Jump to content

WhipGate - Demmies Briefly Pay Attention to the Border When it Suits Their Narrative


Recommended Posts

Biden - never been to the border, possibly ever, as a politician.

Kamala Harris - Placed in charge of border security, still hasn't visited the border or done anything of consequence.

If you haven't seen it, you're lucky, but the Dems and CNN were trying to act like CBP guards on horseback were whipping illegal immigrants at the border.

The stooges at CNN know what whips really look like from all of the bogus therapy sessions that they deducted from their income tax, but they gave their fake fact-checkers a break and used the fake incident to draw attention away from Afghanistan, the massive border failures, rise in violent crimes, homelessness, fentanyl and everything else that is spiralling out of control under Dolt'un Joe. https://www.foxnews.com/media/fact-checkers-border-patrol-haitian-migrants-whip-horseback 

No one reminded those losers that one of the benefits of a wall is that it reduces the need for these types of encounters. There's less need for dogs, drones, horses, choppers, and all other mobile forms of border control when there's a wall. 

 

Here's a video showing the incident from a leftist dolt POV, but it's worth noting that Alejandro Mayorkas was lying when he said that "the illegal immigrants were sent home". Only a small fraction were actually sent back, between 10K-12K of them have been allowed into the US without a "demand to appear" at any point in time. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Shady said:

It’s the very definition of fake news.  No wonder why nobody trusts the mainstream media anymore.

All news is 'fake' under this attitude. But nonetheless, the kind of 'news' that many of the far rightwingers tend to believe is absurd, religious-like, emotionally driven, and SENSATIONAL.  You guys are attracted to rag magazine appeal. It is sufficient for you to know that rag magazines are sold openly and with more popularity to justify in your heads that it MUST be the actual truth. 

While mainstream media seems 'leftwing' to you, the nature of the money that is needed to keep them alive rely on capitalizing on the lowest common denominator. Fox's philosophy, for instance, is NOT 'truth' but PROFITS, with PRIORITY. The other media tend to at least TRY to have some validity but require MORE money by those who have a non-preferential appeal to mere profits. But they it is accepted at a loss. Such 'liberal' views in them will  thus not be without bias but rather favor a subset of people with shared ideals that have more inclusion in the TYPE of news they report. 

And what is worse, since all news programs gain more profit by the least intelligent and most emotionally VOLITILE interests, even if more variable, the more the conservative they are, such as Fox, the more ANTI-Logical they will appeal. The advertisers who pay for  most news still favors the BLIND BELEIVERS over those who think with any careful LOGICAL depth.

If you disagree, can you please tell me WHICH sources you trust and why? Do you ONLY use such selected sourcea of information or do you seek the various news prior to judging? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, I, who leans to the Left, actually question those who think there should be some open policy on immigration. That is, I believe that you should not simply open your doors to outsiders if you cannot repair the problems of those in your own house first. As such, I think the only reason the Left favors more open immigration policies more than those on the Right relate to the 'sub-Conservatives' who still dominate on the liberal side. 

But if you  agree, you'd have to recognize some appropriate compassion for all people here, not simply your own cult. For many here, I doubt that any compassion would be inversely granted towards reparing things with the Natives here given the faults that have tended to isolate them on reserves in the first place are the very "Christian" beliving institutions here under which NO party seems willing to challenge. So do you guys still agree (who may have) regarding fixing ALL people's issues here BEFORE any outsider? I doubt it.

Edited by Scott Mayers
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shady said:

It’s the very definition of fake news.  No wonder why nobody trusts the mainstream media anymore.

I’m with you on that but it’s unfortunate so many do give their trust, and take whatever is said on media at face value.

It takes effort to find out what the real story is, and it might take you out of your comfort zone. 

“As long as I’m alright, Jack”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

All news is 'fake' under this attitude. But nonetheless, the kind of 'news' that many of the far rightwingers tend to believe is absurd, religious-like, emotionally driven, and SENSATIONAL.  You guys are attracted to rag magazine appeal. It is sufficient for you to know that rag magazines are sold openly and with more popularity to justify in your heads that it MUST be the actual truth. 

Bullshit.

If you want to make accusations of fake news then you have to show them first. You don't just get to look at fake news from the Dem/s CNN and then make your baseless accusations against anyone you want. 

Quote

While mainstream media seems 'leftwing' to you, the nature of the money that is needed to keep them alive rely on capitalizing on the lowest common denominator. Fox's philosophy, for instance, is NOT 'truth' but PROFITS, with PRIORITY. The other media tend to at least TRY to have some validity but require MORE money by those who have a non-preferential appeal to mere profits. But they it is accepted at a loss. Such 'liberal' views in them will  thus not be without bias but rather favor a subset of people with shared ideals that have more inclusion in the TYPE of news they report. 

And what is worse, since all news programs gain more profit by the least intelligent and most emotionally VOLITILE interests, even if more variable, the more the conservative they are, such as Fox, the more ANTI-Logical they will appeal. The advertisers who pay for  most news still favors the BLIND BELEIVERS over those who think with any careful LOGICAL depth.

You drank the Kool-Aid, now you're here regurgitating it like a good little boy.

Grow up kid, this isn't a leftist echo chamber where people are going to treat your bigoted, idiotic opinions as facts. 

