Reply
Go Back   TexasBowhunter.com Community Discussion Forums > Topics > Current Events - Politics and Such
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-25-2018, 09:06 PM   #51
Landrover
Pope & Young
 
Landrover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Spring
Hunt In: Wherever & Whenever
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by bloodtrailer28 View Post

She nailed it with that 1 min interview?

When you kneel in protest during OUR COUNTRY'S national anthem it has plenty to do with our flag and those that fought and died for it. I understand that the initial proteest may not have had to do with our military ect but they should not have done it during the national anthem. Thats when it became about OUR flag and OUR military.Those fools make millions for playing a game in this country but cant stand for OUR nations anythem? Pure BS. But like Jj I'm **** sure not surprised you have that view point.

So fill the rest of us in on what the rest of the story is Paul Harvey!
You acknowledged the initial protest reason...…….thank you! That was my only point and that was the only point the video was making. I only reset the playing field to be fair & balanced. I guess you are looking for an argument? None here!
My point was made to how any issue can be twisted into total chaos and have folks foaming at the mouth. GEAUX SAINTS!!!
Landrover is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 05-26-2018, 07:24 AM   #52
bloodtrailer28
Pope & Young
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oatmeal, TX
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Landrover View Post
You acknowledged the initial protest reason...…….thank you! That was my only point and that was the only point the video was making. I only reset the playing field to be fair & balanced. I guess you are looking for an argument? None here!
My point was made to how any issue can be twisted into total chaos and have folks foaming at the mouth. GEAUX SAINTS!!!

Wasn't looking for an argument at all LR. Just stating when they do it during the national anthem it makes it about OUR flag and our country. Not sure how anybody could see it any other way. Imo the issue was twisted because of the way those fools went about their protest. It's not the NFL owners fault it's their fault it turned into what it is today. Many other ways to say what they wanted to say and get their point across besides doing it during the anthem. Complete lack of respect for our country and its flag.
bloodtrailer28 is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 05-26-2018, 08:12 AM   #53
Vermin93
Ten Point
 
Vermin93's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Addison, TX
Hunt In: North TX, OK, TN
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bloodtrailer28 View Post
Wasn't looking for an argument at all LR. Just stating when they do it during the national anthem it makes it about OUR flag and our country. Not sure how anybody could see it any other way. Imo the issue was twisted because of the way those fools went about their protest. It's not the NFL owners fault it's their fault it turned into what it is today. Many other ways to say what they wanted to say and get their point across besides doing it during the anthem. Complete lack of respect for our country and its flag.

About half the country disagrees and isn’t sure how you can’t see it any other way. The short video clip and the previously linked opinion pieces present well-reasoned viewpoints worthy of consideration. Of course the protests have something to do with a perceived aspect of the country. That’s why people protest. That doesn’t mean they are a protest of the nation as a whole or that they have anything to do with the flag or our troops and veterans.

Nobody has to support a protester or their reasons for protesting, but maybe consider the very real possibility that the way you see their reasons for protesting and the intent of their protests isn’t the only way.
Vermin93 is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 05-26-2018, 10:03 AM   #54
J Sweet
Pope & Young
 
J Sweet's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: The Woodlands
Hunt In: Leon/Madsion County
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vermin93 View Post
Yep, she nailed it. Thanks for sharing.


What she nailed is a lack of reading comprehension. The first amn has **** all to do with private companies. Hard stop.

Oh and the national anthem has no correlation to the US Military? Do yall even know when it was written and the actual lyrics? It is literally a song about US military action. Wow. Just wow.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
J Sweet is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 05-26-2018, 10:08 AM   #55
J Sweet
Pope & Young
 
J Sweet's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: The Woodlands
Hunt In: Leon/Madsion County
Default

Let me help you learn instead of just pointing out your flaws.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_...pangled_Banner

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
J Sweet is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 05-26-2018, 10:11 AM   #56
J Sweet
Pope & Young
 
J Sweet's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: The Woodlands
Hunt In: Leon/Madsion County
Default

I would appreciate Yall anthem hater supporters to take a ****ing break through Memorial Weekend. Thanks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
J Sweet is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 05-26-2018, 11:26 AM   #57
bloodtrailer28
Pope & Young
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oatmeal, TX
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vermin93 View Post
About half the country disagrees and isn’t sure how you can’t see it any other way. The short video clip and the previously linked opinion pieces present well-reasoned viewpoints worthy of consideration. Of course the protests have something to do with a perceived aspect of the country. That’s why people protest. That doesn’t mean they are a protest of the nation as a whole or that they have anything to do with the flag or our troops and veterans.

