The Media Industry
- Thread starter texas_ex2000
- Start date
I would hate to be judged by my high school years as well. For Husker to bring that tabloid crap on here is just embarrassing. But as you said, Tucker has found some bad stuff on the left so leftists like Husker feel a need to go after him on childish garbage.
You certainly didn't expect well reasoned thoughts and critical thinking from Sh did you??
Which is 100% of the time.
Which is why I have him on ignore.
Re: Media
I tend to focus on what people say and if they are liars. If anyone is worried about the past then why was Robert Byrd so lauded by the Left? It's hypocritical on all fronts. I can't help who grabs the microphone.
Tucker is Tucker. He's an entertainer from the right. He makes some points and he stretches things. I think we all know that. I don't run around quoting Tucker. I just don't. Or any of the other guys on Fox. I only watch it when I visit my father in law in Laredo (A multi-generation Hispanic) who is a Republican and somewhat obsessed with Fox. We just sit around and talk and watch the show virtually all day. Tequila/Dos Equis at five. In the amount of time I spend I see repetitive commentary and get to know they hyperbole in the personalities. I think Fox is necessary but not the TRUTH per se. But they do serve one purpose for me and that is highlighting Liberal hypocrisy.
I focus on Liberal hypocrisy because it is so aggressive and it is absolutely backed by a large swath of the media. Their laundry list of agenda items are incredibly expensive and their tactics are ruthless.
And the whole white supremacy campaign is clearly a political tool with no obvious point other than to intimidate white people into shutting up and opening their wallets. To me, the reason it appears to be so ubiquitous is because the media has narrowed it's sights and then blown the snippet up in a way that the scale looks larger than it is. It's the same effect as when you show a line graph over a very short period of time. The movements can be made to appear substantially large, but when you pull back you see it's not.
In the end, I believe the left-wing media is full of zealots wishing to be seen as one who marched across the Selma Bridge. They are creating monsters (ALL WHITE REPUBLICANS) and it's just not true. Not at all. They are living their lives and raising their kids; doing the best they can.
But Rachel Maddow and others think we're all Nazi's bent on rounding everyone up and they are banging that drum.
Well that's what brainwashing is about and to counter it you either go off the grid and just vote or you take the chance to fight it and get destroyed by fanatics who will stop at nothing for power or to assuage their OCD.
I tend to focus on what people say and if they are liars. If anyone is worried about the past then why was Robert Byrd so lauded by the Left? It's hypocritical on all fronts. I can't help who grabs the microphone.
Tucker is Tucker. He's an entertainer from the right. He makes some points and he stretches things. I think we all know that. I don't run around quoting Tucker. I just don't. Or any of the other guys on Fox. I only watch it when I visit my father in law in Laredo (A multi-generation Hispanic) who is a Republican and somewhat obsessed with Fox. We just sit around and talk and watch the show virtually all day. Tequila/Dos Equis at five. In the amount of time I spend I see repetitive commentary and get to know they hyperbole in the personalities. I think Fox is necessary but not the TRUTH per se. But they do serve one purpose for me and that is highlighting Liberal hypocrisy.
I focus on Liberal hypocrisy because it is so aggressive and it is absolutely backed by a large swath of the media. Their laundry list of agenda items are incredibly expensive and their tactics are ruthless.
And the whole white supremacy campaign is clearly a political tool with no obvious point other than to intimidate white people into shutting up and opening their wallets. To me, the reason it appears to be so ubiquitous is because the media has narrowed it's sights and then blown the snippet up in a way that the scale looks larger than it is. It's the same effect as when you show a line graph over a very short period of time. The movements can be made to appear substantially large, but when you pull back you see it's not.
In the end, I believe the left-wing media is full of zealots wishing to be seen as one who marched across the Selma Bridge. They are creating monsters (ALL WHITE REPUBLICANS) and it's just not true. Not at all. They are living their lives and raising their kids; doing the best they can.
But Rachel Maddow and others think we're all Nazi's bent on rounding everyone up and they are banging that drum.
