Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.

An important view into the thinking of moderates and conservatives regarding Obstruction

Collapse
X
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • An important view into the thinking of moderates and conservatives regarding Obstruction

    A new favorite channel of mine finally came out with their take on the obstruction of justice claims regarding Trump. The thing I really like about the video is not that the guy agrees with me. Obviously he does. Rather, it is that he lays out not only why he (and I) believes what he does, from a raw cultural level, but gives one a glimpse of this whole thing through the eyes of an ex-liberal who has been red pilled.

    It quite literally violates our since of justice at a core level.



    And a side note: I can't force anyone to do anything so this is just a request - if you don't have anything to offer regarding your take on the content of the video, please feel free to ignore this thread.

  • erok123
    replied
    The funniest thing about this thread?

    "Moderates" have nothing to do with today's "conservatives". See the title of the OP.

    Leave a comment:


  • Easy Listener
    replied
    Originally posted by wasgtrjones View Post

    How exactly does the link you gave support your claims?
    It's easy. Go to the third line in the fourth paragraph after the ad about Depends. Of course, they are targeted ads so you may see a different ad.

    Leave a comment:


  • Phil O'Keefe
    replied
    Originally posted by Easy Listener View Post

    I changed it. You'll notice everywhere else, though, I already said, "many". I just accidentally said "most". This is why I used the "journalism class" comment.

    I'm not long for this site. I've pretty much reached my limit on the badgering over crap that well paid journalists are doing all over the place. And no, I'm not going to give a link to that. It's all my opinion because I've laughed at it with other posters for the last decade - or two. This is a FORUM, not a news site. Nothing any of us says should rise to the level of post graduate journalism standards. That's not its function.

    I can only assume HC is trying to discourage people from posting - or posting anything of substance unless they have unlimited time at their disposal.


    You can get around this very easily - all you have to do is to post and state things as your OPINION and quit trying to make factual claims unless you're willing to substantiate them when you get asked to.



    Leave a comment:


  • Vito Corleone
    replied
    Originally posted by Easy Listener View Post

    I changed it. You'll notice everywhere else, though, I already said, "many". I just accidentally said "most". This is why I used the "journalism class" comment.

    I'm not long for this site. I've pretty much reached my limit on the badgering over crap that well paid journalists are doing all over the place. And no, I'm not going to give a link to that. It's all my opinion because I've laughed at it with other posters for the last decade - or two. This is a FORUM, not a news site. Nothing any of us says should rise to the level of post graduate journalism standards. That's not its function.

    I can only assume HC is trying to discourage people from posting - or posting anything of substance unless they have unlimited time at their disposal.

    I'm also getting spoiled by Dissenter. Truth be told, that might be the real reason my patience is wearing thin. But it is SO much fun to troll leftists by the mere act of posting factual articles, and watch their heads explode.
    Lol. The fantasy world you live in is rather hilarious.

    What ACTUALLY happens is you post opinion pieces and YouTube videos that are routinely ignored.

    That THIS is how you perceive it inside your head?

    thanks for the laughs, dood.

    Leave a comment:


  • Easy Listener
    replied
    Originally posted by Zooey View Post

    I'm curious what your user name was on Harmony Central forums for the last decade - or two.
    I'm talking about other sites, not this one. We talk about what goes on here. I enjoy linking some of the leftist responses on those sites, though now it's mainly just dissenter.

    Leave a comment:


  • Phil O'Keefe
    replied
    Originally posted by wasgtrjones View Post

    Are you sure it's that you don't want to substantiate the claims, or could it be that you can't substantiate the claims?
    Stay out of it please... I'm addressing it. It's not your place to do so.

    Leave a comment:


  • Zooey
    replied
    Originally posted by Easy Listener View Post
    I've pretty much reached my limit on the badgering over crap that well paid journalists are doing all over the place. And no, I'm not going to give a link to that. It's all my opinion because I've laughed at it with other posters for the last decade - or two.
    I'm curious what your user name was on Harmony Central forums for the last decade - or two.

    Leave a comment:


  • Easy Listener
    replied
    Originally posted by arcadesonfire View Post

    How could we elevate ourselves to your level of debate if we can't even pass Journalism 101?? Hehe, just kidding.

    It doesn't take a lot of effort delineate between objective and subjective. Simply say, "It seems to me that most of us thought..." or "of the people on my side who I've read or listened to, most of us thought..."

