Ex CBS reporter Lara Logan praises Breitbart and Fox News

That's not true. I am here for discussion. I think you are calling "trolling" statements of life or political philosophy that you don't agree with.

But that's not trolling.

Now, yes, I would like to have a little fun and joke around. What's the point otherwise?

And if I think it's humorous that a normie is shocked by some perspective I have, then that's just having fun, that's not trolling.

I'm not doing it -just to shock-; I'm doing it to show there are legitimate and alternative viewpoints, that stand in stark opposition to the mainstream (and certainly leftist) narrative.

I don't think I have ever said anything here I don't believe. If I was trolling, I'd be saying shocking things just to shock.

I am very careful not to personally attack or insult any person here. And, I don't believe that I have.

 

So I'm in this group? No, I'm not the lunatic here. See, this is the kind of stuff that led me to put you on ignore. You're the one that's being incendiary.

I do appreciate you posting the list again. Now, that's not saying I agree with it; or your interpretation of it. But to reply in detail would take some time and it will have to wait.

But just a quick thought -- Trump is right to be critical of the press. Aside from just being sloppy, today's press has a leftist agenda that I have never seen before. I agree with him that the MSM is (at least) out of touch with much of the American public. An "enemy"? Well, that could be argued either way.

And actually, I think you left one off -- when he was suggesting that cops should hit the heads of arrested suspects against the roof of the police car. I would agree, that was pretty deplorable. And his support of the police state is one of the areas where I disagree with him a lot. But most presidents since the 1970s are in love with the police state.

I'll concede one general point -- the President should be more aware of inflaming crazy people who might want to "act on his behalf."

But on the other hand, is he supposed to not say what he thinks, for fear that some crazy person somewhere might doing something crazy to somebody else? That is clearly ridiculous too.

Oh and lastly, Snopes is not the end all and be all of what is factually correct.

 

So, you posted a list where Trump has (supposedly) supported violence. A few of them, I would agree with you. Others, I wouldn't.

So see, you are stating things as "fact" that I think may not be "facts"; or at the very least, they are debatable either way.

This is probably at the heart of our differences.

The Rockets beat the Heat on Thursday night. That's a fact.

"Trump calls for violence against journalists" -- that's highly debatable.

 

Uhhh….because they -are- far left thugs that need to be exposed. When their actions are caught on video, then it's clear that they are; what they do; and that they exist. The rest of the country, and the local police (if they care) need to see this. That's a good thing; that's why I liked it.

So is there something wrong with me "liking" the fact that criminals are exposed?

And that is in no way comparable to you saying that I (or "you", as you stated it) am about the engage in violence. That was the clear implication of your sentence. But I am not about to engage in anything of the sort.

 

I'm beginning to see why I had you placed on ignore initially. If you can't take me at my word when I'm saying I'm being sincere, then we really have no basis for conversing and debating.

 

And as someone in his early 50s, this is where I am coming from too. I think back on what I thought, and what I believed was true, when I was in my 20s, and I just shake my head.

It would be interesting to know -- if it's knowable -- the average age of posters here on CF. My guess -- pretty much everyone is in their 20s and 30s, maybe some early 40s.

The basis of my suspicion is that posting on internet boards is pretty much a "young person's thing to do", and not so much guys in their 50s and older.

Most guys 50 and above have too much going on in their lives to post on any internet board. Notice, I said "most."

Plus, also think about who gets excited about sports (the original reason for the creation of this website) -- it's young people. As you get older, you either quit watching altogether, or you at least cut way back. You are not watching that Rox-Dubs game that starts at 930 pm.

Why does any of the above matter? Because, most people's views evolve over time, and as they get more life experience -- and, they see begin to realize how the constant factor of "human nature" plays into any political debate or policy matter.

 

Have I called you dumb? No, I have not. You may not care, but you and others are coming perilously close to getting on my ignore list again.

I just say that because if in the future I'm not replying to you, then you'll know why.

And here's an interesting thing about leftists: they think with their emotions. Never a good thing to do, IMO. Good decisions don't flow from such thinking.

I mention this because some of the most heated, vitriolic responses usually come from leftists: and this is because they react, think, and speak with their emotions, rather than their logic faculties.

 

I just have time to address one of these points. So, I'll take this one. My memory on this one was a bit fuzzy, but I recalled that a lot of people sympathized with Gianforte, although they may not have supported his slamming the reporter to the ground.

But my memory was the reporter did something to bring this on himself, and I found it:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-and-punched-reporter/?utm_term=.12c39a539a9f

Basically, the reporter kept harassing Gianforte -- far beyond the norms of traditional journalism, and finally Gianforte lost his composure.

If my memory serves, this came at a time when it looked like Obamacare might be repealed, and the reporter was trying to press Gianforte on the consequences and implications of that.

Now, I don't condone Gianforte's action. But there's something to be said for being smart too, and civil. Basically, the reporter was inviting some bad reaction from Gianforte, knowingly or unknowingly. Lesson? Maybe you don't poke the bear repeatedly.

When Trump spoke to this issue, he was channeling and expressing a lot of American's frustrations with the media, and the slanted coverage they offer.

So, when you list this as one of your points, you are either forgetting or ignoring all this context. And this is the type of thing that leads to our differences. You look solely at Trump's support of Gianforte's actions.

I am looking, I believe, at the totality of the situation.

I don't like it when Trump seems to support violence, as he has at least done on 1-2 occasions.

I do like it when he calls out the slanted and biased media.

 

Well, I would disagree with your definition.

A troll walks into a Rockets fan forum, in the GARM, and says something like "Rox suck eggs."

Someone who legitimately thinks the Rockets have issues comes into the GARM and says "The Rockets will never win as long as Harden is their key player," and gives reasons why.

Both might trigger Rockets fanatics.

But one is just a stupid post, and the other is a legitimate, thoughtful criticism.

Just because someone enjoys the outrage that might come from a controversial post, does not make them a troll, IMO.

If one puts forth a detailed and thoughtful argument -- which goes against conventional thinking -- that does not make them a troll.

If one has to chuckle a bit when the "Why, I never....." responses come in -- that does not make that person a troll.

 

Dude, do what you like, but you clearly said "you lunatics" in one of your posts; I think it was in the "far left lunatic thread"; and it seemed pretty evident that you were putting me in that camp.

Really, don't you have anything better to do on a Sunday afternoon? I'm pretty sure I do.

 

There are two very interesting things being lost in all the sturm and drang on this thread:

1) what logan was actually saying about the MSM
2) the best way for this thread not to have any impact (for those that oppose its message) was to leave it alone. But some of you just can't help yourselves.

 

Heh. I have put forth several detailed thoughtful posts in this thread.

I have now re-learned something I knew anyway: it's useless to debate the partisans.

So, welcome to ignore. Feel free to do likewise.