US Politics

[kelownabomberfan]

3 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

 

There is no doublespeak or newspeak here. Truth is alive and well. 

 

You have no idea how much this made me laugh.

[kelownabomberfan]

1 hour ago, blue_gold_84 said:

What an echo chamber.

 

Exactly.

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

1 hour ago, kelownabomberfan said:

You have no idea how much this made me laugh.

I don't even know why I bother responding to your posts... you clearly don't reciprocate the time and effort. 

 

[kelownabomberfan]

Nick Sandmann, the "Make America Great Again" hat-toting 16-year-old from Kentucky seen in a series of January videos that showed him smiling among a crowd of his dancing, laughing peers as he was approached by an Indigenous drummer near the Lincoln Memorial, is suing the Washington Post.

Sandmann, a student at Covington Catholic High School, is suing the newspaper for $250 million in damages, alleging that it engaged in a "modern-day form of McCarthyism by competing with CNN and NBC, among others, to claim leadership of a mainstream and social media mob of bullies," according to legal documents posted online by lawyers Lin Wood and Todd McMurtry.

Said parties "attacked, vilified and threatened" Sandmann, according to the lawsuit.

The Post claimed that Sandmann instigated the Jan. 18 encounter when it "conveyed that Nicholas engaged in acts of racism by 'swarming'" Indigenous veteran Nathan Phillips, "'blocking' his exit away from the students and otherwise engaging in racist misconduct," the lawsuit said.

"The Post ignored basic journalist standards because it wanted to advance its well-known and easily documented, biased agenda against President Donald J. Trump by impugning individuals perceived to be supporters of the president."

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/maga-hat-wearing-kentucky-teen-sues-washington-post-for-dollar250-million-alleging-mccarthyism/ar-BBTPh7X?ocid=spartanntp

Should there be a penalty for publishing fake news?  We will see but this could be a landmark case.

[Mark F]

16 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

I don't even know why I bother responding to your posts... you clearly don't reciprocate the time and effort. 

 

Might read this: attributed to K . Rove

TACTICS FOR EFFECTIVE CONSERVATIVE BLOGGING
 

Engage

Demand an elaborate, time-consuming comparison / analysis between your position and theirs.

Entangle

Insist that the Liberal put their posts in their own words. That will consume the most time and effort for the Liberal poster.

They will be unable to spread numerous points on numerous blogs if you have them occupied. Allowing a Liberal to post a web link is too quick and efficient for them. Tie them up. We are going for delay of game here.

Demoralize

Dismiss their narrative as rubbish immediately.

Do not even read it. Once the Liberal goes through the trouble to research, gather, collate, compose and write their narrative your job is to discredit it. Make it obvious you tossed their labor-intensive narrative aside like garbage. This will have the effect of demoralizing the Liberal poster.

It will make them unwilling to expend the effort again, and for us, that is a net win.

Attack

Attack the source. Any Liberal website or information source must be marginalized, trivialized and discounted. Let the blogosphere know that Truthout.org, thinkprogress.org, the nation and moveon.org are Liberal rubbish propaganda. Discredit Liberal sources of information whenever possible.

Confuse

Challenge the Liberal position with questions, always questions. The questions need not be relevant. The goal is to knock the Liberal poster off their game, and seize control of the narrative.

Once you have control you can direct the narrative to where you want it to go, which is always away from letting the Liberal make their point. Conversely, do not respond to their leading questions. Don't rise to their bait.

Contain

Your job is to prevent the presentation and spread of Liberal viewpoints.

Do anything you must do to prevent a Liberal poster from presenting a well-reasoned argument or starting a civil discussion.

Don't allow a Liberal to present their dogma unchallenged EVER.

Intimidate

Taunt the Liberals. If you find yourself in a debate with a Liberal where you are losing a fact-based argument then call them a name to derail their diatribe. Remember your goal is to prevent a meaningful exchange of views and ideas which may portray Liberalism in a positive light.

