Conservative Propaganda on Local News

[3rdnlng]

7 hours ago, garybusey said:

 

Nobody laughed at your pathetic attempt at a joke. 

I laughed you assmudgeon, but just in case you didn't know, you can't hear someone on the internet if audio isn't set up.

[LA Grant]

10 hours ago, DC Tom said:

He posts far more logical fallacies than he does facts.

 

I've yet to see him post a fact. actually.

 

That's on you, actually. Our post histories bear this out — anyone is free to click through & check. I don't have that many posts and I've mostly been posting on PPP over TSW lately, so shouldn't take long to dig through. 

 

I've posted many facts, and attempted multiple times to engage you in a debate of facts. You ignore, make a snide remark ("shooting retards from the balcony" as you imagine it), get confronted, say "tl; dr" then bounce.

 

11 hours ago, Boyst62 said:

@The Poojer

getting any information from @LA Grant is dangerous; he is truly among the lowest informed and the highest of dishonest on this board.  That he can complete a full sentence and structure a paragraph most of the time makes his argument seem intelligent or educated/researched. But, he's been proven a liar, proven dishonest and most off proven clueless to the ability to form a thought which is not of a narrative of an overlord or just plain lazy mindless dribble.

 

 @The Poojer... You can easily check the posting history of Boyst & myself, and come to your own conclusion on who is uninformed and who is dishonest. 

 

I imagine you've seen Boyst around and know his history, but trigger warning either way, I'd guess somewhere around 80% of his posts are slurs & insults.

 

Edit tl;dr — The rest of this is a philosophical tangential 

 

Isn't it funny how "trigger warning" became a punch line unto itself? The idea originally comes from PTSD treatment for the benefit of veterans. For example, you might issue a trigger warning before fireworks, or maybe an intense war film, that it might cause distress. 

 

PTSD can come from traumatic events besides war, like rape, but the idea of colleges or other media offering warnings for similarly intense subjects like rape somehow turned "trigger warning" into a joke among conservatives, who see it as an example of liberals either (a) wanting to control their minds or (b) too sensitive for the real world. Either way, liberals are dumb, haha libtards.

 

"Trigger warning" now is in the class of "snowflake, safe space," like the idea that liberals are too precious and sensitive to face reality, when all a "trigger warning" is, is like an R-rating. It's a heads up for the benefit of the potential audience on what's coming from them. From what I've been seeing, Conservatives seem to be opposed to helping people, or more to the core of it, they simply do not want to be bothered or inconvenienced. That's the point of America, I think, to conservatives; let me get mine, and f*** off. There's an appeal to that mindset, who doesn't feel that way to some degree? But it also means that they inherently think that how they got their mine was only because of their unique specialness. They don't acknowledge the role of society and societal factors in their status, or especially other peoples' status. In other words, the conservative mindset of rugged bootstrap individualism is "SNOWFLAKE." You can see it on this board; some think that only they can see the truth of the Deep State conspiracy; only they are special enough to see the secret truth. And "f*** off" means, don't tread on me, don't come into my space, I don't want to have to think about you. In other words, they want their own little piece of who-cares, and the rest of the world to disappear. Gun rights are so important to Conservatives because they want to defend their homes from intruders. They want a "SAFE SPACE" in other words.

 

Here's my point: what I notice more & more is that seemingly every accusation from modern conservatives is a total projection of their own guilt on the subject. 

 

It bears out if you look for the pattern. During the campaign, Trump makes "crooked politicians" his strawman scapegoat... while he was doing dirty dealings with Russian oligarchs & gangsters, stomping or bumbling all over the law like a sh*t-covered pig in a china shop, and lord knows what else. Multiple examples of the most intense anti-gay Republican congressmen being closeted gay, or outright pedophiles, like Roy Moore. The right chants "Hillary's emails" nonstop for months and months and months, then it turns out Trump's being investigated for crimes far more dishonest & damaging -- now they say nothing.

 

The idea that George Soros and a cabal of globalists including Benghazi Hillary herself (who is somehow also a frail old woman collapsing every three hours) are controlling the populace through CNN -- meanwhile NRA literally buy off politicians in broad daylight. There's so many examples; a few weeks or months ago, some of the letters they were sending judges up for re-election had the tone of mobster threats; pay up if you know what's good for you. We see their smear campaigns happen in real-time now with social media; they're not even subtle about it. Obviously there's also the Sinclair example of this, too, being an unfounded accusation (fake news) being a confused confession.