I've got hundreds of posts on here calling CNN and CTV fake news and if you go back and look, a lot of it isn't just daily drivel like this that goes away after a week or two. There are things like Russian collusion that went on for years that were fake, fake, fake right at the top of primetime, and all throughout the day.

Leftist dolts gobbled up more lies just from the Russian collusion hoax than people used to see in their entire lifetimes unless they joined a cult. 

Quote

If you disagree, can you please tell me WHICH sources you trust and why? Do you ONLY use such selected sourcea of information or do you seek the various news prior to judging? 

I trust Fox News dude, Tucker Carlson, Jessie Watters, Greg Gutfeld, Dana Perrino, etc.

If you'd like to try to find some video of those guys lying like this I'd love to see it.

Now you need to chime in with some news sources that you trust Scott. This is gonna be hilarious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

By the way, I, who leans to the Left, actually question those who think there should be some open policy on immigration. That is, I believe that you should not simply open your doors to outsiders if you cannot repair the problems of those in your own house first. As such, I think the only reason the Left favors more open immigration policies more than those on the Right relate to the 'sub-Conservatives' who still dominate on the liberal side. 

But if you  agree, you'd have to recognize some appropriate compassion for all people here, not simply your own cult. For many here, I doubt that any compassion would be inversely granted towards reparing things with the Natives here given the faults that have tended to isolate them on reserves in the first place are the very "Christian" beliving institutions here under which NO party seems willing to challenge. So do you guys still agree (who may have) regarding fixing ALL people's issues here BEFORE any outsider? I doubt it.

You're a god-damned political bigot and you don't even know it.

FYI conservatives aren't 'racists', we just don't fall for virtue-signalling clowns like Trudeau who talk a good game but are actually just greasy slimeballs who are here to line their pockets. When he poses by a grave with a Teddy Bear he's not actually showing you that he cares, he's trying to get votes. If he wanted to actually talk about how "Canadians" failed FN people he could start with his own dad, who was an asshole to FN people. Instead he throws Canadians under the bus and lies about the whole issue. (You've actually just stumbled on an actual instance of fake news from the leftist news outlets that you were probably just about to claim as your 'go-to' sources)

Summary, you came here and threw down your moronic opinion that 'conservatives can't possibly care for anyone outside of our demographic' thinking that it makes you look like a good person, but in reality you just proved that you're a brainwashed, bigoted leftist who gets their political dopamine rush by throwing decent people under the bus. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:
9 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

All news is 'fake' under this attitude. But nonetheless, the kind of 'news' that many of the far rightwingers tend to believe is absurd, religious-like, emotionally driven, and SENSATIONAL.  You guys are attracted to rag magazine appeal. It is sufficient for you to know that rag magazines are sold openly and with more popularity to justify in your heads that it MUST be the actual truth. 

Bullshit.

If you want to make accusations of fake news then you have to show them first. You don't just get to look at fake news from the Dem/s CNN and then make your baseless accusations against anyone you want. 

I was arguing that if those who cry out that the mainstream "media" is all so "fake", then their attitudes (not mine), coming from  the Right in particular (of whom Shady was implicitly supporting) should be questioning their own sources, which are ever more sensational, religious, and absurd than those mainstream networks. 

I think there is something wrong with your logic given you cannot properly interpret what I said. How you interpret me in some opposite way is weird.

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:
Quote

While mainstream media seems 'leftwing' to you, the nature of the money that is needed to keep them alive rely on capitalizing on the lowest common denominator. Fox's philosophy, for instance, is NOT 'truth' but PROFITS, with PRIORITY. The other media tend to at least TRY to have some validity but require MORE money by those who have a non-preferential appeal to mere profits. But they it is accepted at a loss. Such 'liberal' views in them will  thus not be without bias but rather favor a subset of people with shared ideals that have more inclusion in the TYPE of news they report. 

And what is worse, since all news programs gain more profit by the least intelligent and most emotionally VOLITILE interests, even if more variable, the more the conservative they are, such as Fox, the more ANTI-Logical they will appeal. The advertisers who pay for  most news still favors the BLIND BELEIVERS over those who think with any careful LOGICAL depth.

Expand  

You drank the Kool-Aid, now you're here regurgitating it like a good little boy.

Grow up kid, this isn't a leftist echo chamber where people are going to treat your bigoted, idiotic opinions as facts. 

I've got hundreds of posts on here calling CNN and CTV fake news and if you go back and look, a lot of it isn't just daily drivel like this that goes away after a week or two. There are things like Russian collusion that went on for years that were fake, fake, fake right at the top of primetime, and all throughout the day.

Leftist dolts gobbled up more lies just from the Russian collusion hoax than people used to see in their entire lifetimes unless they joined a cult. 

I'm an athiest and strongly at odds with 'culture' (root of the term, 'cult') being imposed upon people in government positions. This separates me from the liberal majority on my side.

What is the "this" that I underlined above you refer ato? It is ambiguous and lacks a preceding noun that it refers to in context. Are you saying 'this site'? If so, I didn't see that there was a definition of membership here to require being 'conservative'.

I'm NOT a kid  either and am likely your senior! [Any search of my name will not determine who I am if you were Googling it! I don't have active accounts in social media!!]

