I used to think Clothy was an idiot, but a genuine one - now I think he’s a troll. so, yes, we need to stop feeding him.
:mad:
George Will is a respected conservative commentator. Perhaps we can loook to him to bridge the gap which worries OP.
Mr. Will is alarmed by Mr. Trump’s inability to think. How do the Board’s right-wingers feel about that?
Just like a Democrat to say something like that. A few decades ago, they’d be asking why they can’t lynch black people. What is it with Democrats and wearing hoods?
I’m not sure you understand math.
That would be very neighborly.
It’s always Democrats doing the bad thing first. Republicans are slow to retaliate because we’re saddled with excessively strong morals. It’s a handicap.
Kidding, right? Who cares what justification Democrats used for Borking Bork. They started it, and as is usual with Dems, they thought their scorched earth tactics would never come back to haunt them. Wrong.
“An eye for an eye will leave everyone blind.” Gandhi’s quote has the usual flaw: if you’re fighting against sufficiently vicious opponents, ending up blind and standing beats being blind on your knees.
Democrats aren’t interested in playing fair. They cheat their own (as Bernie learned, to his amazement), so you know they’ll cheat their opponents. The reason so many
Republicans love Trump is because he fights just like Democrats do: dirty.
We’re heartily sick of fielding decent gentlemen like Bush and Romney, only to have Democrats call them Hitler. Now we’ve got a bare knuckle brawler thumping on the Left and it’s driving them crazy. Not that it’s a very far trip.
Absolutely. Which is why we need to force the media to be evenhanded. Or strip them of their licenses and let someone else try.
All we have is Fox News and Breitbart. The Left has all the other media. So I’d be happy to lose Fox if in exchange the Left lost the NYT, WaPo, Time mag, Newsweek, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, you get the picture.
She coasted for most of the election, keeping clear of the media. When she did have the rare interview, she got softball questions that didn’t address her health, or the tarmac meeting, or any number of other controversies that afflicted her campaign. If she’d been a Republican, the press would have gone after her non-stop with negative stories.
You really should take a step back and read what you’re writing because it’s absurd. The mainstream media is exclusively Leftist. Fox News is a cable channel with a small fraction of the viewers that the MSM enjoys. Breitbart is not a major news source (it’s on the order of BuzzFeed).
Strip the major broadcasters of their licenses because their biased news coverage is hurting America. Then the next guys would learn. We’d only have to do it once.
And if the Democrats did the same thing when they got into office again (could happen), things would go back to the way they’ve been for generations.
The lunatic is on my message board.
You are a fucking moron. I shall put you in a box, with your chickenshit thoughts, and you will only be allowed to think and speak of those thoughts. Not that it would make any difference, because you are already bound up tightly in your hate and stupid.
OK, you say that we should strip away the freedom of the press that’s enshrined in the First Amendment. And you also say that any time anyone does anything bad, it’s the liberals who did it first. So, what prior occasion of the liberals stripping away the freedom of the press would you like to point to?
I’m sure you believe that. A solid half the country doesn’t. Clearly, there’s something going on here. There’s a partisan disconnect. I’m asking you to take a step back and think, “what if I’m not sure if I’m right, what can I do to help American democracy?”.
Okay. Do you see how Garland was not just equivalent, but an escalation of this pattern? It’s not like Obama nominated someone republicans hated, and republicans responded by saying, “No, fuck this guy, nominate someone else” as the democrats did for Reagan. What we have here is an escalation. It’s getting worse, not better, to the point where now the norm is not “congress generally agrees on supreme court justices” but rather “congress will only confirm judges if their partisan leaning agrees with the president”. Things got worse. It doesn’t matter if you’re a democrat or a republican, our political system got that much more dysfunctional.