 

Tomi Lahren & Dana Loesch & Trump himself & Bannon & Beck, so many of the loudest voices on the right, are failed entertainment industry people. Tomi & Dana didn't make it as actresses so took this gig spewing hate speech with a pretty face. Actual crazy people like Robert Mercer want to reshape the world with their money; Bannon & Mercer are people who'd be just as happy seeing the world burn if it meant they personally benefited. Yet these voices will somehow claim that you can't trust protests because they're actually charades organized by the Hollywood elite, it's all a TV show (Boyst probably thinks I'm paid by Soros to post here), the Parkland & Chicago kids must be actors or liars or pawns, because they're bothered by the message and literally cannot fathom the idea of people caring about other people. (DC Tom actually described the concept of fairness as "alien.")

 

Actors paid by Big Money Conservatives With Bad Intent.... labeling messengers they don't like..... as "actors paid by big money liberals with bad intent." 

 

The message is always "Government is broken, vote for us." Republicans regulate, cut, dismantle government as much as possible; give out some tax cut scraps for rebate in exchange for massive long-term gains to the 1% business class. Meanwhile, raise the national debt to absurd proportions. This is the Republican way since Reagan. The last two Republican presidents didn't even win the popular vote; in a society that worked practically and morally, that should mean something. Wasn't this country founded on ideas of "fair representation"? Republicans do not care unless it affects them personally. 

 

Anyway, there are a lot of examples like this, where the GOP projects their own guilt as accusations on their opponent. GOP should stand for gaslighting, oppression, projection.  

 

There's an argument to be made for outright criminalizing the Republican Party, quite frankly. At this point there's little doubt they've been horribly corrupt, and though it pretends to serve the interests of conservatives, it never does. If somehow big necessary changes came about — eliminate money in politics; eliminate gerrymandering; eliminate as much corruption as humanly possible — you wouldn't have a Republican Party. You wouldn't have much of a Democrat party either, but let whoever's left hang on by a thread as the party of center/business. Conservatives can figure out what the f*** they care about, and what they want, in a practical sense: are you libertarians? are you constitutional absolutists? are you imperialistic business? are you William F. Buckley or Steve Bannon? figure that out. Meanwhile, liberals can start a democratic socialist party picking up from the enthusiasm for Bernie Sanders. It's not like Bernie is the only person to hold such ideas; it's not about Bernie himself -- it's about how he was the only one who brought together traditional "Democrats" and "Republicans" because he was proposing ideas that we now label as "independent."  But voters should be reminded of things like the New Deal, should be talking about "radical" ideas like fixing the broken economic system so it allows for fairer distribution of resources outside of the 1%. There's a contingent of conservatives who agree with ideas like Universal Basic Income, as it would eliminate unnecessary social service programs by rolling them all into one. It would eliminate economic fears of automation, it would allow people flexibility to leave a bad job or leave a job for a time to care for an ailing loved one. More people would have the opportunity to start new businesses that could address other societal problems. The political discourse should be more solution-based discourse. 

 

Eliminate corruption. Three parties. Left, center, right. We need laws & protections toward more direct representation in the government, NOT less. Forces trying to oppress the one thing that keeps everything in check should be labeled traitorous and dealt with as such, unless someone wants to somehow argue in favor of "voter suppression"? What's crazier: these proposals, or the fact that the proposals are a pipe dream in our society? Compromising on things to make sense & be fair in the effort to create peace in society is somehow just preposterous. 

Edited April 6, 2018 by LA Grant

[DC Tom]

39 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

That's on you, actually. Our post histories bear this out —

 

You're !@#$ing high.  Your entire life is a logical fallacy.

[LA Grant]

17 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

You're !@#$ing high.  Your entire life is a logical fallacy.

 

Case in point. Why don't you provide anything more than myopic laziness & an attitude of superiority? Hopefully you bring more than that to Thanksgiving.