I am interpreting that you cannot even recognize maturity in one's language (rhetorically or logically) by your responses here. I can understand why you might not be able to understand the difference of what is or is not 'real' versus 'fake'! HINT: start questioning your own sources!

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:
Quote

If you disagree, can you please tell me WHICH sources you trust and why? Do you ONLY use such selected sourcea of information or do you seek the various news prior to judging? 

I trust Fox News dude, Tucker Carlson, Jessie Watters, Greg Gutfeld, Dana Perrino, etc.

If you'd like to try to find some video of those guys lying like this I'd love to see it.

Now you need to chime in with some news sources that you trust Scott. This is gonna be hilarious.

I am sufficiently BROAD in my viewership regarding news. I don't BLINDLY TRUST any source, even those reporters or commentators I DO like. I also can find value in Fox but KNOW that its philosophy is INTENTIONALLY sensational. That Network was set up to mimick the show "Hard Copy" as its model. They noticed that since MORE sales and attention are given TO sensationalism, they wanted to create a NEWS-like Network in the rag magazine style. You are the ideal obediant non-thinking viewer they PROFIT from. They also do NOT use the common standards of 'reporting' and do not SEPARATE the distinction between 'commentator' versus reporting. I personally find it entertaining to laugh at sometimes. It is an 'entertainment' network PRETENDING to be a news network! 

Remember John Stewart's MOCK news program? It was mocking the 'fake news' with ONE exception: they do not 'fake' that they are literally real and have an audience who helps let you know when or where one is 'faking' through entertainment. Fox's view is to NOT let anyone think they are NOT real and so lack the intention to let the viewer be able to tell the difference. And while many, like myself, thought that no one would actually take them literally serious. 

Commentators are NOT 'reporters'. Even CNN uses personalities but you know that they are commenting AS they use news they assume is true BY their reporters and let you know that they are just expressing their view where they go beyond reporting. 

Reporters generally do NOT reveal their particular bias where they are good. It doesn't mean that those selecting which reports they place up front aren't biased. But a NORMAL intellectual knows this and are not literally FAITHFUL of any of them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

You're a god-damned political bigot and you don't even know it.

FYI conservatives aren't 'racists', we just don't fall for virtue-signalling clowns like Trudeau who talk a good game but are actually just greasy slimeballs who are here to line their pockets. When he poses by a grave with a Teddy Bear he's not actually showing you that he cares, he's trying to get votes. If he wanted to actually talk about how "Canadians" failed FN people he could start with his own dad, who was an asshole to FN people. Instead he throws Canadians under the bus and lies about the whole issue. (You've actually just stumbled on an actual instance of fake news from the leftist news outlets that you were probably just about to claim as your 'go-to' sources)

Summary, you came here and threw down your moronic opinion that 'conservatives can't possibly care for anyone outside of our demographic' thinking that it makes you look like a good person, but in reality you just proved that you're a brainwashed, bigoted leftist who gets their political dopamine rush by throwing decent people under the bus. 

 

I interpret all politics as lacking logical resolution because we are still ANIMALS and rely most strictly upon EMOTIONS with priority.

But the problem with the Right is that its ideology is against government and so when IN office, their funciton is to destroy the very system and leave ONLY those institutions that POLICE IN FAVOR of those with privileged ownership 'rights' at the cost of the whole. That is, it is a view that intends to destroy a 'democratic' system of ALL people because you believe that the special class "owners" suffices to ACT as private governments. 

Those doing this cannot APPEAR as self-doubting because those RUNNING the movement from above are intentionally deceptive and use Machivellian tactics to manipute their dumb followers who, like you, have an apparent FAITH in Fox's sincerity as being 'real'. You are a devout anti-intellectual PAWN or are in the loop and being intentionally DECEPTIVE, as Trump is regarding his mystery 'win' of the election.

The anti-democratic ideal of the devout conservative is "Imperialistic" [believe in superior Royalty for the OWNERS just as they would believe in some religion.] and believe those who do not own, should not have a say. "Republican" means "for the public by few superior people", contrary to their 'popular'

The 'sexism' of the conservative is obvious and is a subset of 'race'. But the racial discriminators who HAVE something are dominant of the majority of those who own which represents the power of those who are 'white' and 'male'. While this is NOT true initially of many, the counter-identity extremists, like the KKK and NeoNazis exits ONLY on the Right.

By contrast, the LEFT, who also have the racists and sexists too are LESS ABLE to get empowered because these people are not unified by some particular common cult/culture. If you have distinct cults segregating on the LEFT, they AGREE not to go against each other's domain and so are relatively unable to affectively harm anyone where they exist. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

P.S. This thread is about the border and I do NOT personally think that people are unreasonable to be concerned as I mentioned above and likely where even many of those on the Left are against too. I know that the CNN philosophy and many of my own favorite commentators and entertainers elsewhere are jumping on the rhetorical interpretation of blindly letting people in. But unlike a conservative who might religiously defend what comes out of the mouth of those at Fox, viewers on the Left are not fooled by this and agree with some things and disagree with other things FROM THE SAME personalities all the way up to the network as a whole. 

I believe that we neglect too many at home and having BLIND acceptance of open invitations makes those who suffer at home stand alone and more isolated. I believe in also the TACTIC of separating the kids, as Trump had opted to do but WITHOUT prejudice. We could do better by helping repair conditions in their own country. When massive immigration is percieved effective in relieving their homeland systems, such abusers, where they exist, would ENCOURAGE and AMPLIFY this.

Fact 1 of Evolutionary theory by Darwin was noticing that where animals SUFFER more, they pop out more babies. By accepting immigrants from such suffering countries, you then burden those countries better off by 'colonizing' them via population representation. 

So see, I'm on the side of the 'conservative' on this issue! I just have likely very differnt motivating reasons for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/30/2021 at 7:31 PM, Scott Mayers said:

I was arguing that if those who cry out that the mainstream "media" is all so "fake", then their attitudes (not mine), coming from  the Right in particular (of whom Shady was implicitly supporting) should be questioning their own sources, which are ever more sensational, religious, and absurd than those mainstream networks. 

I've cited hundreds of examples of the leftist MSM being fake here. It's a proven fact now. The MSM is, at best, drivel for idiots. 

Quote

I think there is something wrong with your logic given you cannot properly interpret what I said. How you interpret me in some opposite way is weird.

I know exactly what you said, maybe it didn't mean what you thought it did.

Quote

I'm an athiest and strongly at odds with 'culture' (root of the term, 'cult') being imposed upon people in government positions. This separates me from the liberal majority on my side.

What is the "this" that I underlined above you refer ato? It is ambiguous and lacks a preceding noun that it refers to in context. Are you saying 'this site'? If so, I didn't see that there was a definition of membership here to require being 'conservative'.

Of course "this" refers to this site.

Don't confuse this with the "Trudeau is dreamy" FB site where you can post leftist drivel and it will stand as 'established facts'.

Quote

I'm NOT a kid  either and am likely your senior! [Any search of my name will not determine who I am if you were Googling it! I don't have active accounts in social media!!]

I am interpreting that you cannot even recognize maturity in one's language (rhetorically or logically) by your responses here. I can understand why you might not be able to understand the difference of what is or is not 'real' versus 'fake'! HINT: start questioning your own sources!

I was guessing at your age based on your willingness to soak up blatantly false propaganda. 

Quote

I am sufficiently BROAD in my viewership regarding news. I don't BLINDLY TRUST any source, even those reporters or commentators I DO like. I also can find value in Fox but KNOW that its philosophy is INTENTIONALLY sensational. That Network was set up to mimick the show "Hard Copy" as its model. They noticed that since MORE sales and attention are given TO sensationalism, they wanted to create a NEWS-like Network in the rag magazine style. You are the ideal obediant non-thinking viewer they PROFIT from. They also do NOT use the common standards of 'reporting' and do not SEPARATE the distinction between 'commentator' versus reporting. I personally find it entertaining to laugh at sometimes. It is an 'entertainment' network PRETENDING to be a news network! 

That was a ridiculous jumble of tired CNN commentary. 

Fox News is a mixture of news coverage (Brett Baier is the best anchor in America right now) and political commentary (Carlson, Perrino, Watters, Hannity, etc).

Of course you laugh at Hannity, but if you go back and look at his coverage of Russian collusion you'll find it quite prophetic, compared to the drivel at CNN and MSNBC which was and still is pathetic (99% lies and innuendo). 

Hannity predicted all the firings and demotions in the FBI, and he laid out the connections to Hillary years ago. It was just a couple of weeks ago that a lawyer from Perkins Coie was charged criminally for his part in it (ie, the things that he did at Hillary's behest which were crimes. He's the fall guy).

Quote

Remember John Stewart's MOCK news program? It was mocking the 'fake news' with ONE exception: they do not 'fake' that they are literally real and have an audience who helps let you know when or where one is 'faking' through entertainment. Fox's view is to NOT let anyone think they are NOT real and so lack the intention to let the viewer be able to tell the difference. And while many, like myself, thought that no one would actually take them literally serious. 

I don't remember John Stewart's mock news program. I don't watch late night TV. 

If you watch CTV and CNN and think that's real news, I'm sorry, but you're doing the exact same thing that complete idiots do. Make of that what you will.

Quote

Commentators are NOT 'reporters'. Even CNN uses personalities but you know that they are commenting AS they use news they assume is true BY their reporters and let you know that they are just expressing their view where they go beyond reporting. 

Now you're warming up.

CTV, CBC, CNN and Fox all have a news hour, and each one of their news hours is anywhere from "mildly biased" to "completely biased to the point of being outright lies". CTV, CBC and CNN are on the extreme edge of 'outright lying'.

Quote

Reporters generally do NOT reveal their particular bias where they are good. It doesn't mean that those selecting which reports they place up front aren't biased. But a NORMAL intellectual knows this and are not literally FAITHFUL of any of them. 

When they are good? FFS, leftist reporters stand in front of burning buildings and say "The riots were mostly peaceful". Anyone who can watch that more than once and still think it's an example of "reporting the news" is an idiot. 

 

 

Edited by WestCanMan
Added 'which'
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/30/2021 at 8:02 PM, Scott Mayers said:

I interpret all politics as lacking logical resolution because we are still ANIMALS and rely most strictly upon EMOTIONS with priority.

But the problem with the Right is that its ideology is against government and so when IN office, their funciton is to destroy the very system and leave ONLY those institutions that POLICE IN FAVOR of those with privileged ownership 'rights' at the cost of the whole. That is, it is a view that intends to destroy a 'democratic' system of ALL people because you believe that the special class "owners" suffices to ACT as private governments. 

