This is well crafted leftist propaganda that illustrates completely and in technicolor, the leftist obsession with race.
Real Americans are color blind.
@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace - I really wish I could be there the day you finally realize all this leftist conspiracy nonsense you spout all the time is all bull shit.
But alas I have much better things to do then wait around for you to learn how to reason.
@nephyo - My beef with the Left is not about conspiracy, it’s about philosophy and tactics. Liberalism is a disaster. It ruins everything it touches. The reason is that the objective of liberalism is to gain and hold power.
It’s not about helping the poor or social justice. Those are only excuses. The left is led by well trained insurgents who will do anything and say anything to gain power.
@nephyo - I am simply expressing what insurgents like Vladimir Lenin, Mao Tse Tung, Josef Stalin, Saul Alinsky and on and on say about their movements.
The leftist tactic you are using, for example is to marginalize my meaning by assigning an alternate meaning to it. “Conspiracy Theory” is a loaded and propagandistic word.
It not only calls into question the meaning of my written words but is an ad hominem attack used to make the opponent look crazy.
Well done! Unfortunately, I’m on to you and your tactics. They are very transparent once you get to know them. The woman in the video used the same tactics in her talk.
@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace - You presented no substance in reply to the video I posted. You utterly ignored the topics presented and in no way replied in a way that even indicates that you even watched the video. So why should you expect me to get into an argument with you about the crazy nonsense about liberal “propaganda” and liberal “tactics” you keep pulling out of who knows where?
If someone presents, without evidence, an idea like that Aliens or lizard people are secretly in control of our government, or that there’s a secret government agency that planned 9/11 and placed bombs at the bottom of the World Trade Center, or that there’s a secret generations old plot to make a Kenyan named Obama President, or any other such nonsense: we call those things Conspiracy Theories. And yes, we absolutely do that to belittle those theories and marginalize the people who spout them. We do that because unthinking belief in untrue things is both wrong and extremely dangerous. We don’t “make” the people who say those things “look crazy”. The people who say those things are in fact making themselves “look crazy” by saying things that is stupid. When we call them conspiracy theories, we simply point that out.
Why would you expect anyone to treat you differently when you posit the idea that there’s this secret conspiracy of Liberal insurgents lead by or inspired by Lenin, Mao and Stalin seeking power at all costs and using concepts like “social justice” to manipulate people into following them? That’s a ridiculous concept. That’s not just because of the way I happened to read your words. Every possible parsing of your words that I can conceive of is equally ridiculous. It just doesn’t exist. And anyone honest who actually talks to people who consider themselves liberals or leftists rather than make up crap about them will realize this in about five minutes.
So yes. I think what you are saying is a stupid conspiracy theory and I am saying so. This is not a secret tactic I am engaging in because I can’t answer your statements. It’s the conclusion that I think any reasonable person with a basic knowledge of history would conclude from reading your statements. It’s a crazy, stupid, false, conspiracy theory. It’s just as ridiculous if not more so than those other examples I have given.
You are banking on the fact that most people who read your statements don’t know enough to know that they have no basis in reality. Just like in the old days people advocated world-is-flat and heliocentric ideology long after it was well known to be wrong and were able to convince people who didn’t know enough about science to realize how idiotic those ideas were.
If you make crazy statements you look crazy. I don’t have to manipulate what you are saying to do that. But I absolutely will point out the fact that you are saying something crazy and attempt to marginalize you for saying it. Nobody should listen to the crazy person on the street corner saying that God is going to strike us all down unless we stop watching television and eating chewing gum. And nobody should listen to you when you spout this Glenn Beck inspired B.S. for pretty much the exact same reason.
But if you want to have a conversation about something real, rather than your delusions about a supposed liberal propaganda conspiracy, why don’t you talk about the substance? Why don’t you talk about the specific things that Amy Goodman said and that Rand Paul said and tell me why Amy Goodman, Blair Kelley, and Mike Ervin are wrong and Rand Paul is right?
@nephyo - Thank you for your diligence. Please know that I did watch the video. My comments are a reaction to it.
@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace - You’re very welcome. And you’re welcome to post your reactions to the things I post and I will post my reactions to your reactions as I did here.
But certainly I hope in the future, if you choose to comment, we can talk more about the specific details and specific issues and less about accusing the other side of cynically manipulating people or facts. Even if we can’t convince each other, such discussion is at least more helpful to passerby’s who might happen to read our discussion.
@nephyo - The problem is that since the premise liberals start out with is almost always invalid there is no use to discuss details.
For example, Goodwin’s premise is that Rand Paul is a racist. She then spends the rest of the talk discussing racism. Ron Paul is not a racist. The Left is notorious for branding its political enemies as racist.
Nowhere in Goodman’s statement is it asserted that Rand Paul is a racist or anything close. She does not assume Rand Paul is a racist. Nobody on the Left assumed Rand Paul was a racist. It was not our premise.
What Goodman and others on the left did is they examined Rand Paul’s actual statements with regard to the Civil Rights act and reacted to those words. Paul said the Civil Rights Act is good for Public institutions but bad for Private institutions. Liberals asked him to clarify and he reiterated the same statements.
The point Goodman and others on the left are making is that statements like that have consequences. It would have had devastating consequences in perpetuating racism had the people who passed the Civil Rights Act believed the same as Rand Paul does. But thankfully they didn’t. And that’s a large part of why segregation does not persist today. Those are historical facts that are hard to deny.
Comments (10)
This is well crafted leftist propaganda that illustrates completely and in technicolor, the leftist obsession with race.
