Conservatives are now attacking survivors of school shootings

[Moonglow]

What demented sick bastards, just a few months ago they were supporting a child molester for senate , now this and like Pavlov's dogs their rank and file trash repeats it



"The conservative movement has two new enemies: the FBI and the survivors of the school shooting in Parkland, Florida. At far-right Gateway Pundit, Lucian Wintrich managed to package them into one stark raving headline, casting aspersions on 17-year-old survivor David Hogg by noting his father is a retired FBI agent, and accusing him of having been coached on "anti-Trump lines" due to being suspiciously articulate and repeating himself a few times in a taped interview.
Before I explain what's going on, just consider the depravity of Wintrich's smear for a moment. It's a dizzying demonstration of the moral abomination the conservative propaganda machine has become.


conservatives dealt with this the same way they deal with everything: by dreaming up an unhinged conspiracy theory. Suddenly, conservatives from Sean Hannity on down began braying that the FBI — composed overwhelmingly of middle-aged Republican men who furiously despised Hillary Clinton, and whose major significant electoral action was then-director James Comey giving Trump a huge leg up a week before election day — was part of a Deep State conspiracy to undermine the president."

Conservatives are now attacking survivors of school shootings

The sure do love the unborn also..

 

[Moonglow]

Conservatives are now attacking survivors of school shootings
What demented sick bastards, just a few months ago they were supporting a child molester for senate , now this and like Pavlov's dogs their rank and file trash repeats it

That's right! After you Democrats get done killing millions of babies at your Holy Shrine of Planned Parenthood, then kill more innocent children in your godless "gun-free-zones" so that attackers know just where to go for their helpless sitting ducks, we Conservatives line up to point out how the Left is using the remaining survivors as political pawns now to be spokes models for their national effort to blame the guns. Just remember one thing Radar, the guns didn't kill those kids, you did.

A little 411 for you Freak....The GOP supports Planned Parenthood also and has fully funded them to this very day...Now you want to talk about slanted posting, Derpa...

 

[Cecilie1200]

I don't see a single conservative attacking this guy......

Parkland survivor treated "like a criminal" after gun range visit

was he not also a survivor?

So? Conservatives shouldn’t be personally attacking any of those kids. They just can’t control themselves.

I don't consider there to be any "shouldn't" about responding to people who routinely use insults and personal attacks.

Golden rule, Bubba. If that's how you treat people, then I will assume that's how you want to be treated. Can't take the heat, get the hell off the TV.

Ask Laura Ingraham how well that worked for her?

Her viewership went up 25%, so I'd say it worked pretty well for her.

Viewers don't pay her network, advertisers do.

First of all, Laura Ingraham doesn't do what she does to please the advertisers. She does it to have people listen to her. So if you really think it's meaningless to her that her viewership has gone up, you're a moron.

Second of all, the advertisers don't pay her network because they like her or they like Fox. They do it because she has a large audience they want to connect with. Which means that if the boycott is actually making her audience GROW, former and prospective advertisers are going to suddenly be a whole lot less interested in David Hogg's pissing and moaning about her.

However much you leftists want to congratulate yourself on how you "got" Laura Ingraham, the fact is that your little tantrum had the exact opposite effect. She still has a show, she has a larger audience listening to her viewpoint than before, and therefore she still has advertisers.

So why don't YOU tell ME "how well that worked" for YOU? What was it you folks achieved, again?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'll say it again.

If the "Parkland 5" were only interested in a message of "hey, this was horrible, i'd like to make sure that this never happens again if possible. Can we all set aside our differences and find some common ground to make some headway here?"

That's the exact opposite of the approach they've taken. They've put their flag in the ground on the side of which they stand, which is banning/confiscating guns, and have joined in the nasty rhetoric employed by that side in demonizing their opposition. They've stepped way beyond just being "survivors" and firmly into the realm of supposed pundits. As such, they should be criticized for their views specific to their preferred ideology/policy.

As far as the rhetoric used to criticize. That's just our climate right now. Way too many people are using nasty language and throwing around dangerous accusations as it pertains to motives and such. It's a sad development.

They’ve specifically stated they’re not seeking the repeal of the Second Amendment.

And there’s nothing wrong with criticizing their views, ideologies or policies. The problem is that they are being attacked personally. Everything from being accused of being actors and not actual Douglas HD students... to being a “skinhead lesbian.”

