don't know your own mom so well. My mom was only substituting for her that onetime you accidentally had your hood on the right way....you poor asswipe....AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAAA

One private school teen has become more important than millions without paychecks.
Ultra right wingers are winning the media shutdown war with stories like this.

FWIW, missed by what media I saw today, was Notice from OPM that workers not reporting for work will be recorded as AWOL. Basically those employees who can no longer subsidize their president by borrowing money to report to work are subject to firing without retirement and back pay for the shutdown period. As expected with unplanned POTUS actions, no firm standard policy is mandated; each agency can make their own standards. Expect higher paid employees to be forgiven, working class to be terminated.

AWOL is a very serious employee offense, no excuses.

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

The Grand Wizard of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave has only a slightly lower approval rating than Convington High teen in black face.

---

If we're lucky, the GW will blame Miller and give him the heave ho: You're fired!

bearister said:

---

Bearister +! +1

Gram and Emmylou my very favorites

---

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

---

****ry

GoOskie said:

---

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

---

****ry

---

Hahahahahaa....nice oink....that's how asswipe would spell it alright....

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

---

I like country. Loved the 70's LA sound (Linda R, Eagles, Poco, PPL) and the 80's. Oh, and I have had SF symphony season tickets for 15 years. And I love all Cal songs. Season tickets since before most of you were born.

kelly09 said:

---

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

---

I like country. Loved the 70's LA sound (Linda R, Eagles, Poco, PPL) and the 80's. Oh, and I have had SF symphony season tickets for 15 years. And I love all Cal songs. Season tickets since before most of you were born.

---

Hey buttface, we have something in common. I had SF symphony season tickets - up on stage, stage left!

Blueblood said:

---

kelly09 said:

---

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

---

I like country. Loved the 70's LA sound (Linda R, Eagles, Poco, PPL) and the 80's. Oh, and I have had SF symphony season tickets for 15 years. And I love all Cal songs. Season tickets since before most of you were born.

---

Hey buttface, we have something in common. I had SF symphony season tickets - up on stage, stage left!

---

I don't think so.

bluedud is at it again...

AunBear89 said:

---

bluedud is at it again...

---

Nice contribution, aUNbear. It's right up your alley! AHAHAHHHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAA

Cal88 said:

---

blungld said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

blungld said:

---

Whoever started or whatever the surrounding context, all I need to see is that kid's face. I could write an entire essay on what that face symbolizes and the dangerous psychology it embodies, but this is a better job than I could do. The line that his face says "I will always win" nails it: That face.

I can only hope that he some day reaches a place of true shame about his younger self.

---

The Slate article you've linked is grossly misrepresenting what went down:

Quote:

---

A video clip of a white teenager harassing a Native American elder instantly became one of the most viscerally enraging images of an era that has offered no shortage of them.

In the clip, captured during the Indigenous Peoples March in Washington on Friday, an elderly Native American man beats a drum and quietly sings, and a small group of activists and allies can be seen in the crowd behind him

---

Slate is clearly lying, they imply that the elderly man was quietly beating a drum and got accosted by a bunch of racist white teens, when in fact the video posted above showed that it was the drummer and his group that came up to the crowd of teenagers, and that the drummer invaded the personal space of the kid with the MAGA hat, propping up his drum and stroking it an inch or two from the kid's face. This was a pretty confrontational move on his part, his group was seeking confrontation with the pro-life HS kids.

The kid was also confrontational in a passive-aggressive way, standing his ground and smirking, but he did not initiate this face-off, nor did he or his mates block the group of protestors that came up to them.



When you say "all you need to see is the kid's face" in order to decide who is guilty, it really shows your personal prejudices; the white flyover Trump supporter kid is of course automatically guilty.

Here's the statement from this kid, Nick Sandmann, about this incident, he actually comes across as a pretty well-adjusted young man:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/20/us/covington-kentucky-student-statement/index.html?ofs=fbia

---

My statement wasn't about who is "guilty" or who "started it." I thought I made that clear. I don't know that. What I do know is how the kid presented himself and what that body language and smirk means. No after the fact press release changes what he thought was appropriate in the moment, what it meant to his boys, and the other options he chose not to pursue. You can say all sweetly that I was just standing there, but no he wasn't just standing there. Like the third grader who claims "I'm not touching you" isn't just not touching you.

---

He was just standing there, that much is clear in the videos.

You're basically accusing that kid of facecrime, which is in Newspeak, the act of being guilty of a thought crime based on his facial expression.

---

Nice Orwell reference

Anarchistbear said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

blungld said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

blungld said:

---

Whoever started or whatever the surrounding context, all I need to see is that kid's face. I could write an entire essay on what that face symbolizes and the dangerous psychology it embodies, but this is a better job than I could do. The line that his face says "I will always win" nails it: That face.

