Friday, July 16, 2021

Something Until The Real Post Is Ready

 "[And I have to tell you that I am loathe to keep citing this miscreant, but he pretty perfectly sums up what has become of conservatism. Truth and facts don't matter. Attacks are good, repeated attacks are better... you repeat the attacks and the lies and name-calling enough times and some people will start believing the disinformation. At least, the useful idiots will. (Trump has gone on record as saying this deviant "positive thinking" strategy is part of what he embraces.) Just to be clear, Trump is not the cause of this cancer on modern conservatism - conservatives have brought it on themselves. But he is the epitome and poster boy for what has become of modern conservatism. /end rant.]"

The above was lifted from a post to which I will be responding later.  But this bit was especially galling in my opinion, both because of the author being crazed in his hatred as well as for the hypocrisy and falseness.  It's what "embracing grace" apparently looks like.  Let's review:


"And I have to tell you that I am loathe to keep citing this miscreant, but he pretty perfectly sums up what has become of conservatism."

This is from someone who continually proves a decided lack of understanding of what conservatism is.  I wouldn't dare suggest that the GOP hasn't lots of problems.  They do.  Part of which is the truest conservatives within the party are few in number.  Regardless, Trump's policies demonstrated more conservatism than anyone who paid attention expected to get from him.  Yet he isn't the face of conservatism.  He's just one person who may still be far less conservative politically than his policies would suggest.  In short, support for the guy is based on those policies he implemented, promoted and hoped to see enacted...not on his personality necessarily.  

In any case, to refer to him as a "miscreant" is rather rich coming from a "progressive" who supports the Democratic Party. 

"Truth and facts don't matter. Attacks are good, repeated attacks are better... you repeat the attacks and the lies and name-calling enough times and some people will start believing the disinformation. At least, the useful idiots will."

This is Olympic Gold Medal level projection.  Trump exaggerates.  He deals in marketing level hyperbole so common among business people.  Lefties are abject and inveterate liars.  Whether it's politics or religion, the lefty has very little regard for truth, and their attacks on their ideological opponents...their betters, more often than not...is legendary.  A current example is the common reference to some who aren't Fauci sheep as "anti-vaxxers".  Aside from the lie that what is being pushed through the syringes into the arms of the people is a vaccine, those who are "hesitant" are so because of the data, most of which one has to pulled like a bad tooth from the "experts" who lack the honesty to allow the use of alternatives like Ivermectin or the reports of the successes hundreds of doctors have experienced with its use.  

Yet the name calling so common among the lefties, including the Louisville Slug who makes the charge, is distinct in it's lack of justification, as the "anti-vaxxer" example clearly illustrates.  (Yeah.  I know.  I just engaged in name calling.  Sue me.)  What names are hurled in the port side direction are easily justified with clearly seen examples.  I won't say name-calling is particularly "Christian", but there's a time and a place for everything and calling a liar a liar is at least truthful.  

As to "useful idiots", that would imply one from the conservative side is incapable of rationally, intelligently and truthfully defending why one aligns one's self with the conservative side in the first place.  I'm not talking platitudes here.  I'm referring to solid fact and logic.   While not every conservative is a genius, a scholar, even necessarily bright and articulate, even the "best" among the lefties can't persuade any of them to their dark side.  

"Just to be clear, Trump is not the cause of this cancer on modern conservatism - conservatives have brought it on themselves."

There is no greater cancer on the American experiment than the leftist ideology promoted and enabled by the Kentucky Wild Turkey who asserts the above.   They've brought that cancer upon the entire nation and believe themselves to be have done us a solid.  That's just how stupid they are.  

And truly, we didn't even bring Trump upon ourselves or the nation.  The left did (as did weak Republicans) by celebrating the incompetent and disastrous Barack Obama and by promoting the likes of Hillary Clinton.  Oh, yeah.  They promote the socialism of Bernie Sanders, too.  While I believed we had a couple of options that would have done well, I don't know if any of them would have fared as well as did Trump, especially in light of the lies and attacks perpetrated against him from the very moment he threw his hat in the ring.  They repeated those attacks and lies and continue to do so still.  And they do so while ignoring the pathetic Joe Biden they elevated to the lofty position of Leader of the Free World, where we've become less and less free since they first began lying about Covid-19.