 

I'm not sure you even possess a worldview beyond "Tom rules!" hahah — what, did you get oppressed by another elementary school crossing guard asking you to not jaywalk today? 

[boyst]

3 hours ago, LA Grant said:

 

That's on you, actually. Our post histories bear this out — anyone is free to click through & check. I don't have that many posts and I've mostly been posting on PPP over TSW lately, so shouldn't take long to dig through. 

 

I've posted many facts, and attempted multiple times to engage you in a debate of facts. You ignore, make a snide remark ("shooting retards from the balcony" as you imagine it), get confronted, say "tl; dr" then bounce.

 

 

 @The Poojer... You can easily check the posting history of Boyst & myself, and come to your own conclusion on who is uninformed and who is dishonest. 

 

I imagine you've seen Boyst around and know his history, but trigger warning either way, I'd guess somewhere around 80% of his posts are slurs & insults.

 

Edit tl;dr — The rest of this is a philosophical tangential 

 

Isn't it funny how "trigger warning" became a punch line unto itself? The idea originally comes from PTSD treatment for the benefit of veterans. For example, you might issue a trigger warning before fireworks, or maybe an intense war film, that it might cause distress. 

 

PTSD can come from traumatic events besides war, like rape, but the idea of colleges or other media offering warnings for similarly intense subjects like rape somehow turned "trigger warning" into a joke among conservatives, who see it as an example of liberals either (a) wanting to control their minds or (b) too sensitive for the real world. Either way, liberals are dumb, haha libtards.

 

"Trigger warning" now is in the class of "snowflake, safe space," like the idea that liberals are too precious and sensitive to face reality, when all a "trigger warning" is, is like an R-rating. It's a heads up for the benefit of the potential audience on what's coming from them. From what I've been seeing, Conservatives seem to be opposed to helping people, or more to the core of it, they simply do not want to be bothered or inconvenienced. That's the point of America, I think, to conservatives; let me get mine, and f*** off. There's an appeal to that mindset, who doesn't feel that way to some degree? But it also means that they inherently think that how they got their mine was only because of their unique specialness. They don't acknowledge the role of society and societal factors in their status, or especially other peoples' status. In other words, the conservative mindset of rugged bootstrap individualism is "SNOWFLAKE." You can see it on this board; some think that only they can see the truth of the Deep State conspiracy; only they are special enough to see the secret truth. And "f*** off" means, don't tread on me, don't come into my space, I don't want to have to think about you. In other words, they want their own little piece of who-cares, and the rest of the world to disappear. Gun rights are so important to Conservatives because they want to defend their homes from intruders. They want a "SAFE SPACE" in other words.

 

Here's my point: what I notice more & more is that seemingly every accusation from modern conservatives is a total projection of their own guilt on the subject. 

 

It bears out if you look for the pattern. During the campaign, Trump makes "crooked politicians" his strawman scapegoat... while he was doing dirty dealings with Russian oligarchs & gangsters, stomping or bumbling all over the law like a sh*t-covered pig in a china shop, and lord knows what else. Multiple examples of the most intense anti-gay Republican congressmen being closeted gay, or outright pedophiles, like Roy Moore. The right chants "Hillary's emails" nonstop for months and months and months, then it turns out Trump's being investigated for crimes far more dishonest & damaging -- now they say nothing.

 

The idea that George Soros and a cabal of globalists including Benghazi Hillary herself (who is somehow also a frail old woman collapsing every three hours) are controlling the populace through CNN -- meanwhile NRA literally buy off politicians in broad daylight. There's so many examples; a few weeks or months ago, some of the letters they were sending judges up for re-election had the tone of mobster threats; pay up if you know what's good for you. We see their smear campaigns happen in real-time now with social media; they're not even subtle about it. Obviously there's also the Sinclair example of this, too, being an unfounded accusation (fake news) being a confused confession.

 

Tomi Lahren & Dana Loesch & Trump himself & Bannon & Beck, so many of the loudest voices on the right, are failed entertainment industry people. Tomi & Dana didn't make it as actresses so took this gig spewing hate speech with a pretty face. Actual crazy people like Robert Mercer want to reshape the world with their money; Bannon & Mercer are people who'd be just as happy seeing the world burn if it meant they personally benefited. Yet these voices will somehow claim that you can't trust protests because they're actually charades organized by the Hollywood elite, it's all a TV show (Boyst probably thinks I'm paid by Soros to post here), the Parkland & Chicago kids must be actors or liars or pawns, because they're bothered by the message and literally cannot fathom the idea of people caring about other people. (DC Tom actually described the concept of fairness as "alien.")