Yes, and we're supposed to believe that little piece of misdirection why?

"OMG, they SAID so!" That, and 10 bucks'll get you a coffee at Starbucks.

Personally? I really don't give a shit what you believe. I always knew the brain-dead right wasn't attacking them for the positions they're actually taking.

Riiiiiight. You're telling us over and over again, "But they SAID they didn't want to repeal, so that should be good enough!" because you "don't give a shit" whether we believe that. Oookay, you go with that, Sparky.

Imbecile... you said the right is attacking them based on the right's delusions of what they think the Parkland kids' stand for -- not for what they actually stand for. Which is good of you. It represents a tacit confession on your part for why the right is so disturbingly attacking these kids who went through an unimaginable hell that no teenager should ever have to face.

No, I said the right is responding to their REAL agenda, despite their lies about their intent. I'll thank you not to try to force your ignorant words into my mouth.

 

[Faun]

So? Conservatives shouldn’t be personally attacking any of those kids. They just can’t control themselves.

I don't consider there to be any "shouldn't" about responding to people who routinely use insults and personal attacks.

Golden rule, Bubba. If that's how you treat people, then I will assume that's how you want to be treated. Can't take the heat, get the hell off the TV.

Ask Laura Ingraham how well that worked for her?

Her viewership went up 25%, so I'd say it worked pretty well for her.

Viewers don't pay her network, advertisers do.

First of all, Laura Ingraham doesn't do what she does to please the advertisers. She does it to have people listen to her. So if you really think it's meaningless to her that her viewership has gone up, you're a moron.

Second of all, the advertisers don't pay her network because they like her or they like Fox. They do it because she has a large audience they want to connect with. Which means that if the boycott is actually making her audience GROW, former and prospective advertisers are going to suddenly be a whole lot less interested in David Hogg's pissing and moaning about her.

However much you leftists want to congratulate yourself on how you "got" Laura Ingraham, the fact is that your little tantrum had the exact opposite effect. She still has a show, she has a larger audience listening to her viewpoint than before, and therefore she still has advertisers.

So why don't YOU tell ME "how well that worked" for YOU? What was it you folks achieved, again?

Dumbfuck....

Bill O’Reilly’s ratings are soaring after the sexual harassment allegations

 

[Faun]

They’ve specifically stated they’re not seeking the repeal of the Second Amendment.

And there’s nothing wrong with criticizing their views, ideologies or policies. The problem is that they are being attacked personally. Everything from being accused of being actors and not actual Douglas HD students... to being a “skinhead lesbian.”

Yes, and we're supposed to believe that little piece of misdirection why?

"OMG, they SAID so!" That, and 10 bucks'll get you a coffee at Starbucks.

Personally? I really don't give a shit what you believe. I always knew the brain-dead right wasn't attacking them for the positions they're actually taking.

Riiiiiight. You're telling us over and over again, "But they SAID they didn't want to repeal, so that should be good enough!" because you "don't give a shit" whether we believe that. Oookay, you go with that, Sparky.

Imbecile... you said the right is attacking them based on the right's delusions of what they think the Parkland kids' stand for -- not for what they actually stand for. Which is good of you. It represents a tacit confession on your part for why the right is so disturbingly attacking these kids who went through an unimaginable hell that no teenager should ever have to face.

No, I said the right is responding to their REAL agenda, despite their lies about their intent. I'll thank you not to try to force your ignorant words into my mouth.

I understand what you're saying but I've been exposed to rightardism long enough to know that it's completely deranged. You [the right, not necessarily you specifically] don't attack what they say; you attack what you think they mean.

And you [again, the right, not necessarily you specifically] do so because you can't reasonably attack their actual position so you have to invent a boogeyman the base will rally behind. Passing sensible gun regulations isn't going to rile the base and squash these kids like a bug; but convincing the base these kids are after your guns will.

You've played this same hand far too many times for it to cintinue working.

Like I said, ask Laura Ingraham how its working out for her.

 

[defcon4]

They’ve specifically stated they’re not seeking the repeal of the Second Amendment.

And there’s nothing wrong with criticizing their views, ideologies or policies. The problem is that they are being attacked personally. Everything from being accused of being actors and not actual Douglas HD students... to being a “skinhead lesbian.”

