WWTBAM Bored

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:Please provide any instance in which any prominent liberal advocated violence against Tucker Carlson or Fox news in general.

Please provide any proof that you have stopped beating your wife.

Would you like to see her death certificate?

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:Please provide any instance in which any prominent liberal advocated violence against Tucker Carlson or Fox news in general.

Please provide any proof that you have stopped beating your wife.

To paraphrase Tillerson: What a fucking moron!

The latest Republican stunt is the protestors down in Florida trying to prevent ballots from being counted and screaming fraud and stolen elections.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Prominent democrats: Kathy Griffin

Only in her wildest dreams can Kathy Griffin be described as a prominent Democrat.

As far as comparing Trump tactics to those of the Nazis, please explain the difference between "fake news" and "lying press."

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Prominent democrats: Kathy Griffin

Only in her wildest dreams can Kathy Griffin be described as a prominent Democrat.

As far as comparing Trump tactics to those of the Nazis, please explain the difference between "fake news" and "lying press."

So, with the exception of Griffin, I assume you accept my answer to BJ's question. I am glad I could educate you.

trump is guilty of using inflammatory language. I think he could accomplish what he wants without being such a douchebag. But in response to him, his political opponents and their allies in the supposedly non-partisan press, especially CNN, have abandoned all professional restraint and have become more insane than he is. He says that MS-13 gang members are animals and Pelosi tells the unquestioning press he thinks all Hispanics are animals, and they go with it and expand on it. He says there were some good people that weren't involved in the violence at Charlottesville, and he is branded as being sympathetic to the white supremacists who were there. It is just accepted on these 'news' channels that he is a racist. No pundit gets challenged at all when they make these baseless charges on these 'news' outlets. There is NO self-examination. There is no introspection of their own shortcomings and biases. Jim Acosta is a glaring and obvious example. So is Don Lemon. They are the James Callenders of today.
That is FAKE NEWs. That is the LYING PRESS at work.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: It is just accepted on these 'news' channels that he is a racist.

It's also accepted by the racists that he's a racist, and that's why they support him and that's why he continues to talk and posture the way he does. And whenever someone from a news channel points this out or calls him out for his numerous lies, you just stick your fingers in your ears and yell fake news at the top of your lungs.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: He says that MS-13 gang members are animals and Pelosi tells the unquestioning press he thinks all Hispanics are animals, and they go with it and expand on it.

While we're on the subject of MS-13, the poster child for all types of excuses for getting tough on immigration, that gang is a relatively minor threat in the US and its members are almost all native born, not legal or illegal immigrants. There are about 10,000 members total in the US (there are about 13,000 Crips in Los Angeles alone). The Aryan Brotherhood is twice the size of MS-13 but you never hear Trump whipping up on them. No, there are very fine people on both sides of these disputes according to him.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: It is just accepted on these 'news' channels that he is a racist.

It's also accepted by the racists that he's a racist, and that's why they support him and that's why he continues to talk and posture the way he does. And whenever someone from a news channel points this out or calls him out for his numerous lies, you just stick your fingers in your ears and yell fake news at the top of your lungs.

Let's be precise here. It's accepted on these news channels that he speaks as a racist would speak and acts as a racist would act. Now it's true that the usual conclusions from these two facts is that the person doing them really is a racist, but I continue to make room for the possibility that Donny is just a malignant narcissist who's willing to play being at a racist because he thinks it will help him get what he wants. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: It is just accepted on these 'news' channels that he is a racist.

It's also accepted by the racists that he's a racist, and that's why they support him and that's why he continues to talk and posture the way he does. And whenever someone from a news channel points this out or calls him out for his numerous lies, you just stick your fingers in your ears and yell fake news at the top of your lungs.

Let's be precise here. It's accepted on these news channels that he speaks as a racist would speak and acts as a racist would act. Now it's true that the usual conclusions from these two facts is that the person doing them really is a racist, but I continue to make room for the possibility that Donny is just a malignant narcissist who's willing to play being at a racist because he thinks it will help him get what he wants. --Bob

Not being sarcastic here. How does he act like a racist acts?

