Yet another attack in England...

[RockRaines]

I also don't understand his gun angle, to me if these guys had guns and not knives, the death toll and injuries would have only been higher, but NRA, NRA.

UK has gun control laws and have about 55 gun deaths a YEAR. He is incapable of even simple research.

[RockRaines]

God I hate responses like this. We are literally dealing with organized evil and people like you make light of it because the odds of it ever impacting you directly is small.

So in your opinion, dont deal with the things that are MORE likely to hurt and kill us because of......well I guess I dont get your point at all.

[caulfield12]

https://twitter.com/kthopkins/status/871487298721992705

 

CNN staged scene to make it seems there was a protest.

 

 

CNN has claimed Antro’s footage is misleading, telling Mediaite that the demonstrators were simply allowed through a police cordon at the CNN crew’s request, and that the demonstration was quite real.

 

“This story is nonsense. The group of demonstrators that was at the police cordon was being allowed through by officers so they could show their signs to the gathered media. The CNN crew along with other media present simply filmed them doing so.”

 

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/230570

[GoSox05]

https://twitter.com/kthopkins/status/871487298721992705

 

CNN staged scene to make it seems there was a protest.

 

 

Lmao, Katie Hopkins.

 

She is someone we need to take really seriously.

[StrangeSox]

It's a video. The account made no opinion or commentary and is totally irrelevant. I scrolled up and down twitter to find a poster of the video where I wouldn't get this response but I guess it doesn't really matter.

 

yeah it didn't matter because apparently it was bulls*** anyway. if your only possible sources are right wingers on twitter, it might not be legitimate!

 

CNN has claimed Antro’s footage is misleading, telling Mediaite that the demonstrators were simply allowed through a police cordon at the CNN crew’s request, and that the demonstration was quite real.

 

“This story is nonsense. The group of demonstrators that was at the police cordon was being allowed through by officers so they could show their signs to the gathered media. The CNN crew along with other media present simply filmed them doing so.”

 

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/230570

 

[Dick Allen]

yeah it didn't matter because apparently it was bulls*** anyway. if your only possible sources are right wingers on twitter, it might not be legitimate!

So it was fake news fake news.

[Quin]

I'll wait for the James O'Keefe documentary

[GoSox05]

If one of the only sources about it is Katie Hopkins. A person who recently called for a "final solution" for Muslims. Maybe it's time to let that hot news story go.

[Soxbadger]

It's a video. The account made no opinion or commentary and is totally irrelevant. I scrolled up and down twitter to find a poster of the video where I wouldn't get this response but I guess it doesn't really matter.

 

Is it hard to always just make s*** up? Because that seems pretty time consuming. The account stated:

 

WATCH. @CNN scripting a narrative. Right before your eyes.

 

That is both opinion and commentary.

[Soxbadger]

Unbelievable. Video evidence of something taking place and it still doesn't matter.

 

For someone who has a connection to media, it sure is surprising that you arent familiar with what CNN allegedly did. They took people from a crowd and put them in an area where they would film better. It would be like showing a clip of Lebron James after the game wearing a suit and reaching a conclusion "LeBron didnt play in the game earlier because he wasnt in uniform."

 

The video has 0 context, it doesnt pan to the right or left. That being said, maybe she is right, I have no clue of knowing, but what I do know is your statement was false.

[StrangeSox]

One of the attackers was in a documentary on Islamic extremism last year, preached for ISIS

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/london-attacke...694685?mod=e2tw

[Soxbadger]

It's a video. The account made no opinion or commentary and is totally irrelevant. I scrolled up and down twitter to find a poster of the video where I wouldn't get this response but I guess it doesn't really matter.

 

 

What statement? I posted the video of CNN staging the set but shocker that you disagree with me and are just going to say I am wrong with some irrelevant hypothetical.

 

If the mainstream media is so unbiased (according to the ones who make up most of the posts here), why do the consistent posters in this sub-forum (proud lefties) go to war for them without pause? The uniform and overwhelming response of jokes, elitist handwaving, distractors and outright dismissal would make it seem as if an implicit bias exists.

 

Bringing up Lebron, O'Keefe and all of the snarl words instead of addressing the video of a bystander taping something real unfold seems like a cop out. Regardless, don't understand why most on left feel exactly the same on the issue but no one can address it - a video of CNN creating news - without pointing fingers, name calling, facetious jokes, snarl words, etc.

 

That's why I at least respect the takes of 'illinilaw' on here and try to integrate pieces of his insight into my line of thinking even if we usually disagree. He addresses the topic at hand and is respectful. He doesn't distract. He doesn't hand wave. He doesn't use snarl words. He doesn't create imaginary scenarios that convince him of his agenda-fueled points. He just gives analysis.