Nobody has to support a protester or their reasons for protesting, but maybe consider the very real possibility that the way you see their reasons for protesting and the intent of their protests isn’t the only way.
Your not worth the time or effort and that screen name is fitting for you

Half the country my ***
bloodtrailer28 is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 05-26-2018, 12:03 PM   #58
Vermin93
Ten Point
 
Vermin93's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Addison, TX
Hunt In: North TX, OK, TN
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by J Sweet View Post
What she nailed is a lack of reading comprehension. The first amn has **** all to do with private companies. Hard stop.

Oh and the national anthem has no correlation to the US Military? Do yall even know when it was written and the actual lyrics? It is literally a song about US military action. Wow. Just wow.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm not sure you're interested in comprehending her analysis. She describes such attitudes in her assessment.

Nobody has suggested that the national anthem has no correlation to the United States or to the US military. To do so would be absurd.

I'm also not sure if you're equating player protests during the national anthem to a protest of the national anthem's history, the US military and the United States. If so, this is tunnel vision, in my opinion. If the players sincerely wanted to protest the flag, the anthem, the military and the United States, they could very easily make those intentions known.

The playing of the national anthem is a vehicle they believe would appropriately enable them to effectively protest their actual grievances, which they've made pretty clear. Many find the choice of this vehicle to be inappropriate, disrespectful or flat out disgusting. Others see the freedoms that Americans fought and died for reflected in it. Either way, to suggest that the protesting players are out to get the flag and the anthem or don't respect the troops is a very biased conclusion, in my view. If they truly wanted to do that, this weekend would certainly be a prime opportunity for them to do so.

Personally, I would like to see another vehicle used to protest, although I'm not sure what that might be. Regardless of the vehicle used, I suspect the actual grievances will fall on most of the same deaf ears. That's how it works in American politics.
Vermin93 is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 05-26-2018, 12:34 PM   #59
texaspacker
Six Point
 
texaspacker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Round Rock
Hunt In: Nota
Default

Semper fi.
Death before dishonor.
I haven't watched ANY "pro football" since October 2016 & never will again. Never!
texaspacker is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 05-26-2018, 12:49 PM   #60
J Sweet
Pope & Young
 
J Sweet's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: The Woodlands
Hunt In: Leon/Madsion County
Default NFL Kneeling over with

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vermin93 View Post
I'm not sure you're interested in comprehending her analysis. She describes such attitudes in her assessment.



Nobody has suggested that the national anthem has no correlation to the United States or to the US military. To do so would be absurd.



I'm also not sure if you're equating player protests during the national anthem to a protest of the national anthem's history, the US military and the United States. If so, this is tunnel vision, in my opinion. If the players sincerely wanted to protest the flag, the anthem, the military and the United States, they could very easily make those intentions known.



The playing of the national anthem is a vehicle they believe would appropriately enable them to effectively protest their actual grievances, which they've made pretty clear. Many find the choice of this vehicle to be inappropriate, disrespectful or flat out disgusting. Others see the freedoms that Americans fought and died for reflected in it. Either way, to suggest that the protesting players are out to get the flag and the anthem or don't respect the troops is a very biased conclusion, in my view. If they truly wanted to do that, this weekend would certainly be a prime opportunity for them to do so.



Personally, I would like to see another vehicle used to protest, although I'm not sure what that might be. Regardless of the vehicle used, I suspect the actual grievances will fall on most of the same deaf ears. That's how it works in American politics.


Jonesboro church called. They agree with this logic.

Both articles make reference to free speech and private corporations. Private censorship is mutually exclusive to govt censorship. They make reference to this fact and then ignore its premise for the rest of the articles.