 

Actors paid by Big Money Conservatives With Bad Intent.... labeling messengers they don't like..... as "actors paid by big money liberals with bad intent." 

 

The message is always "Government is broken, vote for us." Republicans regulate, cut, dismantle government as much as possible; give out some tax cut scraps for rebate in exchange for massive long-term gains to the 1% business class. Meanwhile, raise the national debt to absurd proportions. This is the Republican way since Reagan. The last two Republican presidents didn't even win the popular vote; in a society that worked practically and morally, that should mean something. Wasn't this country founded on ideas of "fair representation"? Republicans do not care unless it affects them personally. 

 

Anyway, there are a lot of examples like this, where the GOP projects their own guilt as accusations on their opponent. GOP should stand for gaslighting, oppression, projection.  

 

There's an argument to be made for outright criminalizing the Republican Party, quite frankly. At this point there's little doubt they've been horribly corrupt, and though it pretends to serve the interests of conservatives, it never does. If somehow big necessary changes came about — eliminate money in politics; eliminate gerrymandering; eliminate as much corruption as humanly possible — you wouldn't have a Republican Party. You wouldn't have much of a Democrat party either, but let whoever's left hang on by a thread as the party of center/business. Conservatives can figure out what the f*** they care about, and what they want, in a practical sense: are you libertarians? are you constitutional absolutists? are you imperialistic business? are you William F. Buckley or Steve Bannon? figure that out. Meanwhile, liberals can start a democratic socialist party picking up from the enthusiasm for Bernie Sanders. It's not like Bernie is the only person to hold such ideas; it's not about Bernie himself -- it's about how he was the only one who brought together traditional "Democrats" and "Republicans" because he was proposing ideas that we now label as "independent."  But voters should be reminded of things like the New Deal, should be talking about "radical" ideas like fixing the broken economic system so it allows for fairer distribution of resources outside of the 1%. There's a contingent of conservatives who agree with ideas like Universal Basic Income, as it would eliminate unnecessary social service programs by rolling them all into one. It would eliminate economic fears of automation, it would allow people flexibility to leave a bad job or leave a job for a time to care for an ailing loved one. More people would have the opportunity to start new businesses that could address other societal problems. The political discourse should be more solution-based discourse. 

 

Eliminate corruption. Three parties. Left, center, right. We need laws & protections toward more direct representation in the government, NOT less. Forces trying to oppress the one thing that keeps everything in check should be labeled traitorous and dealt with as such, unless someone wants to somehow argue in favor of "voter suppression"? What's crazier: these proposals, or the fact that the proposals are a pipe dream in our society? Compromising on things to make sense & be fair in the effort to create peace in society is somehow just preposterous. 

Hey, so yeah. You wrote a whole hell of a lot. I didn't read any of it. I read the part where you're trying to explain to PJ that I'm an idiot who just spouts off at the mouth. That is compared to you, who believes himself to be intellectually Superior. Well to me, it's not hard to do that because I'm not really putting much effort down to contestant that. And if pooj had any doubt about this, I really don't know what to say. I have met him once, lucky enough to say that. But I'm also fairly certain he knows I'm just an idiot who stirs in the pot

 

But make no mistake, you're just a plain idiot

[LA Grant]

17 hours ago, snafu said:

That's not the issue.  More recent and relevant is the treatment of Facebook.  Pariah in the media today / media darling only a few months ago.  Also looks at coverage of Comey: hated scumbag when he hurt Clinton vs. bastion of society after Trump fired him. 

 

The mainstream media networks (including the NYTimes) have resorted to cherry-picking issues and flipping their coverage every time the narrative fails to suit their agenda.  It is left and right.  It is everyone -- print and broadcast and electronic.

 

Hmm, I dunno. There is some truth to what you're saying. I agree that all news is inherently partisan, to a degree.

