Attached is the vision of democracy that the leftwing fascist thugs would like use to emulate:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/venezuela...094329281.html
Venezuela mobs kick, burn thieves in lynching epidemic
All hail the Hillarites
- kehaar
- 06-16-2017, 04:55 PM
- WTF
- 06-16-2017, 05:32 PM
A police state, whether controlled by the left or right is still a police state.
- dilbert firestorm
- 06-17-2017, 07:39 PM
A generation of media figures are cratering under the historical pressure of Donald Trump.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/rage-is...ous-1497571401
By Peggy Noonan
June 15, 2017 8:03 p.m. ET
What we are living through in America is not only a division but a great estrangement. It is between those who support Donald Trump and those who despise him, between left and right, between the two parties, and even to some degree between the bases of those parties and their leaders in Washington. It is between the religious and those who laugh at Your Make Believe Friend, between cultural progressives and those who wish not to have progressive ways imposed upon them. It is between the coasts and the center, between those in flyover country and those who decide what flyover will watch on television next season. It is between “I accept the court’s decision” and “Bake my cake.” We look down on each other, fear each other, increasingly hate each other.
Oh, to have a unifying figure, program or party.
But we don’t, nor is there any immediate prospect. So, as Ben Franklin said, we’ll have to hang together or we’ll surely hang separately. To hang together—to continue as a country—at the very least we have to lower the political temperature. It’s on all of us more than ever to assume good faith, put our views forward with respect, even charity, and refuse to incite.
We’ve been failing. Here is a reason the failure is so dangerous.
In the early 1990s Roger Ailes had a talk show on the America’s Talking network and invited me to talk about a concern I’d been writing about, which was old-fashioned even then: violence on TV and in the movies. Grim and graphic images, repeated depictions of murder and beatings, are bad for our kids and our culture, I argued. Depictions of violence unknowingly encourage it.
But look, Roger said, there’s comedy all over TV and I don’t see people running through the streets breaking into laughter. True, I said, but the problem is that, for a confluence of reasons, our country is increasingly populated by the not fully stable. They aren’t excited by wit, they’re excited by violence—especially unstable young men. They don’t have the built-in barriers and prohibitions that those more firmly planted in the world do. That’s what makes violent images dangerous and destructive. Art is art and censorship is an admission of defeat. Good judgment and a sense of responsibility are the answer.
That’s what we’re doing now, exciting the unstable—not only with images but with words, and on every platform. It’s all too hot and revved up. This week we had a tragedy. If we don’t cool things down, we’ll have more.
And was anyone surprised? Tuesday I talked with an old friend, a figure in journalism who’s a pretty cool character, about the political anger all around us. He spoke of “horrible polarization.” He said there’s “too much hate in D.C.” He mentioned “the beheading, the play in the park” and described them as “dog whistles to any nut who wants to take action.”
“Someone is going to get killed,” he said.
That was 20 hours before the shootings in Alexandria, Va.
The gunman did the crime, he is responsible, it’s fatuous to put the blame on anyone or anything else.
But we all operate within a climate and a culture. The media climate now, in both news and entertainment, is too often of a goading, insinuating resentment, a grinding, agitating antipathy. You don’t need another recitation of the events of just the past month or so. A comic posed with a gruesome bloody facsimile of President Trump’s head. New York’s rightly revered Shakespeare in the Park put on a “Julius Caesar” in which the assassinated leader is made to look like the president. A CNN host—amazingly, of a show on religion—sent out a tweet calling the president a “piece of s—” who is “a stain on the presidency.” An MSNBC anchor wondered, on the air, whether the president wishes to “provoke” a terrorist attack for political gain. Earlier Stephen Colbert, well known as a good man, a gentleman, said of the president, in a rant: “The only thing your mouth is good for is being Vladimir Putin’s c— holster.” Those are but five dots in a larger, darker pointillist painting. You can think of more.
Too many in the mainstream media—not all, but too many—don’t even bother to fake fairness and lack of bias anymore, which is bad: Even faked balance is better than none.
Yes, they have reasons. They find Mr. Trump to be a unique danger to the republic, an incipient fascist; they believe it is their patriotic duty to show opposition. They don’t like his policies. A friend suggested recently that they hate him also because he’s in their business, show business. Who is he to be president? He’s not more talented. And yet as soon as his presidency is over he’ll get another reality show.
