Jump to content

The Deep State War Heats Up :ph34r:


Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

From your link:

 

“Imagine the President of the United States rolling around the West Wing, disoriented, ranting, angry, carrying on and paranoid, dreaming up public policy -- it's a dangerous thing for America,” Waters tweeted. “Get ready for impeachment!”

 

Now can anyone deny that gator is actually Maxine Waters?

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

From your link:

 

“Imagine the President of the United States rolling around the West Wing, disoriented, ranting, angry, carrying on and paranoid, dreaming up public policy -- it's a dangerous thing for America,” Waters tweeted. “Get ready for impeachment!”

 

Now can anyone deny that gator is actually Maxine Waters?

 

I beg to differ.  Waters' Tweet lacks the comical misspellings or grammatical errors we have come to expect from gator

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, /dev/null said:

 

I beg to differ.  Waters' Tweet lacks the comical misspellings or grammatical errors we have come to expect from gator

I considered that but I think she's on her own when posting as gator. She has help with her tweets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/1/2018 at 3:04 PM, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Is this article not a slightly more grounded version of "crisis actors" conspiracy? It reads to me as incredibly disingenuous. 

 

Because this seems to be implying that because other organizations have come to support the Parkland kids organize the march and walk-out, the kids are therefore illegitimate. If the overall point were to merely say "there are more mechanics at work behind the scenes here" then why not also explore the machinery of the opposing forces, as well? There'd be no shortage of cogs & gears to examine from the gun lobby's smear campaigns.

 

On the surface, he's justifying his article by arguing there's not enough coverage on the BTS organizations helping organize the march and walk out... But he's also citing his story from Buzzfeed, which has a much larger audience.

 

Perhaps he's not being disingenuous and he's a media watchdog. I haven't read his back catalog. From this, though, what he appears to be suggesting is there's not enough coverage that the Parkland kids should be ignored beyond the easily dismissed "crisis actor" conspiracy theorists. This article then fills that gap for the slightly-less-loony wing of the right.

 

Or, idk... what was your interpretation?

Edited by LA Grant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, LA Grant said:

 

Is this article not a slightly more grounded version of "crisis actors" conspiracy?

 

It's not even in the same category. 

 

Crisis actors imply a staged event. What this article is laying out is a coordinated effort to exploit the tragedy while hiding behind the victims. Refer to my post in the gun thread where I answered your question about my stance. The people arguing the loudest on both sides of the issue aren't trying to solve a problem - they're trying to prolong it because that's where the money is. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

It's not even in the same category. 

 

Crisis actors imply a staged event. What this article is laying out is a coordinated effort to exploit the tragedy while hiding behind the victims. Refer to my post in the gun thread where I answered your question about my stance. The people arguing the loudest on both sides of the issue aren't trying to solve a problem - they're trying to prolong it because that's where the money is. 

 

They're the same category, as you just pointed out. They appear to be different degrees along the same scale, with the same endgame: dismissal via discreditation. 

 

I recall your stance from the gun thread. I also recall your stance on media skepticism. Refer to my previous post above where I provide fair skepticism to this particular media's objective and why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Ah okay. Well that settles it then.

 

It does. Crisis actors implies a staged event. A planned event. I've never once written about crisis actors or fake tragedies.

 

What the article is discussing is a reaction to a real event. It's not implying there was any planning or staging done in any way shape or form. Attempting to conflate the two either demonstrates the limitations of your own cognitive abilities, or a deliberate attempt to derail a legitimate discussion by brandishing the "conspiracy" label. 

 

They're not in the same category in any way shape or form. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

It does. Crisis actors implies a staged event. A planned event. I've never once written about crisis actors or fake tragedies.

 

What the article is discussing is a reaction to a real event. It's not implying there was any planning or staging done in any way shape or form. Attempting to conflate the two either demonstrates the limitations of your own cognitive abilities, or a deliberate attempt to derail a legitimate discussion by brandishing the "conspiracy" label. 

 

They're not in the same category in any way shape or form. 

 

I don't think you are quite seeing it — I'm saying the Federalist article is aiming for the same objective as the "crisis actor" argument, but for people who are too rational to believe that outright. It is for the sizable demographic of people who want to dismiss the Parkland kids, without going as far to say that they are crisis actors, but just far enough to suggest they're not in control of their voices.

 

It is a conspiracy theory for the more rational right. It is still suggesting that the kids are puppets and have always been puppets— just slightly different kinds of puppets.

 

Again, if the article's objective was to simply examine the "coordinated effort to exploit the tragedy" then why is it so slanted in the implication that the only coordinated efforts are from the left? We know there are even more powerful forces at play working to discredit the Parkland kids, but rather than comparing the coordinated efforts to the gun lobby, he chooses Baked Alaska, in order to imply that the right is out-gunned with coordinated efforts. It appears to be a deliberate attempt to mislead the reader.

If the article is about "coordinated efforts to exploit tragedy" in the gun debate, wouldn't any fair analysis include some mention of the NRA? 

I suppose the reason he doesn't go there is it would bring into question his article to begin with, which under his own parameters, would count as part of a coordinated effort... to discredit and dismiss the Parkland kids. 

Seems like an example of disingenuous media to me, but maybe I'm being too skeptical.

Edited by LA Grant
formatting
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

No, I'm seeing what you're saying. 


You're just wrong.

 

Alrighty then. In what way are you living up to your "skeptical about media" principle here?

Edited by LA Grant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DC Tom said:

 

He's not "just" wrong.  He's spectacularly wrong.

 

What are we talking about, anyway?

 

How much weed a liberal smokes to write 1,000 word wastes of skin six times every day?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, DC Tom said:

You really are !@#$ing oblivious.  

 

If you say so, Sir Thomas! We should take your word for it — that article is definitely not at all similar to accusing the kids of being crisis actors. It's merely accusing the kids of acting as crisis exploiters, that's all! Totally different. 

 

I see now that Rhino is insane but what's your excuse, besides the obvious? Is English your second language? If so, I promise to take it easier on you for struggling with definitions.

Edited by LA Grant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...