Your goal as a conservative blogger is to stop the spread and advance of the Liberal agenda. Play upon any identifiable idiosyncrasies, character flaws, physical traits, names, to their disadvantage. Monitor other posts for vulnerabilities you can exploit. Stay on the offensive with Liberal wimps. Don't let up.

Insult their Movement

Assign as many character and moral flaws to Liberals as you can. You must portray Liberals as weak, vacillating, indecisive, amoral, baby killers, unpatriotic, effete snobs, elitists, Leftists, Commies, sense of entitlement, promiscuous, union lovers, tax raisers, Welfare Queens, Socialists, lazy, sex-obsessed, druggies, Jesus haters, moochers, troop hater,.etc. Always use these negative epithets when referring to, or describing Liberals / democrats.

Deceive

Identify yourself as a moderate, centrist or independent. It will also cause Liberals to lower their guard a bit, which gives you an effective opening. This may also have the effect of aligning conservative viewpoints with the real moderates we are attempting to reach.

It may serve to influence some moderates over to the Republican side.

Patriotism

Always claim the high ground of pro-military, low taxes, strong defense, morality and religion. We own those virtues. Learn how to exploit them when debating

Demean

Always refer to the other side as Liberals, Lefty Liberals, Libbies. Never assign them the status of a bona-fide political party. Hang Liberalism around their neck like a burning tire. Make Liberalism appear as a moral turpitude or a character flaw. They are NEVER, NEVER to be referred to as the Democratic Party. At best it is the democrat party. Never assign them respect.

Opportunity

Be alert for ways to insert our catch phrases into your narrative. You will receive your daily list of talking points and topics that we want you to cover. Consistent, persistent repetition and inculcation will drive our talking points home and so will neuro-linguistic programming. Stick with it and our talking points will become truth. If they debunk your talking point, ignore it, and move on as if you didn't hear it.

---

 

Edited February 21, 2019 by Mark F

[kelownabomberfan]

This is just sad:

 

The national outrage that simmered after actor Jussie Smollett said he was attacked by people shouting racial and anti-gay slurs was fueled in part by celebrities who spoke out loud and strong on social media.

 

But the outrage has now been replaced by surprise, doubt and bafflement as the singers, actors and politicians who came out in support of the “Empire” star struggle to digest the strange twists the case has taken. Some conservative pundits, meanwhile, have gleefully seized on the moment.

The narrative that just a week ago seemed cut-and-dry has become messy and divisive — and it’s all playing out again on social media.

 

If there was a "national outrage" over the dubious incident, it was limited to gullible left-wing journalists, celebrities, politicians, and activists.

The "narrative" only seemed "cut-and-dry" to people who were looking at the case through lenses clouded by their anti-Trump bias. It seemed made up to those of us who noticed that Smollett's allegations were outlandish, implausible, and riddled with inconsistencies from the get-go.

Yet even as his story started falling apart (which happened almost immediately), the national media clung to their precious narrative.

There's been much commentary in the past few days about the MSM's lack of critical thinking skills in covering not only the Jussie Smollett "hate crime" fairy tale, but a number of other bogus stories as well.

Over the years, the MSM has fallen for hundreds of hate crime hoaxes, reporting on them as if they were confirmed facts, rather than mere allegations. By the time the story is proven to be a hoax, the media has already moved on to the next manufactured outrage. This phenomenon has only increased since the election of President Trump. Yet people still expressed shock and surprise when it became obvious that Smollett had staged his own hate crime.

But fake hate crimes aren't the only type of bogus story the MSM routinely falls for.

In the past two years the national media has also rushed to embrace the phony Steele dossier, a multitude of fake Deep State leaks on the Trump/Russia probe that turned out to be spectacularly wrong, the outlandish Kavanaugh smears, and the Covington smears.

PJ Media's own Roger Simon called the media's propensity for believing the unbelievable "magical thinking."

 

Good Therapy defines magical thinking as "the belief that one’s own thoughts, wishes, or desires can influence the external world. It is common in very young children. A four-year-old child, for example, might believe that after wishing for a pony, one will appear at his or her house."