I read the reason article days ago. It sucks and the comments are very cool indicative of that. NYT opinion piece I wont even comment on further. They are on the journalistic par of Fox and Friends and Morning Joe.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Last edited by J Sweet; 05-26-2018 at 12:53 PM.
J Sweet is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 05-26-2018, 01:19 PM   #61
jer_james
Ten Point
 
jer_james's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: North Dallas
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by batmaninja View Post
So if the kneeling is helping the ratings, and more people are watching NFL games than ever before, and it is helping out the country socially........why would the owners want to change the kneeling policy, which would theoretically lower viewership?

I am having a hard time logically following this.
I never said it was helping the ratings. I said the NFL is not hurting over any of this, and in FACT they had 7 of the top 10 rated TV programs all year. SEVEN OF THE TOP TEN.

Every single contract to broadcast/stream that has been signed in the last two years HAS GONE UP.

The Anthem is/was a money grab.
jer_james is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 05-26-2018, 02:02 PM   #62
Vermin93
Ten Point
 
Vermin93's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Addison, TX
Hunt In: North TX, OK, TN
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by J Sweet View Post
Both articles make reference to free speech and private corporations. Private censorship is mutually exclusive to govt censorship. They make reference to this fact and then ignore its premise for the rest of the articles.
They didn't ignore it. It's a central point of both articles. Both articles cite examples of conservatives rightfully protesting the censorship of dissenting opinions by private institutions...and then contrast that with conservative support of censorship by a private institution in the name of patriotism. I'm not sure what you read if you didn't pick up on this comparison. Furthermore, were Trump not the head of the government and actively targeting the matter, the events may have unfolded very differently.

Quote:
Originally Posted by J Sweet View Post
I read the reason article days ago. It sucks and the comments are very cool indicative of that. NYT opinion piece I wont even comment on further. They are on the journalistic par of Fox and Friends and Morning Joe.
It's not uncommon for major media outlets to publish opinion pieces from people that don't necessarily represent the view of the media outlet leadership and editors. It's one reason the author's name is noted before and/or after the piece. The NYT op-ed was written by David French, a Republican and US Army veteran who works and writes for the National Review, which is no political ally of the NYT. It's unreasonable to suggest that it be dismissed because of the media outlet that published it.
Vermin93 is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 05-26-2018, 08:25 PM   #63
kck
Eight Point
 
kck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: La Grange, TX
Hunt In: Level 3 MLD Golf Course
Default

The Trump Inauguration ratings versus the football game ratings arguement sucks *** sir. You do realize most people didn't watch it because it was on a Friday during the day when most people that voted for him were hard at work so they could pay for the lazy pricks to sit at home and do nothing...just sayin

Last edited by kck; 05-26-2018 at 08:28 PM.
kck is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 05-29-2018, 10:58 AM   #64
J Sweet
Pope & Young
 
J Sweet's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: The Woodlands
Hunt In: Leon/Madsion County
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vermin93 View Post
They didn't ignore it. It's a central point of both articles. Both articles cite examples of conservatives rightfully protesting the censorship of dissenting opinions by private institutions...and then contrast that with conservative support of censorship by a private institution in the name of patriotism. I'm not sure what you read if you didn't pick up on this comparison. Furthermore, were Trump not the head of the government and actively targeting the matter, the events may have unfolded very differently.

You cant have your cake and eat it too. 1st amn protects conservatives to peacefully assemble and protest and the govt not to interfere. 1st amn does not protect protesting employees from adverse employment action from their employer when on the clock. Its that simple. The author is trying to conflate the two and that's where the article become illogical.