Talk about a useful idiot!

21 comments:

Dan Trabue said...

Trump in the news:

"“We asked him why, as president, he thought it was OK for him to continually tell the American people things that were not true, to lie again and again and again,” Washington Post journalist Philip Rucker recalled of interviewing Trump on Tuesday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

“And he [Trump] said to us, ‘You know, there’s a beautiful word,
and it’s called
disinformation,’”

Marshal, here and in various places:

Trump hasn't lied, "he exaggerates."

Also Marshal, in this post and various places...

"Talk about a useful idiot!"

Yes, we ARE talking about a useful idiot. A whole Maga nation of them.

If you listen to Trump's words and are rational and not delusional, you know he's a liar, that he regularly makes up false, nonsense and sometimes dangerous false claims ("the media is an enemy of the people," "I won the election in a landslide," "the election was rigged..." "they're sending us their worst - rapists and killers and drug dealers," and on and on and on.)

And if you listen to Trump's words long enough, he'll tell you to your idiot face that he's glad to spread disinformation and false claims if he thinks it will serve his purpose and enough useful idiots will be scared by his stupidly false claims and stupid enough to believe them.

I'd call for you to take a stand and listen to reason. But hell, just listen to your pervert king, Trump. He'll tell you to your face he's lying and laugh it off.

You've been played.

As to the rest of this, I can point to Trump's clearly false claims and have.

You can't point to a single place where I'm significantly not understanding conservatism (having been raised in it for 30 years! The claim is idiotic on the face of it, much like Trump's "exaggerations").

You can't point to a single place where I'm being dishonest.

That's just the reality of it all.

You've been played. Sooner or later, you'll recognize it. Why not make it sooner and save your soul?

Dan Trabue said...

More from Trump on the Usefulness of the Big Lie...

"I play to people's fantasies," he wrote in "The Art of the Deal." "People want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular. I call it truthful hyperbole."

"If you admit defeat, then you will be defeated," Trump wrote in "Think Big."

https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/05/politics/trump-disinformation-strategy/index.html

And about Trump and his "new york style braggadocio," as some have called it...

"such dramatic theories miss the simplest explanation for Trump’s lying: He’s a real estate developer from New York City. Lying isn’t a personal failure. It’s a business model.

New York real estate, where Trump first learned the art of the con, is a line of work that’s built on chicanery. Under state law, real estate developers have a de facto legal license to lie, and they use it with abandon..."

"His now-infamous habit of stiffing contractors is common among developers. Trump has also lied to preservationists, promising to preserve the Art Deco friezes from the façade of the Bonwit Teller department store building that he demolished to make way for Trump Tower. When he realized it would take two weeks to remove them undamaged, he instead jackhammered them to pieces..."

“I try and be truthful,” Trump explained in his deposition in 2007, sounding like a kid who wants to be graded on effort rather than accuracy. Then, in an eerily prescient moment, he drew a straight line from his professional lying to his bigger ambitions. “I’m no different,” he confessed, “from a politician running for office.”

https://newrepublic.com/article/140973/lying-easy-trump

Craig said...

"I play to people's fantasies," he wrote in "The Art of the Deal." "People want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular. I call it truthful hyperbole."

You act like this is something that's unique to Trump. What you you think that the Sanders campaign was, if not playing to people's fantasies? What do you think state lotteries are? The entertainment industry? The advertising industry? Social media?

C'mon, I've always had plenty of issues with Trump, but to single him out as if this attitude is not part and parcel of life in the US is simply absurd.

Marshal Art said...

"As to the rest of this, I can point to Trump's clearly false claims and have."

You point to that which you assert is false, or to that which simply isn't perfectly accurate but not false. Worse, you do nothing to defend against corrections to your false attacks on a man who is a far better person than you.

