DescentBB

http://www.freewayblogger.com/index.htm

Some very clever protesting.

My favorite:

We're all wearing the blue dress now.

Classic.

sad thing is every single one of those signs is accurate

No, they're not all accurate.

I guess it depends on your point of view.

Well, I did say "not all" for a reason. Several of them are lies no matter which way you slice them, the others are just an expression of said point of view.

Specify which ones are lies please. I see nearly 100% accuracy there.

Take off the horse-blinders then. There's no truth to a statement (?) like "Rumsfailed." It's name-calling.

Its an accurate representation of how Rummy is performing his duties. He is failing them, miserably.

War Based on Lies and Torture as Policy are inaccurate at best, fabrications at worst. As for the rest of them, they are expressions of opinion.

Talk about preaching to the choir. Kerry will take California in a walk.

So namecalling is considered "Protesting"? Got to jot that one down in my book...

Donald Rumsfeld is failing in his duties as Secretary of Defense? According to whose measures? Yours? Thanks for the opinion that you love to label as fact.

There is some very clever sloganeering on a few of those signs. Others are just basic graffiti. I think the one that says- "This is the only sign you will see today that was not made by a corporation" kind of sums up the veiwpoint of the web site. Nice to see that those whose opinions are not represented by corporate culture at least have the ability to express themselves to thousands of people this way. And the site seems to encourage the use of temporary banners rather that spray painting public or private property which is I think a responsible attitude.

Is this name calling?

Linked by Lothar - bandwidth theft is a no-no.

No, it's bastardizing a Charleton Heston quote from the misrepresentation that was Bowling Columbine, in an attempt to evoke the knee-jerk reaction of "guns kill children".

DCrazy wrote:No, it's bastardizing a Charleton Heston quote from the misrepresentation that was Bowling Columbine, in an attempt to evoke the knee-jerk reaction of "guns kill children".

I'll agree that Moore was a bit of an ★■◆● about the way he portrayed Charleton Heston in BfC but that's bait for this wonderful Micheal Moore generalization that is being made about people who believed all along that the War on Iraq is wrong. I'm not sure wheter it has more to do with the loss of someone's child in Iraq or the loss of someone's child on American soil but the picture serves both ends well; that is, the need for more gun control and the need to rethink how America conducts itself as a world super-power.

And that makes it fact? Hmm... looks like opinion, smells like opinion, tastes like opinion...

DCrazy wrote:And that makes it fact? Hmm... looks like opinion, smells like opinion, tastes like opinion...

You don't need to be so condescending about it. It's a widely held belief based on facts.

Further reinforcing my point (against Dedman and Vander) that this is not fact, it is opinion.

And technically, "data" would be a better term than "facts". Data lends itself to interpretation; crime states et cetera are called data because they are interpreted as indicators of effectiveness of police and so on. Facts are more like concrete occurrences. (Fact: I ate KFC for lunch. Nothing to interpret there.) Posters such as that are based off of data about violent crimes (I'm seeing the poster as pro-gun-control).

DCrazy wrote:Further reinforcing my point (against Dedman and Vander) that this is not fact, it is opinion.

And technically, "data" would be a better term than "facts". Data lends itself to interpretation; crime states et cetera are called data because they are interpreted as indicators of effectiveness of police and so on. Facts are more like concrete occurrences. (Fact: I ate KFC for lunch. Nothing to interpret there.) Posters such as that are based off of data about violent crimes (I'm seeing the poster as pro-gun-control).

True enough.

Just what we need, more environmental spamming.

I'd call skyscapers environmental spamming.

kufyit wrote:I'd call skyscapers environmental spamming.

if we still had sigs, that would be my new one...

I can't wait till they put a oil derrick in both Lothar and Bash's yards. That would bring me quite a laugh because I know you'd ★■◆● about it.

DCrazy wrote:Further reinforcing my point (against Dedman and Vander)

Vander hasnt appearened anywhere in this thread you dunderhead. Get my name right if you want to keep the respect I still have for you.

So I typed Vander instead of Vader. Big fricken deal.