And there’s something else. Here I want to note the words spoken by Kathy Griffin, the holder of the severed head. In a tearful news conference she said of the president, “He broke me.” She was roundly mocked for this. Oh, the big bad president’s supporters were mean to you after you held up his bloody effigy. But she was exactly right. He did break her. He robbed her of her sense of restraint and limits, of her judgment. He broke her, but not in the way she thinks, and he is breaking more than her.
We have been seeing a generation of media figures cratering under the historical pressure of Donald Trump. He really is powerful.
They’re losing their heads. Now would be a good time to regain them.
They have been making the whole political scene lower, grubbier. They are showing the young what otherwise estimable adults do under pressure, which is lose their equilibrium, their knowledge of themselves as public figures, as therefore examples—tone setters. They’re paid a lot of money and have famous faces and get the best seat, and the big thing they’re supposed to do in return is not be a slob. Not make it worse.
By indulging their and their audience’s rage, they spread the rage. They celebrate themselves as brave for this. They stood up to the man, they spoke truth to power. But what courage, really, does that take? Their audiences love it. Their base loves it, their demo loves it, their bosses love it. Their numbers go up. They get a better contract. This isn’t brave.
If these were only one-offs, they’d hardly be worth comment, but these things build on each other. Rage and sanctimony always spread like a virus, and become stronger with each iteration.
And it’s no good, no excuse, to say Trump did it first, he lowered the tone, it’s his fault. Your response to his low character is to lower your own character? He talks bad so you do? You let him destabilize you like this? You are making a testimony to his power.
So many of our media figures need at this point to be reminded: You belong to something. It’s called: us.
Do your part, take it down some notches, cool it. We have responsibilities to each other.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/rage-is...ous-1497571401
By Peggy Noonan
June 15, 2017 8:03 p.m. ET
What we are living through in America is not only a division but a great estrangement. It is between those who support Donald Trump and those who despise him, between left and right, between the two parties, and even to some degree between the bases of those parties and their leaders in Washington. It is between the religious and those who laugh at Your Make Believe Friend, between cultural progressives and those who wish not to have progressive ways imposed upon them. It is between the coasts and the center, between those in flyover country and those who decide what flyover will watch on television next season. It is between “I accept the court’s decision” and “Bake my cake.” We look down on each other, fear each other, increasingly hate each other.
Oh, to have a unifying figure, program or party.
But we don’t, nor is there any immediate prospect. So, as Ben Franklin said, we’ll have to hang together or we’ll surely hang separately. To hang together—to continue as a country—at the very least we have to lower the political temperature. It’s on all of us more than ever to assume good faith, put our views forward with respect, even charity, and refuse to incite.
We’ve been failing. Here is a reason the failure is so dangerous.
In the early 1990s Roger Ailes had a talk show on the America’s Talking network and invited me to talk about a concern I’d been writing about, which was old-fashioned even then: violence on TV and in the movies. Grim and graphic images, repeated depictions of murder and beatings, are bad for our kids and our culture, I argued. Depictions of violence unknowingly encourage it.
But look, Roger said, there’s comedy all over TV and I don’t see people running through the streets breaking into laughter. True, I said, but the problem is that, for a confluence of reasons, our country is increasingly populated by the not fully stable. They aren’t excited by wit, they’re excited by violence—especially unstable young men. They don’t have the built-in barriers and prohibitions that those more firmly planted in the world do. That’s what makes violent images dangerous and destructive. Art is art and censorship is an admission of defeat. Good judgment and a sense of responsibility are the answer.
That’s what we’re doing now, exciting the unstable—not only with images but with words, and on every platform. It’s all too hot and revved up. This week we had a tragedy. If we don’t cool things down, we’ll have more.
And was anyone surprised? Tuesday I talked with an old friend, a figure in journalism who’s a pretty cool character, about the political anger all around us. He spoke of “horrible polarization.” He said there’s “too much hate in D.C.” He mentioned “the beheading, the play in the park” and described them as “dog whistles to any nut who wants to take action.”
“Someone is going to get killed,” he said.
That was 20 hours before the shootings in Alexandria, Va.
The gunman did the crime, he is responsible, it’s fatuous to put the blame on anyone or anything else.
