Hi, Right. Left here. We've been doing this stuff for awhile. We should get a beer sometime, chat about what you can really expect from whole this protest thing.
The Fox News/Townhall.com crowd protesting KGW for some sort of "incomplete" coverage? Priceless. It's true--these people never fail to entertain.
Also, I'm glad the tea bag movement has so greatly advanced since its inception that the best thing they can find to do today is protest local media coverage from six months ago. How progressive, people! Any other regtrograde protesting you'd like to get off your chest? How about that community college professor who sneered at your Laroucheian politics back in the early 90's?
These guys crack me up. I love how they really have no idea that they're destroying their own party. They should create a co-blog with Michael Steele and they can call it, "What Up Home Skillet Honkey Crackers."
What's funny is that this is precisely the type of coverage one expects from the Mercury, but one can no longer tell where the Mercury ends and CNN or The Oregonian begin.
The thing is, BlackedOut, they do want to destroy their party in it's current incarnation. They actually think that if the GOP is brought back to its "conservative roots" that people will magically jump back on the bandwagon. They are delusional in every way.
I say let them keep up their "RINO" witch hunt and run any centrist GOP candidate with an inkling of hope to get elected out of town (wherever that may be).
I think a lot of the teabaggers problem is that they are called that and so the topic can't be discussed in a family friendly news media. I'd blame Savage for it, (much like Santorum no longer being a PG word,) except that I'm fairly sure the teabaggers did it to themselves by not looking on Google before they picked their name. Which, among other things, gives you a good idea of who they are: Old white guys that don't know how to use computers.
Re: attendance at the Fox News 9/12 Rally in Washington, ABC News says it was much closer to 70,000, even though one of the organizers announced that they reported a much larger figure, then had to retract it (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/protest-cro…). Even Michelle Malkin only cited a 1.2 million figure. And this jackass goes ahead and doubles it, much like he did for his own crowd. Maybe you have to have double vision to be a teabagger.
@DemonJuice: What? Never! Just because he remember how he took the picture for his business card, he still referred to himself in the third person so it couldn't possibly be.
@demonjuice & geoff: The date stamp on the photo this dude used for his business card (can we just stop for a moment and acknowledge how tacky his business card is? These people definately aren't Nazis because the Nazis had some good graphic designers working for them) is from four years ago. In the time between the old photo and the photos from Friday, Jeffy R seems to have added an extra chin and quite a bit of cheek mass. I'm guessing he's put on weight due to depression ever since the Republicans lost control of congress in 2006.
@LT1800: How do you respond to the fact that your accusations towards KGW of ignoring your protests were all proven false? That's gotta be embarassing.
And could your provide a source that states that there were more than 80,000 attendees at the September Tea Party protests in DC?
These people are nuts. They want the country we formed in 1776 with 317 million people roaming around, packing heat, defending their claim. It can't possibly work like that again. Taxes buy civilization. Teabaggers have idealized a bygone era into a politcal movement that is annoying but has literally no hope of going anywhere. The ship left the harbor about a hundred years ago.
I would actually just like to protest KGW. They have got to be the worst local news in Portland. "Whats new on youtube?" "Look at these bagels!" "What does the hack circle outside our window think?"
@graham: Flashing a piece of paper in my face for 1.5 seconds on live TV and asking me to respond to the "data" that "proves" their point on the spot isn't exactly doing anyone a lot of good in the journalistic sense. A search of KGW online archives proves our point.
@Suburban Porn King, I bet you have all sorts of fascinating insights into Constitutional Law.
@?pqM ... You have no historic perspective. The public education system has failed you. Your parents failed you as well. I would be very angry if I were you. Google, "Indentured Servitude".
Your group claimed that KGW didn't cover your protests ("Nobody covered our Tea Party protest in April,"). They responded by telling you that they did. And they did. (http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_…) You didn't show any due diligence by checking your accusations before you made them.
@LT1800 - While I'm not a lawyer, I have read the US Constitution many times and I have my pocket version (courtesty of the CATO Institute) right here.
