What's new
By:
Filters

A Place for Conservatives

Heathme said:
Boy, you guys get pretty emotional about this stuff. I state some facts, show where the facts are documented and you jump in here like a bunch of 3 year olds.

Seriously how old are you Alfalfa? You act like my nine year old did when he was 4 with your "waaaaah" crap.
Click to expand...

I didn't actually read any of your posts. I'm just skimming through and I see "ABC, MSNBC, CNN" in many of them, and I recognize it as a movie I've seen before. So I make fun of it. And if only you knew how little my emotional investment is in your opinion...
 
Alfalfa said:
I didn't actually read any of your posts. I'm just skimming through and I see "ABC, MSNBC, CNN" in many of them, and I recognize it as a movie I've seen before. So I make fun of it. And if only you knew how little my emotional investment is in your opinion...
Click to expand...

Sweet, I will throw you on ignore then so I don't have to see your waste of space again.
 
Heathme said:
Right back at you NAOS. You try to portray yourself as some brilliant thinker and you just spout the same crap over and over.
Click to expand...
What have I said? You're assuming I'm a CNN, MSNBC, etc. lover.
The only thing I've said (or implied) consistently in this interaction is that you have an agenda; and this agenda has been formed for you. I've given you opportunities to show me otherwise, and you've totally failed to even swing swing the bat.
 
Heathme said:
Article on the proof that tech companies are censoring conservatives.

https://thehill.com/opinion/technol...a-tough-fight-as-big-techs-censorship-expands
Click to expand...

Just jumping in here to note that if you think this piece, which is essentially, an Op-Ed piece written by Trump Jr. that does little but cite anecdotes, constitutes "proof," you have a very, very loose definition of the term.

Also, since the Right is so dead set against Gov intervention in the free market and so opposed to prudential regulation and inclined to give private companies a very long leash, that conservatives are so apoplectic about private info companies determining how to distribute info on their platforms, strikes me as, shall we say, a bit inconsistent. I say, if Payday Lenders and For-Profit Colleges are free to shaft consumers (as recent Trump Admin policies would suggest), Facebook is free to determine how to disseminate info on its platforms. (Interestingly, Facebook is also one of the prime disseminators of right wing conspiracy BS, so there's that.)

I would also note that, despite cries about media bias (there's no doubt that bias exists in most media outlets), the experience of Fox teaches us clearly that the Right is not concerned about media bias, per se, but left wing media bias specifically; right wing media bias is just fine. I strongly suspect that were left wing bias to disappear completely tomorrow, and the media were dominated by right leaning outlets, folks like Heathme would largely not utter a peep in complaint. There are now plenty of right wing media outlets now, so for God's sake, quit whining about it and quit acting as if the thought of media bias is so offensive. You clearly like it, just the right kind.
 
jimmy eat jazz said:
Just jumping in here to note that if you think this piece, which is essentially, an Op-Ed piece written by Trump Jr. that does little but cite anecdotes, constitutes "proof," you have a very, very loose definition of the term.

Also, since the Right is so dead set against Gov intervention in the free market and so opposed to prudential regulation and inclined to give private companies a very long leash, that conservatives are so apoplectic about private info companies determining how to distribute info on their platforms, strikes me as, shall we say, a bit inconsistent. I say, if Payday Lenders and For-Profit Colleges are free to shaft consumers (as recent Trump Admin policies would suggest), Facebook is free to determine how to disseminate info on its platforms. (Interestingly, Facebook is also one of the prime disseminators of right wing conspiracy BS, so there's that.)

I would also note that, despite cries about media bias (there's no doubt that bias exists in most media outlets), the experience of Fox teaches us clearly that the Right is not concerned about media bias, per se, but left wing media bias specifically; right wing media bias is just fine. I strongly suspect that were left wing bias to disappear completely tomorrow, and the media were dominated by right leaning outlets, folks like Heathme would largely not utter a peep in complaint. There are now plenty of right wing media outlets now, so for God's sake, quit whining about it and quit acting as if the thought of media bias is so offensive. You clearly like it, just the right kind.
Click to expand...