But we all operate within a climate and a culture. The media climate now, in both news and entertainment, is too often of a goading, insinuating resentment, a grinding, agitating antipathy. You don’t need another recitation of the events of just the past month or so. A comic posed with a gruesome bloody facsimile of President Trump’s head. New York’s rightly revered Shakespeare in the Park put on a “Julius Caesar” in which the assassinated leader is made to look like the president. A CNN host—amazingly, of a show on religion—sent out a tweet calling the president a “piece of s—” who is “a stain on the presidency.” An MSNBC anchor wondered, on the air, whether the president wishes to “provoke” a terrorist attack for political gain. Earlier Stephen Colbert, well known as a good man, a gentleman, said of the president, in a rant: “The only thing your mouth is good for is being Vladimir Putin’s c— holster.” Those are but five dots in a larger, darker pointillist painting. You can think of more.
Too many in the mainstream media—not all, but too many—don’t even bother to fake fairness and lack of bias anymore, which is bad: Even faked balance is better than none.
Yes, they have reasons. They find Mr. Trump to be a unique danger to the republic, an incipient fascist; they believe it is their patriotic duty to show opposition. They don’t like his policies. A friend suggested recently that they hate him also because he’s in their business, show business. Who is he to be president? He’s not more talented. And yet as soon as his presidency is over he’ll get another reality show.
And there’s something else. Here I want to note the words spoken by Kathy Griffin, the holder of the severed head. In a tearful news conference she said of the president, “He broke me.” She was roundly mocked for this. Oh, the big bad president’s supporters were mean to you after you held up his bloody effigy. But she was exactly right. He did break her. He robbed her of her sense of restraint and limits, of her judgment. He broke her, but not in the way she thinks, and he is breaking more than her.
We have been seeing a generation of media figures cratering under the historical pressure of Donald Trump. He really is powerful.
They’re losing their heads. Now would be a good time to regain them.
They have been making the whole political scene lower, grubbier. They are showing the young what otherwise estimable adults do under pressure, which is lose their equilibrium, their knowledge of themselves as public figures, as therefore examples—tone setters. They’re paid a lot of money and have famous faces and get the best seat, and the big thing they’re supposed to do in return is not be a slob. Not make it worse.
By indulging their and their audience’s rage, they spread the rage. They celebrate themselves as brave for this. They stood up to the man, they spoke truth to power. But what courage, really, does that take? Their audiences love it. Their base loves it, their demo loves it, their bosses love it. Their numbers go up. They get a better contract. This isn’t brave.
If these were only one-offs, they’d hardly be worth comment, but these things build on each other. Rage and sanctimony always spread like a virus, and become stronger with each iteration.
And it’s no good, no excuse, to say Trump did it first, he lowered the tone, it’s his fault. Your response to his low character is to lower your own character? He talks bad so you do? You let him destabilize you like this? You are making a testimony to his power.
So many of our media figures need at this point to be reminded: You belong to something. It’s called: us.
Do your part, take it down some notches, cool it. We have responsibilities to each other.
- garhkal
- 06-18-2017, 09:17 PM
One thing that bothered me on the news coverage is that it took forever to mention in detail the 4 other people shot other than Scalise. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXXSame here. I always hate it when they focus on one or two special people in the bunch of dead, like "hey this guy / gal / kid" is the only one worthy of talking about...
Let's all stop kidding ourselves and call a spade a spade. We have deep issues in this country and I don't see it getting any better any time soon.Problem as i see it, BOTH sides need to be willing to come to the table to TALK things over, and compromise. ALL too often we see from the left is "ITS GOING TO BE OUR WAY OR NO WAY". Or they have NO DESIRE what so friggen ever, of hearing any other points of view.. Just look at colleges for example..
..snip..
I think both sides have screwed the country and things will only worsen because we are not a united country.
Just take a look at the hatred that's spewed in this forum. One side hates the other and this reflects exactly the current state of our country. Both sides have their lunatics and untilwe have a Presidenr and congressmen who are willing to move to the middle on many issues we are going to have stories like what happened today, it's a very sad situation for the country as a whole. Originally Posted by J.G Wentworth
- bamscram
- 06-19-2017, 07:55 AM
Same here. I always hate it when they focus on one or two special people in the bunch of dead, like "hey this guy / gal / kid" is the only one worthy of talking about...Brought to you by the party of NO. Who still has not passes anything.