Well that's what brainwashing is about and to counter it you either go off the grid and just vote or you take the chance to fight it and get destroyed by fanatics who will stop at nothing for power or to assuage their OCD.
Last edited:
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
The media industry has been giving a false narrative for years now. At least so says Francis Schaeffer.
How Should We Then Live? Chapter 12: Manipulation and the New Elite
How Should We Then Live? Chapter 12: Manipulation and the New Elite
You know I respect you. But this video shows a blatant willingness to be objective. I think he is great for NY police and firefighters. These things are not political.
When a black Republican speaks up, it's very revealing. You find out what the Left actually thinks of black people. Basically, all the normal rules don't apply. You can blatantly attack him racially and even drop n-bombs with no fear of it damaging your reputation, getting cancelled, being told to do sensitivity training, etc. It just shows that wokeness is a political cudgel to be deployed when it's convenient, not a sincere concern for "people of color." If they dare choose to think differently, they basically lose all cultural protection. You can treat them the way they were routinely treated in 1950 and get away with it.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
"Uncle Tim" is a racist moniker and absolutely not acceptable.
It's a little bit difficult to reconcile Tim Scott's position that "we are not a racist country" after expounding on all the racism he's experienced in his life and overcome. Additionally, he definitely comes down own the side of blacks being disproportionately shot and killed by police. My impression is that Senator Scott doesn't like the broad brush used by Black Activists and SJW, which I agree with. He clearly isn't with the Trumpster wing of the party that racism doesn't exist. He walks a tightrope because the base of his own party is the Trumpsters. It's tough for him to admit that the remnants of institutional racism still exist.
I'll repeat, "Uncle Tim" is not constructive nor acceptable in any context. That's another example of the toxicity of the internet.
It's a little bit difficult to reconcile Tim Scott's position that "we are not a racist country" after expounding on all the racism he's experienced in his life and overcome. Additionally, he definitely comes down own the side of blacks being disproportionately shot and killed by police. My impression is that Senator Scott doesn't like the broad brush used by Black Activists and SJW, which I agree with. He clearly isn't with the Trumpster wing of the party that racism doesn't exist. He walks a tightrope because the base of his own party is the Trumpsters. It's tough for him to admit that the remnants of institutional racism still exist.
I'll repeat, "Uncle Tim" is not constructive nor acceptable in any context. That's another example of the toxicity of the internet.
I think he would say that one can experience racism in one's life without it being a racist country. It makes an enormous difference from a moral standpoint and sets forth an entirely different vision. You can remedy individual acts of racism within a just system. A truly racist country essentially can't be fixed without making enormous changes through force and/or destroying it.
To me, that isn't a side. It's a statistical fact. Blacks are disproportionately shot and killed by the police. Where disagreement lies is in why that happens and what can or should be done about it.
Well, he says what he says and wins in a pretty Trump-friendly state. Either most Trumpsters don't think racism doesn't exist, or they at least can tolerate someone who does think it exists.
The last time he was called a "house n*gger," so they're actually getting kinder and gentler.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
I see it as a spectrum. Saying it is or isn't a "racist country" is too black and white. We live in the gray. Nothing is that clear. Clearly the BLM movement is tired of incremental change just like they were in the 60's. It took protesting in the streets and getting beaten by police then to get the attention of government to pass Civil Rights legislation. Clearly the lions share of the Black Community and their SJW supporters think it's time for another leap forward. Patience within that community has run its course and is exacerbated with each killing of a black person, regardless of merit. Is the US in an Apartheid moment? Clearly the answer is no. Do we need to reimagine policing to re-establish the trust of the communities they are policing? Likely.
You and I both know that's a fact but you won't see many Trumpsters acknowledge it. Instead you'll get a response that more Whites are killed which is true. Of course, that's a dumb argument when you also recognize that Whites make up 50% of our demographics while Blacks make up 13%.
The character assassinations associated with each African American that is murdered, even when murdered in cold blood (like George Floyd) are a bit much too.
Sen Scott has to toe the line to a point. He didn't get to where he was by having "radical" views by Republican standards. Scott is very moderate which will all is about the extent that most Trumpsters would accept. It's also not acceptable to take a more progressive perspective on any issue or you get handled a RINO title.