 

[defcon4]

Stop lying. It’s never been posted because there is no such video depicting “thousands and thousands” of people dancing in New Jersey on 9.11.

If there was a video of that, you’d be shoving it in my face rather than bluffing, ”it’s been posted already.”

View attachment 189774

Nope, that doesn't show it either.

Try harder.

Lighten up moron.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I don't consider there to be any "shouldn't" about responding to people who routinely use insults and personal attacks.

Golden rule, Bubba. If that's how you treat people, then I will assume that's how you want to be treated. Can't take the heat, get the hell off the TV.

Ask Laura Ingraham how well that worked for her?

Her viewership went up 25%, so I'd say it worked pretty well for her.

Viewers don't pay her network, advertisers do.

First of all, Laura Ingraham doesn't do what she does to please the advertisers. She does it to have people listen to her. So if you really think it's meaningless to her that her viewership has gone up, you're a moron.

Second of all, the advertisers don't pay her network because they like her or they like Fox. They do it because she has a large audience they want to connect with. Which means that if the boycott is actually making her audience GROW, former and prospective advertisers are going to suddenly be a whole lot less interested in David Hogg's pissing and moaning about her.

However much you leftists want to congratulate yourself on how you "got" Laura Ingraham, the fact is that your little tantrum had the exact opposite effect. She still has a show, she has a larger audience listening to her viewpoint than before, and therefore she still has advertisers.

So why don't YOU tell ME "how well that worked" for YOU? What was it you folks achieved, again?

Dumbfuck....

Bill O’Reilly’s ratings are soaring after the sexual harassment allegations

Is that supposed to be some sort of point?

 

[otto105]

So? Conservatives shouldn’t be personally attacking any of those kids. They just can’t control themselves.

I don't consider there to be any "shouldn't" about responding to people who routinely use insults and personal attacks.

Golden rule, Bubba. If that's how you treat people, then I will assume that's how you want to be treated. Can't take the heat, get the hell off the TV.

Ask Laura Ingraham how well that worked for her?

Her viewership went up 25%, so I'd say it worked pretty well for her.

Viewers don't pay her network, advertisers do.

First of all, Laura Ingraham doesn't do what she does to please the advertisers. She does it to have people listen to her. So if you really think it's meaningless to her that her viewership has gone up, you're a moron.

Second of all, the advertisers don't pay her network because they like her or they like Fox. They do it because she has a large audience they want to connect with. Which means that if the boycott is actually making her audience GROW, former and prospective advertisers are going to suddenly be a whole lot less interested in David Hogg's pissing and moaning about her.


However much you leftists want to congratulate yourself on how you "got" Laura Ingraham, the fact is that your little tantrum had the exact opposite effect. She still has a show, she has a larger audience listening to her viewpoint than before, and therefore she still has advertisers.

So why don't YOU tell ME "how well that worked" for YOU? What was it you folks achieved, again?

She doesn't have a larger audience, she has one that dies at 10K per day.,

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes, and we're supposed to believe that little piece of misdirection why?

"OMG, they SAID so!" That, and 10 bucks'll get you a coffee at Starbucks.

Personally? I really don't give a shit what you believe. I always knew the brain-dead right wasn't attacking them for the positions they're actually taking.

Riiiiiight. You're telling us over and over again, "But they SAID they didn't want to repeal, so that should be good enough!" because you "don't give a shit" whether we believe that. Oookay, you go with that, Sparky.

Imbecile... you said the right is attacking them based on the right's delusions of what they think the Parkland kids' stand for -- not for what they actually stand for. Which is good of you. It represents a tacit confession on your part for why the right is so disturbingly attacking these kids who went through an unimaginable hell that no teenager should ever have to face.

No, I said the right is responding to their REAL agenda, despite their lies about their intent. I'll thank you not to try to force your ignorant words into my mouth.

I understand what you're saying but I've been exposed to rightardism long enough to know that it's completely deranged. You [the right, not necessarily you specifically] don't attack what they say; you attack what you think they mean.

And you [again, the right, not necessarily you specifically] do so because you can't reasonably attack their actual position so you have to invent a boogeyman the base will rally behind. Passing sensible gun regulations isn't going to rile the base and squash these kids like a bug; but convincing the base these kids are after your guns will.