Problem as i see it, BOTH sides need to be willing to come to the table to TALK things over, and compromise. ALL too often we see from the left is "ITS GOING TO BE OUR WAY OR NO WAY". Or they have NO DESIRE what so friggen ever, of hearing any other points of view.. Just look at colleges for example.. Originally Posted by garhkal
- Yssup Rider
- 06-19-2017, 10:04 AM
Yep. Nope.
- LexusLover
- 06-19-2017, 10:36 AM
Problem as i see it, BOTH sides need to be willing to come to the table to TALK things over, and compromise. Originally Posted by garhkalYou mean you want them to agree on a "handguns only" ambush policy?
For example: If "you" are doing to shoot a bunch of unarmed citizens practicing softball only bring a handgun to shoot them! Is that a "compromise" as you see it?
- MT Pockets
- 06-19-2017, 06:51 PM
Wow, here is a quote from the yahoo story:Just because the guy did not try to make it political makes you think he has an agenda?
"It's unclear whether the shooter was motivated by Scalise's support of the Second Amendment."
Okay at this point you seem to be thinking normal.
Someone help me out... so this idiot pulled out a gun and opened fire on people because he is anti-gun?
From the above quote you posted it said it was unclear? And that means what to you?
You do know there are only 10 kinds of people in the world. Those that understand binary and those that don't
How marvelously absurd is the mind of a libtard journalist! Originally Posted by lustylad
Do you have any idea how silly you look with this comment? First of all I do not wish anyone to get shot. But you have to admit that it is ironic that the guy who fought for lunatic's to have a gun was shot by one. I am still puzzled why you have trouble with him shooting a bunch of congressman. All we hear in the news is how we need to get rid of them all. You also forgot to add in the report that he asked who they were before he shot them. I think he would have shot whom ever they were.
- bamscram
- 06-19-2017, 08:17 PM
You mean you want them to agree on a "handguns only" ambush policy?Republicans play BASEBALL your side plays softball.
For example: If "you" are doing to shoot a bunch of unarmed citizens practicing softball only bring a handgun to shoot them! Is that a "compromise" as you see it? Originally Posted by LexusLover
- garhkal
- 06-20-2017, 12:49 AM
You mean you want them to agree on a "handguns only" ambush policy?I am talking about ANYTHING. Want to talk about personal responsibility, the left won't hear it.
For example: If "you" are doing to shoot a bunch of unarmed citizens practicing softball only bring a handgun to shoot them! Is that a "compromise" as you see it? Originally Posted by LexusLover
Want to talk about enforcing laws we have, they don't want to hear it..
HOW can we bring them to the table when they won't hear ANY opinion other than their own?
THAT's what i was on about..
- lustylad
- 06-20-2017, 03:15 AM
Re. the Peggy Noonan column in post #48 above:
"...the problem is that, for a confluence of reasons, our country is increasingly populated by the not fully stable..."
...is an obvious reference to jackasses like MT Pockface.
"...the problem is that, for a confluence of reasons, our country is increasingly populated by the not fully stable..."
...is an obvious reference to jackasses like MT Pockface.
- nevergaveitathought
- 06-20-2017, 09:30 AM
the political schism has its fault line, in a broad sense, along the division between motivation by love and motivation by hate
that's not to say there aren't issues on the right, and that there aren't people who don't fit the mold
perhaps a better way for it to be understood is that one side has a set of truths that informs its actions while the other has no principle other than its own desires
that's not to say there aren't issues on the right, and that there aren't people who don't fit the mold
perhaps a better way for it to be understood is that one side has a set of truths that informs its actions while the other has no principle other than its own desires
- WTF
- 06-20-2017, 09:48 AM
I know your stupidity does not allow you to realize that both sides claim the moral high ground.
perhaps a better way for it to be understood is that one side has a set of truths that informs its actions while the other has no principle other than its own desires Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought
Keep being part of the problem...
- LexusLover
- 06-20-2017, 09:50 AM
- nevergaveitathought
- 06-20-2017, 10:25 AM
Keep being part of the problem... Originally Posted by WTF
we do have a problem
the problem wont be cured by a band aid of words
the founders of this country are living in a smaller and smaller subset of people
the founders die a second death when we quit listening to them and to the documents left us
we have passed over the rubicon on that
the teaching of new generations has been lost to haters