I Guess I'm Banned Now---Another Coward Runs Away

"NOW, the NEXT COMMENT YOU MAKE MUST defend WITH DATA the notion that "the media" is an enemy of the people."

This is the ultimatum from Dan in response to my "support" for Trump's description of some of the media.  Note the word "some" is italicized.  There's a reason for that.  The reason is that Trump did NOT refer to ALL of the media.  When questioned, he immediately clarified about whom he was speaking.  Every honest person who pays attention knows EXACTLY to whom he is referring.  Thus, as neither Trump nor I have referred to "the media"...as in, the media in general...as an enemy of anyone, to demand I defend that proposition is unjustified.

As regards what Trump actually meant by that expression, as well as to whom the expression referred, I've provided data enough in a previous post to support the contention that a certain segment of the media is indeed worthy of the title "enemy of the people".  He goes on:

"Provide the data that "most" (or 25% or whatever the hell number you think) of the media is deliberately telling lies, deliberately seeking to undermine a president for no reason at all."

The problem with this type of demand is that it is based on regarding the opinion of Trump as if it is concrete fact...something he would be hard pressed to prove is Trump's intention.  No, Trump is reacting to media coverage that, as my links in my previous blog demonstrates, is less than objective, less than honest and very much partisan.  How much?  How many?  Dan knows, or is too stupid to know when making demands such as his, what would be involved to provide the "hard data" that would be compelling enough for him to stop pretending Trump's position is total crap.  It would involve cataloging absolutely every news report (all newsprint, TV, radio, internet, etc.), categorizing each according to which is straight out lie, which is mistake made from laziness, etc. and then calculating percentages in order to prove or disprove Trump's "most" or "80%" opinion.   And after all of that, it would still be subject to Dan's very subjective, hateful and biased opinion of whether or not it satisfies his demands.  Why the hell would I put myself through that kind of work to satisfy his petulance, only to have it all deleted because it most certainly wouldn't regardless of how well it should have? 

What's more, if it fell short and simply proved, say, 51% of the media were guilty, would that be "most enough" for Danny-boy?  Not likely.  While he would say it proves Trump was "lying"...because he so badly needs to believe that anything that Trump says that is not rock solid true proves he can't be trusted to tell the truth...it would still in reality prove that Trump was right in saying "most" of the media is fake news. 

But what's the most ironic aspect of Dan's idiotic demands is that he, and his troll, feo, engage in the very sloppy and dishonest behavior that typifies the left-wing media.  To wit, here are some examples:

In Dan's response (the post itself) he says:

1.  "Moving on, then, an immediate question arises... "The press" has not been seriously accused of any "crimes against the state." None."

Well, yes they have, by many for many years now.  Perhaps not in exactly those terms, but the meaning is the same.  When the press is reporting that which is not true...worse, when it reports things that a little more investigation would prevent the report in the first place because the facts don't support the message of the report, it is misinforming the public.  Misinforming the public, intentionally or due to laziness and/or bias, is distorts the consumer's understanding in a way that leads the consumer to believe that which isn't true.  Given the assumption that the press is telling us what we need to know, to do the opposite is indeed a crime against us.  This has been the complaint, and thus the accusation of millions for years.

2.  "So, you are defining down YOUR definition of Enemy of the State/People to be "a group accused in a casual manner of some vague metaphorical "crime...", NOT an actual crime... "

Clearly this wasn't the case.  I wasn't "defining down" anything, but providing examples of how the crime is perpetrated.   Dan needs the crime to be something that the law has codified in order to use the word "crime".  But to mislead is the crime to which I refer and it is a crime even if there is no statute on the books.  There's nothing "casual" about it either, given the obligation of the press to provide facts.

3.  "Here you appear to be defining "enemy of the state" as a media that is biased against Trump..."

The problem with the above is that it follows my exact words.  Mere bias is not the issue.  Allowing that bias to result in stories that fail to accurately inform, or worse, to purposely influence the consumer in a partisan manner, is manipulation, not reporting and thus makes those members of the press who engage in such behavior enemies of the people.  Again, it's a simple thing:  inform with facts and let the public decide how it feels about the facts.  
As an example, if the press reports a killing without details surrounding how a person was killed, it can leave the consumer believing the killing was intentional when it was accidental, or accidental when it was intentional.  I'm speaking, of course, of a situation where those pertinent details are left out.  A more real world example is purposely leaving out details about a perpetrator, such as a muslim who kills a Jew, or the race of a group of kids randomly mugging people on the streets.    This is all too common and distorts the consumers understanding of the event reported.