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:
It's also accepted by the racists that he's a racist, and that's why they support him and that's why he continues to talk and posture the way he does. And whenever someone from a news channel points this out or calls him out for his numerous lies, you just stick your fingers in your ears and yell fake news at the top of your lungs.

Let's be precise here. It's accepted on these news channels that he speaks as a racist would speak and acts as a racist would act. Now it's true that the usual conclusions from these two facts is that the person doing them really is a racist, but I continue to make room for the possibility that Donny is just a malignant narcissist who's willing to play being at a racist because he thinks it will help him get what he wants. --Bob

Not being sarcastic here. How does he act like a racist acts?

Off the top of my head, the original Muslim ban, the one that the courts slapped down quickly and thoroughly. There was his conduct as a landlord. The original FBI source material is here.

Beyond that, the stuff I can come up with off the top of my head bleeds words and actions -- when you use the platform of the White House to call neo-Nazis "very fine people," for instance, in my book that qualifies as action, but I can understand a contrary view. I would characterize the "shithole countries" remark as words (as opposed to actions), the difference being that he didn't intend that remark for public consumption. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Let's be precise here. It's accepted on these news channels that he speaks as a racist would speak and acts as a racist would act. Now it's true that the usual conclusions from these two facts is that the person doing them really is a racist, but I continue to make room for the possibility that Donny is just a malignant narcissist who's willing to play being at a racist because he thinks it will help him get what he wants. --Bob

Not being sarcastic here. How does he act like a racist acts?

Off the top of my head, the original Muslim ban, the one that the courts slapped down quickly and thoroughly. There was his conduct as a landlord. The original FBI source material is here.

Beyond that, the stuff I can come up with off the top of my head bleeds words and actions -- when you use the platform of the White House to call neo-Nazis "very fine people," for instance, in my book that qualifies as action, but I can understand a contrary view. I would characterize the "shithole countries" remark as words (as opposed to actions), the difference being that he didn't intend that remark for public consumption. --Bob

Watching football.Answer later.

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:
Not being sarcastic here. How does he act like a racist acts?

Off the top of my head, the original Muslim ban, the one that the courts slapped down quickly and thoroughly. There was his conduct as a landlord. The original FBI source material is here.

Beyond that, the stuff I can come up with off the top of my head bleeds words and actions -- when you use the platform of the White House to call neo-Nazis "very fine people," for instance, in my book that qualifies as action, but I can understand a contrary view. I would characterize the "shithole countries" remark as words (as opposed to actions), the difference being that he didn't intend that remark for public consumption. --Bob

Watching football.Answer later.

Redlining, no admission of guilt, though, yes, that's rough stuff. Still goes on in many areas, not necessarily racially. Possibly economically motivated, ie, millenials, etc.
Muslim ban thing wasn't racist. You're wrong.
He did not call neo nazis and white supremacists fine people. There were actually people, with whom I may disagree, who were pissed about the ever growing monument thing. Not neo nazis or supremacists.

Weak sauce Bob.

Let's not forget his continued vendetta against the Central Park Five long after DNA evidence has cleared them. And his five year Obama birther rant.

silverscreenselect wrote:Let's not forget his continued vendetta against the Central Park Five long after DNA evidence has cleared them. And his five year Obama birther rant.

How are these essentially racist?

Beebs52 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:Let's not forget his continued vendetta against the Central Park Five long after DNA evidence has cleared them. And his five year Obama birther rant.

How are these essentially racist?

Bless your heart

a1mamacat wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:Let's not forget his continued vendetta against the Central Park Five long after DNA evidence has cleared them. And his five year Obama birther rant.

How are these essentially racist?

Bless your heart

Actually, I'm done. Y'all canooks are sweet but dim sometimes, and I know you're liberal, but
bless all y'all's hearts.