OMGF, that's just pure lunacy like I've never even seen before. Not even MSNBC goes that far.

You clearly don't even understand the role of government. I'm not breaking this down for you. 

Quote

Those doing this cannot APPEAR as self-doubting because those RUNNING the movement from above are intentionally deceptive and use Machivellian tactics to manipute their dumb followers who, like you, have an apparent FAITH in Fox's sincerity as being 'real'. You are a devout anti-intellectual PAWN or are in the loop and being intentionally DECEPTIVE, as Trump is regarding his mystery 'win' of the election.

Intentionally deceptive lol.

Do you know what's deceptive?

Claiming to be the party of "the $15/hr minimum wage and helping America's poor" while you're actually opening the border to millions of people who will work under the table and then compete with poor people for low income housing.

Rich people like Nancy Pelosi will benefit greatly from having a wave of destitute immigrants pour into the country to live as 2nd class citizens, the inner city stooges who voted for her will be the ones who have to live in the increased level of squalor that results from her deception and incompetence.

Quote

The anti-democratic ideal of the devout conservative is "Imperialistic" [believe in superior Royalty for the OWNERS just as they would believe in some religion.] and believe those who do not own, should not have a say. "Republican" means "for the public by few superior people", contrary to their 'popular'

Now you have absolutely no clue whatsoever what democracy is lol. Where do you get your ideas from? 

At the exact same time that you were writing this, the Dems were dragging Synema and Mancin through the mud FOR ACTING WITH INTEGRITY, ON BEHALF OF THEIR CONSTITUENTS, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO DO IN THEIR DEMOCRACY!

The Dems' belief that every Dem Senator has to do what Joe Biden tells them to do is the exact opposite of democracy.

Pelosi and Biden actually planned to go into a sesssion which would go for minutes, hours, or days if that's what it took to bend Mancin to their will. That's a pretty scary tactic. 

Trudeau has the exact same attitude in Canada. Members of his cabinet an Liberal MPs have no choice but to vote in lock step with them or they get booted from the party.

Quote

The 'sexism' of the conservative is obvious and is a subset of 'race'. But the racial discriminators who HAVE something are dominant of the majority of those who own which represents the power of those who are 'white' and 'male'.

 

That's just abject stupidity right there.

Quote

While this is NOT true initially of many, the counter-identity extremists, like the KKK and NeoNazis exits ONLY on the Right.

The KKK were an actual militia of the demonrats just like Antifa and BLM are today (in a less official capacity).

The Nazis were socialists. Look at what the socialists in Venezuela have resorted to. Government using guns to kill civilians. 

You know what happens in communist countries, right? Do you think that communism is right wing too? 

Quote

By contrast, the LEFT, who also have the racists and sexists too are LESS ABLE to get empowered because these people are not unified by some particular common cult/culture. If you have distinct cults segregating on the LEFT, they AGREE not to go against each other's domain and so are relatively unable to affectively harm anyone where they exist. 

The whole left is one big stupid mob ffs.

They say thousands of idiotic things and then just say "you're a racist/sexist/etc" if you disagree. You did it earlier. You're an actual political bigot.  

Edited by WestCanMan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, WestCanMan said:
On 9/30/2021 at 8:31 PM, Scott Mayers said:

I was arguing that if those who cry out that the mainstream "media" is all so "fake", then their attitudes (not mine), coming from  the Right in particular (of whom Shady was implicitly supporting) should be questioning their own sources, which are ever more sensational, religious, and absurd than those mainstream networks. 

I've cited hundreds of examples of the leftist MSM being fake here. It's a proven fact now. The MSM is, at best, drivel for idiots. 

What is the 'alternative' sources that you find so much more convincing? Please list them so that I can make a fair comparison

 

4 hours ago, WestCanMan said:
Quote

I'm an athiest and strongly at odds with 'culture' (root of the term, 'cult') being imposed upon people in government positions. This separates me from the liberal majority on my side.

What is the "this" that I underlined above you refer ato? It is ambiguous and lacks a preceding noun that it refers to in context. Are you saying 'this site'? If so, I didn't see that there was a definition of membership here to require being 'conservative'.

Of course "this" refers to this site.

Don't confuse this with the "Trudeau is dreamy" FB site where you can post leftist drivel and it will stand as 'established facts'.

I unaware of the forum(s) you are implying exist nor that this site was a private club for conservatives only. (?)

Can you please show me where this site was set up to provide the conservative view only? How do get the idea that people have to go to segregated forums? Do you need a 'safe space'? 

4 hours ago, WestCanMan said:
Quote

I'm NOT a kid  either and am likely your senior! [Any search of my name will not determine who I am if you were Googling it! I don't have active accounts in social media!!]

I am interpreting that you cannot even recognize maturity in one's language (rhetorically or logically) by your responses here. I can understand why you might not be able to understand the difference of what is or is not 'real' versus 'fake'! HINT: start questioning your own sources!

I was guessing at your age based on your willingness to soak up blatantly false propaganda.