It's nice to hear all the comments about idealogy, policy, etc. To those who have expressed your disagreements with the Tea Party message, you are missing the same boat at the media. This is about a simple question: "Should we cover 7,000 people gathered in Pioneer Square for a Tea Party, or 7,000 people gathered in Pioneer Square for a Blazer event, or both?" True ethics in journalistic reporting would include BOTH.
@elGordo: When on the phone with the Oregonian, surrounded by a mass of people, and asked to give an estimate, there is no time to do an exact headcount. Relax!
@Graham: First, KGW's ammunition was documentation that they reported at 6:30pm on an event outside their studio. Quite impressive when the masses were still pouring in well after 7:00pm, and reaching up to 7,000. Reporting on an event before it starts? Nice.
Second, disputed numbers aside, all you had to do was open your own eyes and take a look at the 9/12 D.C. event to come up with a number in the multiple hundreds of thousands at first glance alone. Try it.
@pacificrk: There were 53, not 7,000. If the news media showed up everytime there were more than 53 people doing something, then they'd need to cover most weddings, a lot of birthday parties, and many restaurants during mealtime.
As for the "message" of those people: They are hungry. Just imagine the promo rolls for that: "Why are people eating dinner today? Our in depth investing on the human body and its need for energy." As for the story, they could interview people: "Yeah, I was driving by this Taco Bell, and I though, a taco sounds nice, so I got one. Who knew that there were as many like minded individuals that also wanted a taco at dinner time? By the way, I'm not making that up, I really did want a taco. Now who do I talk to about getting a reality TV show?"
@Suburban Porn King - LOL I won't have to forgo SSI or Medicare, that will all be bankrupt and gone forever by the time I'm old. Of course, we'll be servicing that debt forever and ever, so at least we'll have something to remember them by.
No, but really, that weasel faced lady was perfect! One of the things that you learn growing up with good, understanding, tolerant parents is the whole "can't judge a book by its cover" thing.
And that's a perfectly good rule of thumb. But I gotta tell ya'; the longer I live, the longer I note that 'evil little pinched weasel face' almost always equals 'evil little pinched weasel person'.
This is fascinating. Despite overwhelming evidence proving them wrong, they're still convinced that the news media is ignoring them. And this isn't a belief thing--these are statements of fact. Did every TV news outlet cover their April in-state protests? Yes. It was the lead story in most cases, from what I remember.
That's a fact--a simple, verifiable fact--that destroys their entire premise, yet it doesn't matter. Same goes for their protests on the national scale. The cable networks, at least, covered the big DC protest, and quite probably the broadcast outlets as well. And yet they're all convinced that they're being ignored by the media... despite clear, ample evidence that they're getting coverage.
As I said, it's a fascinating study: Steadfast beliefs that only grow more steadfast as contrary evidence piles up.
Part of it is sheer marketing, brand-building, and dependency propaganda by Fox News and other conservative outlets. Fox just has to convince their viewers that their network is the only one covering their protests (despite this not being true), and by repeating this over and over, they're creating this belief that they can only trust Fox. The "mainstream" is discriminating against them! Persecuting them!
It's an awful lot like an emotionally abusive relationship. Battering, abusive boyfriend convinces girlfriend that nobody else could ever love her, so no matter how horrible he treats her, she sticks around. Loves him even more, in fact.
Yeeesh. I need a shower.
Anyway, LT1800, get the fork over it. They gave your protest--all of your protests--more coverage than you deserved, considering how jumbled, incoherent, and infantile the messages were. Any impartial, objective coverage of the events would have made fun of you for being off your cracker. That KGW considered your viewpoint valid even for a minute is undeservedly generous.
Oh. So what the issue actually was? That bedwetters who don't want to pay their taxes have gotten way more ink and video than plenty of actual homegrown movements who know damn well that they stand a fair chance of getting tear gassed and beaten for being out in the streets.
We're ignoring you, yes. You deserve to be ignored. The media is only starting to catch up to the idea that maybe, just maybe some people need to marginalize themselves in peace.
@suburban porn king (nice moniker btw, your parents must look at you with proud eyes). "Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government. ---James Madison"
We know the ship left harbor, it was called the Wilson administration ... we have the LONG view on this. It wont be today, it wont be tomorrow, but, our view will again win the day because, it is Truth. Your gods are peddling slavery. Enjoy it you drone.