 

Before DA comes in and calls me a hypocrite - and brings up some topic from March that is so long ago away that he can intentionally mischaracterize without me being able to pull up the posts - I definitely get disrespectful at times in here but I come in with the intention of talking about the issue. Then everyone in the groupthink just makes fun of it (and me) and then employs all the tactics listed above.

 

Youre statement is the first quote. The account you linked did have an opinion/commentary. For someone who is seems to be so obsessed with "truthful" reporting, almost every one of your posts includes at best misleading information. I have no idea why you do it, it really is strange.

 

As for whether the mainstream media is biased or unbiased, I have no idea. I dont get into arguments that are that imprecise and are too generalized in nature. If you want to argue a single outlet, single reporter, etc are biased, that is something that could be argued. But I dont even know how to define Mainstream Media, is Fox mainstream? Are media outside the US mainstream? As its an impossible to define subset, I cant begin to respond to the allegation.

 

I cant help the fact that you gnore anything that doesnt fit into your worldview.

[RockRaines]

If one of the only sources about it is Katie Hopkins. A person who recently called for a "final solution" for Muslims. Maybe it's time to let that hot news story go.

She an evil piece of s***.

[caulfield12]

https://www.infowars.com/why-cnns-denial-th...-protest-is-bs/

 

If we can't take this "mainstream" reporting and objectively see the inherent bias at play, I don't know what to say.

 

What can we all even agree is mainstream these days? No daily newspapers. Maybe USA Today? So...what, just Time, Newsweek and US News & World Report? The Christian Science Monitor? And C-Span, who still get attacked during Daily Journal for being biased towards the left when literally they go from Independent to Dem to a Republican in answering calls.

 

Politico? Politifact? Realclearpolitics, but they just assemble articles from both sides of the spectrum.

Edited June 5, 2017 by caulfield12

[Soxbadger]

Likewise.

 

This is the perfect summation of your posting on this board. You have been posting in the filibuster for at least a year (give or take) and you have absolutely no idea what my worldview is. The only reason I even respond is to try and correct your misleading posts, in hopes that one day you will attempt to argue more honestly. I know that is difficult for you, but that is the baseline for having real discussion on an issue.

[Dick Allen]

What statement? I posted the video of CNN staging the set but shocker that you disagree with me and are just going to say I am wrong with some irrelevant hypothetical.

 

If the mainstream media is so unbiased (according to the ones who make up most of the posts here), why do the consistent posters in this sub-forum (proud lefties) go to war for them without pause? The uniform and overwhelming response of jokes, elitist handwaving, distractors and outright dismissal would make it seem as if an implicit bias exists.

 

Bringing up Lebron, O'Keefe and all of the snarl words instead of addressing the video of a bystander taping something real unfold seems like a cop out. Regardless, don't understand why most on left feel exactly the same on the issue but no one can address it - a video of CNN creating news - without pointing fingers, name calling, facetious jokes, snarl words, etc.

 

That's why I at least respect the takes of 'illinilaw' on here and try to integrate pieces of his insight into my line of thinking even if we usually disagree. He addresses the topic at hand and is respectful. He doesn't distract. He doesn't hand wave. He doesn't use snarl words. He doesn't create imaginary scenarios that convince him of his agenda-fueled points. He just gives analysis.

 

Before DA comes in and calls me a hypocrite - and brings up some topic from March that is so long ago away that he can intentionally mischaracterize without me being able to pull up the posts - I definitely get disrespectful at times in here but I come in with the intention of talking about the issue. Then everyone in the groupthink just makes fun of it (and me) and then employs all the tactics listed above.

You sure do like to mention ion me a lot, but you are a hypocrite, mentioning handwaving as disrespectful, intentionally mischarachterizing, creating imaginary scenarios, you did it all in this post. Nice job.

Edited June 5, 2017 by Dick Allen

[caulfield12]

I think a one word post is in no way of indicative of any method of communication I have ever been apart of but you know me better than me.

 

What I understand, and you seemingly don't, is that people have political views that help shape their opinions. If you're in a certain camp, which you are, you see your beliefs as absolute truth. Just because you and the groupthink agree on 75%+ of the stuff posted doesn't mean you are right. You are compromised by ideology. You call my posts misleading, but the reality is you just disagree with me. Most of ours posts are opinion after all. Frankly, partisanship is voluntary hypocrisy. I don't partake in that. I don't need to call Trump on his s*** because Strange Sox and caulfield have already posted 12 links by 10 AM even if half of them have no regard for reality or an even handed take. That being said, I do like to represent the beliefs around here that are suppressed and offer an alternative take to the groupthink's cut-and-dried, intolerant universe.