Beebs52 wrote:

a1mamacat wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:
How are these essentially racist?

Bless your heart

Actually, I'm done. Y'all canooks are sweet but dim sometimes, and I know you're liberal, but
bless all y'all's hearts.

LOL - you're catching on, Beebs. On the plus side, I've been able to disprove my mom's admonition regarding rolling my eyes, thanks to the libs. They don't in fact, get stuck looking backwards. (my eyes, not the libs)

I was blown away, early in the thread, that real people who I know (sort of) can watch the same clip and see very different things. I get it, when fans watch a game and disagree on whether a foul should be called, whereas a neutral observer who isn't rooting for one team or the other can usually have the best opinion. I guess it's the same thing with press conferences now, too.

Truly, I am not picking a side, and not watching the clip. I was just bewitched that the perceptions were so concrete and so the opposite of each other. I know we see what we expect to see, and frame things from our own worldview. I just wish we could figure out how not to.

Ritterskoop wrote:I was blown away, early in the thread, that real people who I know (sort of) can watch the same clip and see very different things. I get it, when fans watch a game and disagree on whether a foul should be called, whereas a neutral observer who isn't rooting for one team or the other can usually have the best opinion. I guess it's the same thing with press conferences now, too.

Truly, I am not picking a side, and not watching the clip. I was just bewitched that the perceptions were so concrete and so the opposite of each other. I know we see what we expect to see, and frame things from our own worldview. I just wish we could figure out how not to.

I really think we may literally have been looking at two different clips. As noted in this thread, the White House promoted a video that was altered to make it look as though Acosta had pushed the intern's arm away. I'm pretty sure that altered video got a lot of play in the right-wing echo chamber. --Bob

Beebs52 wrote:Muslim ban thing wasn't racist. You're wrong.
He did not call neo nazis and white supremacists fine people. There were actually people, with whom I may disagree, who were pissed about the ever growing monument thing. Not neo nazis or supremacists.

Weak sauce Bob.

He used the power of the federal government to discriminate against people on the grounds of their religion. That's just as racist as when we interned Japanese Americans during World War II.

And yes, he did call the neo-Nazis and white supremacists very fine people. --Bob

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Just in case you don't get to hear about it from your approved news sources.
https://www.apnews.com/5aa41068747f4e41b39947f761462f96
https://www.investors.com/politics/edit ... elections/

As I suspected but didn't have any evidence of until now, the Tucker Carlson incident was extremely exaggerated according to this story. And, yes, it's a potentially biased source, but there's also a video of the incident, and the fact that no one other than Carlson and his wife alerted the police even though this was a fairly well traveled street (and there's no indication that the door was broken down as Carlson claims).

https://thinkprogress.org/i-was-at-the- ... c2dc0cb67/

What you should be asking yourself Flock is why you always leap to believe any nonsense that comes out of the right wing media or Donald Trump while reflexively labeling any legitimate news report as fake news.

silverscreenselect wrote:As I suspected but didn't have any evidence of until now, the Tucker Carlson incident was extremely exaggerated according to this story.

Even the actions the protestors admit to (chanting “we know where you sleep at night” and “We’ll be back! We won’t tell you when!” and spray painting the driveway) are intimidating. Not only are they wrong, but they make all leftists look bad.

Obviously, right-wingers who do this shit are just as disgusting, and the ones who sink to violence are much worse.

silverscreenselect wrote:No one other than Carlson and his wife alerted the police even though this was a fairly well traveled street.

The “nosey neighbor” who drove by the group three times also complained to the police.

jarnon wrote: Not only are they wrong, but they make all leftists look bad.

I'm not saying they were right; I am saying that it wasn't the lynch mob it was made out to be in the right wing press.