"You can't point to a single place where I'm significantly not understanding conservatism (having been raised in it for 30 years! "

I've done it every time you reference conservatism. You just respond with your claim to having been raised in it as if those who raised you understand it themselves...which given your lack of understanding isn't likely.

"You can't point to a single place where I'm being dishonest."

I do it constantly and when I do it, it's a fact.

Marshal Art said...

I find it hilarious that Dan will cite CNN and the Washington Post...two news sources known for spreading false information...and expect he's proven his case against Trump. The opinions and false characterizations of such Trump-haters is an indictment of Dan's credibility...which is already non-existent given his years of blogging.

But I'll wait here while Dan says nothing about the liar now in the White House who lies worse than anyone since the Civil War, and that's not hyperbole!

Dan Trabue said...

Marshal... "You point to that which you assert is false, or to that which simply isn't perfectly accurate but not false. "

IT. IS. A. BLINDINGLY. STUPID. FALSE. CLAIM. TO. SAY. HE. WON. IN. A. LANDSLIDE. ...and the election was stolen from him. He made this stupidly false claim and continued to make it, in spite of reality.

DO YOU recognize reality and that he lost and when he claimed he won in a landslide, that it was a smack-you-in-the-face-it's-so-stupid lie?

Trump lost the election. That is the reality. When he says he won or that it was stolen, that is a false claim. A STUPID false claim that only idiots believe. And a dangerous false claim because Trump has groomed so many stupid idiots to believe stupid false claims. He's using those who believe in this false claim like a rapist uses a child.

Do you recognize that reality?

Marshal... "I've done it every time you reference conservatism."

Then it should be easy for you to produce JUST ONE PLACE where I'm misunderstanding conservatism in any significant manner. JUST ONE.

You won't do it because you can't do it because it's a blindingly stupid false claim. And you won't admit you can't do it because you're a grade school level coward with no intellectual honesty.

Show me I'm wrong, coward.

Dan Trabue said...

re: Marshal's delusional comments about CNN and WaPo.

Just dealing with WaPo (as CNN is not the news group that WaPo is, and there is certainly more liberal lean obvious there - which, of course, is not the same as dishonesty).

WaPo has won 69 Pulitzer Prizes for their reporting. Including in 2015, 2016 and 2017.

The New York Times has won the second most.

How many Peabodys or Edward R Murrows awards (the sort-of equivalent of Pulitzers in broadcasting news) has FoxNews won? How many has ANY conservative leaning news group won? (and, of course, there's no need to even talk about those conservative groups that are an embarrassment to journalism and integrity... those like OAN and NewsMax and even more embarrassing/disgraceful scandalrags).

Answer for Fox News? Zero. Nada. Nothing.

The closest thing I can think of for a more conservative news group would be the Wall Street Journal. They won a Pulitzer in 2019. You know what for?

Reporting on Trump's hush money payments to two women to cover up his affairs.

You've got nothing but blind, empty rage and partisan conspiracy theories.

Get serious.

Marshal Art said...

"IT. IS. A. BLINDINGLY. STUPID. FALSE. CLAIM. TO. SAY. HE. WON. IN. A. LANDSLIDE. ...and the election was stolen from him. He made this stupidly false claim and continued to make it, in spite of reality."

At worse, the "landslide" is an exaggeration. To insist it's false that the election wasn't legit requires a bit more than the simple assertions upon which Trump-haters like you hang your point hats.

"When he says he won or that it was stolen, that is a false claim."

Yet, any attempt to prove it one way or the other is blocked by his political enemies. As has been said often, one would think they'd jump at the chance to shut him up with the facts, but they aren't so eager after all. Why is that, exactly, Dan? What are they hiding? You're not very bright.

"You won't do it because you can't do it because it's a blindingly stupid false claim."

I've done it every time you reference conservatism...that is, prior to this comment thread.

" And you won't admit you can't do it because you're a grade school level coward with no intellectual honesty."

