Lavar Ball - ingrate

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(11-20-2017, 08:19 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Had Obama gotten these criminals off the hook, they would have thrown a parade for him in downtown LA.  This double standard bullshit has run it's course.

(11-20-2017, 08:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As lame as Trump's response to Ball is, I have to agree with this.  Trouble is, the extremists on the left won't see it.  Hard to see anything with your head up your own ass I suppose.

(11-20-2017, 11:33 PM)Vlad Wrote: The double standard more so with Ball himself...no way he reacts to Obama the same way he reacted to Trump.

He'd be singing Obamas praises.

Since weak conjecture arguments are the trend here, I'll counter with this. If Donald Trump could pretend to be less of an idiot, and start acting even 1/2 as presidential as Barack Obama did, people would not be even close to as against him as they currently are.

[Vlad]

(11-20-2017, 11:41 PM)Dill Wrote: Well said, this "double standard" crap is tiring. Jeezus you'd think Trump killed Osama bin Laden or secured a nuke deal with Iran.

The people who run around claiming "double standard" are in fact the ones who create and uphold them. Cf. the buzz round Obama's vacations and golfing. Not to mention the "unfair" coverage of the largest crowds ever at Trump's inauguration.

Yes it is Dill.
How many pages of examples would you like?
...or just let Dino tell you it doesn't exist.

Peaceful, law-abiding tea-party groups who cleaned up after their protests — and got legal permits for them — were signs of nascent fascism lurking in the American soul. Violent, anarchic, and illegal protests by Occupy Wall Street a few years ago or, more recently, in Ferguson, Mo., were proof that a new idealistic generation was renewing its commitment to idealism.

So when a rodeo clown wears an Obama mask outrage ensues, not only  by your common liberal but those  in public office.
The clown forced to undergo sensitivity training.
So Dill, the clown wears a Bush mask and you're gonna tell me it would be met with the same level of discourse?

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/395526/year-liberal-double-standards-jonah-goldberg

[GMDino]

(11-21-2017, 10:49 AM)Vlad Wrote: Yes it is Dill.
How many pages of examples would you like?
...or just let Dino tell you it doesn't exist.

Peaceful, law-abiding tea-party groups who cleaned up after their protests — and got legal permits for them — were signs of nascent fascism lurking in the American soul. Violent, anarchic, and illegal protests by Occupy Wall Street a few years ago or, more recently, in Ferguson, Mo., were proof that a new idealistic generation was renewing its commitment to idealism.

So when a rodeo clown wears an Obama mask outrage ensues, not only  by your common liberal but those  in public office.
The clown forced to undergo sensitivity training.
So Dill, the clown wears a Bush mask and you're gonna tell me it would be met with the same level of discourse?

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/395526/year-liberal-double-standards-jonah-goldberg

Whataboutism....

[CKwi88]

This "feud" might be a new low point.

We have a guy who owes his success to the gifts of his family. A true megalomaniac who makes absurd statements with no factual basis that is all about getting free media exposure while building his brand.

And then you have Lavar Ball. He literally just Donald Trumped Donald Trump.

[*michaelsean*]

Who is Lavar Ball?

Edit: OK I googled him. I do remember hearing of his kids. Seems like he and Trump could be besties.

[*jason*]

(11-21-2017, 11:17 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Who is Lavar Ball?

Edit: OK I googled him. I do remember hearing of his kids. Seems like he and Trump could be besties.

You should have just stayed in the bubble, and ignored this story. I wish I didn't know who Lavar Ball is.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-21-2017, 10:29 AM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: Since weak conjecture arguments are the trend here, I'll counter with this. If Donald Trump could pretend to be less of an idiot, and start acting even 1/2 as presidential as Barack Obama did, people would not be even close to as against him as they currently are.

You don't have to act any type of way to get credit for your actions.  His point is valid, Trump is disliked, for numerous reasons, so an action by him that would have earned praise for others is met with silence, or disdain in Trump's case.  It is certainly human nature to allow one's feelings about a person to color your perception of their actions.  That doesn't make it right.

(11-21-2017, 10:59 AM)GMDino Wrote: Whataboutism....

Except he's responding directly to comments about perceived double standards.  So, I believe the word you're searching for is "relevant".

[GMDino]

(11-21-2017, 12:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You don't have to act any type of way to get credit for your actions.  His point is valid, Trump is disliked, for numerous reasons, so an action by him that would have earned praise for others is met with silence, or disdain in Trump's case.  It is certainly human nature to allow one's feelings about a person to color your perception of their actions.  That doesn't make it right.



