Give us your pointers! It might help someone else here avoid a ban on the leftist websites!

Views: 80

Replies to This Discussion

The best thing we can do is not to call names or be insulting. Libtards want to get you upset by calling you names. We must not put ourselves at their level. Be strong and to the point. It pisses them off even more when you ignore the childish name calling and don't put yourself at their level.

These are some of the things I try to keep in mind when responding to Blogs. I don’t always succeed, and sometimes I fail spectacularly.

Please feel free to add your experiences. I’m not an expert by any means and am always open to reasoned arguments to better my education.

1.) Write your responses in MS Word or some other word editor first. This allows you to think out the response, and to spell check.

2.) Be concise and give reasoned accurate information with links to your source material.

3.) When making your argument, it’s best to find websites or material that can be seen as impartial.

4.) Try to keep in mind, for every conservative website you reference, the leftist ideologue has one they can reference.

5.) Use the hateful rhetoric from their websites against them.

6.) Do not respond when you are emotional.

7.) Mix it up, responding with kindness throws them off, and when sarcasm is used at the proper times it can be a most rewarding experience.

8.) When evidence is contrary to their view, they will immediately resort to name calling and try to obfuscate the conversation.

9.) Conservatives typically use facts, while Leftist use emotions as the source for arguments.

10.) If you remain calm, this will cause the most rabid leftist to have a conniption and degenerate into the most vile, hateful, person to ever cross your path. This is good, as you don’t need to take the conversation further, and their insanity is clear for all to see.

11.) The other extreme is the pure ideologue that can give reasoned arguments for their beliefs. These are the most dangerous, and you need to be educated on the subject you’re discussing, or you will be humiliated and lose the debate. You need to be on your toes with this type as they will be practiced in double speak and obfuscation. Think, sometimes deflection is better than direct confrontation, and know when you’ve been beat.

Always remember:
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt."
"Who’s more the fool… The fool, or the fool who follows the fool."
"Let the fool speak, so as to reveal himself for all to see."

My advice is to argue in "moral terms" when confronting these libertards...example: their point on using the government to force businesses to like bakery's to make cakes for gay weddings even if goes against the bakery owners religious beliefs. They would argue on moral terms, screaming discrimination. We would rebuttal saying something like "why is it ok to use the government to force someone to do something they don't want to do.."

 you see, they don't understand or want to understand facts, they DO understand is speaking morality. So basically, when they get on their moral high-horse, you get on yours and knock'em down. Word your arguments around the language of morality and you will throw them for a tail spin and they'll just start calling you names....that's when you know you've won

How about if we get together and attack the liberal media?  We don't have to call them names( every time we do they have to stop and look up that word in the dictionary, there intelligence is Shockley limited.)  I think we should tell them when they lie about a story.

Lets never,never attack each other regardless of what is going on.Dee can we make this so what we talk about the libs can't use it against us on the media 

I started by going on to the sites of my liberals who are in public office, and attended President Trumps protest while being paid by us. And told them off .

lol...what sites so I can get me some too hehehehe

I look for a site where they are talking about a Republican like Trump and start reading the stupid comments.




Reporter Kicked Out Of Michelle Obama
Conference For Violating ‘Black Girl Code’

The Black Entertainment Television channel recently hosted a conference in south Florida for black women known as “Leading Women Defined,” which featured a casual conversation between former first lady Michelle Obama and former senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett.

But according to the New York Post’s Page Six, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who was in attendance was booted from the remainder of the conference after she wrote an article about some of the comments Obama had made during the discussion.

Robin Givhan, a fashion critic and staff writer for The Washington Post, documented the highlights of the friendly chat between Obama and Jarrett.

Some of the highlights of the conversation included the former first lady’s thoughts on President Donald Trump’s inauguration as the Obamas prepared to leave the White House, the role she played during the 2008 election, her difficulty settling in as “the spouse” to the president, how she described her White House garden as a “subversive act” to garner trust with the public and her upcoming memoir. Of course Givhan also wrote about what Obama was wearing … after all, she is a fashion critic.

But following the publication of the article, according to Page Six, BET demanded Givhan leave the conference early amid claims that she had violated a “sacred space” by publishing the content of the conversation.

They also canceled a panel discussion that Givhan initially had been asked to moderate.

However, Page Six noted that BET’s claim that Obama’s discussion was “private” and not intended to be shared with anyone else outside the small gathering in attendance didn’t hold up to scrutiny given the fact that BET itself posted clips from the discussion on its site.

Furthermore, Jarrett also posted those clips on social media and told everyone to “tune in” to the network so they could hear what Obama had to say.

Shortly thereafter, the dispute descended into a sharp back-and-forth on social media between Givhan and others who were irked at what she had done, as can be seen on Givhan’s Twitter feed.

Several of her critics asserted that the conversation had been “off-the-record” — an assertion Givhan flatly denied — and one user claimed the reporter had “violated a sacred trust” between black women.

Another said what she had done was a “complete violation of journalistic ethics and Black girl code, all at once,” while still another asserted through a hashtag that Givhan was “#notoneofus,” as if she were being banished from the exclusive realm of accepted professional black women.

For their part, a BET representative told Page Six that Givhan had been “invited as a guest (not working press) to moderate a fashion panel,” and noted that her travel and lodging expenses had been paid for by the network.

“She was made aware that it was an intimate conversation in a sacred space of sisterhood and fellowship,” the rep added.

Neither Givhan nor representatives for Obama responded to requests for comment on the report from Page Six.

If the WaPo reporter really was instructed ahead of time that the conversation between Obama and Jarrett was “off the record” and a private affair, but published anyway, then BET was justified in booting her from the remainder of the conference — though the mean-spirited commentary she received on social media still crossed the line.

But if Givhan received no prior warning on the matter — and given the fact that BET itself published the conversation later — then this is just a major display of hypocrisy and unnecessary infighting.

What do you think?


© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service