I can only hope that he some day reaches a place of true shame about his younger self.

---

The Slate article you've linked is grossly misrepresenting what went down:

Quote:

---

A video clip of a white teenager harassing a Native American elder instantly became one of the most viscerally enraging images of an era that has offered no shortage of them.

In the clip, captured during the Indigenous Peoples March in Washington on Friday, an elderly Native American man beats a drum and quietly sings, and a small group of activists and allies can be seen in the crowd behind him

---

Slate is clearly lying, they imply that the elderly man was quietly beating a drum and got accosted by a bunch of racist white teens, when in fact the video posted above showed that it was the drummer and his group that came up to the crowd of teenagers, and that the drummer invaded the personal space of the kid with the MAGA hat, propping up his drum and stroking it an inch or two from the kid's face. This was a pretty confrontational move on his part, his group was seeking confrontation with the pro-life HS kids.

The kid was also confrontational in a passive-aggressive way, standing his ground and smirking, but he did not initiate this face-off, nor did he or his mates block the group of protestors that came up to them.



When you say "all you need to see is the kid's face" in order to decide who is guilty, it really shows your personal prejudices; the white flyover Trump supporter kid is of course automatically guilty.

Here's the statement from this kid, Nick Sandmann, about this incident, he actually comes across as a pretty well-adjusted young man:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/20/us/covington-kentucky-student-statement/index.html?ofs=fbia

---

My statement wasn't about who is "guilty" or who "started it." I thought I made that clear. I don't know that. What I do know is how the kid presented himself and what that body language and smirk means. No after the fact press release changes what he thought was appropriate in the moment, what it meant to his boys, and the other options he chose not to pursue. You can say all sweetly that I was just standing there, but no he wasn't just standing there. Like the third grader who claims "I'm not touching you" isn't just not touching you.

---

He was just standing there, that much is clear in the videos.

You're basically accusing that kid of facecrime, which is in Newspeak, the act of being guilty of a thought crime based on his facial expression.

---

Nice Orwell reference

---

Wait, did blungld suggest the kid be arrested for a crime and found guilty?

If so, sorry I missed it. If not, what a deceptive analogy.

He basically said the kid's face represented a dangerous psychology and then recommended the Slate article below as saying it better than he could.

The analogy is not ridiculous in the context of Orwell and 1984 where facial expressions are monitored and not used by the state to determine a crime but to determine your loyalty to the narrative- in this case white MAGA kids= Nazis= Bull Connor. The absence of loyalty to the cultural norm is a "crime."

Here is Slate:

"The face is in this photo of a clutch of white young men crowding around a single black man at a lunch counter sit-in in Virginia in the 1960s, and in many other images of jeering white men from that era. The face is the rows of Wisconsin high school boys flashing Nazi salutes in a prom picture last year. The face is Brett Kavanaughthen a student at an all-boys Catholic prep school"drunkenly laughing" as he allegedly held down Christine Blasey Ford. Anyone who knew the popular white boys in high school recognized it: the confident gaze, the eyes twinkling with menace, the smirk. The face of a boy who is not as smart as he thinks he is, but is exactly as powerful. The face that sneers, "What? I'm just standing here," if you flinch or cry or lash out. The face knows that no matter how you react, it wins. "

Anarchistbear said:

---

He basically said the kid's face represented a dangerous psychology and then recommended the Slate article below as saying it better than he could.

The analogy is not ridiculous in the context of Orwell and 1984 where facial expressions are monitored and not used by the state to determine a crime but to determine your loyalty to the narrative- in this case white MAGA kids= Nazis= Bull Connor. The absence of loyalty to the cultural norm is a "crime."

Here is Slate:

"The face is in this photo of a clutch of white young men crowding around a single black man at a lunch counter sit-in in Virginia in the 1960s, and in many other images of jeering white men from that era. The face is the rows of Wisconsin high school boys flashing Nazi salutes in a prom picture last year. The face is Brett Kavanaughthen a student at an all-boys Catholic prep school"drunkenly laughing" as he allegedly held down Christine Blasey Ford. Anyone who knew the popular white boys in high school recognized it: the confident gaze, the eyes twinkling with menace, the smirk. The face of a boy who is not as smart as he thinks he is, but is exactly as powerful. The face that sneers, "What? I'm just standing here," if you flinch or cry or lash out. The face knows that no matter how you react, it wins. "

---

Nope. Ridiculous analogy.

Neither blungld nor Slate are the state. Nor are they calling for the state to monitor for loyalty to their own viewpoint or to visit any negative consequences on the kid. No one is chanting Lock Him Up.