Yep. I do empathize with the underlying perception that Scott appears to be a "kept" person within the Republican party trotted out when needed to demonstrate how open the party is to minorities. Of course, the numbers show that he's one of 3 African-American Republicans in Congress, 3 of 59 in the 117th Congress. Republicans are trying to improve their diversity but they are on mile 2 of a marathon. If you look at the Democrats diversity, Blacks are overrepresented based on the demography of the country. That's certainly to play to the minority vote but also would explain why race issues are so prevalent in the party.
Are there racists in this country? Absolutely within every single race there are racists. Is 50% of the country racist? No. 25%? No. 10%? Maybe, but I believe the number of actual racists by definition is significantly less than that. If the media would stop flaming the racism bait I think we would all get along much better.
I'm NOT justifying what happened, but if he would have just followed instructions it never would have gotten to that point.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
I'd agree it's a contributing factor but that still shouldn't result in a death sentence. Keep in mind...this started with a counterfeit $20 that ended in a murder. It's unfathomable to me that such minor crimes are resulting in deaths.
As an aside, I won't fault the cops that see a gun and shoot the person holding it. They do need to be concerned for their life too. The 13yr old kid in Chicago ran with a gun, it was clearly shown in his hand on video then ditched it as he turned toward the cop. That's self defense by the police officer. You can't convince me that deadly force is ever warranted to apprehend a suspect that is without any weapons. I think the "shoot to kill" training needs to be re-evaluated and that level of deadly force needs to be much more judiciously applied.
I don't know what the solution is, but as long as blacks keep pulling guns and attacking/fighting cops they'll keep getting shot just like the dumb white people who do the same thing.
Edit: I know this particular situation wasn't a shooting, I'm referring to the bigger problem.
Interesting take on the typical "Blacks are disproportionately shot and killed by the police" excuse
"Black People Do Not Suffer Disproportionately From Police Brutality - Just Facts Daily
This never seems to get factored in
From link
"The facts about murder and police killings underscore this reality. Black people represent about 13% of the U.S. population, at least 53% of murder offenders, and roughly 33% of people killed by police.
"Black People Do Not Suffer Disproportionately From Police Brutality - Just Facts Daily
This never seems to get factored in
From link
"The facts about murder and police killings underscore this reality. Black people represent about 13% of the U.S. population, at least 53% of murder offenders, and roughly 33% of people killed by police.
Passing a bogus twenty did not result in his death.
Slightly over 10% of all murders are committed by people NOT using deadly weapons. I can think of a few scenarios where deadly force is certainly justified.
I think every Trump supporter would acknowledge that fact. As the article referenced above states:
- The most common means of testing for racial disparity in police use of deadly force is to compare the odds of being fatally shot for blacks to the odds of being fatally shot for whites.”
- That logic is flawed because it relies upon the false assumption that white and black people commit life-threatening crimes at the same rates.
- The rational way to analyze this issue is to compare the odds of being fatally shot to each race’s “involvement in those situations where the police may be more likely to use deadly force.”
- Based on four different national datasets on “murder/nonnegligent manslaughter, violent crime, and weapons violations,” “in nearly every case, whites were either more likely to be fatally shot by police or police showed no significant disparity in either direction.”
Edit: Blacks also commit 24% of the hate crimes based on race despite only being 13% of the population.
Last edited:
I was just about to report your lies, but 6721 beat me too it. Full of lies, that's what your people are. You conveniently leave out the fact that blacks have 5x the police encounter rate per capita as whites. Of course you did because you know your people are to stupid to dig into and understand the real numbers. Reality is that whites at shot at twice the rate per encounter as blacks. So tell me who are the cops really looking out for?
Also please tell me, when are blacks going to stop committing crime at 5x the rate as the rest of society and what are you doing to help stop this alarming rate? When are you and your people going to hold then accountable for their actions and make them actually earn something. "Earn", not in the vocabulary of the liberals, especially when you can just take take take.