Another possible explanation for the media's gullibility would be confirmation bias, which is defined as "the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses." The overwhelmingly liberal media tend to embrace stories that confirm their own biases and ignore those that don't.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/why-does-the-msm-keep-falling-for-obvious-hoaxes/

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

8 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

This is just sad:

 

The national outrage that simmered after actor Jussie Smollett said he was attacked by people shouting racial and anti-gay slurs was fueled in part by celebrities who spoke out loud and strong on social media.

 

But the outrage has now been replaced by surprise, doubt and bafflement as the singers, actors and politicians who came out in support of the “Empire” star struggle to digest the strange twists the case has taken. Some conservative pundits, meanwhile, have gleefully seized on the moment.

The narrative that just a week ago seemed cut-and-dry has become messy and divisive — and it’s all playing out again on social media.

 

If there was a "national outrage" over the dubious incident, it was limited to gullible left-wing journalists, celebrities, politicians, and activists.

The "narrative" only seemed "cut-and-dry" to people who were looking at the case through lenses clouded by their anti-Trump bias. It seemed made up to those of us who noticed that Smollett's allegations were outlandish, implausible, and riddled with inconsistencies from the get-go.

Yet even as his story started falling apart (which happened almost immediately), the national media clung to their precious narrative.

There's been much commentary in the past few days about the MSM's lack of critical thinking skills in covering not only the Jussie Smollett "hate crime" fairy tale, but a number of other bogus stories as well.

Over the years, the MSM has fallen for hundreds of hate crime hoaxes, reporting on them as if they were confirmed facts, rather than mere allegations. By the time the story is proven to be a hoax, the media has already moved on to the next manufactured outrage. This phenomenon has only increased since the election of President Trump. Yet people still expressed shock and surprise when it became obvious that Smollett had staged his own hate crime.

But fake hate crimes aren't the only type of bogus story the MSM routinely falls for.

In the past two years the national media has also rushed to embrace the phony Steele dossier, a multitude of fake Deep State leaks on the Trump/Russia probe that turned out to be spectacularly wrong, the outlandish Kavanaugh smears, and the Covington smears.

PJ Media's own Roger Simon called the media's propensity for believing the unbelievable "magical thinking."

 

Good Therapy defines magical thinking as "the belief that one’s own thoughts, wishes, or desires can influence the external world. It is common in very young children. A four-year-old child, for example, might believe that after wishing for a pony, one will appear at his or her house."

Another possible explanation for the media's gullibility would be confirmation bias, which is defined as "the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses." The overwhelmingly liberal media tend to embrace stories that confirm their own biases and ignore those that don't.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/why-does-the-msm-keep-falling-for-obvious-hoaxes/

 

This is just sad..

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/pj-media/

 

Quote

Overall, we rate PJ Media to be borderline Questionable based on numerous failed fact checks, however they do fall just below the threshold and are therefore rated Right Biased and Mixed for factual reporting. (7/92016) Updated (D. Van Zandt 8/29/2018)

 

Edited February 21, 2019 by wanna-b-fanboy

[bustamente]

Wouldn't hold my breath waiting to see the Mueller report, once the new AG gets the report he will probably hold it for as long as possible if it is damming against Trump and then after pressure will give his interpretation of the report, that's when the real fun will begin.

[kelownabomberfan]

4 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

 

This is just sad..

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/pj-media/

 

 

Is there anything that you guys are actually allowed to read?  Or is this just the "go-to" every time someone writes something that you don't want to hear?  Immediately check the alt-left rating and then hold your hands over your ears??  So cowardly.  So what was in that article that was "borderline questionable" exactly?  Are you saying that the attack wasn't staged?  That the media wasn't fooled?  That they haven't been fooled hundreds of times?  Is there anything in that article that you think is incorrect?  Because this constant 1984'ing of all items that you disagree with is just really really sad.

[blue_gold_84]

Allowed to read...? No, that's not it. It's more of a matter of not wasting one's time reading garbage. Hence the purpose of vetting sources before recklessly posting them.