Again, what I am asking you to do is step outside of partisan politics for a moment. The democrats thought they were justified in blocking Bork’s nomination because of his history with Watergate and his fairly radical writings on race and gender. The republicans thought they were justified in blocking Garland’s nomination because they had the votes. Both events were objectively harmful to American democratic norms as a result. The more we respond the way you have, with, “The other side did it first, therefore it’s okay when we do it”, the worse these norms get. To put it bluntly, the American political system is not good enough to face a constant devolution of norms. We’re not Germany, we don’t have a political system specifically built to work even when partisan politics gets increasingly dysfunctional.
Can you give me a number? What percentage of coverage would you estimate was negative for Clinton on mainstream “leftist” media networks? Trust me, there is a point here.
Breitbart is the single largest right-wing website. It actually beats out Fox News for that title. In the US, it’s in the top 50 most visited websites, according to Alexa. The only news sources online that are bigger are CNN, the Washington Post, and the New York Times. Sure, it’s technically on the order of BuzzFeed, but BuzzFeed is also huge - much bigger than almost any mainstream news organizations.
Meanwhile, Fox News is the #1 news network in America. It has been for 15 years.
You’re really underestimating the reach and impact of right-wing news. Even if you do assume that there’s an equivalence in partisan spin between Breitbart/Fox and the mainstream media, there isn’t this huge liberal tilt to media, because the major right-wing sources are really, really big.
You never did answer the question. What happens the democrats take power, and decide that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander? After all, you’re the one saying that they’re so vicious and “fight dirty”. You object that if you take away Fox and Breitbart, the right wing has nothing; do you think they care? If the standard is “strip biased broadcasters of their licenses”… Well, I hope I don’t have to explain to you that most democrats think that Fox and Breitbart are far more biased than any mainstream media sources.
Again, what I’m asking you to do is step outside the bounds of partisanship. You seriously think the democrats are so vicious? Well, guess what: if they are, whatever you do to them, they’re going to do to you back.
…You mean for generations, we didn’t have a free and open press? These norms are not easily replaced.
Reasoning with trolls (and especially articles of clothing of trolls) never works.
None of the above, Bryan, just pointing out liberal stupidity which ties your collective shorts in a knot. Deal with it.
And as usual, you would be wrong.
And as usual, you would be wrong.
Says the guy who used the Daily Caller. :rolleyes:
сосать мой член, товарищ
@ OP
I really don’t understand this at all.
Someone decides to post a piece dividing America into a camp they identify with, an other camp they ascribe all kinds of negatives without sources, wonders why America is divided, and after four pages, they have only personal attacks to offer?
I’m sorry, but all this did is come off as rabid. It’s like the words defy the hope, and the actions give lie to any kind of trying to build common ground.
If you really want common ground, don’t start with an attack. Start with the problem, and if the problem is “I really don’t understand why Liberals think this way…”, that’s something people can explore. Because the way this went, you look like part of the problem, like all you want is validation for a narrow worldview where you and Donald Trump are right and everyone else is wrong.
I think this has already been addressed. The networks do not have licenses that can be stripped. The licenses belong to each individual broadcaster, not the network. You would have to go out and strip each individual station of their license. Then, of course, you have cable/satellite. Do those content providers have to have a license to feed to the cable provider? I am going to say probably not.
So what about Jezebel, The Daily Beast, Alternet, The Blaze, on ad infinitum? Those are somewhat-to-very popular sources, along with the sites that are run by the broadcast networks. How do you shut those down (apart from killing net neutrality), and where do you stop?
Y’know, if you don’t want to be seen as a troll, I offered a well-meaning suggestion that would probably be a pretty productive thread back on page 3.
From moron OP:
“The Constitution? Conservatives believe in it.”
That would be utter bullshit, flaming bullshit, or maybe “unconstitutional on its face”, or just a lie. Or all of the above.
One example, not a rarity but just the most recent:
“A federal court on Monday ruled to block President Trump’s executive order halting certain federal funds for so-called sanctuary cities, calling it “unconstitutional on its face.” …”
The sock troll eschews capitalization. That will fool 'em.
Actually, it probably will. Marley the Mighty Sockhunter was never adequately replaced.