"I always gotta give it up to the clever ones in the crowd: making fun of screen names is exactly the way to go. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise." - rich bachelor TRUTH
"@suburban porn king (nice moniker btw, your parents must look at you with proud eyes)." - geoff EPIC FAIL
It is clear to see that its not the protest but the subject of the protest that gets covered. The media and those socialist in congress do not want true debate on the issues, They are intent on their agenda and will do anything and tell lies to get it through. Many of the comments I read show a total lack of knowledge by those opposed to the "Tea-Baggers" of the issues facing the nation. It is clear to see that they are using the talking points supplied right out of the socialist Obama White House.
@American Freedom: Please provide a list of the socialists(!) in Congress. There is one; Bernie Sanders. You are an over-zealous liar. Please try again.
Also, you should look up what socialism actually is; you seem to be laboring under delusions of false definition.
Socialist = anyone who disagrees with American Freedom's ideas.
@American Freedom
Could your handle be any more cliche? Why not something more descriptive like, "I am the only person in the entire country that knows what is right." I think it has a better ring to it don't you?
Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1837
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
@stu & LT1800: It seems to me that Jeffery would be arguing that BlackedOut and I are correct in chastising American Freedom for accusing Congress of being socialist (with the exception of Bernie Sanders, obviously). Too many Freepers and Tea-baggers accuse the Left of being socialist, when in fact those same Freepers and Tea-baggers would be better served (at least in their own mnds) of accusing the left of being fascists. But really, most of these morons haven't done the requisite research to begin a political debate that doesn't involve immense amounts of stupidity.
And just as a gimme to the People of the Right who make incorrect purjorative claims against the left, the political system that most closely resembles Government Option health care is called, "Welfare State".
"It is clear to see that they are using the talking points supplied right out of the socialist Obama White House." —American Freedom
Uh, YOU, sir/madam, are using the exact same, vague, specious talking points I've heard from the Right over and over and over and over again. It's like a script a telemarketer uses. Even the same words, the same language, the same cliches. Such drone-like remarks lack the conviction that might actually spark an actual dialogue.
Come up with some opinions on your own. Even if they end up being the same as the majority of others from the Right, or teabaggers, or whatnot, just do some thinking on your own, use your own words!
What part of owning GM, Chrysler, BofA, AIG, Citi, potentially health care and energy consumption (via Cap and Trade), et alia, does NOT conform to any of the 3 sub-definitions of socialism cited?
And please, someone explain to me how The Welfare State differs from socialist economic theory.
Really, it's just a bunch of over-priveleged white assholes who are seriously butt-hurt that no one agrees with them.
Even the county's biggest pumpkin is more important than a bunch of jackasses standing outside a building.
Get with it.
Also, I'm glad the tea bag movement has so greatly advanced since its inception that the best thing they can find to do today is protest local media coverage from six months ago. How progressive, people! Any other regtrograde protesting you'd like to get off your chest? How about that community college professor who sneered at your Laroucheian politics back in the early 90's?
I say let them keep up their "RINO" witch hunt and run any centrist GOP candidate with an inkling of hope to get elected out of town (wherever that may be).
And could your provide a source that states that there were more than 80,000 attendees at the September Tea Party protests in DC?
Pathetic news.
@Suburban Porn King, I bet you have all sorts of fascinating insights into Constitutional Law.
I don't think a search of the KGW site proves anything other than that it's a crappy website.
Your group claimed that KGW didn't cover your protests ("Nobody covered our Tea Party protest in April,"). They responded by telling you that they did. And they did. (http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_…) You didn't show any due diligence by checking your accusations before you made them.
You are either a liar or a fool.
I presume you guys will all be forgoing any Social Security or Medicaid benefits when you retire. Now that's protest!
@Graham: First, KGW's ammunition was documentation that they reported at 6:30pm on an event outside their studio. Quite impressive when the masses were still pouring in well after 7:00pm, and reaching up to 7,000. Reporting on an event before it starts? Nice.
Second, disputed numbers aside, all you had to do was open your own eyes and take a look at the 9/12 D.C. event to come up with a number in the multiple hundreds of thousands at first glance alone. Try it.
