The Angry Violent Left

[BigRedBuster]

7 minutes ago, commando said:

when your president says he can shoot someone and his base would stay with him....i believe he has violent supporters.   

And he’s almost proven that. 

[ZRod]

5 hours ago, Dewiz said:

Did he not make physical contact to the intern pushing her arm down as she went to grab the mic away from him for the 3rd time?  

 

Why wont you guys condemn such actions? Why won’t you guys act like decent humans? Lol

Other reporters were able to ask multiple, multiple questions even after Trump cut them off and interrupted them. Why was Acosta silenced? She was reaching at him and he barely even touched the woman, pretty natural and neutral reaction. Get a freaking grip man.

[Landlord]

2 hours ago, QMany said:

At some point, we have to accept these Trump faithful are never going to turn. Never going to see the light. Never going to seek truth. We can talk facts, logic, morality, etc. until we are blue in the face, but it absolutely does not matter to them. Don't get me wrong, I won't stop talking in facts, logic, morality. But I'm just about done trying to engage in actual debate with illogical, ignorant, reprehensible people. 

 

 

I'll push back on this. This is what causes people to be more and more radicalized; when everyone else writes them off, forgets about them, treats them as if they're irreconcilable monsters.

 

Facts, logic, morality are important. They're of utmost importance, obviously. But love is the thing that will get through to people. Most of the time on here plenty of us offer plenty in the form of facts and logic, but we don't do it with love. We do it with ego and aggression and self-serving attitudes (myself included), because it feels good, but we're just pushing the more extreme people further into their mania when we engage that way. Even if it's fun. 

 

I don't know about anybody else, but I don't talk or behave this way in person. In person, when I talk about politics with people I disagree with, I'm gentle and gracious and patient and I listen a lot. And those conversations go great, and are consistently refreshing and appreciated by whoever I'm talking with. Coming on here is more of a mindless sport or entertainment for me. And it makes me feel self righteous.

 

 

 

 

Also, I've got a question. Did Jim Acosta grab that intern by the pu&&y? 

[Guy Chamberlin]

That false equivalency thing again.

 

Obama absolutely had issues with Fox News. Bill Clinton occasionally lashed back at the Talk Radio forces aligned against him. 

 

Does that mean the two sides are equal? No. Not even close. 

 

So you have to ask yourself, if a considerable majority of the journalistic community is centrist or left-leaning, and a minority is right-leaning, is the profession itself corrupt or ideology-driven? Or does a group of college educated people who gather information, seek out multiple viewpoints, develop relationships with their sources, vet information and defend it in public come to their opinions more honestly?  In other words, is the supposed liberal bias of most journalists more fact based than the practitioners at say, Fox? Breitbart? InfoWars? 

 

If your life depended on it, would you take the word of journalists, scientists and teachers?  Or the folks who declare them enemies of the people? 

[Guy Chamberlin]

12 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

 

Facts, logic, morality are important. They're of utmost importance, obviously. But love is the thing that will get through to people. Most of the time on here plenty of us offer plenty in the form of facts and logic, but we don't do it with love. We do it with ego and aggression and self-serving attitudes (myself included), because it feels good, but we're just pushing the more extreme people further into their mania when we engage that way. Even if it's fun. 

 

I don't know about anybody else, but I don't talk or behave this way in person. In person, when I talk about politics with people I disagree with, I'm gentle and gracious and patient and I listen a lot. And those conversations go great, and are consistently refreshing and appreciated by whoever I'm talking with. Coming on here is more of a mindless sport or entertainment for me. And it makes me feel self righteous.

 

 

You know, deep down I always think to myself that love makes the difference. Love is the answer to everything.

 

It sounds too squishy, so I never say it out loud.

 

But love is good stuff, man. 

[HuskerNation1]

1 hour ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

That false equivalency thing again.

 

Obama absolutely had issues with Fox News. Bill Clinton occasionally lashed back at the Talk Radio forces aligned against him. 

 

Does that mean the two sides are equal? No. Not even close. 

 

So you have to ask yourself, if a considerable majority of the journalistic community is centrist or left-leaning, and a minority is right-leaning, is the profession itself corrupt or ideology-driven? Or does a group of college educated people who gather information, seek out multiple viewpoints, develop relationships with their sources, vet information and defend it in public come to their opinions more honestly?  In other words, is the supposed liberal bias of most journalists more fact based than the practitioners at say, Fox? Breitbart? InfoWars? 

 

If your life depended on it, would you take the word of journalists, scientists and teachers?  Or the folks who declare them enemies of the people? 

 

Unfortunately journalism today is opinion based. A simple headline can show the bias.  Do you call those who disapprove of abortion pro-life or anti-abortion. Those opinions were better shielded in the past, but with the addition of cable news and social media, its harder for journalists to hide their bias. And with Trump exposing the bias, its left us in a new era of information gathering as consumers and voters.  