And I mean, sure... If you want to ignore how Media Bias/Fact Check analyzes all media sources on the entire spectrum from left (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/left/) to right (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/right/), fill your boots and make baseless, deflectionary accusations. I'd suggest instead, though, to spare us all from that and the other useless, defensive, whiny nonsense* and read up on this website: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/about/

Here's how MB/FC operates: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/

Here's the code of principles by which it operates: https://ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org/ (https://www.poynter.org/mission-vision/)

I'd really like to know how one can claim and substantiate MB/FC is an "alt-left rating" website when reality flies in the face of that claim. To say nothing of posting links from sources that have proven to be horribly biased and disingenuous.

The best part: you can use this same website to vet sources posted by others.

* the repeated use of "alt-left" and "1984" is actually absurd and bordering on delusional

[17to85]

2 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said:

Is there anything that you guys are actually allowed to read?  Or is this just the "go-to" every time someone writes something that you don't want to hear?  Immediately check the alt-left rating and then hold your hands over your ears??  So cowardly.  So what was in that article that was "borderline questionable" exactly?  Are you saying that the attack wasn't staged?  That the media wasn't fooled?  That they haven't been fooled hundreds of times?  Is there anything in that article that you think is incorrect?  Because this constant 1984'ing of all items that you disagree with is just really really sad.

You know in this day and age it is very important to actually think about the credibility of the news we consume. It is too easy to seek out things we agree with and just assume they are correct rather than actually doing some critical thinking of our own and deciding which news sources are to be trusted, and I am sorry but a lot of the crap you're posting is from horrendous sources. Yeah there's a lot of left leaning opinions out there that need to be ignored too, but honestly, the truth is much more left leaning than it is right, which is why so many news agencies appear to be slanted left. It's uncomfortable for people on the right to hear, but yes, the right is a minority. 

[kelownabomberfan]

26 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

You know in this day and age it is very important to actually think about the credibility of the news we consume. It is too easy to seek out things we agree with and just assume they are correct rather than actually doing some critical thinking of our own and deciding which news sources are to be trusted,

100% agree.  And this is why news sources that immediately jumped on the Jussie Smollett fraud need to be questioned.  What is causing these news sources to jump on these lies so fast.  Is it because of their confirmation bias?  I say yes.

26 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

 

and I am sorry but a lot of the crap you're posting is from horrendous sources.

First of all, you demonstrated that you hadn't even looked at it, so how do you know it's "Crap".  It appears that the only real metric that things are "crap" is based on what conflicts with your inherent bias.  If it makes you question the "crap" that you've chosen to believe as truth, then it must be shunned.  This whole "horrendous sources" thing is just so lame, and so sad.  It's just a cowardly excuse to ignore a different point of view.  To avoid having to think about anything that you've chose to believe as truth being questioned.  And that's just sad.

 

[kelownabomberfan]

42 minutes ago, blue_gold_84 said:

Allowed to read...? No, that's not it. It's more of a matter of not wasting one's time reading garbage.

LOL - "this doesn't agree with everything I've been told to believe" so therefore it is "garbage".  Just sad.

[kelownabomberfan]

 

[kelownabomberfan]

 

[blue_gold_84]

2 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said:

LOL - "this doesn't agree with everything I've been told to believe" so therefore it is "garbage".  Just sad.

Really... Try harder. These repetitious, unoriginal, moronic replies are absolutely pathetic, maralagobomberfan.

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

5 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said:

Is there anything that you guys are actually allowed to read?  Or is this just the "go-to" every time someone writes something that you don't want to hear?  Immediately check the alt-left rating and then hold your hands over your ears??  So cowardly.  So what was in that article that was "borderline questionable" exactly?  Are you saying that the attack wasn't staged?  That the media wasn't fooled?  That they haven't been fooled hundreds of times?  Is there anything in that article that you think is incorrect?  Because this constant 1984'ing of all items that you disagree with is just really really sad.

So let me get this straight... you berate me for fact checking and source checking articles people throw at me. Then you proceed to berate people who fall for the fake news media all the time and being fooled a HUNDRED times!  How does one even reconcile that thought process?