 

But there is a bit of cherry-picking here too, if you will. I think you are really oversimplifying your Facebook & Comey examples. It's not as though the NY Times just decided to write about FB and Comey differently to push any kind of skewed narrative other than "this happened." Positive FB coverage versus negative FB coverage after it became more known about data farming -- they are different contexts!

 

I think the worst of it is TV news; you're not getting information in a full way, regardless of where you're getting it. Some are way worse than others. Fox and CNN are not guilty of an equal amount of crimes, not close. But TV news in general is just ... it's more of a production. It is a show, by necessity. All of it. TV news is like watching the Bills season only through SportsCenter versus reading the Buffalo News. Assuming you only had the choice of either & couldn't watch the game live. Watching the game live is C-Span, in this metaphor, I guess. Maybe calling C-Span games is what John Murphy can do in the offseason. At least on TSW everyone is dealing with the same objective information. Can you imagine if the conversations on PPP were like that?... "10 Thoughts on Senate Floor Proceedings 1, March 22nd, 2018" 

 

In general, the best thing for TV news has been the increased investigative stories and long-form journalism -- documentaries on television and film that can provide a fuller version of a story, as opposed to the soundbite you'd get on Local News or Cable News. Podcasts & digital & social are also huge. Similar to TV, very powerful in shaping opinion, because there's the performance aspect. I think Fox News is popular because it makes the potatoes feel a li'l riled up every night and that's fun. 

 

As I said, by all means, read more than NYT but I think it's a far stretch to identify anything else as consistently the best daily newspaper in the US free press, by a fair margin, for a long time. The NY Times does not have a reputation for misrepresenting facts - then, or now. They simply don't. It doesn't mean they haven't been wrong (Rhino would like to repost their correction issued on Iraq lead-up -- they've been guilty for reporting information that has proven to be inaccurate, but that is not the same thing as taking a fact and deliberately skewing or misrepresenting it). That doesn't mean the editors don't lean liberally. Their op-eds are generally liberal, but that's not news, in both senses of the phrase. 

 

So yes, while all news is inherently partisan, that is only true in the very broadest sense, in that news is created by human reporters, shaped by editors who are people with the job of deciding, answering to owners who decide what to decide & not decide. At every level of that, you want the responsible ethical choice made consistently. Right? And it's not easy to find a better example for that than NY Times, past & present.

Edited April 6, 2018 by LA Grant

[snafu]

4 hours ago, LA Grant said:

 

Hmm, I dunno. There is some truth to what you're saying. I agree that all news is inherently partisan, to a degree.

 

But there is a bit of cherry-picking here too, if you will. I think you are really oversimplifying your Facebook & Comey examples. It's not as though the NY Times just decided to write about FB and Comey differently to push any kind of skewed narrative other than "this happened." Positive FB coverage versus negative FB coverage after it became more known about data farming -- they are different contexts!

 

I think the worst of it is TV news; you're not getting information in a full way, regardless of where you're getting it. Some are way worse than others. Fox and CNN are not guilty of an equal amount of crimes, not close. But TV news in general is just ... it's more of a production. It is a show, by necessity. All of it. TV news is like watching the Bills season only through SportsCenter versus reading the Buffalo News. Assuming you only had the choice of either & couldn't watch the game live. Watching the game live is C-Span, in this metaphor, I guess. Maybe calling C-Span games is what John Murphy can do in the offseason. At least on TSW everyone is dealing with the same objective information. Can you imagine if the conversations on PPP were like that?... "10 Thoughts on Senate Floor Proceedings 1, March 22nd, 2018" 

 

In general, the best thing for TV news has been the increased investigative stories and long-form journalism -- documentaries on television and film that can provide a fuller version of a story, as opposed to the soundbite you'd get on Local News or Cable News. Podcasts & digital & social are also huge. Similar to TV, very powerful in shaping opinion, because there's the performance aspect. I think Fox News is popular because it makes the potatoes feel a li'l riled up every night and that's fun. 