It's not uncommon for major media outlets to publish opinion pieces from people that don't necessarily represent the view of the media outlet leadership and editors. It's one reason the author's name is noted before and/or after the piece. The NYT op-ed was written by David French, a Republican and US Army veteran who works and writes for the National Review, which is no political ally of the NYT. It's unreasonable to suggest that it be dismissed because of the media outlet that published it.
Honestly in the last year I have decided that as soon as I see op ed or opinion piece I am off of it. Its not news, its just worthless dribble meant to excite bases against eachother. Sad thing is at the end of the day the media execs and the politicians actually dont believe any of it. They just know they get rich off of it. Any liberal rag can publish "Trump is a jerk" and they will get millions of clicks. Any conservative rag can publish "Lock her up" and they will get millions of clicks. Clicks equals cash money. That is all they are interested in. David French, don't know him. US Army veteran? So what. National Review, meh.

There was a recent article in Quillete I believe discussing the NYT and WaPo hiring a bunch of never trumpeters to portray the "Conservative" viewpoint. Thing is that never trumpeters are less than 5 percent of conservatives as polled so they aren't being unbiased or fair and balanced at all. Rather widening their own echo chamber of hate for Trump. Ill see if I can find it.

Last edited by J Sweet; 05-29-2018 at 11:14 AM.
J Sweet is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 05-29-2018, 11:03 AM   #65
J Sweet
Pope & Young
 
J Sweet's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: The Woodlands
Hunt In: Leon/Madsion County
Default

The irony that this is an opinion piece does not escape me but its truth sounds resoundingly over that.

https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-sou...ews-in-America

Dan HollidayI read.
Worked at Information Technology
Lived in Cleveland, Ohio, USA1975-2016
110.9m answer views2.7m this month
Top Writer2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, and 2013
Published WriterFatherly, HuffPost, and 11 moreFatherly, HuffPost, Slate, Forbes, Medical Daily, Newsweek, Inc, Business Insider, The Independent, Observer, Distractify, Quora's Twitter, and Thought Catalog
Dan Holliday, I am an American
Updated Dec 13, 2017 · Author has 13.7k answers and 110.9m answer views



In addition to political super-star-ninja Stephanie Vardavas' answer, I want to reiterate that it is effectively impossible to create anything "unbiased". So don't hold out hope. No such source exists. Objectivity is an illusion and that’s your first mistake. The problem with this question is that it hints at an underlying problem with how people consume news: they want something they can trust almost dogmatically so that they can say, “See that! I saw it on [insert source here].”
You should be consuming your media from a variety of sources. You should always question every single detail in those sources as well as their motivation for publishing that specific report. You should be on the look out for highly salacious details that don’t actually paint a clear picture and/or overly emotional language.
It’s hard. You are constantly being a skeptic of everything you hear. This is a lot of work and can be a path to neurosis for some people who end up thinking, “Nothing is real! I can trust no one!” I’d start with this:
• Logic Made Easy: How to Know When Language Deceives You by Deborah J. Bennet
You don’t have to master logic to the extent that you can teach it or recite litanies of logical fallacies (still, that wouldn’t hurt none). After that, you’ll be reasonably equipped (but not necessarily greatly equipped) to pour through the media and keep yourself informed.
My rule is this: If it’s “in the present and up to the minute” it’s utter rubbish. News is information and you are not equipped to filter it all. We are LITERALLY not evolved to do that. We can’t perform heart surgery then jump to performing equations in quantum mechanics then jump to designing a three mile bridge followed by whipping up a four course meal followed up by designing a killer dress for your kid’s prom next year.
We depend on super specialists. You just have to accept that you will always do so. You question those specialists. You investigate what they say. When something seems important, you unpack that thing until you figure out if it works. But you concede to the fact that we depend on super specialists for proxies of a system that delivers better results than having no specialists at all.
In the news business, it takes time to digest and refine information. You cannot possibly investigate all the details, vet the sources, refine the information and then publish it on a TV monitor “live and in the minute”. How can you? YOU JUST ****ING GOT THE INFORMATION YOURSELF!! If you’re getting the news anything sooner than three days after it, you’re getting garbage that is utterly useless to your life. QUICK! When was the last time you got news on an air strike on Bosnia or a presidential tweet that impacted your daily life in ways other than making you emotional?
Right. Never.
Natural disasters are the exception. You’re allowed to watch Fox or CNN for that kind of ****. Turn it off the moment it starts reporting anything other than that which impacts your life this moment. Because thoughtful news takes time and TV doesn’t have that kind of time to peddle pages and pages of abstruse information, your only recourse is to sigh, and accept that you’ll have to subscribe to a few periodicals or the occasional website that does true investigative reporting.
The "reading" part, I think is incredibly important. If you ask (and yes, this will take time), most skeptical users of media/news, will tell you that print journalism is simply without equal. Websites are -- at best -- ersatz in that regard, but not without use. TV, while useful for things like genuinely breaking news (the Charlie Hebdo attack, and the following 48 hours is a decent enough example, but they want you to watch all day, every day and will manufacture stories after the main headline goes stale. . . thus, stop after about 48 hours), but otherwise as Joshua Engel had said (in another, similar answer. . . which I'm paraphrasing liberally): "You do not need up to the minute news. It's distracting. It's addictive. It's generally pointless nonsense there to keep you watching through commercial breaks."[1]
The news you need can be digested properly after one week of reasonable analysis and offered to you in print. You then do your best to limit your exposure to set amounts of time (unless your profession really demands it). Otherwise, you're just wasting your life. The fool believes he can change the world or the system by binge-consuming news. Don't be a fool. Be informed, but have a life. You've only got one of those and there are magnificent things about being alive that being a binge-news-consumer will otherwise drag you away from.
My listing of media reading is (and I may be missing a few):
• The Economist (e-subscription)
• New York Times (e-subscription)
• Foreign Affairs (print subscription)
• National Geographic (print subscription)
• The Wall Street Journal (no subscription)
• France 24 (online)
• BBC - the UK (online)
• EL PAÍS - Spain (online)
• Canal 24 - Spain (online)
• Al Jazeera America (online and on some cable/satellite services)
• Deutsche Welle (online)
• CNN (online) — only for stuff that is major news like hurricanes or a terrorist attack. Never, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER —****ING EVER— Watch or consume broadcast media that talks about politics, that tells you what will happen when so-and-so meets with so-and-so to discuss some thing. That’s all speculative **** to trigger your adrenaline.
Yes. Some of these are mass-media. But I tend to cycle between them (including Spanish TV news just to keep me informed as to Spanish daily life at a glance and to practice my Spanish comprehension -- which is lacking). But the point is to see the different viewpoints and try to piece reality together between them all.