Asserting that anyone uses "blatantly false propaganda" without backing it up is just an immature insult, not a proof of anything.  The rhetoric should support a logical argument, not be the logic.  I certainly do NOT practice faith in any sources that I use and my strength in argument is not based upon appeals to authority but to actual self investment in thinking on my own terms. By contrast, you seem to have a faith in certain non-main-stream sources that I'll have to wait to see whom you support. What is your definition of "mainstream" regarding media? ....popular? Do independent individuals who can afford the time and space to set up a youTube channel with the freedom to be able to make it about anything qualify as more trustworthy a source? 

Don't hold back, give me an example of your superior qualifing news sources and tell me how you KNOW that these sources are more valid than the mainstream competition? 

5 hours ago, WestCanMan said:
Quote

I am sufficiently BROAD in my viewership regarding news. I don't BLINDLY TRUST any source, even those reporters or commentators I DO like. I also can find value in Fox but KNOW that its philosophy is INTENTIONALLY sensational. That Network was set up to mimick the show "Hard Copy" as its model. They noticed that since MORE sales and attention are given TO sensationalism, they wanted to create a NEWS-like Network in the rag magazine style. You are the ideal obediant non-thinking viewer they PROFIT from. They also do NOT use the common standards of 'reporting' and do not SEPARATE the distinction between 'commentator' versus reporting. I personally find it entertaining to laugh at sometimes. It is an 'entertainment' network PRETENDING to be a news network! 

Expand  

That was a ridiculous jumble of tired CNN commentary. 

Fox News is a mixture of news coverage (Brett Baier is the best anchor in America right now) and political commentary (Carlson, Perrino, Watters, Hannity, etc).

Of course you laugh at Hannity, but if you go back and look at his coverage of Russian collusion you'll find it quite prophetic, compared to the drivel at CNN and MSNBC which was and still is pathetic (99% lies and innuendo). 

Hannity predicted all the firings and demotions in the FBI, and he laid out the connections to Hillary years ago. It was just a couple of weeks ago that a lawyer from Perkins Coie was charged criminally for his part in it (ie, the things that he did at Hillary's behest which were crimes. He's the fall guy).

You have a right to your beliefs. You are defending some particular single source here as though it were some Church who refers to God for their vetting process . I do not require proving that all the other sources are 100% true as you do of your 'alternative news' favorites because, unlike you, I do NOT blindly believe in any single source for news.

Do you think it appropriate to trust someone absolutely  or distrust them absolutely with stict exclusion. You sound like the person who ONLY likes one band or style of music and disrespects all others as garbage. Your favoritism is based only on whether the reporting is in your literal 'favor'. And given your favor is absurdly narrow, how does your MINORITY preference not come across so shallow minded? 

Besides Fox, which other sources are you asserting as exclusively "all knowing" and how do you KNOW that their declared "facts" are in fact, 'true' or 'false'? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, WestCanMan said:
Quote

Commentators are NOT 'reporters'. Even CNN uses personalities but you know that they are commenting AS they use news they assume is true BY their reporters and let you know that they are just expressing their view where they go beyond reporting. 

Now you're warming up.

CTV, CBC, CNN and Fox all have a news hour, and each one of their news hours is anywhere from "mildly biased" to "completely biased to the point of being outright lies". CTV, CBC and CNN are on the extreme edge of 'outright lying'.

Please give particular examples when you use the term, 'lie'.

For instance, do you think that Trump won the U.S. election? (Fox supported Trump without validity. The rest did not.)

 

What is an example, "lie", that you interpret the mainstream media perpetrating and how do you KNOW the opposite is not a "lie"?

Edited by Scott Mayers
extended last sentence
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

What is the 'alternative' sources that you find so much more convincing? Please list them so that I can make a fair comparison

I already answered this question once for you. Go look, I'm not writing that post again. 

All you have to know is that the MSM has zero credibility.

You can find out if a plane crashed by watching MSM, but I can tell you in advance, it wasn't Trump's fault.

Quote

I unaware of the forum(s) you are implying exist nor that this site was a private club for conservatives only. (?)

Can you please show me where this site was set up to provide the conservative view only? How do get the idea that people have to go to segregated forums? Do you need a 'safe space'? 

Lol. This is just a BS-free zone. 

You can say the things that you want to say in a leftist echo chamber but you'll be made fun of here. 

Quote

Asserting that anyone uses "blatantly false propaganda" without backing it up is just an immature insult, not a proof of anything.  The rhetoric should support a logical argument, not be the logic.  I certainly do NOT practice faith in any sources that I use and my strength in argument is not based upon appeals to authority but to actual self investment in thinking on my own terms. By contrast, you seem to have a faith in certain non-main-stream sources that I'll have to wait to see whom you support. What is your definition of "mainstream" regarding media? ....popular? Do independent individuals who can afford the time and space to set up a youTube channel with the freedom to be able to make it about anything qualify as more trustworthy a source? 

Besides Fox, which other sources are you asserting as exclusively "all knowing" and how do you KNOW that their declared "facts" are in fact, 'true' or 'false'? 

You're just coming to the game a bit late dude. I've got over 7,000 posts here and most of them poke holes in MSM BS. I can't re-hash all of that for you.

Briefly:

Dr Ford story was leftist BS that was only fit for leftist moron consumption. Ditto for Russian collusion, Rayshard Brooks, whipgate, the Jan 6th apocalypse, the Afghan withdrawal success story, Trudeau's We Scandal coverage, the SNC scandal coverage, covid, BLM, Biden's sanity, "the laptop is Russian disinformation", etc, etc. 