It's a good analogy. Blungold condemns and demonizes these kids based on " the smirk" ; the smirk that leads to Nazis, white supremacy and sexual assault. It's a provincial, intolerant and a recklessly vicious narrative which is exactly what Orwell warned about- the monitoring of expressions to pre- determine intent.. The "state" of course in this case is the reactionary media- both left and right that publish these lies as truth.

And a lot of people are wishing harm upon him.

Provincial and intolerant? Could be.

I didn't care for the Slate article myself.

Orwellian? Nope. If venting and commiserating about a perceived (by them) smug ******* who represents other perceived smug ******* is Orwellian, then there is absolutely tons of that on both sides. Crosses the line when people wish to visit harm or for the state to prosecute.

Doubt blungld (or Slate) want the NSA to be tracking the kid as a potential dissident or something. They just strenuously disapprove.

I think you underestimate the power of the internet mob. Harassment, threats, vicious behavior and ruined lives are common. Kavanaugh's accuser is one example. But she was at least attacked for what she said and did. Turning the mob on someone for a facial expression is Orwellian, a " face crime", the term he coined.

Anarchistbear said:

---

I think you underestimate the power of the internet mob. Harassment, threats, vicious behavior and ruined lives are common. Kavanaugh's accuser is one example. But she was at least attacked for what she said and did. Turning the mob on someone for a facial expression is Orwellian, a " face crime", the term he coined.

---

Holy shifted goalposts. Still not Orwellian. Not facecrime.

If you are worried about this kid getting harassed on the Internet, ok. But please stop it with the Orwell just because that's also something you don't like.

AunBear89 said:

---

bluedud is at it again...

---

He's welcome if he wants to shtt all over trump on is owed.
I welcome the hatred.

Anarchistbear said:

---

I think you underestimate the power of the internet mob. Harassment, threats, vicious behavior and ruined lives are common. Kavanaugh's accuser is one example. But she was at least attacked for what she said and did. Turning the mob on someone for a facial expression is Orwellian, a " face crime", the term he coined.

---

Here's a face crime that daddy should have smacked from existence about 60 years ago!

Another face crime

Anarchistbear said:

---

It's a good analogy. Blungold condemns and demonizes these kids based on " the smirk" ; the smirk that leads to Nazis, white supremacy and sexual assault. It's a provincial, intolerant and a recklessly vicious narrative which is exactly what Orwell warned about- the monitoring of expressions to pre- determine intent.. The "state" of course in this case is the reactionary media- both left and right that publish these lies as truth.

And a lot of people are wishing harm upon him.

---

Seriously, what are you talking about? You just went off on a tangent that so mischaracterizes what I said and what I think. Let's see, we have a Straw Man, an Appeal to Extremes, A Slippery Slope, and a Hasty Generalization.

If you want to be careful passing quick judgements on people and worried about the kid's safety, fine. But cool it on the misdirection and misrepresentation. State your own position, don't restate mine.

OneKeg said:

---

Provincial and intolerant? Could be.

I didn't care for the Slate article myself.

Orwellian? Nope. If venting and commiserating about a perceived (by them) smug ******* who represents other perceived smug ******* is Orwellian, then there is absolutely tons of that on both sides. Crosses the line when people wish to visit harm or for the state to prosecute.

Doubt blungld (or Slate) want the NSA to be tracking the kid as a potential dissident or something. They just strenuously disapprove.

---

Let me go on the record to state something completely self-evident: I don't want the guy tracked or arrested for thought crimes. What an absurd conclusion. Yeah, Liberals generally are very pro-arresting people for their thoughts and facial expressions and police states.

That was funny. About as funny as the wife of my cousin who for the past 24 hours has been posting a bunch of homo and trans phobic bullshtt on Facebook and wrapping it all up in bible speak.

Oh my god. I thought these types died off in the 1960's.
It is truly frightening.
My uncle and I added comments trying to get her to step away from the edge, and I swear she is suggesting thru her quotations of bible verses that we are like the devil, appearing in many different forms to tempt her away from her faith. If I went any further, I think my cousin would have to either divorce her of swear off this branch of family. Poor guy, they are trapped deep in the heart of Texas bible country. Brainwashed.

Compassion, I think, is the answer.
It's tough, how does one cope with "hate speech"?
I guess like the one guy, "I'm out!"

blungld said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

It's a good analogy. Blungold condemns and demonizes these kids based on " the smirk" ; the smirk that leads to Nazis, white supremacy and sexual assault. It's a provincial, intolerant and a recklessly vicious narrative which is exactly what Orwell warned about- the monitoring of expressions to pre- determine intent.. The "state" of course in this case is the reactionary media- both left and right that publish these lies as truth.

And a lot of people are wishing harm upon him.