Last edited by J Sweet; 05-29-2018 at 11:11 AM.
J Sweet is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 05-29-2018, 11:10 AM   #66
J Sweet
Pope & Young
 
J Sweet's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: The Woodlands
Hunt In: Leon/Madsion County
Default

Vermin here is the piece I though was in Quillete but I am way off base on that one lol. This is liberal ideology through and through but points made about hiring the never Trumpers is spot on. They DO NOT represent conservatives in the aggregate.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...ervatives.html
J Sweet is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 05-29-2018, 11:56 AM   #67
Man
Pope & Young
 
Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Casper,Tx
Hunt In: Nacogdoches,Tx
Default

https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/0...c-kneeling-ban
Man is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 05-29-2018, 12:10 PM   #68
J Sweet
Pope & Young
 
J Sweet's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: The Woodlands
Hunt In: Leon/Madsion County
Default

Awesome! Both right and left will boycott them but for different reasons.

Go home NFL, you are drunk.
J Sweet is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 05-29-2018, 12:15 PM   #69
Landrover
Pope & Young
 
Landrover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Spring
Hunt In: Wherever & Whenever
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by J Sweet View Post
Awesome! Both right and left will boycott them but for different reasons.

Go home NFL, you are drunk.
Hehehehehehehehehehe!!!!!!!!! This is going to work out great. I never thought about it from that perspective.
Heck, I know we going to be scoring some serious seats this season then!!!! Between NOLA home games, Houston home games and Dallas home games it is going to be a whirlwind fall!!!
Landrover is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 05-29-2018, 09:27 PM   #70
Vermin93
Ten Point
 
Vermin93's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Addison, TX
Hunt In: North TX, OK, TN
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by J Sweet View Post
The irony that this is an opinion piece does not escape me but its truth sounds resoundingly over that.