Wow. That's hilarious coming from you. Did you type it with a straight face?

"Show me I'm wrong, coward."

I've done it repeatedly at your blog. If you saved all my comments you deleted, you can find it among them. Good luck with that.

More importantly for now, you're absolutely wrong in your aiding and abetting the enemies of the people. You think the Pulitzer Prize is a sign of journalistic integrity?? Of course you do. You think peer review is reliable. You think rankings of presidents by historians are credible. You're a really stupid boy.

https://conservativedailypost.com/pulitzer-committee-delivers-awards-for-debunked-news/

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/05/pulitzer-prize-and-corruption-history-and-bruce-thornton/

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/05/pulitzer-prize-and-corruption-history-and-bruce-thornton/

https://www.nas.org/blogs/article/pulitzer-and-the-politicization-of-american-history

https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1112912/posts

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/apr/22/pulitzer-prize-administrator-defends-process-after/

https://www.independentsentinel.com/tucker-slams-bezos-paper-and-the-pulitzer-for-their-flynn-report/

https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2019/07/20/the-lie-factory-cnn-is-collapsing-thank-god/

https://townhall.com/columnists/bradslager/2021/01/21/during-the-day-of-unity-and-truth-cnn-resorts-to-lies-claiming-trump-left-no-vaccine-plan-for-biden-n2583501

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/cnn-trump-derangement-everything-but-news/

https://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/politics/lies-told-by-cnn/78158823/

https://patriotretort.com/cnn-lies-about-lying/

https://spectator.org/washington-post-election-lies/

https://libertynewsnetwork.com/breaking-washington-post-caught-in-massive-trump-lie-forced-to-retract/

https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/01/22/after-tracking-trump-falsehoods-washington-post-says-it-wont-do-the-same-for-biden/

Dan Trabue said...

Marshal... "More importantly for now, you're absolutely wrong in your aiding and abetting the enemies of the people. You think the Pulitzer Prize is a sign of journalistic integrity?? Of course you do."

Um. Yes. Of course, I do. The Pulitzer prizes have a century long tradition of honoring the best in professional journalism.

I'm sorry. Are you thinking that you would be credible in saying that they are lacking in integrity? Do you have even one single goddamn thing to suggest that you are a better and more reliable source for integrity in journalism than Pulitzer?

Be serious. At the least, try to support your charge if you're going to make one.

Journalism 101.

Seriously this nonsense charge is precisely the problem with modern trump conservatism. You all don't care a damn thing about facts or data or truth or honor or respectability. This is hilariously irrational.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshal... "You think peer review is reliable. You think rankings of presidents by historians are credible. You're a really stupid boy."

So, just to recap...

1. Dan acknowledges the reality that the Pulitzer Has a long and respected tradition of honoring journalism at its highest.

Marshal says no it doesn't, and he does so without any support. It's just an empty claim coming from someone who's not an expert in journalism.

2. Dan respects the idea of peer review In science and scholarly research. Dan acknowledges that it's not always perfectly implemented, but the idea of peer review -having someone from a different group validating a person's research - is solid and rational. It's much better than the alternative of an authoritarian, "listen to what I say because I say it" model.

Marshal apparently does not respect the notion of peer review.

3. Dan respects the research and studies and opinions and opinions of historians, scientists and other experts.

Marshal apparently thinks he knows best... better than those who actually Study a topic in great detail and collectives of such experts.

Again, I would just ask any readers to be rational. I would just challenge Marshal to think rationally and give up his hysteric, emotional and conspiracy theory leanings.

Marshal Art said...

Are you serious? Good gosh you're dim! You clearly didn't read any of the links I posted. Now, I'm not surprised by that. You won't read even one I post, much less the number I posted here. But then to say "try to support your charge if you're going to make one" and then not read the support I provided kinda makes you a moron. Indeed, your condescension in your first post is comprehensively addressed and made moronic by the links I posted. Journalism 101 surely must include looking at evidence one claims to demand.