 

Now your response is that I am biased and right wing even if I won't admit it but it's not true in any case. My conservative friends call me a liberal all the time just as the groupthink here uses popularly used snarl words used to describe the right to malign my character instead of addressing the points that I make. I get characterized for what the majority of my posts are about here and that's fair. Since I have beliefs on both sides, I only have to express/defend the beliefs opposed to the groupthink. And they constantly attack and usually in a cheap, condescending or intolerant way.

 

When I post about all the liberal social beliefs I have, no one responds. I am not in with the groupthink because of my economic views are very much on the right. When I posted about Trump spending ridiculous amounts of money on travel in February, nobody responded. When somebody who spends their whole workday in here posting links no one reads posts about Trump's travel costs in March it becomes a reoccuring topic.

 

When I posted about prison reform and decriminalization of drugs and gay marriage and how I agree with Bernie Sanders almost uniformly as long as there's no money involved in the subject nobody responded to me. It's one post and the groupthink has already decided they won't have me, so they read, scroll past and d act like it never happened so they can call me Fox News or Breitbart or racist or whatever p**** tactic/canned response they use to shutdown conversation when they disagree with someone. If I say anything about the unfair media treatment to the right or HRC being a lifelong crook or the Obama blatant admin's criminal behavior, I could make a thread jump three pages in an hour with the outcry I get. So I get why you have an angle to character cast me and I would understand if the people who come in here in passing character casted me. I never have to defend my beliefs that fall under the liberal umbrella because there's no one here opposed to them.

 

That being said, you are just being narrow-minded and condescending in your posts at me in thinking you're always right, you're evolved, you have the mental dexterity to look beyond your own worldview and I don't, etc. It's bulls***. You say this stuff and write off people who disagree with you as automatically wrong as if you're not doing exactly what you try to cast me as doing. We are giving opinions here. Other than caulfield, I don't really tell people they're wrong. I give my piece. I wish I could ignore people who come at me with such venom and not respond the same way but I haven't been able to in most cases. Such is talking politics.

 

Here's the problem.

 

Did Reddy and I attack everyone in the "white privilege" thread when we were outnumbered 8 to 1?

 

If you were "objectively right" here, wouldn't those exact same posters be coming to your defense right now? In fact, I deliberately started that thread to elicit reactions from beyond just the ordinary posters here...and, in that sense, it succeeded in provoking reactions and even, at times, a constructive dialogue.

 

If everyone agrees with something, they're not going to give you a like or congratulate you. If I assert as a liberal that school choice/charter schools have a place in education/al reform, should I also expect applause and plaudits? No way.

 

You can't take the 10-15% of your posting here where you do attempt to be more nuanced and then hope those moments of honesty and candor will cover up the other 85% of Seth Rich and CNN manipulates/fake news/anti-Hillary & Obama stuff. That's just a different way of doing the same thing Greg does here, except Greg has a way of doing it in a more ambiguous way where you're really not sure if he's messing with you or sly like a fox.

Edited June 5, 2017 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

I'll respond to the part that sort of stayed on subject.

 

That thread was incredible and an exception to the rule around here. I don't know why more of the usual left wingers didn't come to war for you. Maybe they really are against discriminatory practice, but if you want my honest opinion, if you and Reddy are going to be the ones spearheading an argument, it's going to have to be a really good argument for people to get behind you on it. The other thing with that thread was that people who never post back here had came to post it. Maybe they have been shafted by affirmative action, maybe they wish they had help for college/employment on a basis of their family income but couldn't because they're white, I don't know. Really, the posters in there aren't the posters in the normal threads around here. People came out of the wood work for that one.

 

So you just answered the point of all this sniping back and forth today...culminating in the sidewinding diatribe above.

 

Truly consider if what you post (CNN stuff today) is compelling enough to get any of those who joined in that discussion to jump in with a comment or defense on your behalf.

 

For example, PTAC is someone who rarely posts in the Filibuster and is about as moderate/level-headed as it gets, and he made a number of salient points.

 

The reality is this board is just another reflection of the toxic atmosphere that exists between the White House and the media. Who gets the blame, I suppose historians can sort that out 50-75 years from now when enough time has passed to determine the effectiveness of tactics utilized on both sides of the divide.

Edited June 5, 2017 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

That's not it at all. There's next to no one here defending Trump on his verbal barfing unless the left goes too far.

 

Let's not forget you're the one that went into PHT and made a whole list about SoxTalk with three points directed at me personally and my political views.

 

Therein lies the problem...everything SEEMS directed at you because you're one of the few defending Trump. Drunkbomber? Greg, who does it more to get at Hillary moreso than supporting Trump? Jenks? There are maybe five of you.

 

Most of the mods who lean Republican are probably privately more aghast but it's easy just to make jokes about the whole Trump presidency as a coping mechanism and hope the world isn't destroyed in the process.

