25 comments on “WESTWARD THE WAGONS

  1. Arpaio isn’t the racist, and neither is Trump. If you think you can prove me wrong, have at it, just don’t cherry-pick out-of-context quotes or blatantly mischaracterize either of them when you do it.

    • Took a quick look at your site – the home page – and a little confused about your claim
      of mischaracterized out of context quotes – perhaps you failed to notice the linked
      article exists in it’s entirety and permeated with a common thread of racism, no editing,
      nothing taken out of context, and no redacting.
      Leaves me to wonder if you’re just having a slow blog day and decided to do a little
      Trump/Arpaio trolling?
      As to proof that Arpaio and Trump are racist the most damning and obvious evidence
      are their own words and deeds – perhaps you’d care to provide an example how they aren’t ?
      If so something more than the mantra of “fake news”,”alternative facts”, or Fox News
      links will be necessary.
      I’ll begin with Trump’s ad campaign to villify the St. Regis Mohawk and his racist efforts
      to that end:

      https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-trump-smeared-native-americans-back-in-1993

      http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/trump-fined-attack-indian-casino-article-1.888723

      Your gravatar says you “play” with words and write “deranged stories”. Is that an attempt
      to be edgy or is it an accurate depiction?

      • I didn’t say out of context quotes were IN your article, just that (in answer to “As to proof that Arpaio and Trump are racist the most damning and obvious evidence
        are their own words and deeds – perhaps you’d care to provide an example how they aren’t ?”) when you go to try proving they’re racist, how about citing some of those words, and doing so in context, without any mischaracterization. Quote them like that, and see if you can still come to the logical conclusion that they’re racist. My assertion is that you CAN’T. That’s all I’m saying. 😉

      • Then perhaps you’d care to address the links I posted
        in my response?
        The contextual nature of fines levied and having to spend
        50k to run additional ads admitting authorship.

        My assertion being you CAN’T – but following any attempt
        to I’ll afford you the opportunity to address multiple
        others if you like.
        I can “cite” numerous examples but in providing links I
        believe it makes it more difficult for deniers to deny,
        a reality that usually leads them to resort to the
        impoverished claim of “fake news”.

      • No, I’d care to address one or two specific quotes YOU will vouch for as quote YOU are willing to say are proof he’s a racist. I didn’t slam you with a bunch of links you’d have to jump through, read, dissect, and lug back here to address point by point, and you’re off your rocker if you think you can expect ME to all of that. If those are the articles you want to cite, copy and paste the two most damning quotes they cite. If you read through them and think any are actually going to hold up to scrutiny, go for it.

      • I would expect any rebuttal/discussion to feature
        an assortment of links from various sites, after
        all it’s reasonable to assume opinions are predicated
        on what is heard, read, or experienced.
        And yes I actually expect people to do the math,
        to make an effort – seems a little disingenuous to
        characterize that as slamming someone, after all
        reading includes dissecting as an act of comprehension
        doesn’t it?
        Sounds like you’re going the Conway Huckabee/Sanders
        route now.

      • I shouldn’t have to write a thesis and cite sources to have a conversation though, should I. is not college, I am not being paid, and while I’ve done the research I have no obligation to you to show my work, nor do you have to show yours. You do specifically have to cite at least one quote though. Why’s my ask for just one quote so hard to deliver on? Why is it easier for you to muddy the waters with a bunch of other peoples words. Just take what Trump himself (or anyone else you call a racist) has actually said that demonstrates they’re a racist. If you can’t even speak for yourself and have to rely on the words of others…. well, that’s just not how I roll. I take in all sorts of information. but when I’m expressing my opinion I’m expressing my opinion after having taken all that in, not just parroting what I read. You should try it sometime.

      • Is this an exhibition of your professed playing word
        games? If so it isn’t going to work here – since you
        at least claim to have the ability to do “research”
        and engaged in it clicking on a link hardly qualifies
        as writing a thesis, but maybe that’s just the way
        you roll.
        I too have expressed my opinions and been willing to
        provide links where others can do the math for themselves,
        understand the process in forming my opinions and in turn
        arrive at their own conclusions – maybe something you should
        try on occasion.
        But I’ll really simplify this for you with the below
        quote – note that I’m relying on a direct quote spoken
        by none other than Dear Leader to literally millions of
        people and forever archived on the net.

        ““46 million people watched the State of the Union address,
        the highest number in history” and then some more verbal
        diarrhea directed to his minions at Fox about they had their
        highest numbers ever during said event.