 

As I said, by all means, read more than NYT but I think it's a far stretch to identify anything else as consistently the best daily newspaper in the US free press, by a fair margin, for a long time. The NY Times does not have a reputation for misrepresenting facts - then, or now. They simply don't. It doesn't mean they haven't been wrong (Rhino would like to repost their correction issued on Iraq lead-up -- they've been guilty for reporting information that has proven to be inaccurate, but that is not the same thing as taking a fact and deliberately skewing or misrepresenting it). That doesn't mean the editors don't lean liberally. Their op-eds are generally liberal, but that's not news, in both senses of the phrase. 

 

So yes, while all news is inherently partisan, that is only true in the very broadest sense, in that news is created by human reporters, shaped by editors who are people with the job of deciding, answering to owners who decide what to decide & not decide. At every level of that, you want the responsible ethical choice made consistently. Right? And it's not easy to find a better example for that than NY Times, past & present.

 

NYTimes.  Uh huh. I'll look into that.

NYTimes of yesterday:  Admits to burying stories on the holocaust. https://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/14/news/150th-anniversary-1851-2001-turning-away-from-the-holocaust.html

 

NYTimes of today:. Admits to pandering to their liberal readership. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/17/new-york-times-editor-admits-paper-is-very-very-ve/

 

NYTimes mission statement of today (when it was okay to do those things): https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/us/elections/to-our-readers-from-the-publisher-and-executive-editor.html

 

I'm not cherry-picking.  I just don't have the time to give you every example from every newspaper and TV broadcast. As I said in my earlier post (which you edited out), bias is pervasive in TV and it is pervasive in print and it is pervasive in electronic outlets.

 

And your grey lady is a biased whore.

 

[PPP Is Full of Racism]

10 hours ago, LA Grant said:

 

That's on you, actually. Our post histories bear this out — anyone is free to click through & check. I don't have that many posts and I've mostly been posting on PPP over TSW lately, so shouldn't take long to dig through. 

 

I've posted many facts, and attempted multiple times to engage you in a debate of facts. You ignore, make a snide remark ("shooting retards from the balcony" as you imagine it), get confronted, say "tl; dr" then bounce.

 

 

 @The Poojer... You can easily check the posting history of Boyst & myself, and come to your own conclusion on who is uninformed and who is dishonest. 

 

I imagine you've seen Boyst around and know his history, but trigger warning either way, I'd guess somewhere around 80% of his posts are slurs & insults.

 

Edit tl;dr — The rest of this is a philosophical tangential 

 

Isn't it funny how "trigger warning" became a punch line unto itself? The idea originally comes from PTSD treatment for the benefit of veterans. For example, you might issue a trigger warning before fireworks, or maybe an intense war film, that it might cause distress. 

 

PTSD can come from traumatic events besides war, like rape, but the idea of colleges or other media offering warnings for similarly intense subjects like rape somehow turned "trigger warning" into a joke among conservatives, who see it as an example of liberals either (a) wanting to control their minds or (b) too sensitive for the real world. Either way, liberals are dumb, haha libtards.

 

"Trigger warning" now is in the class of "snowflake, safe space," like the idea that liberals are too precious and sensitive to face reality, when all a "trigger warning" is, is like an R-rating. It's a heads up for the benefit of the potential audience on what's coming from them. From what I've been seeing, Conservatives seem to be opposed to helping people, or more to the core of it, they simply do not want to be bothered or inconvenienced. That's the point of America, I think, to conservatives; let me get mine, and f*** off. There's an appeal to that mindset, who doesn't feel that way to some degree? But it also means that they inherently think that how they got their mine was only because of their unique specialness. They don't acknowledge the role of society and societal factors in their status, or especially other peoples' status. In other words, the conservative mindset of rugged bootstrap individualism is "SNOWFLAKE." You can see it on this board; some think that only they can see the truth of the Deep State conspiracy; only they are special enough to see the secret truth. And "f*** off" means, don't tread on me, don't come into my space, I don't want to have to think about you. In other words, they want their own little piece of who-cares, and the rest of the world to disappear. Gun rights are so important to Conservatives because they want to defend their homes from intruders. They want a "SAFE SPACE" in other words.

 

Here's my point: what I notice more & more is that seemingly every accusation from modern conservatives is a total projection of their own guilt on the subject. 