Horn2RunAgain
2,500+ Posts
Spot on. Been saying this for decades. Change has to come from within. WHEN will it happen?
This is lengthy, so be prepared.
Yes, of course it is a spectrum with everybody being a racist on one end and nobody being one on the other. We're talking about generalizations. Is the country generally racist? Senator Scott would say no, and I'd agree with him based on the attitudes of the public as well as on the legal structures.
The reason why the characterization matters is because the policy vision is so different. To get a feel for the alternative (meaning accepting the narrative that it is a racist country), look at the very rarely-discussed policy goal of the "systemic racism"/CRT advocates. These are Ibram Kendi's own words and only his words. It's not some right winger taking him out of context or applying their spin. It's what he actually says coupled obviously with my discussion.
"To fix the original sin of racism, Americans should pass an anti-racist amendment to the U.S. Constitution that enshrines two guiding anti-racist principals: Racial inequity is evidence of racist policy and the different racial groups are equals."
He's making a logical leap to call racial inequity evidence of racist policy. It very clearly is not, because there are countless factors beyond policy that affect outcomes. Calling the different racial groups equals is fine, but it's largely redundant with the 14th Amendment.
"The amendment would make unconstitutional racial inequity over a certain threshold, as well as racist ideas by public officials (with “racist ideas” and “public official” clearly defined)."
For starters, it must be pretty great to be the guy who gets to make those definitions and decides the threshold. That guy basically gets to be Stalin.
So racial inequity is unconstitutional, and that would presumably mean that a public official has the power to "fix" that inequity, and I don't see any limits on that power.
And ideas deemed racist are unconstitutional? Well, there goes the 1st Amendment. It's gone.
"It would establish and permanently fund the Department of Anti-racism (DOA) comprised of formally trained experts on racism and no political appointees."
There goes the constitutional precedent of funding the government by statute and annual appropriation. That 240+ year old principle is gone. This DOA constitutionally gets the first money the government raises regardless of what the public or Congress wants.
And if there are no political appointees, who the hell chooses these "trained experts on racism?" Shouldn't we figure that out before we proceed?
"The DOA would be responsible for preclearing all local, state and federal public policies to ensure they won’t yield racial inequity, monitor those policies,"
There goes the federalist system, and there goes the separation of powers doctrine. They're down the crapper.
"investigate private racist policies when racial inequity surfaces"
Private racist policies? There goes the 1st and 4th Amendments, part of the 5th Amendment, and the princple of enumerated powers.
"and monitor public officials for expressions of racist ideas. The DOA would be empowered with disciplinary tools to wield over and against policymakers and public officials who do not voluntarily change their racist policy and ideas."
Again, 1st Amendment gone, but also there goes the supremacy of our elected government and their legitmate appointees. Remember, this DOA isn't political appointees that answer to you and me, but it has veto power over every policy enacted at any level of government and disciplinary power over all public officials - the president, Congress, the judiciary, and state and local government. That is a dictatorship by panel, and it's why I say that this ideology is irreconcilable with a free nation. You can't like freedom and can't like civil liberties and like this guy and people who agree with him. It's dangerous ****, and the fact that most of our political establishment and many Democrats consider this guy an authority and don't call him out is frightening. He's should not be mainstreamed by anybody.
Lots of movements have protested in the streets and not gotten their way. The Civil Rights legislation passed, because large numbers of people were persuaded that doing so was just. They were convinced by guys like MLK that we weren't living up to our founding princples, and he was able to credibly point to segregation and the entire Jim Crow system in the South as evidence. Either way, whatever agenda BLM has must be evaluated on the merits, not on their willingness to protest or get violent.
But the minute you add the phrase "regardless of merit," people can't have an intelligent discussion. Merit matters. For example, the merits of the shooting of Walter Scott or Philando Castile are wildly different from the merits of the killing of Michael Brown or even George Floyd. It's much easier for me to condemn the police with the first two than the latter two. How the suspect behaves with the police is an enormous factor - might be the most important factor. It can't be disregarded, minimized, or otherwise pushed aside. It can't be made politically incorrect or taboo to discuss.
