dirtyhairy

Things the media won't tell you.

3,105 posts in this topic

Just now, WhenFalconsWin said:

Says people cannot engage in any discussion without attacking people while calling out right-wingers and attacking them...

^^^Doesn't understand satire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Leon Troutsky said:

^^^Doesn't understand satire.

^^^Trying to cya I see...more embarrassment will come to you soon enough since you have been one of the ring-leaders on this entire Trump/Russia fake news stuff.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

How dense can one person be?

I'm still gauging that with you, and I might say at this point, I'm no longer shocked about how much further you can go.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, WORilla said:

WFW needs to be called Alan from now on 

That's fine as long as I can call you Rachel, what do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

How dense can one person be?

I've had the three stooges on ignore for a while, but I still see their drooling idiocy when they're quoted.

The answer is VERY, VERY dense.

BrockSamson and Leon Troutsky like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, eatcorn said:

I've had the three stooges on ignore for a while, but I still see their drooling idiocy when they're quoted.

The answer is VERY, VERY dense.

That's probably the best practice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

That's fine as long as I can call you Rachel, what do you think?

Who is Rachel? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Leon Troutsky said:

The FBI said she did nothing illegal. :shrug: 

They said the same of Trump, yet here we are with the media still looking for the red boogieman Part 12.

WhenFalconsWin likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, silentbob1272 said:

They said the same of Trump, yet here we are with the media still looking for the red boogieman Part 12.

How many congressional hearings are we going to have for this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, lostone said:

How many congressional hearings are we going to have for this?

To keep up with Clinton, they need at least nine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, lostone said:

How many congressional hearings are we going to have for this?

Yeah but THIS time they're not really necessary :D

Leon Troutsky likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Leon Troutsky said:

To keep up with Clinton, they need at least nine.

Clinton is a proven serial liar I think her history proves that. Now take your presidents word that he did nothing wrong!

Leon Troutsky likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, atl falcon 89 said:

Clinton is a proven serial liar I think her history proves that. Now take your presidents word that he did nothing wrong!

That's no way for a Hillary supporter to speak of the woman he chose as his ruler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, silentbob1272 said:

That's no way for a Hillary supporter to speak of the woman he chose as his ruler.

Should I repeat what he said? I didn't support either crappy choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, lostone said:

Should I repeat what he said? I didn't support either crappy choice.

I did vote for her so let's be fair to Bob (was a vote against Trump in reality )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, atl falcon 89 said:

I did vote for her  so let's be fair to Bob

But I feel the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, lostone said:

Should I repeat what he said? I didn't support either crappy choice.

Then had I directed this joke at you, you might have a point, but I didn't so you don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, silentbob1272 said:

Then had I directed this joke at you, you might have a point, but I didn't so you don't.

:(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More than anything else this is the type crap that I find most annoying

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/media/324233-violent-threats-against-the-president-is-ok-now

Violent threats against the president are OK now?

Turn on TV or browse your newsfeeds on social media, and you will be bombarded with polemics about the sky falling and credible threats of violence against conservative figures.

The FBI investigated a threat to kill Milo Yiannoupolis for the audacity to want to speak on a college campus. Threats against former Labor Secretary nominee Andy Puzder’s wife caused him to withdraw himself from consideration. Multiple intimidatory remarks haunted members of the Trump-voting Electoral College. President Trump has been the target of declarations of violence on a near daily basis.

And yet, when it comes to this constant flow of threats, there seems to be little outrage from the nation’s leading journalists and pundits.

 

Social media shines almost every day with a new dimwitted threat against Trump and his presidency. “Comedienne” Sarah Silverman called for a military coup. Madonna told protesters she “thought” about blowing up the White House. Violence seems to break out every time a conservative comes to speak at a college campus. Rosie O’Donnell talks about “stopping” Trump on Twitter.

  

Snoop Dogg has done his best to get back on people’s radars since 1998 with his new music video in which he assassinates a clown dressed as Trump. Even if it was just a stunt by the 45-year-old rapper to stay relevant, it was still completely crass and unacceptable.

The media has largely glossed over these serious threats with a shrug. A simple Google search on Snoop Dogg’s assassination video, for example, yields virtually no mainstream editorials expressing disgust. It’s almost as if there’s an overarching belief among the media that Trump brought this upon himself.

All of these actions underlines what’s been obvious for a while now: The calls by President Obama for “civility” after the 2011 shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords were never genuine. The left only uses such efforts as a cudgel to silence their political foes, then turns around to call them Hitler when needed.

The selective outrage is deafening. Obama was certainly the target of vicious remarks, but the calls for outright violence from the left have received nowhere near the same attention in the press as conservatives received during the Obama years.

Every time a threatening, disrespectful, or unflattering comment was made about the former president, a national shaming storm sprung up. A staffer for an obscure congressman was forced to resign after stating that Obama’s daughters don’t show enough "class." Ex-congressman Joe Walsh was slammed in nearly every major outlet after he tweeted, “This is now war. Watch out Obama,” after five cops were fatally shot in Dallas. Even Tea Partiers were regularly called neo-Confederates.

 

Selective outrage gets tiring, even in the Trump years.

