Reply With Quote
The thread opens with "One of the President's core cons uents".
Are you sure that's not the conversation?
I mean, the whole thing I disagreed with here is that the WH seemingly has different standards for the Tea Party and Unions.
I was responding to this statement.
The overarching conversation is not about connecting union violence to the President but, about how the media chooses to frame events to feed a narrative they choose.
Even in this thread, people are arguing how some video demonstrate the Tea Party is just as violent as those portrayed in videos demonstrating the largely Democrat and liberal union members are violent. While I disagree with the comparison, it does speak to how the media relates these events to the public in their coverage.
Union violence is reported as union violence -- and rarely connected with the union leadership.
A mouthy Tea Partyer at a rally is held up as all that is the Tea Party.
The thread opens with "One of the President's core cons uents".
Are you sure that's not the conversation?
I mean, the whole thing I disagreed with here is that the WH seemingly has different standards for the Tea Party and Unions.
As far as the media is concerned, change the channel if you don't like what you see. There's something for everybody out there.
If anything, we already covered that topic with this statement, which most people agreed with here:
Who is supporting criminals? What are you talking about? Did you even read a post or did you just decide to randomly say something stupid?
OK...
Ever try to cross a picket line?
what does that have to do with this thread?
You don't like getting yelled at, it's your choice
What? Was once not enough?
How often does violence occur if someone tries to cross a picket line?
What picket line? What the does a picket line have to do with this thread? Are you being serious?
No you don't; you just have to be pissed off and have the sociopath mentality where nothing else matters but you.
For instance, I don't consider Wild Cobra insane even though he said he personally wants to shoot Mexicans at the border with his own rifle. He's a sociopath tbh.
The difference is that WC is too chicken to carry out what he says. It's more like a wet dream of a sick person. To actually carry out that you need the cross the line to being insane, IMO.
A shooting motivated by partisan rhetoric, maybe. But this wasn't a shooting motivated by the political climate being spoken of, by President Obama. In fact, Loughner's focus on Giffords started years earlier and was related to some perceived slight she committed against him personally. So, I don't think it can even be considered a politically motivated shooting at all.
As I said, it was an insanity motivated shooting. He's a sick .
Including you, apparently.
I guess you've never heard of setting up a premise. I knew if I went with the typical, "If this were a Tea Party member, the media would be blasting Sarah Palin and the culture of violence she's fomented," other posters wouldn't have stepped so deep in the pudding.
And, it's not a complaint but, an observation. The media establishes narratives to which they tailor their "news" reporting. It's that simple.
So he didn't single out the Tea Party. I didn't think he did.
Why are you ing again?
I heard of pulling a strawman, then moving the goalposts, and still not having a point.
You about the media doing what you're doing. So what exactly are you ing about?
Who's ing? I'm just making observations. You're the one getting your panties all in a wad.
Even if you didn't understand the point in the OP, you know it now. Why do you continue to insist I'm not making one. I've explicitly told you the point of this thread in more than one post.
The media plays favorites. I think the way they treat the Tea Party (and the political party most associated with it) and Unions (and the political party most associated with them) is a good illustration of that bias.
The OP made no point.
When you were called to say when Barry called out the Tea Party, you folded and ran with the media story.
You're still ing about it.
So, you've got nothing on the point of the thread. Got it.
Look, Nono, there's no shame in just admitting you've got nothing to add to a debate but personal attacks on the posters. Really, it's okay.
The thread made no point.
And you're still ing about it
I called you out on Barry saying anything about the Tea Party.
You folded, and you're still ing
If it makes you feel better to avoid the topic, no problem.I called you out on Barry saying anything about the Tea Party.
You folded, and you're still ing
Barry inserted the topic of political rancor into a memorial service for people not killed due to political rancor. The only political rancor being discussed at the time of the shooting was the totally fabricated link between Tea Party rhetoric and the Giffords shooting. If you can't do the math, connect the dots, use simple deductive reasoning, I can't help you.
I didn't avoid the topic. I asked you point blank and you folded.
What's your point Yoni?
Do you just read every third post or something?
Nono, go read Post #3. It's were I explicitly establish the topic of this thread. I then continue to restate it in multiple posts thereafter.
Check out #13, and #18. Two other examples...
, search for the word "media" in this thread.
Go read post #1. You wrote it. If that's not the topic, what's you point, Yoni?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions