Praising Your Leaders Versus Trolling Your Opponents
-
Two days ago, I posted a topic entitled "Trump the Statesman". I was truly impressed by his speech in Poland, and since then, I think he has done a good job at the G20 summit. He has stepped on his own message a few times, but those flubs were minor.
Interestingly, the only conservative (or anti-liberal), raphjd responded to the post, and only to trash CNN.
None of them jumped in to praise the president.
I have only been participating in the forum actively for about 6 weeks, and it may have been different before, but now it seems that the "other side" is only interested in baiting liberals and complaining about the media than by promoting any positive agenda.
Raphjd is out to prove liberals are violent and blacks are racists, Mhorndisk is vocal in praising the president, but seems more pre-occupied with global banking conspiracies. Frederick at times discusses issues, but revels more in trolling his opponents with clever epithets. Strangeloop is also bent on pointing out examples of liberal violence and making a case that the incidents are on the rise.
I can remember only one thread on healthcare and nothing on jobs, the economy, tax reform and infrastructure. Yet we are the ones who are blamed for keeping the discussion focused on the foibles of the current administration. Sad. -
Has it ever occured to you that I am not a Trump fanatic? Just because I disagree with liberals, doesn't mean I agree with the president on everything. He is not "my leader" in any sense where he isn't also yours (if you're an American). I think he is an "OK" president, certainly not the Hitler the left tries to make him out as. I overall support him mostly because the alternatives are completely detestable.
IMO, the pre-eminent political issue today is the implosion of the left in all it forms and just the sheer arrogance, tribalism and toddler-like behavior they have adopted which undermines our society. Whether it's left-wing censorship revealing it's authoritarian nature, SJWs who demonstrate that they are incapable of honesty, or liberals who feel empowered to promote and commit violence due to the current political atmosphere.
If we praise Trump for the positive things he's done, then we are fanatics, a cult of personality. If we focus on issues in the left, then by golly we are just negative nancies with no positive message.
There's seems just no way for us to please you. What exactly do you want?
If you want positive messages, I would say they are this:
Freedom of speech - censorship across social media, censorship built in to google search results, censorship through threats and acts of violence, people being fired for expressing mainstream conservative opinions - these things are not OK
Egalitarianism - not equal outcome, but equal opportunity
Self-determination - the right of communities, people and nations to choose the path for themselves they think is best, and not be forced upon by external authorities (as the E.U. is attempting to force itself on Poland and Eastern Europe) -
All I am saying is that in a thread started by a "liberal" praising the president, none of the ones who clearly support the president weighed in, I guess because there was no controversy to enflame. I understand you can be conservative or anti-liberal and lukewarm on Trump, but there are several members here who have not hidden their enthusiasm for him. I have never dissed them for being fanatic.
If you think the premier political issue if the implosion of the left and their "toddler-like" behavior, what would you suggest be done about it, besides griping. If your goal is to make your opponents see the error of their ways, you have a long way to go. It appears you think current law id too left-leaning–what would you change?
I am tired of all the griping and sniping. -
Trump rulez..
-
I have noticed that none of the threads here are ever pro-Trump. They are always anti-liberal. It seems conservatives are just as embarrassed by Trump as everybody else.
-
I have noticed that none of the threads here are ever pro-Trump. They are always anti-liberal. It seems conservatives are just as embarrassed by Trump as everybody else.
I've always maintained that I am a classic liberal. I don't like Trump, but I didn't like Hillary or Bernie either.
I hate modern liberals and their bullshit.
Raphjd is out to prove liberals are violent and blacks are racists
#NotAll.
Liberal blacks are racist. They changed the definition of "racism" so they couldn't be called racist, but it's just bullshit. Even with their made up definition, we have countless examples where they are protected by the state and institutions while they persecute whites. That makes them racists under their own definition.
We have liberals telling us that if we are color blind, then we are racist, but if we see color, then we are racist. We can't win for losing. White people can do no right.
We have blacks hijacking PRIDE and everything else to make it all about race. The Orlando shooting vigil was hijacked by BLM and turned into an anti white fest. Look at the new pride flag. It's about race and does not include whites and "yellows".
Just because mainstream media refuses to inform their sheeple of all the "peaceful protests" by liberals <wink, wink,="" nudge,="" nudge="">, doesn't mean it's not happening. Nah, their too busy manufacturing the news, like CNN did with that fake ass staged muslim protest for peace.
When a 6th grade teacher (Yvette Felarca) is brainwashing her students that violence is good, something is wrong. When the mayor of the town also supports violence, something is wrong.
In another town you have a professor of ethics bashing people over the head with a bike lock. In his most famous video, he did it to a person who was trying to prevent a fight.
This shit is happening all over the country and the world.
The mainstream media is extremely liberal. Muslims do something bad and they whitewash the story as much as possible to remove islam from the story. Four blacks kidnap a mentally challenged white guy and the mainstream media tries to ignore the story until it gets too big. Once they do cover it, they are desperate to declare it not a hate crime, despite the confessions of the criminals.
Similar thing with the Paris McDonald's shooter. They de-muslimed him so it seemed like a lunatic white kid, not a radical muslim kid.
Of course there's feminism. :crazy2:</wink,>
-
I have noticed that none of the threads here are ever pro-Trump. They are always anti-liberal. It seems conservatives are just as embarrassed by Trump as everybody else.
Some of us could though be hidden Trump supporters..
-
Any prejudgement based solely on race is racist. Your refusal to acknowledge the peaceful actions of some Muslims is racist. Any time you take the actions of a minority and project it onto the majority and therefore prejudge them all–is that is based on color, creed or sexual orientation, that is wrong, no matter who does it.
Was the Muslim prayer vigil in Manchester attended by 20,000 manufactured by the media?
Your indictment of the "liberal media" coverage of the Chicago kidnapping is based on the commentary of a single person, Symone Sanders on CNN.
Have you heard any prominent liberals defending the Bike-lock professor, baseball shooter, or encourage other acts of violence?
-
I never said ALL. I have always accepted and admitted that some aren't bad. This applies to all groups, except modern liberals.
Ok, why did CNN need to fake it then? Kinda odd, don't you think?
ALL liberal media tried to ignore the story, hoping it would go away. They only covered it when they realized it was constantly building and people were starting to question their silence. Oh, I noticed you forget to mention Don "sourpuss" Lemon joining Symone Sander's claims that it wasn't a hate crime.
Plenty of liberals have supported the violence. In a recent "peaceful protest" liberals were chanting "punch a nazi in the face, anywhere anyplace".
I noticed you didn't ask if "prominent" liberals have condemned the violence, other than blaming conservatives. Even your buddie Sutie refused to condemn the violence by saying he didn't have to because he's not the President.
-
I know you say that snopes isn't as good as before, but is this the CNN Fake incident you were referring to:
http://www.snopes.com/cnn-muslim-protests-london/I was referring to this in Manchester
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/vigil-manchester-muslims-st-anns-13086343
As for the Chicago kidnapping, listen to the lemon-Symone Sanders clip agai. Lemon says it wasn't evil, but the result of bas upbringing. Symmone roundly comdemned the attack, but questioned wheter it was motivated by hate of Trump or Hate of Whites./ . I don't agree with either of them, but I don't see it as anidictment of CNN or the media.As for the anti-Nazi chants, if they never punched anybody, it still is technically a peaceful protest. Have they used anti-Nazi rhetoric on a website, or in fundraising or published it?
I am not Suties keeper.
-
Yeah, that's the fake CNN thing. If you watched the video, it's clearly staged and you can see the reporter directing people where to stand.
Ok, so Manchester has some good muslims. What about all the other terrorist attacks by their own that they ignored?
Ok, I'll play. Lemon and Sanders are ignorant of the law. Political affiliation is also grounds for a hate crime. They attacked a white person, to get back at white people for voting for Trump. The criminals repeatedly said "fuck white people" and "fuck trump".
Of course, you don't consider anything done by the leftist media to be bad.
-
According to Snopes. CNN arranged the protesters behind their reporter to provide a backdrop for the piece, but the protesters were already in the area. So I guess it was staged, but not fake.
I said I didn't agree with Lemon or Sanders on this point. You want me to condemn the entire network because of it?
They were clearly discussing the news, not reporting it. There were other panelists offering different views. What more do you want? Censorship?I never said the media was faultless. They are liberal-biased, mostly in the stories they choose to highlight. But of what they cover, they are accurate. When they are not, they issue a correction.
That is more I can say of the internet and internet sites. How can you be so willing to accept something as true just because it does not originate in the mainstream media?
-
As we are discussing in the other thread, they purposedly edited the video to have the girl call for peace and calm. They only "fixed" it was they were busted all over the internet and Fox News.
I will accept the full video over some edited bullshit or anything from CNN. There are some excellent videos on YouTube that list the lies and other problems.
-
How can you know if it is the full video if it is cleverly edited?