 

It bears out if you look for the pattern. During the campaign, Trump makes "crooked politicians" his strawman scapegoat... while he was doing dirty dealings with Russian oligarchs & gangsters, stomping or bumbling all over the law like a sh*t-covered pig in a china shop, and lord knows what else. Multiple examples of the most intense anti-gay Republican congressmen being closeted gay, or outright pedophiles, like Roy Moore. The right chants "Hillary's emails" nonstop for months and months and months, then it turns out Trump's being investigated for crimes far more dishonest & damaging -- now they say nothing.

 

The idea that George Soros and a cabal of globalists including Benghazi Hillary herself (who is somehow also a frail old woman collapsing every three hours) are controlling the populace through CNN -- meanwhile NRA literally buy off politicians in broad daylight. There's so many examples; a few weeks or months ago, some of the letters they were sending judges up for re-election had the tone of mobster threats; pay up if you know what's good for you. We see their smear campaigns happen in real-time now with social media; they're not even subtle about it. Obviously there's also the Sinclair example of this, too, being an unfounded accusation (fake news) being a confused confession.

 

Tomi Lahren & Dana Loesch & Trump himself & Bannon & Beck, so many of the loudest voices on the right, are failed entertainment industry people. Tomi & Dana didn't make it as actresses so took this gig spewing hate speech with a pretty face. Actual crazy people like Robert Mercer want to reshape the world with their money; Bannon & Mercer are people who'd be just as happy seeing the world burn if it meant they personally benefited. Yet these voices will somehow claim that you can't trust protests because they're actually charades organized by the Hollywood elite, it's all a TV show (Boyst probably thinks I'm paid by Soros to post here), the Parkland & Chicago kids must be actors or liars or pawns, because they're bothered by the message and literally cannot fathom the idea of people caring about other people. (DC Tom actually described the concept of fairness as "alien.")

 

Actors paid by Big Money Conservatives With Bad Intent.... labeling messengers they don't like..... as "actors paid by big money liberals with bad intent." 

 

The message is always "Government is broken, vote for us." Republicans regulate, cut, dismantle government as much as possible; give out some tax cut scraps for rebate in exchange for massive long-term gains to the 1% business class. Meanwhile, raise the national debt to absurd proportions. This is the Republican way since Reagan. The last two Republican presidents didn't even win the popular vote; in a society that worked practically and morally, that should mean something. Wasn't this country founded on ideas of "fair representation"? Republicans do not care unless it affects them personally. 

 

Anyway, there are a lot of examples like this, where the GOP projects their own guilt as accusations on their opponent. GOP should stand for gaslighting, oppression, projection.  

 

There's an argument to be made for outright criminalizing the Republican Party, quite frankly. At this point there's little doubt they've been horribly corrupt, and though it pretends to serve the interests of conservatives, it never does. If somehow big necessary changes came about — eliminate money in politics; eliminate gerrymandering; eliminate as much corruption as humanly possible — you wouldn't have a Republican Party. You wouldn't have much of a Democrat party either, but let whoever's left hang on by a thread as the party of center/business. Conservatives can figure out what the f*** they care about, and what they want, in a practical sense: are you libertarians? are you constitutional absolutists? are you imperialistic business? are you William F. Buckley or Steve Bannon? figure that out. Meanwhile, liberals can start a democratic socialist party picking up from the enthusiasm for Bernie Sanders. It's not like Bernie is the only person to hold such ideas; it's not about Bernie himself -- it's about how he was the only one who brought together traditional "Democrats" and "Republicans" because he was proposing ideas that we now label as "independent."  But voters should be reminded of things like the New Deal, should be talking about "radical" ideas like fixing the broken economic system so it allows for fairer distribution of resources outside of the 1%. There's a contingent of conservatives who agree with ideas like Universal Basic Income, as it would eliminate unnecessary social service programs by rolling them all into one. It would eliminate economic fears of automation, it would allow people flexibility to leave a bad job or leave a job for a time to care for an ailing loved one. More people would have the opportunity to start new businesses that could address other societal problems. The political discourse should be more solution-based discourse. 

 

Eliminate corruption. Three parties. Left, center, right. We need laws & protections toward more direct representation in the government, NOT less. Forces trying to oppress the one thing that keeps everything in check should be labeled traitorous and dealt with as such, unless someone wants to somehow argue in favor of "voter suppression"? What's crazier: these proposals, or the fact that the proposals are a pipe dream in our society? Compromising on things to make sense & be fair in the effort to create peace in society is somehow just preposterous. 