You've played this same hand far too many times for it to cintinue working.

Like I said, ask Laura Ingraham how its working out for her.

I heard "I've been disagreed with enough to be convinced that anyone who does so is completely deranged." Was that what you meant to say?

We attack BOTH what they say, and where they're eventually trying to go with it. And no, we are not obligated to pretend that isn't their goal simply because they say so.

We do so because, unlike the left, WE actually have memories that go back farther than five minutes ago. We can remember the things various leaders on the left have said. We can remember the left's fondness for incrementalism. We can remember all the times we've been told, "We JUST want . . .", only to have the left come back over and over and over and "just" demand more each time.

To put it bluntly, we remember that you're a bunch of liars who can't be trusted. And we don't trust you.

To borrow your own phrase, you've played this same hand far too many times for it to continue working.

Like I said, the best thing you dimwits could have done for Laura Ingraham is to "destroy" her. And somehow, you never catch on to how "powerful" you aren't.

 

[John Shaw]

Personally? I really don't give a shit what you believe. I always knew the brain-dead right wasn't attacking them for the positions they're actually taking.

Riiiiiight. You're telling us over and over again, "But they SAID they didn't want to repeal, so that should be good enough!" because you "don't give a shit" whether we believe that. Oookay, you go with that, Sparky.

Imbecile... you said the right is attacking them based on the right's delusions of what they think the Parkland kids' stand for -- not for what they actually stand for. Which is good of you. It represents a tacit confession on your part for why the right is so disturbingly attacking these kids who went through an unimaginable hell that no teenager should ever have to face.

No, I said the right is responding to their REAL agenda, despite their lies about their intent. I'll thank you not to try to force your ignorant words into my mouth.

I understand what you're saying but I've been exposed to rightardism long enough to know that it's completely deranged. You [the right, not necessarily you specifically] don't attack what they say; you attack what you think they mean.

And you [again, the right, not necessarily you specifically] do so because you can't reasonably attack their actual position so you have to invent a boogeyman the base will rally behind. Passing sensible gun regulations isn't going to rile the base and squash these kids like a bug; but convincing the base these kids are after your guns will.

You've played this same hand far too many times for it to cintinue working.

Like I said, ask Laura Ingraham how its working out for her.

I heard "I've been disagreed with enough to be convinced that anyone who does so is completely deranged." Was that what you meant to say?

We attack BOTH what they say, and where they're eventually trying to go with it. And no, we are not obligated to pretend that isn't their goal simply because they say so.

We do so because, unlike the left, WE actually have memories that go back farther than five minutes ago. We can remember the things various leaders on the left have said. We can remember the left's fondness for incrementalism. We can remember all the times we've been told, "We JUST want . . .", only to have the left come back over and over and over and "just" demand more each time.

To put it bluntly, we remember that you're a bunch of liars who can't be trusted. And we don't trust you.

To borrow your own phrase, you've played this same hand far too many times for it to continue working.

Like I said, the best thing you dimwits could have done for Laura Ingraham is to "destroy" her. And somehow, you never catch on to how "powerful" you aren't.

No one gives a shit.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I don't consider there to be any "shouldn't" about responding to people who routinely use insults and personal attacks.

Golden rule, Bubba. If that's how you treat people, then I will assume that's how you want to be treated. Can't take the heat, get the hell off the TV.

Ask Laura Ingraham how well that worked for her?

Her viewership went up 25%, so I'd say it worked pretty well for her.

Viewers don't pay her network, advertisers do.

First of all, Laura Ingraham doesn't do what she does to please the advertisers. She does it to have people listen to her. So if you really think it's meaningless to her that her viewership has gone up, you're a moron.

Second of all, the advertisers don't pay her network because they like her or they like Fox. They do it because she has a large audience they want to connect with. Which means that if the boycott is actually making her audience GROW, former and prospective advertisers are going to suddenly be a whole lot less interested in David Hogg's pissing and moaning about her.


However much you leftists want to congratulate yourself on how you "got" Laura Ingraham, the fact is that your little tantrum had the exact opposite effect. She still has a show, she has a larger audience listening to her viewpoint than before, and therefore she still has advertisers.

So why don't YOU tell ME "how well that worked" for YOU? What was it you folks achieved, again?

