Trump Speaks
-
I was offended by hearing the confederacy described as a bunch of traitors. That is a view of the issue from a perspective of ignorance.
The North was the one fighting to force themselves on the South. The South didn't want any part of the North, and had they won the war they would have STILL not wanted any part of the North. The claim made by the North is that the fight was over slavery. No it wasn't. It was over territory. Slavery was just an excuse. The North won, and the South was forced to be absorbed into the United States. Had the South won, no one was going to force the North to become a part of the confederacy. Texas would have ended up being a separate country, the other southern states would have been a separate country, and the North would have stayed the United States.
So to say the leaders of the confederacy were traitors is an insult, and ignorant. And arrogant. So me Duckworth can kiss my red ass.
-
-
It's worse than that even.
-
@Mik said in Trump Speaks:
It's worse than that even.
I said that yesterday, LOL.
Oh, then there's this.
"These are my principles, sir. If you don't like them, I have others."
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
About National Review, Media Bias Fact Check says:
These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes . . . . They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy.
Overall, we rate the National Review Right Biased based on story selection that always favors the right and Mostly Factual in reporting due to a few misleading claims and occasional use of poor sources and one failed fact check.
Just sayin'. I'm not championing Duckworth here. Before two days ago I never heard of her, and I don't want a woman in there anyway. Are other sources questioning her word?
I salute her sacrifice and her courage. (You know: Thoughts n' prayers n' stuff.) But aren't we KIND OF LOADING ON the wokeness here???
-
@Catseye3 said in Trump Speaks:
About National Review, Media Bias Fact Check says:
These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes . . . . They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy.
Overall, we rate the National Review Right Biased based on story selection that always favors the right and Mostly Factual in reporting due to a few misleading claims and occasional use of poor sources and one failed fact check.
Just sayin'. I'm not championing Duckworth here. Before two days ago I never heard of her, and I don't want a woman in there anyway. Are other sources questioning her word?
I salute her sacrifice and her courage. (You know: Thoughts n' prayers n' stuff.) But aren't we KIND OF LOADING ON the wokeness here???
Does your "attack the messenger" comment from Media Bias Fact Check invalidate the comment that Duckworth, and the rest of the media lied about
good people on both sidesTrumps speech? -
WIKI:
"The Columbia Journalism Review describes Media Bias/Fact Check as an amateur attempt at categorizing media bias and Van Zandt as an "armchair media analyst."[3] The Poynter Institute notes, "Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific."
Also, Van Zandt leans left. Also, no one question the fact that National Review is on the Right politically, so pointing that out is meaningless. Unless of course you believe that if something comes from the Right it can't be correct. That of course, is silly. And lastly, he didn't say the information was false, he simply pointed out that the source leaned to the right. But since you also check news stories from a left leaning source through this guy too, i guess its fair...
Oh wait.....
-
@ George: No. It's not meant to invalidate anything. If she lied, she lied, no skin off my nose. Just pointing out that the pub apparently has a rep for jumping on messages of one stripe over another, and it behooves us to read a thing from more than one viewpoint. That's if we want the truth, that is. If we don't, then let us by all means glory in our picked cherries.
-
@Larry said in Trump Speaks:
But since you also check news stories from a left leaning source through this guy too, i guess its fair...
Oh wait.....Oh wait, what?
I didn't know all that about Media Bias Fact Check. If it's true, it's true. For the hundredth time, I'm not on the left or the right. Got that? FINALLY?
-
-
Just to preface - Trump's speech was vanilla fare (especially for him) and most things he said should be fairly uncontroversial.
On the topic of traitors. I would think that the Confederates were traitors. They chose allegiance to their own peculiar values over yielding to the democratic authority of the Union. (And wanted out of the Union)
In a similar way the original American revolutionaries were traitors to the Crown. It's a matter of choosing where your loyalties lie.