[ZRod]

43 minutes ago, HuskerNation1 said:

 

Unfortunately journalism today is opinion based. A simple headline can show the bias.  Do you call those who disapprove of abortion pro-life or anti-abortion. Those opinions were better shielded in the past, but with the addition of cable news and social media, its harder for journalists to hide their bias. And with Trump exposing the bias, its left us in a new era of information gathering as consumers and voters.  

People are capable of holding personal beliefs and leaving them out of their work despite what you think. They often do that in real journalism.

[Guy Chamberlin]

42 minutes ago, HuskerNation1 said:

 

Unfortunately journalism today is opinion based. A simple headline can show the bias.  Do you call those who disapprove of abortion pro-life or anti-abortion. Those opinions were better shielded in the past, but with the addition of cable news and social media, its harder for journalists to hide their bias. And with Trump exposing the bias, its left us in a new era of information gathering as consumers and voters.  

 

I get that.

 

I'm just saying: your family's life is on the line. Do you trust the information provided by the New York Times? Or InfoWars? 

[ZRod]

46 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

I get that.

 

I'm just saying: your family's life is on the line. Do you trust the information provided by the New York Times? Or InfoWars? 

They're turning the frogs gay!!!

[FrantzHardySwag]

6 hours ago, HuskerNation1 said:

 

Unfortunately journalism today is opinion based. A simple headline can show the bias.  Do you call those who disapprove of abortion pro-life or anti-abortion. Those opinions were better shielded in the past, but with the addition of cable news and social media, its harder for journalists to hide their bias. And with Trump exposing the bias, its left us in a new era of information gathering as consumers and voters.  

The information is out there, its up to the public to figure out what is fact and what is fiction. See earlier today you cited townhall.com as an actual source - anyone that took a 5th grade English class could tell you that townhall.com is not real news (fake news?), It's a Fugayzi, fugazi. It's a whazy. It's a woozie. It's fairy dust. it doesn't exist. It's never landed. It is no matter. It's not on the elemental chart. It's not f#&%ing real.

 

There is REAL journalism out there today - NPR for example. The real problem is people who read infowars and townhall.com and listen to Hannity all day - they think real, credible news is fake. The only thing that Trump exposed is that he is (still) full of s#!t and that if tells his base (not the majority of registered voters btw) not to believe it, then they'll look the other way.

 

Also, if this new era of information gathering has been rough on you, I still have my 5th grade English teachers email address - you can email her. Little piece of advice, if it wouldn't be credible for a book report in her class, it's probably not suitable for you to eat up like a bowl of lucky charms at breakfast.

[Moiraine]

10 minutes ago, FrantzHardySwag said:

Little piece of advice, if it wouldn't be credible for a book report in her class, it's probably not suitable for you to eat up like a bowl of lucky charms at breakfast.

 

 

[HuskerNation1]

On 11/8/2018 at 10:32 PM, FrantzHardySwag said:

The information is out there, its up to the public to figure out what is fact and what is fiction. See earlier today you cited townhall.com as an actual source - anyone that took a 5th grade English class could tell you that townhall.com is not real news (fake news?), It's a Fugayzi, fugazi. It's a whazy. It's a woozie. It's fairy dust. it doesn't exist. It's never landed. It is no matter. It's not on the elemental chart. It's not f#&%ing real.

 

There is REAL journalism out there today - NPR for example. The real problem is people who read infowars and townhall.com and listen to Hannity all day - they think real, credible news is fake. The only thing that Trump exposed is that he is (still) full of s#!t and that if tells his base (not the majority of registered voters btw) not to believe it, then they'll look the other way.

 

Also, if this new era of information gathering has been rough on you, I still have my 5th grade English teachers email address - you can email her. Little piece of advice, if it wouldn't be credible for a book report in her class, it's probably not suitable for you to eat up like a bowl of lucky charms at breakfast.

 

The real problem are those that subscribe to CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, Wash Post, Slate, Huff Post and more and then regurgitate those talking points on boards like these.

[ZRod]

48 minutes ago, HuskerNation1 said:

 

The real problem are those that subscribe to CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, Wash Post, Slate, Huff Post and more and then regurgitate those talking points on boards like these.

You post Breitbart articles.

[HuskerNation1]

Just now, ZRod said:

You post Breitbart articles.

 

And Breitbart leans to the right just as all those other sources I referenced lean to the left. My original post stated that there really is no true fair and honest journalism out there.  Some on here like to act like the NY times, Wash Post, CNN and MSNBC are fair or impartial sites. I am just stating there really is not impartiality left in journalism.

[commando]

2 minutes ago, HuskerNation1 said:

 

And Breitbart leans to the right just as all those other sources I referenced lean to the left. My original post stated that there really is no true fair and honest journalism out there.  Some on here like to act like the NY times, Wash Post, CNN and MSNBC are fair or impartial sites. I am just stating there really is not impartiality left in journalism.

breitbart started as esentially a white nationalist echo chamber. IMO it leans way more than those others lean.   i think if we got rid of the fox opinion shows and just had fox news they would be much closer to center than they are now with the alt right nighttime schedule they have.