"1. Dan acknowledges the reality that the Pulitzer Has a long and respected tradition of honoring journalism at its highest.

Marshal says no it doesn't, and he does so without any support."


You're a liar. My support is in the links I presented.

"2. Dan respects the idea of peer review In science and scholarly research."

It's not the "idea" of peer review which is suspect. It's the poor application of the concept. The reality is not whether peer review or Pulitzer or your presidential rankings are good ideas, but that they all suck for providing reliable information or analysis. That's something about which you care not at all so long as what they say promotes your corrupt leftism and perpetuates your lies about better people than you.

"3. Dan respects the research and studies and opinions and opinions of historians, scientists and other experts."

...so long as they agree with Dan and validate his hateful attitudes and immoral beliefs. If they don't, they're not to be trusted.

"Marshal apparently thinks he knows best... better than those who actually Study a topic in great detail and collectives of such experts."

Except that I reference experts who actually study issues and topics in great detail all the time. You reject them purely for their superior understanding which rebuts most everything (I'm being generous here) you desperately need to believe.

There's no "hysterics" in my "leanings", as I lean unrelentingly toward truth, facts and the Will of God. You lean toward immorality, corruption and blatant bullshit. And you're really consistent with that, too. So I guess that's something.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshal , You're very 1st source what's our money extreme right deliberately deliberately partisan and stupidly false and stupidly false group that is not representative representing journalism in the slightest. They report on fake made up news and conspiracy theories and deny reality. That's a huge, fucking huge strike one just strike 1. That's like 10 strikes all at once.

https://www.politifact.com/personalities/conservative-daily-post/

Dan Trabue said...

Your first "source" (conservative daily post - the hint is right there in the NAME that this is not an objective source - they say their agenda is to "destroy" liberalism... such blatant bias is inconsistent with ethical journalism and this is why THEY DON'T HAVE a Pulitzer!)... your first "source" leads with a claim of a Russian hoax which, ITSELF, is a hoax, a false claim and nonsense. Your non-journalistic, non-professional "source" said...

"This brings up one big problem, however; there’s STILL no evidence of collusion between President Donald J. Trump, or his campaign team, and the Russian government."

OF COURSE, there is. To say there's no evidence of collusion is to deny reality. Mueller, for instance, famous SPECIFICALLY said that he was NOT saying there was no evidence, just not sufficient evidence to bring a case against Trump while he was president. THAT'S ALL. Not that there was no evidence. OF COURSE, there was. There continues to be evidence. Just this week yet another Trump ally got arrested for colluding with other foreign powers (UAE, I believe). This has always been a deeply problematic, deeply unethical and deeply criminal administration. Look at all the arrests!

https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/fact-check/mueller-investigation-found-no-obstruction-collusion-pence

Back to your first "source," this is what an actual news group (WaPo) reports about them - "CDP has a simple business model, according to court documents: Use blood-boiling stories to channel hyperpartisan outrage into wads of advertising cash."

If THAT is the sort of source you're relying upon for news and reality, NO WONDER you're confused. You are being played for a fool to make a crassly capitalistic propaganda machine wealthy. Shame on you for letting yourself be played for a fool.

You can't lead your rebuke against professional journalists and the Pulitzer with a source that is a shameless, openly partisan propganda machine in business to profit off of simple minded, scared citizens by passing on fake news to make those cowards even more scared.

Come on. You are not this dumb, you shouldn't allow yourself to be played like this.

That was your FIRST source.

Dan Trabue said...

Your second and third sources, Front Page Mag - David Horowitz - has at least a bit more credibility. Unlike CDP, Horowitz at least writes like he's intelligent and doesn't generally engage in overt conspiracy theories.

But sadly, even Horowitz case is all just him espousing his opinions. The Nobel, Pulitzer, etc, are all just giving praise and support to liberal agendas. Professional journalists are all just either liberal hacks or conservative hacks, pushing their agenda.

He's welcome to his empty and unsupported opinions, but offering those opinions with no support doesn't get you anywhere except for those willing to accept your hunches on faith.