---

Seriously, what are you talking about? You just went off on a tangent that so mischaracterizes what I said and what I think. Let's see, we have a Straw Man, an Appeal to Extremes, A Slippery Slope, and a Hasty Generalization.

If you want to be careful passing quick judgements on people and worried about the kid's safety, fine. But cool it on the misdirection and misrepresentation. State your own position, don't restate mine.

---

The Slate article you linked as saying it better than you could stated the kid's face was the face of southern white men staring at blacks in lunch counters, the face of kid's doing nazi salutes, the face of drunken Brett Kavanaugh laughing as he held down Christine Ford. It also described the face as "punchable."

Do you agree with that or not?

blungld said:

---

OneKeg said:

---

Provincial and intolerant? Could be.

I didn't care for the Slate article myself.

Orwellian? Nope. If venting and commiserating about a perceived (by them) smug ******* who represents other perceived smug ******* is Orwellian, then there is absolutely tons of that on both sides. Crosses the line when people wish to visit harm or for the state to prosecute.

Doubt blungld (or Slate) want the NSA to be tracking the kid as a potential dissident or something. They just strenuously disapprove.

---

Let me go on the record to state something completely self-evident: I don't want the guy tracked or arrested for thought crimes. What an absurd conclusion. Yeah, Liberals generally are very pro-arresting people for their thoughts and facial expressions and police states.

---

Yep. Despite generally agreeing with your politics, I didn't necessarily agree with the Slate article, nor your take on the MAGA kid, but Cal88 and AnarchistBear provided a good laugh with their Orwell gambit.

Killing and jailing your opponents like Putin? Orwellian.

Dismembering journalists who opposed you with a bone saw like the Saudi crown prince did? In the Orwellian ballpark.

Using the bully pulpit to call the free press the enemy of the people? Would show promising Orwellian tendencies if not for the sheer incompetence that has gone with it.

Caging children at the border? Not sure even Orwell thought of that.

But no, the thing that will lead us to a state-controlled 1984 dystopia is some random liberals talking and writing unhappily about the MAGA kid. Lol.

Maybe next time one of the hedge fund Republicans in my overall group of friends posts a photo of a smug-looking liberal Hollywood celebrity, complaining that they represent everything that is wrong with the libtard coastal elite, I won't just ask if they had one espresso too many this morning. Instead, I'll exclaim that they are accusing Clooney or whoever of facecrime! That they are Orwellian, and pretty soon we're all going to love Rupert Murd... ah Big Brother! I meant Big Brother!

Should be fun.

Anarchistbear said:

---

blungld said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

It's a good analogy. Blungold condemns and demonizes these kids based on " the smirk" ; the smirk that leads to Nazis, white supremacy and sexual assault. It's a provincial, intolerant and a recklessly vicious narrative which is exactly what Orwell warned about- the monitoring of expressions to pre- determine intent.. The "state" of course in this case is the reactionary media- both left and right that publish these lies as truth.

And a lot of people are wishing harm upon him.

---

Seriously, what are you talking about? You just went off on a tangent that so mischaracterizes what I said and what I think. Let's see, we have a Straw Man, an Appeal to Extremes, A Slippery Slope, and a Hasty Generalization.

If you want to be careful passing quick judgements on people and worried about the kid's safety, fine. But cool it on the misdirection and misrepresentation. State your own position, don't restate mine.

---

The Slate article you linked as saying it better than you could stated the kid's face was the face of southern white men staring at blacks in lunch counters, the face of kid's doing nazi salutes, the face of drunken Brett Kavanaugh laughing as he held down Christine Ford. It also described the face as "punchable."

Do you agree with that or not?

---

Yes, it is that "face." And in the sweep of human events we have iconic photographs that come to symbolize deep and complex meaning. That meaning and what it precipitates in social movements and change for the better takes on meaning often not directly corresponding to the subject. Meaning, I obviously do not know that kid, who he actually is is almost irrelevant (though I am willing to bet he is a bit of a tool). I have no interest in him, in arresting him, in harming him (I want him safe and well-protected)...but his face is a representation of a darkness in the country that has emerged. I can identify it. Most Americans see it too. Thank God we do and are willing to soul search about what that means about our country, our government and the national debate.

What my observation of that face doesn't mean is that you should toss some stupid half-baked Orwell accusation at people looking to protect and defend freedom, not limit it. That is utter BS.

What utter nonsense. Get over yourself. You aren't protecting s$it with your self-righteous face whispering.

Anarchistbear said:

---

What utter nonsense. Get over yourself. You aren't protecting s$it with your self-righteous face whispering.

---

I haven't said anything personal about you. And if I am a little self-righteous I am okay with erring on this side of the argument. The nonsense written was yours. I called you out on a really poor analogy and an inexcusable accusation.