How so, and by what evidence? For the most part, we hear about anecdotes. Real statistical evidence is rarely discussed, and when it is, it is extremely superficial.
Yes, it's a dumb argument, but this issue is dominated by dumb arguments. Not considering crime in the black community is dumb. I'm not suggesting that we should focus broadly on black crime at the expense of focusing on police misconduct. I've criticized that tactic as a diversion. However, there is a place for it in the context of analyzing how often a black person is reasonably going to interact with police. I'm white, but when I lived in Oakland, California, I saw a lot more cops than when I lived in Plano, Texas. That's not racism. It's because Oakland had a hell of a lot of crime, so cops were patrolling more and responding to more calls per capita.
Not considering culture and the response to police instruction is dumb. Cops are humans. They have logic skills and a self-preservation instinct like anyone else. An uncooperative suspect will always be at greater risk than a cooperative suspect. We can't make that not true.
Building arguments and political momentum largely on anecdotes rather than on evidence is dumb.
It depends on the specifics. Focusing on his past criminal record is character assassination. Focusing on the drugs he took that day and his actions that day are not. They're pretty relevant.
His voting record is actually pretty conservative. I wouldn't call him a moderate.
It's all about degree. There's a line at which I'd call someone a RINO. The problem with the Trump people is that they set that line far too liberally, and the line is very squiggly. Paul Ryan is a RINO, but a guy who opposes entitlement reform (Trump) is not.
I agree.
I think that used to be true. I don't think it's true anymore. Remember, the biggest racial liberals in the Democratic Party now aren't blacks and definitely aren't Hispanics. It's woke whites. They're driving this far more than blacks or Hispanics, and that's the reason it's gaining traction.
Yes, of course it is a spectrum with everybody being a racist on one end and nobody being one on the other. We're talking about generalizations. Is the country generally racist? Senator Scott would say no, and I'd agree with him based on the attitudes of the public as well as on the legal structures.
The reason why the characterization matters is because the policy vision is so different. To get a feel for the alternative (meaning accepting the narrative that it is a racist country), look at the very rarely-discussed policy goal of the "systemic racism"/CRT advocates. These are Ibram Kendi's own words and only his words. It's not some right winger taking him out of context or applying their spin. It's what he actually says coupled obviously with my discussion.
"To fix the original sin of racism, Americans should pass an anti-racist amendment to the U.S. Constitution that enshrines two guiding anti-racist principals: Racial inequity is evidence of racist policy and the different racial groups are equals."
He's making a logical leap to call racial inequity evidence of racist policy. It very clearly is not, because there are countless factors beyond policy that affect outcomes. Calling the different racial groups equals is fine, but it's largely redundant with the 14th Amendment.
"The amendment would make unconstitutional racial inequity over a certain threshold, as well as racist ideas by public officials (with “racist ideas” and “public official” clearly defined)."
For starters, it must be pretty great to be the guy who gets to make those definitions and decides the threshold. That guy basically gets to be Stalin.
So racial inequity is unconstitutional, and that would presumably mean that a public official has the power to "fix" that inequity, and I don't see any limits on that power.
And ideas deemed racist are unconstitutional? Well, there goes the 1st Amendment. It's gone.
"It would establish and permanently fund the Department of Anti-racism (DOA) comprised of formally trained experts on racism and no political appointees."
There goes the constitutional precedent of funding the government by statute and annual appropriation. That 240+ year old principle is gone. This DOA constitutionally gets the first money the government raises regardless of what the public or Congress wants.
And if there are no political appointees, who the hell chooses these "trained experts on racism?" Shouldn't we figure that out before we proceed?
"The DOA would be responsible for preclearing all local, state and federal public policies to ensure they won’t yield racial inequity, monitor those policies,"
There goes the federalist system, and there goes the separation of powers doctrine. They're down the crapper.
"investigate private racist policies when racial inequity surfaces"
Private racist policies? There goes the 1st and 4th Amendments, part of the 5th Amendment, and the princple of enumerated powers.