Anyone who watched more than ten minutes of any of that coverage on MSM has brain damage now. 

Quote

 

Don't hold back, give me an example of your superior qualifing news sources and tell me how you KNOW that these sources are more valid than the mainstream competition? 

 

Already covered it in another post that was directed at you.

Quote

You have a right to your beliefs. You are defending some particular single source here as though it were some Church who refers to God for their vetting process . I do not require proving that all the other sources are 100% true as you do of your 'alternative news' favorites because, unlike you, I do NOT blindly believe in any single source for news.

I'm not defending anything. I'm telling you something. 

Quote

Do you think it appropriate to trust someone absolutely  or distrust them absolutely with stict exclusion. You sound like the person who ONLY likes one band or style of music and disrespects all others as garbage. Your favoritism is based only on whether the reporting is in your literal 'favor'. And given your favor is absurdly narrow, how does your MINORITY preference not come across so shallow minded? 

Of course I recognize the fact that Fox is biased, the reason that I watch them is because they're not lying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

Please give particular examples when you use the term, 'lie'.

For instance, do you think that Trump won the U.S. election? (Fox supported Trump without validity. The rest did not.)

Trump lost the election, but the integrity of the 2020 election was highly questionable for a developed western nation.

Just the fact that CNN was already calling the election completely legitimate at 10PM on election night should raise red flags for you, because they spent all of 2017, 2018, 2019 and the first 10 months of 2020 saying that the 2016 election was illegitimate.

How did they suddenly become believers in the 2020 election in advance? How did they know on Jan 6th that the election wasn't stolen? Weird, hey?

Quote

What is an example, "lie", that you interpret the mainstream media perpetrating and how do you KNOW the opposite is not a "lie"?

From another post to you:

Dr Ford story was leftist BS that was only fit for leftist moron consumption. Ditto for Russian collusion, Rayshard Brooks, whipgate, the Jan 6th apocalypse, the Afghan withdrawal success story, Trudeau's We Scandal coverage, the SNC scandal coverage, covid, BLM, Biden's sanity, "the laptop is Russian disinformation", etc, etc. 

That's just a start. You can name any major story of the last 4 years and I'll tell you just how misinformed you are if you watched CNN, CTV or CBC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

Trump lost the election, but the integrity of the 2020 election was highly questionable for a developed western nation.

Just the fact that CNN was already calling the election completely legitimate at 10PM on election night should raise red flags for you, because they spent all of 2017, 2018, 2019 and the first 10 months of 2020 saying that the 2016 election was illegitimate.

How did they suddenly become believers in the 2020 election in advance? How did they know on Jan 6th that the election wasn't stolen? Weird, hey?

From another post to you:

Dr Ford story was leftist BS that was only fit for leftist moron consumption. Ditto for Russian collusion, Rayshard Brooks, whipgate, the Jan 6th apocalypse, the Afghan withdrawal success story, Trudeau's We Scandal coverage, the SNC scandal coverage, covid, BLM, Biden's sanity, "the laptop is Russian disinformation", etc, etc. 

That's just a start. You can name any major story of the last 4 years and I'll tell you just how misinformed you are if you watched CNN, CTV or CBC.

You are not likely able to change any view regardless of any logic anyone can use. In fact, the term "conservative" as it is used politically means that one wants only to prevent the loss of your present fortune or condition and why no matter the logic, you will use ANY MEANS to get your way, including lying, cheating, deceiving, and using the Machivelian tactics used to simply win the war.

The "progressive" concept of which the "liberal" views imply means that they desire a system that permits change because there is no actual 'true' political ideology. Rather, they believe in liberating themeselves and others in some way by basing it on "democracy", versus the authoritarian views you hold about your own 'superiority'. 

As for how anyone will percieve their favored side of politics, here is an analogy of what human politics is comparable to this illusion in general:

 

Now BECAUSE of the actual any-means-to-an-end philosophy only of the most conservative extremes like you hold, you don't care to be able to look at the issues objectively and thus are doomed for maintaining consistency of abuses to which the Left today is embracing their justification for censorship as their counterabusive defence So you are not helping the conservative cause but helping to defeat it. 

If you argue without compassion of the oppossing views, you PROVE that you have something to FEAR and why you hide behind anonymity and can only argue best by using insults and begging. This is a dillemma that other conservatives who MAY have sincere hope for are also being penalized  and what makes the majority on the left become less tolerant in kind. 

Are you not able to recognize this logic?

Edited by Scott Mayers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

You are not likely able to change any view regardless of any logic anyone can use. In fact, the term "conservative" as it is used politically means that one wants only to prevent the loss of your present fortune or condition and why no matter the logic, you will use ANY MEANS to get your way, including lying, cheating, deceiving, and using the Machivelian tactics used to simply win the war.

The "progressive" concept of which the "liberal" views imply means that they desire a system that permits change because there is no actual 'true' political ideology. Rather, they believe in liberating themeselves and others in some way by basing it on "democracy", versus the authoritarian views you hold about your own 'superiority'. 