 

I'll put it this way. You're a smart enough guy to figure this out. Winning arguments in life (or the internet) is as much about personality and coming across in a likeable way, instead of being polarizing or alienating people. I'm not sure if you care about "winning friends" here, but you do seem to take the criticism pretty personally (for example, threatening Soxbadger for "stalking" you with his Seth Rich retorts into other threads)....and that seems EXACTLY like something Donald Trump would do. You defend yourself vociferously, but often mention you don't have the time like those who post more frequently (for me, it's simply a matter of being the opposite time zone 13 hours removed from Chicago time and the fact that we've only had exam invigilation for the past six weeks and summer vacation looming FRI), and then make that seem like an insult to those who do want to invest more time into these issues or in substantive policy discussion in general (yet Kathy Griffin threads get many more hits, I'm sure you've noticed). Now you're decrying not enough discussion of those issues which liberals might agree with you, but what would that discussion look like, exactly?

 

I'll just say this. For every Chris Rongey or all the d--ks at The Score like Abbatacola who turned on Hawk when it was convenient, there are genuine "good guys" (in sports media/journalism) like Dave Wills and John Rooney and a bevy of others. Hopefully you end up on this side of the equation, and not the former.

Edited June 6, 2017 by caulfield12

[RockRaines]

"The groupthink"

 

Lol.

[caulfield12]

1.) I don't defend Trump's actions. I have in a few instances defended policies but mostly have just called bs on the "end of the world" response every time Trump gets a policy through. I don't buy media's red alert since January thing. It's not safe for when something bad actually happens and the people are so numb to it all because any time you walk past a TV in a public place they're freaking out about Trump and trying to make this Russia stuff turn into something.

 

2.) You see this where is where I lose you. How you can put thoughts inside the head of people that you may or may not have classified correctly based on their political beliefs? This is manic. You're writing a narrative that you have concocted in your own head as supporting evidence to your argument. You're just generalizing a whole group of people to make it seem as if the environment here is in line with what would bode well for your personal argument. The mods here are all different and they're all on a spectrum, you can't just separate them in buckets and generalize.

 

3.) Is this necessary to making your point?

 

4.) How can come off as likable when the only thing they have to evaluate me on is the place text expressing a political opinion they are opposed to so divisively? I don't seem to have the same issues in the PHT board. DA and I interacted regularly with little to no dispute. The divisiveness of politics and the growing intolerance of contrary opinions multiplied by the whole election of Trump and media failure predicting HRC as a 98% favorite flooring the left's psyche.

 

5.) What you say didn't happen. Why are you likening me to Trump? You come on here and put me on character trial and throw out a red herring like this? Do you really think that this forum's readers are going to read your post and think rabbitt = Trump now? Isn't Trump usually doing the stalking? I am sure if the roles in your hypothetical were reversed and I was the one pestering and acting outside of forum guidelines you'd still be comparing me to Trump.

 

6.) I am a bulls***ter, a natural ranter, competitive, passionate, impulsive, etc. The end result is not always perfect, I try to hold back, but it doesn't always work that way. There are plenty of people like that. However, it's the politics that brings it out. I am not perfect but getting along with others on the internet hasn't really been an issue for me outside of this corner of SoxTalk. I'll have some stuff here and there for the reasons listed above, but I've found my experience with people and the relationships I've made with people on the internet has been a very rewarding experience and that most others in my life haven't been able to experience something similar.

 

7.) Again, I am losing you here. Why am I being compared to radio personalities and announcers? That's not me. I am not even a professional writer. Plenty of people decided to pick up writing on a passion as a hobby and I was one of them.

 

 

I'll just leave it at this. And this goes for ANYONE, and certainly moreso for elected Republicans.

 

If the whole house of cards for Trump eventually comes crashing down, they're going to have to do some serious self-reflection about the moral twists and turns they took along the way to countenance all negatives that go along with his being president.

 

Is it worth it for Gorsuch, tax reform (in serious jeopardy) and potentially repealing Obamacare but, more than likely, it won't get through the Senate successfully and the GOP will have that failure hung around their heads in 2018. Some might argue yes, control of the SCOTUS for the immediately foreseeable future and a generally high-performing economic environment (for now) are worth all the negatives.

 

Others will argue that a changing of the guard in terms of dealing with terrorism and illegal immigration are worth it, as well...and generally increasing defense spending (seeming improvements in that area with Mattis/McMaster/Dunford and even Tillerson and Gary Cohn in a peripheral way).

 

But yeah, you're going to have to live with being "comped" with/to Trump if you parrot the same "right wing/alt-right/conspiracy" theories without 100% investigating the truth of those stories to your satisfaction. Do they pass the "smell" test?