Real Americans are color blind.
@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace - I really wish I could be there the day you finally realize all this leftist conspiracy nonsense you spout all the time is all bull shit.
But alas I have much better things to do then wait around for you to learn how to reason.
@nephyo - My beef with the Left is not about conspiracy, it’s about philosophy and tactics. Liberalism is a disaster. It ruins everything it touches. The reason is that the objective of liberalism is to gain and hold power.
It’s not about helping the poor or social justice. Those are only excuses. The left is led by well trained insurgents who will do anything and say anything to gain power.
@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace - That is by definition a conspiracy theory.
@nephyo - I am simply expressing what insurgents like Vladimir Lenin, Mao Tse Tung, Josef Stalin, Saul Alinsky and on and on say about their movements.
The leftist tactic you are using, for example is to marginalize my meaning by assigning an alternate meaning to it. “Conspiracy Theory” is a loaded and propagandistic word.
It not only calls into question the meaning of my written words but is an ad hominem attack used to make the opponent look crazy.
Well done! Unfortunately, I’m on to you and your tactics. They are very transparent once you get to know them. The woman in the video used the same tactics in her talk.
@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace - You presented no substance in reply to the video I posted. You utterly ignored the topics presented and in no way replied in a way that even indicates that you even watched the video. So why should you expect me to get into an argument with you about the crazy nonsense about liberal “propaganda” and liberal “tactics” you keep pulling out of who knows where?
If someone presents, without evidence, an idea like that Aliens or lizard people are secretly in control of our government, or that there’s a secret government agency that planned 9/11 and placed bombs at the bottom of the World Trade Center, or that there’s a secret generations old plot to make a Kenyan named Obama President, or any other such nonsense: we call those things Conspiracy Theories. And yes, we absolutely do that to belittle those theories and marginalize the people who spout them. We do that because unthinking belief in untrue things is both wrong and extremely dangerous. We don’t “make” the people who say those things “look crazy”. The people who say those things are in fact making themselves “look crazy” by saying things that is stupid. When we call them conspiracy theories, we simply point that out.
Why would you expect anyone to treat you differently when you posit the idea that there’s this secret conspiracy of Liberal insurgents lead by or inspired by Lenin, Mao and Stalin seeking power at all costs and using concepts like “social justice” to manipulate people into following them? That’s a ridiculous concept. That’s not just because of the way I happened to read your words. Every possible parsing of your words that I can conceive of is equally ridiculous. It just doesn’t exist. And anyone honest who actually talks to people who consider themselves liberals or leftists rather than make up crap about them will realize this in about five minutes.
So yes. I think what you are saying is a stupid conspiracy theory and I am saying so. This is not a secret tactic I am engaging in because I can’t answer your statements. It’s the conclusion that I think any reasonable person with a basic knowledge of history would conclude from reading your statements. It’s a crazy, stupid, false, conspiracy theory. It’s just as ridiculous if not more so than those other examples I have given.
You are banking on the fact that most people who read your statements don’t know enough to know that they have no basis in reality. Just like in the old days people advocated world-is-flat and heliocentric ideology long after it was well known to be wrong and were able to convince people who didn’t know enough about science to realize how idiotic those ideas were.
If you make crazy statements you look crazy. I don’t have to manipulate what you are saying to do that. But I absolutely will point out the fact that you are saying something crazy and attempt to marginalize you for saying it. Nobody should listen to the crazy person on the street corner saying that God is going to strike us all down unless we stop watching television and eating chewing gum. And nobody should listen to you when you spout this Glenn Beck inspired B.S. for pretty much the exact same reason.
But if you want to have a conversation about something real, rather than your delusions about a supposed liberal propaganda conspiracy, why don’t you talk about the substance? Why don’t you talk about the specific things that Amy Goodman said and that Rand Paul said and tell me why Amy Goodman, Blair Kelley, and Mike Ervin are wrong and Rand Paul is right?
@nephyo - Thank you for your diligence. Please know that I did watch the video. My comments are a reaction to it.
@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace - You’re very welcome. And you’re welcome to post your reactions to the things I post and I will post my reactions to your reactions as I did here.
But certainly I hope in the future, if you choose to comment, we can talk more about the specific details and specific issues and less about accusing the other side of cynically manipulating people or facts. Even if we can’t convince each other, such discussion is at least more helpful to passerby’s who might happen to read our discussion.
@nephyo - The problem is that since the premise liberals start out with is almost always invalid there is no use to discuss details.
For example, Goodwin’s premise is that Rand Paul is a racist. She then spends the rest of the talk discussing racism. Ron Paul is not a racist. The Left is notorious for branding its political enemies as racist.
@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace - Do you mean Amy Goodman?
Nowhere in Goodman’s statement is it asserted that Rand Paul is a racist or anything close. She does not assume Rand Paul is a racist. Nobody on the Left assumed Rand Paul was a racist. It was not our premise.
What Goodman and others on the left did is they examined Rand Paul’s actual statements with regard to the Civil Rights act and reacted to those words. Paul said the Civil Rights Act is good for Public institutions but bad for Private institutions. Liberals asked him to clarify and he reiterated the same statements.
The point Goodman and others on the left are making is that statements like that have consequences. It would have had devastating consequences in perpetuating racism had the people who passed the Civil Rights Act believed the same as Rand Paul does. But thankfully they didn’t. And that’s a large part of why segregation does not persist today. Those are historical facts that are hard to deny.
What is wrong about pointing that out?