As for the "message" of those people: They are hungry. Just imagine the promo rolls for that: "Why are people eating dinner today? Our in depth investing on the human body and its need for energy." As for the story, they could interview people: "Yeah, I was driving by this Taco Bell, and I though, a taco sounds nice, so I got one. Who knew that there were as many like minded individuals that also wanted a taco at dinner time? By the way, I'm not making that up, I really did want a taco. Now who do I talk to about getting a reality TV show?"
And that's a perfectly good rule of thumb. But I gotta tell ya'; the longer I live, the longer I note that 'evil little pinched weasel face' almost always equals 'evil little pinched weasel person'.
I'm sure she's very nice, though. Realistic, too.
Weasel faced
Gained a bunch of weight
Tea baggers
Liar
Fool
Hackneyed
Nuts
Tacky
Nazi
Did I get all the invective and pejorative? Don't want to miss anything.
That's a fact--a simple, verifiable fact--that destroys their entire premise, yet it doesn't matter. Same goes for their protests on the national scale. The cable networks, at least, covered the big DC protest, and quite probably the broadcast outlets as well. And yet they're all convinced that they're being ignored by the media... despite clear, ample evidence that they're getting coverage.
As I said, it's a fascinating study: Steadfast beliefs that only grow more steadfast as contrary evidence piles up.
Part of it is sheer marketing, brand-building, and dependency propaganda by Fox News and other conservative outlets. Fox just has to convince their viewers that their network is the only one covering their protests (despite this not being true), and by repeating this over and over, they're creating this belief that they can only trust Fox. The "mainstream" is discriminating against them! Persecuting them!
It's an awful lot like an emotionally abusive relationship. Battering, abusive boyfriend convinces girlfriend that nobody else could ever love her, so no matter how horrible he treats her, she sticks around. Loves him even more, in fact.
Yeeesh. I need a shower.
Anyway, LT1800, get the fork over it. They gave your protest--all of your protests--more coverage than you deserved, considering how jumbled, incoherent, and infantile the messages were. Any impartial, objective coverage of the events would have made fun of you for being off your cracker. That KGW considered your viewpoint valid even for a minute is undeservedly generous.
Anyone?
Answer = 0.
How bout you, Paul, whence does your knowledge emanate?
But really; I don't think Dean Martin was hairy-palmed, not that that's what the issue was, but still...
We're ignoring you, yes. You deserve to be ignored. The media is only starting to catch up to the idea that maybe, just maybe some people need to marginalize themselves in peace.
Civil war be damned.
Who's with me?
Sounds a lot like reality TV chasing parents to me.
We know the ship left harbor, it was called the Wilson administration ... we have the LONG view on this. It wont be today, it wont be tomorrow, but, our view will again win the day because, it is Truth. Your gods are peddling slavery. Enjoy it you drone.
"@suburban porn king (nice moniker btw, your parents must look at you with proud eyes)." - geoff EPIC FAIL
Also, you should look up what socialism actually is; you seem to be laboring under delusions of false definition.
American Freedom's definition of socialist:
Socialist = anyone who disagrees with American Freedom's ideas.
@American Freedom
Could your handle be any more cliche? Why not something more descriptive like, "I am the only person in the entire country that knows what is right." I think it has a better ring to it don't you?
Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1837
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
m-w.com
And just as a gimme to the People of the Right who make incorrect purjorative claims against the left, the political system that most closely resembles Government Option health care is called, "Welfare State".
Uh, YOU, sir/madam, are using the exact same, vague, specious talking points I've heard from the Right over and over and over and over again. It's like a script a telemarketer uses. Even the same words, the same language, the same cliches. Such drone-like remarks lack the conviction that might actually spark an actual dialogue.
Come up with some opinions on your own. Even if they end up being the same as the majority of others from the Right, or teabaggers, or whatnot, just do some thinking on your own, use your own words!
What part of owning GM, Chrysler, BofA, AIG, Citi, potentially health care and energy consumption (via Cap and Trade), et alia, does NOT conform to any of the 3 sub-definitions of socialism cited?
And please, someone explain to me how The Welfare State differs from socialist economic theory.