      • I’m just trying to get you to engage in a conversation instead of trying to give me excuses as to why you can’t. If you don’t want to then I guess that’s fine, but you should just say that instead of trying to come up with a bunch of BS reasons. How is the statement on the State of the Union evidence of his racism? I’m not seeing anything like that in the quote.

      • Strikes me as though something of a conundrum has occurred
        with the position you’ve adopted re your definition of
        research and how you arrive at the opinions you hold.
        The problem is that your research and opinion can only be
        predicated on one of two things ( the gathering of information).
        Either you availed yourself of links and sites on the net or
        you have been in close personal attendance 24/7 with Trump
        since the beginning of his campaign and not only heard every
        word he’s uttered but also witnessed every event.
        If so do you also claim Trump’s inauguration was attended by
        more people than any of his predecessors?
        Well actually there is a third possibility – you just make up
        everything on the fly and aren’t concerned with facts.
        Care to elucidate? No thesis necessary.

      • I do the same thing you do, minus the attempts to sidestep the questions. Like in your last comment, you said you think of it more as laying the foundation? I think of it as redirection to something you think you can win it. Why don’t you just show me the quotes that prove he’s racist? Wouldn’t that be easier than going around and around in circles, explaining yourself when all you need to do is site one quote that definitively shows how racist is?

      • “I think sometimes a black may think they don’t have an advantage or
        this and that. I’ve said on one occasion, even about myself, if I
        were starting off today, I would love to be a well-educated black,
        because I really believe they do have an actual advantage.”

        Do you believe this or believe Trump would actually love to be
        black?

        Related to Judge Gonzalo Curiel
        He is a member of a club or society, very strongly pro-Mexican,
        which is all fine. But I say he’s got bias. I want to build a wall.
        I’m going to build a wall. I’m doing very well with the Latinos,
        with the Hispanics, with the Mexicans, I’m doing very well with them,
        in my opinion. And we’re going to see, you’re going to see, because
        you know what, I’m providing jobs. Nobody else is giving jobs. But
        just so you understand, this judge has treated me very unfairly, he’s
        treated me in a hostile manner. And there’s something going on.

        He referred to Puerto Ricans as “politically motivated ingrates” when
        they pointed out the shortcomings of the hurricane response – that
        people had no food, water, electricity.

        “Miss Housekeeping” Trump’s words for an Hispanic Miss Universe.
        In your mind this may be about “winning” but in mine it’s about
        the common welfare of the people of this country.

        Now do your dance about Trump is misunderstood and should be
        applauded for being what his stooges have characterized as being
        “authentic” overlooking the fact that the same authenticity can
        be ascribed to every despot whose ever existed.

      • Is there something I might not be able to see if I’m on my phone? Because it seems like I’m missing something, surely THAT can’t be what your citing as the reason you think he’s a racist.

      • I would call it laying a foundation to demonstrate
        that this is a man of questionable character and
        integrity.
        Which if you admit he did lie about this makes it
        more difficult to defend racist behavior when presented
        and denied.
        So a simple question – did he lie?

      • He exaggerated. Is intentionally exaggerating line? Is it lying if you tell people that you do that? Because you said that truthful hyperbole is a tactic he uses since back when he wrote his first book. Seriously, there’s a chapter on it. It’s not like he’s making it a secret, so is it really lies, or since he tells people exactly what he’s doing, are the people who thinks he’s lying just to dumb to take what he says at face value?

      • Geez – you really are an apologist – one of those
        “alternative facts” – a lie he has continued to insist
        is true – flipped out on his staff demanding they
        involve the Nat’l Park Service and Spicer jump out
        and make an abject fool of himself declaring the lie
        was a fact “period”.
        So let’s see then, his mental health issues translate to
        his lie about voter fraud was also nothing more than a
        mere exaggeration – would that be correct?
        You’re right though – there is no secret about who
        and what Trump is.

      • I missed this: “Your gravatar says you “play” with words and write “deranged stories”. Is that an attempt
        to be edgy or is it an accurate depiction?”