As for how anyone will percieve their favored side of politics, here is an analogy of what human politics is comparable to this illusion in general:

 

Now BECAUSE of the actual any-means-to-an-end philosophy only of the most conservative extremes like you hold, you don't care to be able to look at the issues objectively and thus are doomed for maintaining consistency of abuses to which the Left today is embracing their justification for censorship as their counterabusive defence So you are not helping the conservative cause but helping to defeat it. 

If you argue without compassion of the oppossing views, you PROVE that you have something to FEAR and why you hide behind anonymity and can only argue best by using insults and begging. This is a dillemma that other conservatives who MAY have sincere hope for are also being penalized  and what makes the majority on the left become less tolerant in kind. 

Are you not able to recognize this logic?

OMG you found a video with some politically bigoted drivel in it, which you believe. Shocker. 

Is that honestly what you think being conservative means or are you playing stupid?

Do you understand that what you're saying implies that being conservative means that you're racist? Do you understand that falsely ascribing a negative character trait to an entire group of people is the exact definition of bigotry? The fact that you're saying that people are racist simply by being conservative means that you are an actual bigot. 

Can you show some examples of O'Toole, Scheer or Harper telling serious lies or getting caught in a breach of ethics? 

I can talk about Trudeau's lies, deceit, cheating and Machiavellian tactics all day.

I'm not sure what you thought you were achieving with that post, but you opened a debate where you were instantly hoisted on your own petard, and you re-emphasized the point that you're a bigot.

Please, carry on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

OMG you found a video with some politically bigoted drivel in it, which you believe. Shocker. 

Is that honestly what you think being conservative means or are you playing stupid?

Do you understand that what you're saying implies that being conservative means that you're racist? Do you understand that falsely ascribing a negative character trait to an entire group of people is the exact definition of bigotry? The fact that you're saying that people are racist simply by being conservative means that you are an actual bigot. 

Can you show some examples of O'Toole, Scheer or Harper telling serious lies or getting caught in a breach of ethics? 

I can talk about Trudeau's lies, deceit, cheating and Machiavellian tactics all day.

I'm not sure what you thought you were achieving with that post, but you opened a debate where you were instantly hoisted on your own petard, and you re-emphasized the point that you're a bigot.

Please, carry on. 

The video had no mention of politics but used the illusion because, with respect to our scientific evolution through discoveries of the world, many things can be intepreted SENSIBLY in polarizing ways. 

I'm not sure how you jumped to the racist implication? However,

"racists are conservative"  is a true statement, ...since being racist implies favoring ONLY one's own kind with strict conservation ...but

"conservatives are racists" is not true, ....because one can desire emotional conservation of those they love while not believing that others are less worthy of protection for their own causes with respect to lawmaking. 

That is, one who is racist will want to conserve their 'family' interests with absolute priority. That many conservatives DO happen to argue for "family" values, when it is a universal given regardless of political view, does imply that many who believe this are more likely to be racist because they think that lawmaking should not help those who are suffering that is not of their own.

[And yes, that makes the particular Indigenous who fight for their own kind uniquely just as 'racist' for their conservation measures regarding culture, even if they politically align to the Left at the present. The majority of the plural cults on the left are just as deceptively using that side with a handshake to other similar believers in there by merely agreeing NOT to harm each other as they attempt to eliminate those who are not 'pure' in their mating. This is just as illusive.]

 

Note to self (and others paying attention): Can those in Russia, China, or other similar outsiders see our youTube feeds here or do they only see the title of the links for youTube????

Did you just slip up, Comrade?

Edited by Scott Mayers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/2/2021 at 10:05 PM, Scott Mayers said:

The video had no mention of politics but used the illusion because, with respect to our scientific evolution through discoveries of the world, many things can be intepreted SENSIBLY in polarizing ways. 

I'm not sure how you jumped to the racist implication? However,

"racists are conservative"  is a true statement, ...since being racist implies favoring ONLY one's own kind with strict conservation ...but

"conservatives are racists" is not true, ....because one can desire emotional conservation of those they love while not believing that others are less worthy of protection for their own causes with respect to lawmaking. 

That is, one who is racist will want to conserve their 'family' interests with absolute priority. That many conservatives DO happen to argue for "family" values, when it is a universal given regardless of political view, does imply that many who believe this are more likely to be racist because they think that lawmaking should not help those who are suffering that is not of their own.

[And yes, that makes the particular Indigenous who fight for their own kind uniquely just as 'racist' for their conservation measures regarding culture, even if they politically align to the Left at the present. The majority of the plural cults on the left are just as deceptively using that side with a handshake to other similar believers in there by merely agreeing NOT to harm each other as they attempt to eliminate those who are not 'pure' in their mating. This is just as illusive.]

 

Note to self (and others paying attention): Can those in Russia, China, or other similar outsiders see our youTube feeds here or do they only see the title of the links for youTube????

Did you just slip up, Comrade?

You're not worth talking to.

I won't be replying directly to you anymore but I will crush your hideous ideologies and lies wherever I see them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

You're not worth talking to.

I won't be replying directly to you anymore but I will crush your hideous ideologies and lies wherever I see them.

Good luck, Comrade! As long as there are misinformants out there attempting to gaslight the meek and gullible citizens of our Western democracies by doing whatever it takes to destroy the credibility of trustworthy facts and logic in an attempt to divide us by pushing  our people's governments and corporations to censor content  for such overt online deception and abuses, I too will have to keep on fighting! ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...