The same is true for your fourth "source," NAS. This is an admittedly, deliberately conservative and partisan group, not a reliable journalistic group.

And I get that Horowitz and this conservative self-declared scholar group don't like the 1619 Project, AND I get that there are potential problems in the 1619 Project that not all historians agree upon. But from what I see, those are mostly (all?) a matter of opinion, not incorrect facts.

The reality is that our nation was founded upon the enslavement and racism against and oppression of hundreds of thousands of people and these policies continued up until very recently and in some cases, still continue. This racism and sexism was BUILT INTO our laws and policies. The 1619 Project, in trying to correct the course in our whitewashing of this significant part of our history - the majority of our history which continues up until today! - was righteously and rationally honored with a Pulitzer. That a few conservatives don't LIKE the 1619 Project is not evidence of corruption or malfeasance or a lack of journalistic integrity in the media or in Pulitzer.

Dan Trabue said...

Your FIFTH source ("free republic") doesn't even pretend to be a reliable news source. It is, "Free Republic is a moderated Internet forum and chat site for self-described conservatives, primarily within the United States.[1] It presents articles and comments posted pseudonymously by registered members, known as "Freepers", using screen names."

You have to BEGIN with credible sources if you wanted to have your opinions treated as credible.

What conservatives need to do is stop whining "Oh woah is us! We poor white conservatives are being picked on by Pulitzer and the liberals! We are so oppressed! whine whine whine..." STOP doing that and actual develop a credible news organization with professional journalists writing well-researched, well-written articles.

Don't say "Look, there are no conservative news groups that win Pulitzers or are recognized by their colleagues as credible... that's a sign of media/expert bias against us!" Don't do that. HAVE a credible news group and let them start winning awards and being recognized for their journalistic integrity. THAT's how you need to respond to your perceived oppression, not whining.

Fox News and any other conservative groups are not NOT winning Pulitzers because of some liberal conspiracy. They're not winning because they just don't tend to write good, compelling, well-researched stories.

When I was a conservative journalism student in college, I was frankly met with skepticism. Because, "look, he goes to church and he's a self-identified conservative." But I worked at it. I wrote small stories and that led to bigger stories and that led to a place on the editorial staff and a column and that led to winning awards. They didn't keep awards from me because I was a conservative. I won a couple of awards because I was doing good editing and writing.

My simple little experience at the small college level (this was community college, at the time) is the example conservatives need to follow. As a one-time conservative, I am embarrassed for conservatives because of the lack of journalistic integrity and quality writing on their parts.

I mean, look to the Wall Street Journal. They are conservative AND they win awards because they do the hard work to be taken as credible.

Your sources are not even news groups. Start there.

And when some conservative media group starts to play at journalism by offering pretend, wannabe news groups like OAN and News Max, shout them down. Don't let them embarrass you all by their lack of journalistic integrity. INSIST that they do better or get out of business. And CERTAINLY stop citing them as credible sources.

That's only a way to lose more credibility and to be taken less seriously.

Dan Trabue said...

I mean... just LOOK at your "sources..."

Tiger droppings

Patriot retort

Spectator

Liberty News Network.

Where are the credible sources that aren't starting with an overtly and openly conservative and partisan bias? Where are the actual journalistic sources, not opinion blogs?

What does it say when your most credible "source" is American Spectator?

Fight bad news (where it exists) with ACTUAL news reported by ethical journalists, not angry white preachers ranting against changes that hurt their feelings.

Marshal Art said...

Re: Dan's comment on July 24, 2021 at 10:06 AM

In typical Dan hypocritical fashion, Dan embraces grace by once again dropping an F-bomb here after feigning concern for women and then deleting my comments at his blog because I called him a pussy. And in a really pussy move, he dares cite a notoriously unreliable Politifact to assault the integrity of a link. Amazingly, and even if we pretend Politifact has legitimately bused the news site in my link, he did nothing to address the truth contained therein, which is that for which no honest person paying attention needs Conservative Daily Post to report, which is that the vaunted Pulitzer Committee delivered awards for debunked news! So Dan uses an unreliable Politifact to attack the integrity of a news source that calls out the Pulitzer Committee Dan cited to defend enemies of the people for awarding those enemies praise for lying! No wonder Dan defends them! Liars stick together!