        Used to be in reference to the fiction I used to write. Haven’t actually done that for a while, but I do still play with words in the same sense any network does, whether they admit it or not. CNN and Fox News are both biased, for example, they can (and have) distort(ed) facts because of those biases, HOWEVER, Fox is usually upfront about their biases. Both still needs to be cross-checked, but one is more transparent, more honest. CNN and most others have always had a veneer of unbiased journalism, straight up reporting without favoring one side or another in any given context. It’s become more and more apparent, particularly over the last 3 or 4 years, that the vast majority of those claiming neutrality and a lack of bias, are not only biased but biased almost exclusively to the left. Then there’s the hyperbole, the characterizations and opinions; well if legit “news” organizations claiming to be neutral figures can do it, then hell, why can’t I? At least I don’t knowingly lie, will willingly correct any mistakes (if I actually made one, that is), and I’m upfront about my biased. You don’t have to wonder where I stand, and I give people something to judge me by that’s an accurate representation of my positions and values. You can like me or not, like my views or not, but the point is I’m not trying to hide them, or dupe you into going along with them. I come as I am, and people can do what they like with that as we cross paths. 😉

      • Well, I can appreciate literary talent, in fact have a friend
        who is budding sci fi author.
        I agree that corporate ownership of the media can, does, and
        has lead to the bias of ownership being evident and why I generally
        prefer sites like Politico etc but that in no way implies I
        believe “fake news” is the coin of the realm – it is a ploy
        dating back decades and a characteristic of despotic leaders.
        When it comes to media bias Fox News is the hands down winner.
        There’s a saying that a person is entitled to their own opinion
        but not their own facts – that applies to both you and I and why
        it is important to have the ability to validate an opinion with
        facts.
        Trump and Arpaio’s own words are facts – words that go beyond
        written accounts but available as live interviews and archived
        video.
        If you are at all familiar with this blog then you know I don’t
        play favorites Dem or Rep – I don’t believe it serves the common
        good for any to do so.
        Too many people today see or hear something from a single source
        and seize on it as gospel – I don’t, I make every effort to verify
        what is being presented before I weigh in, and once having done so
        can provide supporting evidence if need be.
        As to Trump’s antics with the Mohawk I have friends among them and
        the other nations of the confederacy so I have some personal familiarity
        with what went on.

      • You can base spin and on fact just as much as you can base it on deception and fabrications. CNN tends to do the latter lately. Fox does when they can, but frankly they’re too chickenshit to do it that often, it usually results in a continual “red colored glasses” (think rose colored glasses, but right leaning instead of sunshine and roses) bent to the coverage, which is easy to filter out (especially due to their upfrontness about their biases), and occasional distortions here and there that are just as easy to catch as the bullshit CNN churns out. That’s my own assessment anyways, at least concerning those two outlets. I don’t trust websites either; I’m always cross-checking, trying to research who owns what, etc. because those sites are funded by people to, are owned by friends of friends of powerful people… everybody’s got an agenda these days, for the most part. Case in point being Politico. I check their site too but… really, you like them? They hate Trump and it distorts their coverage way more than it should. No where NEAR CNN levels, admittedly, but they’re not a platform I’d say I trust either. They very casually, seemingly without any investment in the subjects of their coverage, slant things against people and organizations they don’t care for, and prop up people/org.s they do care for. I watched that happen all throughout the 2016 election.

      • As a matter of fact I do like Politico, they seem to have
        an evenhanded approach which is why others may not like
        them.
        I’m not inclined to believe being “upfront” about bias is
        a mea culpa- especially when they deny it if pressed.

      • The main offenders of denying bias are left leaning outlets, and your perception of Politico as even handed (imho) is a result of your biases. You lean left, pretty obviously, so of course you think they’re “fair”.

      • I understood from the get go that you probably think
        Trump is the best thing since mustard on a burger
        and your perception of “fair” would be radically
        different than mine and if one were to speak of
        bias…..

      • So you basically let your biases dictate the course of the interaction, by assuming that you wouldn’t be able to talk with me at all, and then I wouldn’t be reasonable. Nice way to start a conversation. And you think I’m the problem?

  2. “He exaggerated. Is intentionally exaggerating line? Is it lying if you tell people that you do that? Because you said that truthful hyperbole is a tactic he uses since back when he wrote his first book. Seriously, there’s a chapter on it. It’s not like he’s making it a secret, so is it really lies, or since he tells people exactly what he’s doing, are the people who thinks he’s lying just to dumb to take what he says at face value?”

    “Because you said that truthful hyperbole is a tactic he uses since when he wrote his first book.”

    Care to point out where I made this specific statement or any other that in any way
    associated anything coming from Trumps’s lips with the truth?.
    Children exaggerate, adults as well at times, when it becomes serial in nature it becomes
    a pathology – also known as lying.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s