Both sides of the political spectrum seem to understand the concept of “outrage fatigue.” An Huffington Post op-ed asked its readers if they suffered from protest fatigue — the author wrote, "Daily I am poised to do something to ride the emotional tsunami." Fortunately for those of us constantly seeing crises on Facebook, we already have a term for such an ailment: The boy who cried wolf. Heck, the Onion was on this over a decade ago.

Political tensions are reaching a boiling point and the mainstream media, pundits, and “analysts” do nothing but fan the flames. The American people are quick to pick up on coverage patterns. Many are still making up their own minds about President Trump but understand that he is doing his best. They know (and maybe support) that the Democrats are the opposition party. They don’t want the media to be another.

These are serious times requiring serious attention – not just adoring coverage of ***** Hat protesters. At the end of the day it’s going to be the members of the traditional press gaggle left pointing fingers.

 

Yesterday's example. Where are the p***y hats decrying this misogyny? 

cjimvl0.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, silentbob1272 said:

More than anything else this is the type crap that I find most annoying

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/media/324233-violent-threats-against-the-president-is-ok-now

Violent threats against the president are OK now?

Turn on TV or browse your newsfeeds on social media, and you will be bombarded with polemics about the sky falling and credible threats of violence against conservative figures.

The FBI investigated a threat to kill Milo Yiannoupolis for the audacity to want to speak on a college campus. Threats against former Labor Secretary nominee Andy Puzder’s wife caused him to withdraw himself from consideration. Multiple intimidatory remarks haunted members of the Trump-voting Electoral College. President Trump has been the target of declarations of violence on a near daily basis.

And yet, when it comes to this constant flow of threats, there seems to be little outrage from the nation’s leading journalists and pundits.

 

Social media shines almost every day with a new dimwitted threat against Trump and his presidency. “Comedienne” Sarah Silverman called for a military coup. Madonna told protesters she “thought” about blowing up the White House. Violence seems to break out every time a conservative comes to speak at a college campus. Rosie O’Donnell talks about “stopping” Trump on Twitter.

  

Snoop Dogg has done his best to get back on people’s radars since 1998 with his new music video in which he assassinates a clown dressed as Trump. Even if it was just a stunt by the 45-year-old rapper to stay relevant, it was still completely crass and unacceptable.

The media has largely glossed over these serious threats with a shrug. A simple Google search on Snoop Dogg’s assassination video, for example, yields virtually no mainstream editorials expressing disgust. It’s almost as if there’s an overarching belief among the media that Trump brought this upon himself.

All of these actions underlines what’s been obvious for a while now: The calls by President Obama for “civility” after the 2011 shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords were never genuine. The left only uses such efforts as a cudgel to silence their political foes, then turns around to call them Hitler when needed.

The selective outrage is deafening. Obama was certainly the target of vicious remarks, but the calls for outright violence from the left have received nowhere near the same attention in the press as conservatives received during the Obama years.

Every time a threatening, disrespectful, or unflattering comment was made about the former president, a national shaming storm sprung up. A staffer for an obscure congressman was forced to resign after stating that Obama’s daughters don’t show enough "class." Ex-congressman Joe Walsh was slammed in nearly every major outlet after he tweeted, “This is now war. Watch out Obama,” after five cops were fatally shot in Dallas. Even Tea Partiers were regularly called neo-Confederates.

 

Selective outrage gets tiring, even in the Trump years.

Both sides of the political spectrum seem to understand the concept of “outrage fatigue.” An Huffington Post op-ed asked its readers if they suffered from protest fatigue — the author wrote, "Daily I am poised to do something to ride the emotional tsunami." Fortunately for those of us constantly seeing crises on Facebook, we already have a term for such an ailment: The boy who cried wolf. Heck, the Onion was on this over a decade ago.

Political tensions are reaching a boiling point and the mainstream media, pundits, and “analysts” do nothing but fan the flames. The American people are quick to pick up on coverage patterns. Many are still making up their own minds about President Trump but understand that he is doing his best. They know (and maybe support) that the Democrats are the opposition party. They don’t want the media to be another.

These are serious times requiring serious attention – not just adoring coverage of ***** Hat protesters. At the end of the day it’s going to be the members of the traditional press gaggle left pointing fingers.

 

Yesterday's example. Where are the p***y hats decrying this misogyny? 

cjimvl0.png

Like I stated in another thread, he takes issue with Snoop Dogg, but not with Madonna saying she'll blow up the White House?

Who's truly being selective with their outrage? Also, doesn't he have anything better to do, like trying to be presidential and run the country?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Statick said:

Like I stated in another thread, he takes issue with Snoop Dogg, but not with Madonna saying she'll blow up the White House?

Who's truly being selective with their outrage? Also, doesn't he have anything better to do, like trying to be presidential and run the country?

It always comes back to being somehow on him? Nothing about the piece's of crap making these statements\threats, Not just Madonna, Snoop dog, or BW, but the many, many examples on a daily basis on social media, they just get ignored or brushed aside as you do here.

Threats to kill you or rape and make your wife a sexual slave. Meh, doesn't he have more important things to worry about?

GTFO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.