"and monitor public officials for expressions of racist ideas. The DOA would be empowered with disciplinary tools to wield over and against policymakers and public officials who do not voluntarily change their racist policy and ideas."
Again, 1st Amendment gone, but also there goes the supremacy of our elected government and their legitmate appointees. Remember, this DOA isn't political appointees that answer to you and me, but it has veto power over every policy enacted at any level of government and disciplinary power over all public officials - the president, Congress, the judiciary, and state and local government. That is a dictatorship by panel, and it's why I say that this ideology is irreconcilable with a free nation. You can't like freedom and can't like civil liberties and like this guy and people who agree with him. It's dangerous ****, and the fact that most of our political establishment and many Democrats consider this guy an authority and don't call him out is frightening. He's should not be mainstreamed by anybody.
Lots of movements have protested in the streets and not gotten their way. The Civil Rights legislation passed, because large numbers of people were persuaded that doing so was just. They were convinced by guys like MLK that we weren't living up to our founding princples, and he was able to credibly point to segregation and the entire Jim Crow system in the South as evidence. Either way, whatever agenda BLM has must be evaluated on the merits, not on their willingness to protest or get violent.
But the minute you add the phrase "regardless of merit," people can't have an intelligent discussion. Merit matters. For example, the merits of the shooting of Walter Scott or Philando Castile are wildly different from the merits of the killing of Michael Brown or even George Floyd. It's much easier for me to condemn the police with the first two than the latter two. How the suspect behaves with the police is an enormous factor - might be the most important factor. It can't be disregarded, minimized, or otherwise pushed aside. It can't be made politically incorrect or taboo to discuss.
How so, and by what evidence? For the most part, we hear about anecdotes. Real statistical evidence is rarely discussed, and when it is, it is extremely superficial.
Yes, it's a dumb argument, but this issue is dominated by dumb arguments. Not considering crime in the black community is dumb. I'm not suggesting that we should focus broadly on black crime at the expense of focusing on police misconduct. I've criticized that tactic as a diversion. However, there is a place for it in the context of analyzing how often a black person is reasonably going to interact with police. I'm white, but when I lived in Oakland, California, I saw a lot more cops than when I lived in Plano, Texas. That's not racism. It's because Oakland had a hell of a lot of crime, so cops were patrolling more and responding to more calls per capita.
Not considering culture and the response to police instruction is dumb. Cops are humans. They have logic skills and a self-preservation instinct like anyone else. An uncooperative suspect will always be at greater risk than a cooperative suspect. We can't make that not true.
Building arguments and political momentum largely on anecdotes rather than on evidence is dumb.
It depends on the specifics. Focusing on his past criminal record is character assassination. Focusing on the drugs he took that day and his actions that day are not. They're pretty relevant.
His voting record is actually pretty conservative. I wouldn't call him a moderate.
It's all about degree. There's a line at which I'd call someone a RINO. The problem with the Trump people is that they set that line far too liberally, and the line is very squiggly. Paul Ryan is a RINO, but a guy who opposes entitlement reform (Trump) is not.
I agree.
I think that used to be true. I don't think it's true anymore. Remember, the biggest racial liberals in the Democratic Party now aren't blacks and definitely aren't Hispanics. It's woke whites. They're driving this far more than blacks or Hispanics, and that's the reason it's gaining traction.
Last edited:
Baltimore State’s Attorney’s Office files FCC complaint against Fox station for bias
More absolute sick Liberalism and the arrogant look on her face tells you the story.
Of course, only Fox is biased...
More absolute sick Liberalism and the arrogant look on her face tells you the story.
Of course, only Fox is biased...
Van Morrison and others jumping off the bandwagon:
Nolte: Van Morrison Is Being Blacklisted for Anti-Media Song
Nolte: Van Morrison Is Being Blacklisted for Anti-Media Song
After a six-pack she is.
FIFY
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
Black Lives Matter; The Cerebral Warlords of Our Time
- Started by iatrogenic
- Replies: 1K
- West Mall
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
President Biden Accountability Thread
- Started by 2003TexasGrad
- Replies: 4K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