Most corrections, whether by the networks or newspapers come after someone "busts" them. I think most occur without malice or bias. When it does, heads roll.
-
It was a blatant lie by CNN to fit their narrative.
She DID NOT call for calm and peace. She called for blacks to burn down the suburbs.
CNN knew this because they later posted their own "full" copy of the event.
-
It was a blatant lie by CNN to fit their narrative.
She DID NOT call for calm and peace. She called for blacks to burn down the suburbs.
CNN knew this because they later posted their own "full" copy of the event.
You assign a motive to the mistake because it fits your narrative. It may have been maliciously edited, or it may have been carelessly edited for time.
My point is if a YouTube user "BlacksforPeace" posted the edited video, how would know it had been edited? The media brings such things to light. I don't use YouTube much, but are confident that a deceptively edited video will be exposed by another YouTube user and posted in the comments so you can easily find it?
-
I agree 100% with the OP. The conservatives (and anti-liberals) either do not know how to defend their arguments/positions or are solely on here to troll liberals. I do not know which; hence, why I'm here asking now. I have defended my arguments/positions with sound logic without constant name-calling or other childish means. I have many times called out the problems–-often times dangerous---within the liberal communities. Where is it on the other side? Where is the self-criticism of the other side on here? It's extremely rare for some of you to (a) criticize the president and (b) criticize the actions of those on the right just as rare as it is for you to defend the president and the actions of those on the right. Do you truly believe what you say or are you only saying it to be a troll? One of the objectives in my call for more civility was to stop assuming bad intentions on the behalf of those you disagree with; therefore, the fact that I am indeed asking what your intentions are is proof that I am truly trying to get to the crux of this problem. I am not assuming the worst, I am asking why is there a lack of effort on the other side to defend their beliefs without constant name-calling and childishness and without deflecting to the problems of the other side.
-
It was a blatant lie by CNN to fit their narrative.
She DID NOT call for calm and peace. She called for blacks to burn down the suburbs.
CNN knew this because they later posted their own "full" copy of the event.
You assign a motive to the mistake because it fits your narrative. It may have been maliciously edited, or it may have been carelessly edited for time.
My point is if a YouTube user "BlacksforPeace" posted the edited video, how would know it had been edited? The media brings such things to light. I don't use YouTube much, but are confident that a deceptively edited video will be exposed by another YouTube user and posted in the comments so you can easily find it?
Do you seriously believe that CNN edited out "take that shit to the suburbs and burn their shit down" by accident? Or do you think they edited it out so they could claim she was calling for peace?
YouTube is extremely good at self cleaning/correcting.
-
I agree 100% with the OP. The conservatives (and anti-liberals) either do not know how to defend their arguments/positions or are solely on here to troll liberals. I do not know which; hence, why I'm here asking now. I have defended my arguments/positions with sound logic without constant name-calling or other childish means. I have many times called out the problems–-often times dangerous---within the liberal communities. Where is it on the other side? Where is the self-criticism of the other side on here? It's extremely rare for some of you to (a) criticize the president and (b) criticize the actions of those on the right just as rare as it is for you to defend the president and the actions of those on the right. Do you truly believe what you say or are you only saying it to be a troll? One of the objectives in my call for more civility was to stop assuming bad intentions on the behalf of those you disagree with; therefore, the fact that I am indeed asking what your intentions are is proof that I am truly trying to get to the crux of this problem. I am not assuming the worst, I am asking why is there a lack of effort on the other side to defend their beliefs without constant name-calling and childishness and without deflecting to the problems of the other side.
What you call "deflecting to the problems of the other side", I call pointing out liberal hypocrisy.
-
It was a blatant lie by CNN to fit their narrative.
She DID NOT call for calm and peace. She called for blacks to burn down the suburbs.
CNN knew this because they later posted their own "full" copy of the event.
You assign a motive to the mistake because it fits your narrative. It may have been maliciously edited, or it may have been carelessly edited for time.
My point is if a YouTube user "BlacksforPeace" posted the edited video, how would know it had been edited? The media brings such things to light. I don't use YouTube much, but are confident that a deceptively edited video will be exposed by another YouTube user and posted in the comments so you can easily find it?
Do you seriously believe that CNN edited out "take that shit to the suburbs and burn their shit down" by accident? Or do you think they edited it out so they could claim she was calling for peace?
YouTube is extremely good at self cleaning/correcting.
To be fair, it's probably easy to thoroughly invert the facts and accept the New Truth when you are a Cultist and a True Believer.