Marshal Art said...

Re: Dan's comment on July 24, 2021 at 10:27 AM

"Your first "source" (conservative daily post - the hint is right there in the NAME that this is not an objective source..."

I'm quite certain we've established long ago that all news sources are biased. But the reliable hint in their name is that one can believe truth is reported, and that first source link demonstrates that in their story. Bias isn't an issue, except that the bias of your sources results in false reporting with alarmingly typical regularity.

"Mueller, for instance, famous SPECIFICALLY said that he was NOT saying there was no evidence, just not sufficient evidence to bring a case against Trump while he was president."

Hmmm. That's amazing. Because when I googled "Robert Mueller admits there was no evidence of Russian collusion", the whole first page presented articles from various sources (such as leftist NBC & NPR) which affirmed "Robert Mueller admits there was no evidence of Russian collusion". How do you account for that? Here's one of the more trustworthy sources listed:

https://nypost.com/2019/03/24/attorney-general-sends-summary-of-mueller-report-to-congress/

Your Rappler link doesn't do the truth justice, but simply repeats the desperation which has so infected Trump-haters and grace-embracing Louisville fake Christians.

"Back to your first "source," this is what an actual news group (WaPo) reports about them..."

Except that WaPo isn't a reliable source. We on the right are always amazed when facts from WaPo can actually be confirmed as true, because they have a sordid history of false reporting. I presented numerous examples in past blog posts and you never do a thing to even provide a decent rationalization for any of it. They are among the enemies of the people, so citing them here does you no good. But then, a liar citing and actual lying news group isn't at all surprising. They're welcome to their opinion, but that opinion is more to distract from their own shortcomings than to accurately describe the source they wish to attack.

"If THAT is the sort of source you're relying upon for news and reality..."

If you can't prove what they reported is false, then you're attempts to portray them negatively are false as well, and...well...that's what you do rather than address the actual issue, isn't it?

"Shame on you for letting yourself be played for a fool."

That's funny coming from a pussy who relies on WaPo, Politifact and Pulitzer to defend the enemies of the people.

Marshal Art said...

Re: Dan's comment on July 24, 2021 at 10:47 AM

"Your second and third sources, Front Page Mag - David Horowitz - has at least a bit more credibility. Unlike CDP, Horowitz at least writes like he's intelligent and doesn't generally engage in overt conspiracy theories."

Well, this is rich! First, they're the same link accidentally posted twice. Secondly, Horowitz didn't write the piece. So, we have more evidence that you don't even read the evidence you demand to support claims put forth by others. Doing so is meant to give you something to peruse for your own edification, not simply give it glance enough to allow you to pretend you did. Which means...

"He's welcome to his empty and unsupported opinions, but offering those opinions with no support doesn't get you anywhere except for those willing to accept your hunches on faith."

...is another steaming pile you've pulled from your Pampers. He absolutely did back up his "opinion" and his "opinion" is more a conclusion rather than the intent of the piece. Indeed, his first paragraph provides his examples which justify his "opinion" regarding Pulitzer. Yet, the piece is just an insightful description of how the press... specifically the leftist press...has failed to be what it expects us to believe it is.

"The same is true for your fourth "source," NAS. This is an admittedly, deliberately conservative and partisan group, not a reliable journalistic group."

This is rank bullshit. You judge it's reliability by it's partisan leanings, but ignore the blatant leftism...as shills for the Democratic Party...of those sources you favor. This description is your reason for dismissing outright that which they report, without any attempt to truly rebut or debunk it. That's what pussies do, so you're in good form here.