https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-sou...ews-in-America

My listing of media reading is (and I may be missing a few):
• The Economist (e-subscription)
• New York Times (e-subscription)
• Foreign Affairs (print subscription)
• National Geographic (print subscription)
• The Wall Street Journal (no subscription)
• France 24 (online)
• BBC - the UK (online)
• EL PAÍS - Spain (online)
• Canal 24 - Spain (online)
• Al Jazeera America (online and on some cable/satellite services)
• Deutsche Welle (online)
• CNN (online) — only for stuff that is major news like hurricanes or a terrorist attack.
That you would post an opinion piece written by a gay liberal who recommends the NYT and label it resounding truth is beyond ironic, J.

Good piece.
Vermin93 is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 05-29-2018, 09:45 PM   #71
J Sweet
Pope & Young
 
J Sweet's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: The Woodlands
Hunt In: Leon/Madsion County
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vermin93 View Post
That you would post an opinion piece written by a gay liberal who recommends the NYT and label it resounding truth is beyond ironic, J.



Good piece.


He recommends a variety to include the NYT but cautions to not be dogmatic about it. Or for that matter to get into opinion pieces.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
J Sweet is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 05-29-2018, 10:01 PM   #72
Vermin93
Ten Point
 
Vermin93's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Addison, TX
Hunt In: North TX, OK, TN
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by J Sweet View Post
Vermin here is the piece I though was in Quillete but I am way off base on that one lol. This is liberal ideology through and through but points made about hiring the never Trumpers is spot on. They DO NOT represent conservatives in the aggregate.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...ervatives.html
Interesting piece loaded with contempt for Trumpism and all things conservative, but I don't see why it's relevant to the topic of the NFL protests. Of course never-Trumpers don't represent the majority of self-identified conservatives. If they did, Trump wouldn't have been nominated. However, they also don't represent the left, as the article makes clear. What should matter is the reasonableness of the argument made by Mr. French. We've all heard the arguments from the Trump right and the left on the issue. French offers a different view that challenges conservatives to value America's most cherished freedom over coercive patriotism.
Vermin93 is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 05-30-2018, 10:50 AM   #73
J Sweet
Pope & Young
 
J Sweet's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: The Woodlands
Hunt In: Leon/Madsion County
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vermin93 View Post
Interesting piece loaded with contempt for Trumpism and all things conservative, but I don't see why it's relevant to the topic of the NFL protests. Of course never-Trumpers don't represent the majority of self-identified conservatives. If they did, Trump wouldn't have been nominated. However, they also don't represent the left, as the article makes clear. What should matter is the reasonableness of the argument made by Mr. French. We've all heard the arguments from the Trump right and the left on the issue. French offers a different view that challenges conservatives to value America's most cherished freedom over coercive patriotism.
Its relevant to the author. He is what is described in the article. IMO the left in its rags will use these "conservatives" to write OP Eds only as a sort of false flag. Makes it appear conservatives and liberals dislike Trump. Polling and most other indicators show that's not the case. Its kind of like, you can come here an write bad **** about Trump all day which fits our agenda and at the same time we can say we are fair and balanced. Any mention of the 1st amn with the NFL situation turns me off because it doesn't apply in any way so why even bring it up?
J Sweet is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 05-30-2018, 11:56 AM   #74
Vermin93
Ten Point
 
Vermin93's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Addison, TX
Hunt In: North TX, OK, TN
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by J Sweet View Post
Its relevant to the author. He is what is described in the article. IMO the left in its rags will use these "conservatives" to write OP Eds only as a sort of false flag. Makes it appear conservatives and liberals dislike Trump. Polling and most other indicators show that's not the case. Its kind of like, you can come here an write bad **** about Trump all day which fits our agenda and at the same time we can say we are fair and balanced. Any mention of the 1st amn with the NFL situation turns me off because it doesn't apply in any way so why even bring it up?
Even if your supposition is true, I don't see how that's relevant to the reasonableness of his argument for the principles of free speech over patriotism-fueled hypocrisy. I don't understand why you're preoccupied with the media perception at the expense of the argument.
Vermin93 is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright 1999-2012, TexasBowhunter.com