    Using more specificity in one's statements tends to make them less questionable, because broad assumptions are removed; openly recognizing and delineating between subjective and objective lends to credibility.

    Though... beware, that's the type of "critical thinking" mumbo jumbo I learned at a liberal arts college. hehehe
    I changed it. You'll notice everywhere else, though, I already said, "many". I just accidentally said "most". This is why I used the "journalism class" comment.

    I'm not long for this site. I've pretty much reached my limit on the badgering over crap that well paid journalists are doing all over the place. And no, I'm not going to give a link to that. It's all my opinion because I've laughed at it with other posters for the last decade - or two. This is a FORUM, not a news site. Nothing any of us says should rise to the level of post graduate journalism standards. That's not its function.

    I can only assume HC is trying to discourage people from posting - or posting anything of substance unless they have unlimited time at their disposal.

    I'm also getting spoiled by Dissenter. Truth be told, that might be the real reason my patience is wearing thin. But it is SO much fun to troll leftists by the mere act of posting factual articles, and watch their heads explode.

    Leave a comment:


  • wasgtrjones
    replied
    Originally posted by Easy Listener View Post

    Two things:
    1. I am not logged on 24/7 as some here seem to be and did not see the request.
    2. I just saw the first request and I consider it unreasonable. This is not journalism class. I gave a link for the core claim.

    My post stands. Do what you must if you must. I've reached my tolerance level on this links for minutia stuff.
    Are you sure it's that you don't want to substantiate the claims, or could it be that you can't substantiate the claims?

    How exactly does the link you gave support your claims?

    Leave a comment:


  • Phil O'Keefe
    replied
    Originally posted by Easy Listener View Post

    Two things:
    1. I am not logged on 24/7 as some here seem to be and did not see the request.
    Understood - which is why you weren't asked over the weekend while you weren't posting, and why you were given another reminder today.

    2. I just saw the first request and I consider it unreasonable. This is not journalism class. I gave a link for the core claim.

    My post stands. Do what you must if you must. I've reached my tolerance level on this links for minutia stuff.
    It's really simple: Just edit your post so that instead of the apparently unsupportable claim that "many" and "most" become "some" - which is irrefutable.

    i.e. with two simple edits "most of us that supported Trump... felt about the obstruction claims" becomes "some of us that supported Trump... felt about the obstruction claims" and "many of us see this as... Trump was framed for a crime he didn't commit" becomes "some of us see this as... Trump was framed for a crime he didn't commit."



    Leave a comment:


  • arcadesonfire
    replied
    Originally posted by Easy Listener View Post

    Two things:
    1. I am not logged on 24/7 as some here seem to be and did not see the request.
    2. I just saw the first request and I consider it unreasonable. This is not journalism class. I gave a link for the core claim.

    My post stands. Do what you must if you must. I've reached my tolerance level on this links for minutia stuff.
    How could we elevate ourselves to your level of debate if we can't even pass Journalism 101?? Hehe, just kidding.

    It doesn't take a lot of effort delineate between objective and subjective. Simply say, "It seems to me that most of us thought..." or "of the people on my side who I've read or listened to, most of us thought..."

    Using more specificity in one's statements tends to make them less questionable, because broad assumptions are removed; openly recognizing and delineating between subjective and objective lends to credibility.

    Though... beware, that's the type of "critical thinking" mumbo jumbo I learned at a liberal arts college. hehehe
    Last edited by arcadesonfire; 05-14-2019, 01:04 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Easy Listener
    replied
    Originally posted by Phil O'Keefe View Post

    You were asked to substantiate factual claims... I think it was in post #56.

    Second notice / request...
    Two things:
    1. I am not logged on 24/7 as some here seem to be and did not see the request.
    2. I just saw the first request and I consider it unreasonable. This is not journalism class. I gave a link for the core claim.

    My post stands. Do what you must if you must. I've reached my tolerance level on this links for minutia stuff.
    Last edited by Easy Listener; 05-14-2019, 12:46 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Phil O'Keefe
    replied
    Originally posted by Easy Listener View Post

    Then I think you will find this fascinating:
    You were asked to substantiate factual claims... I think it was in post #56.

    Second notice / request...

    Leave a comment:


  • TCM
    replied
    Originally posted by Easy Listener View Post

    Thank you. As I mentioned before, I saw it and left it. I don't like it when my posts have a "last edited" date and chose to leave it be.
    .................................................. ..................post 68................................................ ...................................

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X