Read the article jimmy. Here is some actual evidence. You can find more on these findings if you do a bit of research:
"Thanks to a brave Facebook whistleblower who approached James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas, we now know that Mark Zuckerberg’s social media giant developed algorithms to “deboost” certain content, limiting its distribution and appearance in news feeds. As you probably guessed, this stealth censorship was specifically aimed at conservatives."
 
jimmy eat jazz said:
I would also note that, despite cries about media bias (there's no doubt that bias exists in most media outlets), the experience of Fox teaches us clearly that the Right is not concerned about media bias, per se, but left wing media bias specifically; right wing media bias is just fine. I strongly suspect that were left wing bias to disappear completely tomorrow, and the media were dominated by right leaning outlets, folks like Heathme would largely not utter a peep in complaint. There are now plenty of right wing media outlets now, so for God's sake, quit whining about it and quit acting as if the thought of media bias is so offensive. You clearly like it, just the right kind.
Click to expand...

Believe it or not, I hate media bias on all sides. It just rarely happens towards liberals. You do realize that there is a difference between opinion shows on Fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc vs. news shows on each of these stations. Opinion shows are biased and meant to appeal to their audience. It is in the regular news shows where the liberal bias is at its worst.
 
Heathme said:
It's really not falling on deaf ears. It is falling on ears that have heard the reports of doom and gloom since Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth came out in 2006.
Click to expand...

Be that as it may, and with all due respect, my comments in comments #322, #326-327 were not about doom and gloom. They were an effort to show that the Presidential Committee on Climate Security had nothing to do with actual science, despite the Heritage Institute promoting it as just that. As well, I provided some background on the complete lack of objectivity of the man chosen to head that committee or commission, William Happer. You had been promoting the Heartland Institute in several of your comments. And the Heartland Institute have been promoting the proposed PCCS, including in the Heartland link you described as "reasonable", and in the Heartland link I provided.

I simply offered a counterpoint to your promotion of Heartland, as well as providing links to the feedback from the military and security communities on what they thought of the PCCS. The PCCS is to be simply a political vehicle to allow a predetermined conclusion to be drawn, one in support of Trump's stated opinion on the National Climate Assessment, produced by hundreds of scientists from many federal agencies: "I don't believe it", as he put it when asked. The PCCS will do this by disguising itself as an exercise in scientific debate. In reality, it will be a farce, designed to provide cover for the ignoramus occupying the Oval Office.
 
Zombie said:
So, do you understand why they are not 'proof' of anything?
Click to expand...

Just because it is an Op-Ed, does not mean it has no valuable or truthful information. Yes, an Op-Ed can have proof of something.

Zombie, since you post nothing of worth to this thread I will put you on ignore also.
 
Haha. Why does he think putting anyone on ignore is a threat or a punishment? I've literally never noticed this guy outside of this thread.
 
Heathme said:
Just because it is an Op-Ed, does not mean it has no valuable or truthful information. Yes, an Op-Ed can have proof of something.

Zombie, since you post nothing of worth to this thread I will put you on ignore also.
Click to expand...
Bummer.
 
Zombie said:
It's ****in weird right??
Click to expand...

Seriously. I'm dying here. He has 221 posts with a 9 year old account. And he must've posted 200 times in this thread. Certainly neither of us have ever had a conversation with him outside of this thread. And neither likely ever will. And yet. IGNORED! No more conversation with you!
 
Alfalfa said:
Seriously. I'm dying here. He has 221 posts with a 9 year old account. And he must've posted 200 times in this thread. Certainly neither of us have ever had a conversation with him outside of this thread. And neither likely ever will. And yet. IGNORED! No more conversation with you!
Click to expand...
I had also never noticed this "person" before this thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top