Except he's responding directly to comments about perceived double standards.  

Whatabout...  Hypotheticals....

"perceived"

Thanks.

[*michaelsean*]

(11-21-2017, 10:59 AM)GMDino Wrote: Whataboutism....

Everybody does that all the time to point out perceived hypocrisy.  You don't think I can find a tome of whatabouts concerning Trump in this forum?  And what are the odds I find you have called them out on it?

[GMDino]

(11-21-2017, 12:32 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Everybody does that all the time to point out perceived hypocrisy.  You don't think I can find a tome of whatabouts concerning Trump in this forum?  And what are the odds I find you have called them out on it?

Can I find the same in support of Trump that no one on the right called out?

Have fun with that.

Person A creates a "perceived" truth that Obama would have been praised for something that Trump did.  Then posts again a series of quotes and memes to "prove" that the "leftists" get a break the right doesn't.

Which as little to do with Trump crying about the one guy who didn't praise him when the three guys who got free did.

It's an argument in search of a fight that isn't there.

[*michaelsean*]

(11-21-2017, 12:37 PM)GMDino Wrote: Can I find the same in support of Trump that no one on the right called out?

Have fun with that.

Person A creates a "perceived" truth that Obama would have been praised for something that Trump did.  Then posts again a series of quotes and memes to "prove" that the "leftists" get a break the right doesn't.

Which as little to do with Trump crying about the one guy who didn't praise him when the three guys who got free did.

It's an argument in search of a fight that isn't there.

Nobody on the right called it out either way.  You are calling it out here, but I'm guessing not the other way.

Actually one was hypothetical.  Two were not.  

[GMDino]

(11-21-2017, 12:42 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Nobody on the right called it out either way.  You are calling it out here, but I'm guessing not the other way.

Actually one was hypothetical.  Two were not.  

So calling it out, even one way, is worse than allowing it to go on?

That's silly.

There are more than a few here on the board who are more conservative than I am liberal.  They attack and defend what they want.  I will call out what I see and they will call out what they see. Heck, within the lat two months I've been told personally that I don't give my own opinions enough and that my opinion was wrong and that if I don't tell someone my opinion they can assume what that means I think.

Doesn't change the way I post or what I post.

Either way what I see here is someone defending a point that they "perceive" by using whatabout and whatif so I'll continue to point that out.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-21-2017, 12:29 PM)GMDino Wrote: Whatabout...  Hypotheticals....

"perceived"

Thanks.

You're welcome.  "Perceived" was used deliberately because, as I frequently like to point out, words have meanings.  In this case the use of the word perceived implies no judgment as to the veracity of the perception, on either side.  So Dill's perception of the event(s) is no more or less valid than Vlad's.  What is true is that you incorrectly labeled Vlad's response as "whataboutism" when it was a direct response to Dill's statements.  It's fine to come to the defense of your buddy, just be accurate when you do so or it's rather a wasted effort.

[*michaelsean*]

(11-21-2017, 12:48 PM)GMDino Wrote: So calling it out, even one way, is worse than allowing it to go on?

That's silly.

There are more than a few here on the board who are more conservative than I am liberal.  They attack and defend what they want.  I will call out what I see and they will call out what they see. Heck, within the lat two months I've been told personally that I don't give my own opinions enough and that my opinion was wrong and that if I don't tell someone my opinion they can assume what that means I think.  

Doesn't change the way I post or what I post.

Either way what I see here is someone defending a point that they "perceive" by using whatabout and whatif so I'll continue to point that out.

It calls to attention that you aren't really concerned about your whatabouts if it only concerns you one way.  If you want to say, "Hey I'm just playing politics" then so be it. Nothing wrong with that if you are open about it. If you're trying to set a new standard, then it doesn't work.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-21-2017, 12:56 PM)michaelsean Wrote: It calls to attention that you aren't really concerned about your whatabouts if it only concerns you one way.  If you want to say, "Hey I'm just playing politics" then so be it.  Nothing wrong with that if you are  open about it.  If you're trying to set a new standard, then it doesn't work.

Just a friendly heads up.  Once he gets backed into a corner he tends to stop responding.

[GMDino]

(11-21-2017, 12:56 PM)michaelsean Wrote: It calls to attention that you aren't really concerned about your whatabouts if it only concerns you one way.  If you want to say, "Hey I'm just playing politics" then so be it.  Nothing wrong with that if you are  open about it.  If you're trying to set a new standard, then it doesn't work.