 

i see why they call you la rant!

[row_33]

If I wasn’t ignoring them I would gladly requote them a dozen times just to clog all of this up

 

 

[Warren Zevon]

LA Grant is wiping the floor with you idiots and the only comebacks you have are brutal one liners. Keep it up 

[3rdnlng]

4 minutes ago, garybusey said:

LA Grant is wiping the floor with you idiots and the only comebacks you have are brutal one liners. Keep it up 

Our one liners trump your panty liners every time.

[TakeYouToTasker]

7 minutes ago, garybusey said:

LA Grant is wiping the floor with you idiots and the only comebacks you have are brutal one liners. Keep it up 

Anyone making the argument that they prefer to be propagandized by organizations which better confirm to their biases isn't winning anything.

 

They're just displaying how stupid they are.

 

Edit:  Gary laughs, but he only dumber position than the one above is the one which finds that particular line of reasoning to be convincing.

Edited April 6, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[Warren Zevon]

Just now, 3rdnlng said:

Our one liners trump your panty liners every time.

 

Keep up the sexism, ding-bat! Your mother must be proud.

[snafu]

6 minutes ago, garybusey said:

LA Grant is wiping the floor with you idiots and the only comebacks you have are brutal one liners. Keep it up 

 

Is LA Grant your comfort animal?

[DC Tom]

54 minutes ago, garybusey said:

 

Keep up the sexism, ding-bat! Your mother must be proud.

 

Awww...is someone feeling period shamed?

[3rdnlng]

1 hour ago, garybusey said:

 

Keep up the sexism, ding-bat! Your mother must be proud.

Dingbat? You're watching way too many "All In The Family" reruns. Maybe you should switch to "Lawrence Welk".

[keepthefaith]

2 hours ago, garybusey said:

LA Grant is wiping the floor with you idiots and the only comebacks you have are brutal one liners. Keep it up 

 

Less is more.

[MILFHUNTER#518]

On 4/4/2018 at 11:45 PM, LA Grant said:

Poojer, your frustration is well-founded — there is more bunk than ever right now. There is an open "war" on "information." What's happening is we're seeing "truth" or "facts" being misconstrued as "subjective."

 

An apple is on the table. You say, this is an apple. They say, no, this is a banana. Don't believe what you hear about "apples" - who's telling you that? The apple tree? This is a banana. You say, an apple is an apple is an apple. They say, well that's just, like, your opinion, man. And I have a right to mine.

 

That pointless kind of debate isn't good for anyone. It's not a philosophical exercise, though it's presented as one. It's a deliberate attempt to discredit inconvenient truths. If everything is relative, then nothing is anything. Right? It's nihilism, ultimately.

 

My main recommendation is to not get your news primarily from TV, and to include The New York Times into your daily routine. I'm not saying to only read the Times, but to include it. As much as the Trump administration has sought to discredit "the failing New York Times" and I can understand why people would be reluctant to pay for subscriptions, when so many other sources are free online -- you get what you pay for. The NYT's record speaks for itself. I like subscribing anyway and reading a physical newspaper every morning. 

 

The Times recently started doing do a 30-minute podcast, every weekday, featuring an investigative report into an ongoing story. It's free here. 

 

So, let me get this straight; You object to a promo featuring NEWS ANCHORS pledging to stay neutral and NOT inject their OWN OPINION AND BIASES into the new broadcasts?

[LA Grant]

2 hours ago, MILFHUNTER#518 said:

So, let me get this straight; You object to a promo featuring NEWS ANCHORS pledging to stay neutral and NOT inject their OWN OPINION AND BIASES into the new broadcasts?

 

So, let me get this straight. Your conclusion from the Sinclair "must-runs" is you think what people are objecting to is "neutrality" in news?  That's what you're taking from this?

[boyst]

Just now, LA Grant said:

 

So, let me get this straight. Your conclusion from the Sinclair "must-runs" is you think what people are objecting to is "neutrality" in news?  That's what you're taking from this?

Answering a question with another question just proves that you're a giant douchebag filled with !@#$ juice