And speaking of lynch mobs:

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/11/ ... -joke.html

silverscreenselect wrote:As I suspected but didn't have any evidence of until now, the Tucker Carlson incident was extremely exaggerated according to this story. And, yes, it's a potentially biased source, but there's also a video of the incident, and the fact that no one other than Carlson and his wife alerted the police even though this was a fairly well traveled street (and there's no indication that the door was broken down as Carlson claims).

https://thinkprogress.org/i-was-at-the- ... c2dc0cb67/

This is the article I read a few days ago. I think they got it exactly right, even perhaps minimizing the event, since it doesn't mention the vandals tagging the driveway.

You have a bit of trouble with the facts yourself:
You said that "no one other than Carlson and his wife alerted the police..."
• Carlson wasn't there, so it was probably just his wife who called the police. She was home alone with their 4 young children. In one article, I read that she was hiding in a closet while waiting for the police to show up.
• How could you possibly know that it is a "fact that no one other than Carlson and his wife alerted the police?"

You said, "there's also a video of the incident"
• Did you not notice that the video was not continuous? I'd think a "movie expert" might notice that the video consisted of cherry-picked segments stitched together. They even included a few clock wipes between segments. Do you think your site would provide a video that shows their worst behavior? We already know they left out the vandalism.

You said, "there's no indication that the door was broken down as Carlson claims."
• Your own article says, "A police report on the incident makes no mention of damage to the Carlsons’ front door from the three stiff knocks, contradicting Carlson’s claim that the demonstrators had cracked the door." There's a big difference between a crack in the door versus breaking down a door. If the door were cracked, it surely would not be visible from a crappy video taken from the street.

Estonut wrote: There's a big difference between a crack in the door versus breaking down a door.

Interesting that you choose to harp on my description rather than note that there was no damage to the door, contrary to what Carlson claimed. The facts contradict Carlson's description of the incident (which, as you point out, wasn't based on his own experience):

Tucker Carlson wrote: I mean, so for every masked lunatic in front of my house there have been you know, a 100 people some of whom I don't agree with politically, calling or sending texts of support and kindness. And if you work in our businesses, you know you can lose sight of that because you see the lunatics. But they weren't trying to change my mind or advocate for a position. They were threatening my family to get me to stop talking.

She standing in the kitchen waiting to go out to dinner and people start pounding and on the door, really getting the door hard and screaming and threatening and she thought it was a home invasion.

Our conversation publicly has been hijacked by extremists like this and I worry that if we don't stand up to them and say, I'm sorry, this is not allowed, you can't threaten people into silence.

Okay, you know, let me hear about it but to do this is a form of intimidation so why are we describing it as a protest. It's a protest in the sense that when the mafia tells your store owner you know, I'd hate to have this place destroyed.

I'm not blaming Carlson's wife for what she did; but it was a stupid, juvenile demonstration with some petty vandalism rather than a hate-crazed mob. The police didn't react to it as if it were a mob situation; instead there was a fairly cordial exchange. There were no arrests; no inordinate detention; no people running for the hills. And Carlson is trying to equate it to pipe bombs and synagogue shootings. Which is ironic in one way, since his first reaction when he heard that there was a pipe bomb at Soros' house was to laugh about the whole thing, and numerous left wing media figures have been targeted as well.

The article I cited also noted that the protestors invited four protest observers, including presumably the author of the article, to record what went on in case it did become a police matter. That's not what a mob does. And I did note that a ten-minute event was edited down to two for a posted video clip. One explanation: "At multiple points, a chant broke down despite the rhythm-track efforts of a protester with a tambourine." There were apparently stretches where the chanting stopped and it was just milling around until the next chant started, not exactly compelling video. I assume the observers (who were obviously behind the protestors based on that clip) have video of the entire event if it becomes necessary to produce in a legal proceeding.

I'm not trying to excuse this juvenile, counterproductive stunt, precisely because it becomes fodder for the right wing in their attempts to equate the two levels of violence, or, worse, say that what the right wing does is simply a reaction to the left's antics. But notice the reaction from Stephen Colbert and others as opposed to what you typically hear from Carlson after some of the right's outrages.