 

then you parrot trump's coined phrases of the altleft and sad/ 

Do you even know you are using trumpisms? or are you just well-indoctrinated into the alt-right speak? 

 

 

Edited February 21, 2019 by wanna-b-fanboy

[johnzo]

I wonder why wingers are so obsessed with AOC ... to the point where the FBI just arrested a Coast Guard white supremacist who was making plans to kill her...

Edited February 21, 2019 by johnzo

[The Unknown Poster]

When people run every single thing through their alt right white nationalist filter, there is no ability to  reason with them. None.  

Inagine feeling personally offended by AOC whole defending trump. It’s quite obvious what is happening there and it’s quite distasteful. 

Anyway, talk about fake news. Poor Tucker

EDIT: This is worth the watch.  Its about 7 minutes long I think but Tucker goes from supporting the guy when he thinks they are like-minded to having no answer...and in regular Tucker fashion, when he has no answer, he gets obnoxious before having a full melt down, calling the guy names, dropping F bombs and proclaiming it wont air.

Edited February 21, 2019 by The Unknown Poster

[The Unknown Poster]

5 hours ago, johnzo said:

I wonder why wingers are so obsessed with AOC ... to the point where the FBI just arrested a Coast Guard white supremacist who was making plans to kill her...

God forbid that create outrage.  No, the white nationalist outrage is directed towards people who felt compassion for a person claiming to be a victim of a racist, bigoted attack.  As if that's a bad thing.  These people are so devoid of compassion...sorry, let me be specific, they are devoid of compassion for blacks and gays.  They have plenty of compassion for the super rich, white guys who sexually abuse women (as long as they arent Democrats) etc.

Can we stop beating around the bush?  No one ever supported white supremacists because of their economic policies who wasnt also a racist.  And we can be subjected to all the goofy, "amusing" gifs and youtube clips in the world to hide that fact, but its the truth.  

Why is AOC always the target?  Lets see...rookie politician.  Woman.  Woman of colour.  It comes down to her needing to learn her place.  Its that simple.

[17to85]

Here's a tip, if the preview cap on a video is picked to give someone a maniacal look and bug eyes it's probably not a factual piece. I started watching one of your videos, I didn't need to finish it or watch the rest of them to know what they are. They're made so that rubes believe them. 

Not everything on the internet is true you know. 

[sweep the leg]

5 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Here's a tip, if the preview cap on a video is picked to give someone a maniacal look and bug eyes it's probably not a factual piece.

Lol, it's funny b/c it's true.

[kelownabomberfan]

9 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

So let me get this straight... you berate me for fact checking and source checking articles people throw at me. 

 

 

But you don't..  You go too whatever site tells you what you are allowed to read, and then Big Brother tells you that you can't read what they are saying.  Because GASP!! it might not agree with the confirmation bias that has been built.  You don't "fact-check", you look for any reason whatsoever to avoid reading anything that you disagree with.  It's really sad.  There is a real pattern here though - discredit any website that might disagree with whatever the accepted left "beliefs" are, and then use that fake discredit to just ignore what they are saying.  This is the perfect way to stay uninformed, and to remain inside an echo-chamber of your own design.

[kelownabomberfan]

10 hours ago, blue_gold_84 said:

Really... Try harder. These repetitious, unoriginal, moronic replies are absolutely pathetic, maralagobomberfan.

oh, I am seeing a lot of moronic replies here, that's for sure, and now of course as you are feeling scared that someone (GASP!!) is pointing out all of the holes in your confirmation bias, you are getting angry, and now are resulting to insults.  I get it, it's scary when you have to question what you've been told is truth.  But it's worth it.  Call me "Maralargo Bomber fan" all you want, but we both have brains, and I know you will use yours, and really start to think about all of the BS you've been fed.  And it's never too late.

[kelownabomberfan]

11 minutes ago, sweep the leg said:

Lol, it's funny b/c it's true.

and those AOC videos were funny, because they were true.  AOC says the dumbest things, that are actually funny.  "Everyone has two jobs" - LOL - the entertainment value of what comes out of her mouth is actually just that - entertainment.  Another parallel to Trump.