She doesn't have a larger audience, she has one that dies at 10K per day.,

Hey, if you guys tell yourselves how you "won" and "put her in her place" long enough, eventually she'll die of old age and you'll FINALLY be right.

 

[otto105]

laura ingrahan like the rest of you alt-right conservatives are fossils.

The Left is losing interest in your narrow view of preserving a Merica over the future of America.

 

[otto105]

Ask Laura Ingraham how well that worked for her?

Her viewership went up 25%, so I'd say it worked pretty well for her.

Viewers don't pay her network, advertisers do.

First of all, Laura Ingraham doesn't do what she does to please the advertisers. She does it to have people listen to her. So if you really think it's meaningless to her that her viewership has gone up, you're a moron.

Second of all, the advertisers don't pay her network because they like her or they like Fox. They do it because she has a large audience they want to connect with. Which means that if the boycott is actually making her audience GROW, former and prospective advertisers are going to suddenly be a whole lot less interested in David Hogg's pissing and moaning about her.


However much you leftists want to congratulate yourself on how you "got" Laura Ingraham, the fact is that your little tantrum had the exact opposite effect. She still has a show, she has a larger audience listening to her viewpoint than before, and therefore she still has advertisers.

So why don't YOU tell ME "how well that worked" for YOU? What was it you folks achieved, again?

She doesn't have a larger audience, she has one that dies at 10K per day.,

Hey, if you guys tell yourselves how you "won" and "put her in her place" long enough, eventually she'll die of old age and you'll FINALLY be right.

laura "got" herself.

Everyone else is just laughing at this republic party and it's increasingly smaller world.

 

[Some Guy]

They’ve specifically stated they’re not seeking the repeal of the Second Amendment.

And there’s nothing wrong with criticizing their views, ideologies or policies. The problem is that they are being attacked personally. Everything from being accused of being actors and not actual Douglas HD students... to being a “skinhead lesbian.”

Yea, they'll say "we don't want to take anyone's guns", and then in the same sentence, say that they want to take "assault rifles" away. It just doesn't wash. And at the March, there was a girl who said "when they give us an inch, we'll take a mile", and she said it proudly. Then, you just need to look at what's happening in London, where all guns are banned and people joke that "what's next, knives? haha" and then it actually happens.

I have much more of a problem with how they conduct themselves rather than their views. Same for many on the right. If you have to demonize someone or insult someone for their views then it just means that you're not secure/confident enough in your own views or your ability to defend them on their own merit. And further, just means you're probably ignorant as to where they're coming from.

 

[Cecilie1200]

laura ingrahan like the rest of you alt-right conservatives are fossils.

The Left is losing interest in your narrow view of preserving a Merica over the future of America.

At what point did we give you the impression we EVER cared about the left's "interest"? I've stepped over piles of dog shit I valued more than your good opinion.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Her viewership went up 25%, so I'd say it worked pretty well for her.

Viewers don't pay her network, advertisers do.

First of all, Laura Ingraham doesn't do what she does to please the advertisers. She does it to have people listen to her. So if you really think it's meaningless to her that her viewership has gone up, you're a moron.

Second of all, the advertisers don't pay her network because they like her or they like Fox. They do it because she has a large audience they want to connect with. Which means that if the boycott is actually making her audience GROW, former and prospective advertisers are going to suddenly be a whole lot less interested in David Hogg's pissing and moaning about her.


However much you leftists want to congratulate yourself on how you "got" Laura Ingraham, the fact is that your little tantrum had the exact opposite effect. She still has a show, she has a larger audience listening to her viewpoint than before, and therefore she still has advertisers.

So why don't YOU tell ME "how well that worked" for YOU? What was it you folks achieved, again?

She doesn't have a larger audience, she has one that dies at 10K per day.,

Hey, if you guys tell yourselves how you "won" and "put her in her place" long enough, eventually she'll die of old age and you'll FINALLY be right.

laura "got" herself.

Everyone else is just laughing at this republic party and it's increasingly smaller world.

"Everyone else" defined as "screeching impotent leftist losers". I'll let you know when your opinion starts mattering. DO hold your breath waiting.

 

[otto105]

Wow, need a tissue?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Wow, need a tissue?

Why? None of US are desperate to be relevant to people who wouldn't piss on us if we were on fire.

YOU might need a tissue with a side of Prozac, though.