4.  "Your entire case appears to be based NOT on the meaning of the term Enemy of the State or People, but on you thinking it's okay to just make a claim that has no meaning and is not factual."


This is clearly not even a sad attempt at understanding, but a willful disregard for what I clearly stated numerous times.  My case is based on the many, many examples of where the media has either purposely lied and distorted, allowed a mistake to linger leading to confusion and misunderstanding regarding reality before finally making corrections no one sees because of those corrections being buried and the clear laziness with regards to checking facts thoroughly before going to press.  To that end, I've offered several links in support of my argument.  In those few instances where Dan tries to respond to some of the info provided in those links, he STILL acts like a leftist media animal with more nonsense:

5. "The stories you mentioned about Trump calling immigrants "animals" DID happen. Trump used the term in talking about immigrants. Later he tried to clarify that he only meant a subset of immigrants, but that doesn't change that he used the term in a message that was directed towards immigrants as a group. The point is, THAT IS NOT A STORY about "the media" lying"

This is in response to something for which I had intended to provide more detail, and was therefore a "teaser" for things to come.  Then he denied me further comments until I provide what this post should provide for him, but will only be rejected as insufficient...because nothing ever can be if it contradicts what he needs to be true regardless of whether or not it is. 

The reality is that the lie of the media was easily found to be the lie it is by virtue of the fact that the comments by Trump can be researched and considered in its entire context, which was specifically about MS-13, regardless of whether or not the comments were in a larger discussion on immigration.  It is absurd to suggest that any "professional journalist" could run the line that he was speaking of all immigrants when so clearly he was NOT, and their capabilities in learning the truth of what he said far exceeds that of the general public.  That makes them culpable in a purposeful distortion of the facts. 

Dan proves he's just as deceitful and lazy with regard to the truth by virtue of the fact that he made his comment above without any effort to research the Trump comments and thus find for himself that what I said about the three "journalists" was absolutely true.  And maybe that's the problem.  Because Dan is just as deceitful with regard to Trump, he regards others doing the same thing as normal.

Then there is Dan's pet monkey, feo, who also engages in the same behavior that has led to widespread criticism of the media.  In this blog post at Dan's, the discussion (which also includes more of Dan's distortions, turns to a "discussion" on abortion.  feo chooses to misrepresent my position, not once, but constantly despite repeated attempts by me to correct him.  The point of contention regards the DNA of the fetus, including from the moment of conception.  feo desperately tries to insist that I pretend DNA proves personhood, and thus a human hair is a person because of the human DNA within it.  But this wasn't my point or argument.  I brought up DNA as what distinguishes the child from the mother, thereby rebutting the "it's my body" argument of the pro-abort woman.  If it was her body, what grows in her womb would have the exact same DNA.  It doesn't, so it isn't.  feo couldn't handle this truth without pretending I was making a different argument than what I was.  This form of deceit is all too common in today's press, particularly when the subject is the opposing opinions between conservatives and leftists.

He does it again here in an earlier post at Dan's where the discussion turned to immigration.  Here, feo takes great pains to distort my position on the emergency at our southern border and what constitutes an emergency.  The emergency is the fact that our borders are wide open allowing for entry by anyone for any purpose without knowledge of governing authorities.  The crisis is at the southern border where people are flooding in.  It doesn't matter than our northern border is longer, for while that constitutes a problem as well, clearly it is the southern border where invaders are taking advantage. 

The bottom line here is that in addition to the links I presented in the previous post, I've collected several more.  But what's the point?  As I said, it will never be enough for Dan, because he doesn't want to acknowledge the truth of it.  The media is actively trying to push a leftist agenda on pretty much every issue of importance.  Objectivity is rare from any of the usual suspects, and far, far less from Dan and his rectal itch, feo.

So it seems unlikely that Dan will allow me to post at his blog anymore.  Boo-freakin-hoo.  I guess we'll just have to debate each other from our respective blogs.  At least at this one, he'll be able to post comments without fear of deletion (unless he continues dropping f-bombs---but I'll likely just reprint them with the offending words obscured), while at his blog, he'll be talking with no one but the troll.  If he's so frozen by his cowardice and dishonesty, that's how it will be.  As for feo, who cares?  He's worse than Dan, and that's saying quite a lot.