Top Wop wrote:So namecalling is considered "Protesting"? Got to jot that one down in my book...

Namecalling is also called a 'campaign'.

Hey, everybody, look, there's an oil rig out in front of my house! I'm a bazillionaire! Mabye John Kerry will accept me in his world now!

Seriously, you folks that think this is a good thing are blinding yourselves because of what the signs say. If they said anything else--either pro-Bush or even *go to geeksex.com* we could all agree it's an ugly and illegal manner to promote your cause. But, hey, most lefties can't see the forest through the bushes.

Personally I wouldnt see anything wrong with it exept that it would all be lies. It would be a perfactly acceptable expression of speech. Lies, but acceptable.

Oh, and DCrazy, I took care of that name problem, I had been thinking about changing it to this for a while anyway, but you were the one that gave me that needed shove

Zuruck, I don't see how I got brought into this... but considering I went to one of the top petroleum engineering schools in the world, no, I don't think I'd be offended by an oil derrick on my property. There are definitely some things I could use the money for.

I don't know if the signs are illegal, but I agree with bash that they're ugly. So are billboards. At the very least, if you're going to promote a viewpoint, carry the sign with you or put the slogan on your T-shirt so that people can find you and discuss your viewpoint with you. Don't just stick a slogan on the side of a building or overpass and then walk away -- if you're going to put up an ugly sign, at least make it so I can find you and tell you your sign is ugly.

Large corporations get to put up signs through the power of their money. They can and do spend millions of dollars influencing your opinions. Do you wonder why the sign have slogans considered to be left of center? If those opinions were voiced by the corporate signage then these small posters would not be needed. They express a veiwpoint that money will not. They display words that money does not like to see written. They are the voice of those whose voice is muffled through lack of money. Place by a freeway, not just on a tee shirt, they are seen by thousands of people and maybe they might make a tiny change in the balance of opinion that is otherwise shaped by those with large amounts of money to spend on billboards and other expensive advertisements. I wouldn't condone them if they were spray painted on private or public property but they are just put up on display for anyone to read and can be removed by anyone that wishes to.
In China about the time of the uprising that was culminated in Tien An Mein square, posters calling for democratic reforms started to appear on certain walls that in the past were used to display the slogans of the Red Guard. It was a measure of the tolerance of the government for disent that the posters were allowed. That people could say what they wanted to thousands of people that may or may not have agreed with them for only the cost of some paper and paint.
When signs like this disapear from your cities it is time to worry about the kind of country you live in.

Nothing but personal success is preventing anyone from buying ad space on a billboard.

Lothar wrote:I don't think I'd be offended by an oil derrick on my property.

personally.. I think a pink flamingo in my front yard would be better ... but that's just me...

And "personal sucess" differs from having lots of money to spend on things other than your family's needs in what way?

Not at all. It's just a lot less wordy.

And lacking money doesn't muffle anyone's voice. It's the possession of money that amplifies your voice. Then again, last time I checked, the ballot box didn't have a line for your income. All the union members, immigrants, and minorities (three groups distinctly lacking cash) are still free to vote for the more liberal candidates.

no you dont get the money. emminent domain biatch

and you would be cool with that bash? instead of looking at mountains, you were looking at union workers with pants way too tight.

Z, I'll indulge your nonsense post once, but not twice.

no you dont get the money. emminent domain biatch

Zuruck is speaking on a topic about which he apparently knows very little. Forgive him his ignorance, Bash.

Zuruck wrote:no you dont get the money. emminent domain biatch

and you would be cool with that bash? instead of looking at mountains, you were looking at union workers with pants way too tight.

I think that would also be illegal. If the government took part of your yard because they knew there was oil in it, they would have to, under the constitution, provide you with a fair amount of compensation say, a few hundred million dollars or so. The government cant pull emminent domain on you without compensating you for your lost property. Read the constitution.

Haha, tell that to the people who lost their houses when Robert Moses built the Northern State and Southern State parkways, or when New York State built the Long Island Expressway. They were given nowhere near a fair deal.