But I'm not playing politics.  I'm point out a bad argument.  By not pointing it are you defending it?  Is that "playing politics" too?

Like I said, have fun with searching for all the times I didn't call something out.  I'm sure there are a few that will make people happy.  

As to the premise in the thread: Trump got praise...but didn't get enough for his own ego.  And someone dared diss him so he had to respond just like the thin skinned child he has always been.  It's not about what Obama did or what have done...it's about what the current POTUS is:  A child.

[Dill]

(11-21-2017, 10:49 AM)Vlad Wrote: Yes it is Dill.
How many pages of examples would you like?
...or just let Dino tell you it doesn't exist.

Peaceful, law-abiding tea-party groups who cleaned up after their protests — and got legal permits for them — were signs of nascent fascism lurking in the American soul. Violent, anarchic, and illegal protests by Occupy Wall Street a few years ago or, more recently, in Ferguson, Mo., were proof that a new idealistic generation was renewing its commitment to idealism.

So when a rodeo clown wears an Obama mask outrage ensues, not only  by your common liberal but those  in public office.
The clown forced to undergo sensitivity training.
So Dill, the clown wears a Bush mask and you're gonna tell me it would be met with the same level of discourse?

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/395526/year-liberal-double-standards-jonah-goldberg

Thanks for the insight into your world of internet memes. Would it be fair to say that your view of US politics is wholly framed by this level of political discourse?

You understand that posting skewed, right wing propaganda is not the same level of evidence as what I've been offering?  No. You do not.
I have yet to see a post from you which evidences knowledge of US or world history and politics against which you could check right wing propaganda.

Your first meme inadvertently draws attention to the similarities between right wing Muslims and Christians view of gays.
And because you encountered it as someone who follows memes rather than political events, you have no idea what the "liberal response" was to Ahmadinjad's speech at Columbia. Or why a head of state might be invited to speak at Columbia and a reality show star not.

As for the Carter meme, you couldn't at least take the time to check Snopes to get some perspective?  Carter cancels visas for a country that has taken our embassy hostage. I guess as that bit of info passes through the right wing echo chamber, bits and pieces are added to create the desired full blown liberal hypocrisy. Soon there is no difference between cancelling visas from a country with which we are effectively at war and a "muslim ban" against random countries, some of who are our allies.

Finally you present a wholly imagined, wholly fabricated "if Obama were Republican" meme as if this alternative reality were fact and "proof" of hypocrisy anywhere but in that alternative reality. The ease with which your alternative reality and alternative facts are presented on the same level as non-alternative, existing reality of actually recordable events and actions is telling.

And THAT my friends is how people create and uphold double standards.

"Liberal hypocrisy" flourishes in the echo chamber where comparisons are shaped by selective evidence (or wholly imagined evidence, like your last meme) and exclusion. Your National Review article is a prime example. The argument depends upon what you don't know, not what you do.

[Dill]

(11-20-2017, 07:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Lavar Bell is living his 15 minutes of fame and POTUS continues to go beneath his station with these tweets. But as much as there is a population that detests his tweets; there's another equal population that applauds them

That's it in a nutshell. Two guys who know how to generate media attention.

And a population which applauds Trump when he goes beneath his station.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-21-2017, 01:24 PM)Dill Wrote: Thanks for the insight into your world of internet memes. Would it be fair to say that your view of US politics is wholly framed by this level of political discourse?

A fair point.  I just wonder why you never call out your buddy for his near constant use of gifs and lame memes to "rebut" arguments.  Maybe more of michaelsean's point at work, eh?

[Dill]

(11-21-2017, 12:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're welcome.  "Perceived" was used deliberately because, as I frequently like to point out, words have meanings.  In this case the use of the word perceived implies no judgment as to the veracity of the perception, on either side.  So Dill's perception of the event(s) is no more or less valid than Vlad's.  What is true is that you incorrectly labeled Vlad's response as "whataboutism" when it was a direct response to Dill's statements.  It's fine to come to the defense of your buddy, just be accurate when you do so or it's rather a wasted effort.

LOL and Dill's statements were a response to whataboutism, a word which has meaning.

Does labeling differing judgments as to the truth value of a political claim "perceptions" then somehow make them all "no more or less valid"?

I don't think so.

But if that were true, what are we make of your perception that Dino has incorrectly labeled Vlad's whataboutism as whataboutism?