You then go on with your typical white-guilt, down with the cause crap in daring to defend abject falsehood known as the 1619 Project. There's no serious historian of the American founding who regards this work as serious, legitimate work in any way. It's not just a work with some sketchy, potentially troubling bits. It's abject lies. The only "historians" who don't reject it in whole are those who are pussy, white-guilt frauds like you. It doesn't correct any "whitewashing". It just lies. Like you do. It's so bad, even the Times own fact-checker balked at the thought of actually running it, and even Hannah-Jones did a lot of "whitewashing" of her own work at the most egregious lies she told.

The following gives a good accounting of her crimes, and thus justifies my (and others') low opinion of the Pulitzer Prize Committee.

https://www.nas.org/blogs/article/nikole-hannah-jones-at-the-summit

Marshal Art said...

Re: Dan's comment on July 24, 2021 at 11:01 AM

"Your FIFTH source ("free republic") doesn't even pretend to be a reliable news source....It presents articles and comments posted pseudonymously by registered members, known as "Freepers", using screen names."

That's about as pussy a description as I've come to expect from you regarding sources you don't like because you can't debunk them. And you're a pussy because from this point on you do nothing to address the claims (we'll call them "facts" until you can prove their not true) made within, but simply whine on about what you regard as conservative whining. Conservatives don't whine. We simply speak truthfully, over and over for as long as it takes for liars like to you run away, which you always do because lying doesn't really work for you. We'd prefer you man up and face the facts and truth, but you're too given over to your corruption for that. We hold out hope.

"Fox News and any other conservative groups are not NOT winning Pulitzers because of some liberal conspiracy. They're not winning because they just don't tend to write good, compelling, well-researched stories."

That's bullshit since they're the ones debunking the blatant lies of the CNNs, NYTs, WaPos and all the other truth-adverse sources you moronically regard as champions and heroes (*snicker*).

"When I was a conservative journalism student in college..."

You were never a conservative. You don't understand what conservatism is. The proof is in your protests here against those who prove the lies of your champions and heroes. Truth is a sign of conservatism. The rejection of it is what you do. One who was truly conservative couldn't possibly trade truth for "progressive-ism".

"And when some conservative media group starts to play at journalism by offering pretend, wannabe news groups like OAN and News Max, shout them down."

I shout down anyone who doesn't report truthfully. You attack fledgling groups simply because you don't like what they say, but you do nothing to debunk or rebut them. In the meantime, you regard as champions and heroes those new sources which have proven themselves to be loose with the truth, particularly as it pertains to things political. This has been demonstrated for your lying, pussy ass over and over again, and like the lying, pussy you are, you ignore it and merely indulge in your pussy "Nyuh uh" response. These many links I've provided above are further proof.

You have no room to accuse conservative sources of any kind as lacking credibility, and doing so simply because they're proudly conservative and/or newer, fledgling groups just makes you a...well...you know.

Marshal Art said...

Re: Dan's comment on July 24, 2021 at 11:15 AM

"I mean... just LOOK at your "sources...""

No, Dan, you cowardly liar. JUST look at what they say, their truth claims and the stories they're reporting and find fault with them. There is no fault in them due to the fact they're conservative, less well known than established liars like WaPo and the NYT, perhaps only blogs or discussion groups. Every link I provided does far more than give simply opinion, but indeed, they give far more in the way of solid facts, supported with links of their own in most cases, than ANYTHING YOUR sorry ass ever provides in any blog discussion ever. Again, you reject them for nothing at all related to what they report and present. That's cheap, pussy bullshit. That's how you roll because it's the best you have to offer. Sad and pathetic.

Credibility is a matter of facts and truth. My sources...regardless of who they are...have always provided that by the barge load. Your sources provide bilge.

So what we've found here is that I've provided solid examples mitigated any respect for the Pulitzer committee and I've also provided more examples (than I already have in previous posts...which was plentiful enough for honest people who aren't pussies) of the lack of journalistic integrity of several of the sources you laughingly refer to as "ethical journalists".

Come back when you have some solid evidence of your own as an alleged journalism student should have been taught to provide. You're a joke, and I feel sorry for you.