NRA Video: Moms

Discussions and announcements related to the NRA.

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

User avatar

VMI77
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 6096
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 5:49 pm
Location: Victoria, Texas

Re: NRA Video: Moms

#16

Post by VMI77 » Wed Sep 23, 2015 10:55 am

dale blanker wrote:Reply in Bold.
baldeagle wrote: In 2007 there was about 10,000 at the A.N.S.W.E.R. protest. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_17, ... ar_protest
Wikipedia does not support your claim. Have you even read it???
dale blanker wrote:Anyway, thanks for protecting The Wall - I would too if I was sure the threat was real and not contrived to get attention.
It was not contrived. There were threats on anarchist and anti-war discussion forums and active plans to deface the Wall. The Gathering of Eagles was a grassroots reaction to that threat.
Defacing The Wall makes no sense for pacifists who are objecting to war. The memorials are honoring those who gave their lives and are not glorifying war. But of course there are some that will believe anything.

We stood in line, three abreast, waiting to get in to the Wall while the protesters marched past us, heads down, signs down and reversed so they couldn't be read until they passed us. There were vets there spoiling for a fight, and if one protester had said something, they would have been cold cocked right there.
Hmm, so those who fought and died for our freedoms, including the 1st amendment, would have been proud(?) Don't think so. If the media saw this threat and did not report it maybe the media was doing the country a favor.
If Wikipedia doesn't support a claim it must not be true. :biggrinjester:

There for sure haven't been any "pacifists" (except maybe Quakers) in the US since around November 2008, so unless they all magically disappeared by January 20th, 2009, then there weren't really any pacifists around this century, just some George Bush haters. This has to be the case because we all know that if there were any pacifists or war protesters they'd be all over the media, which of course, is completely objective, never lies, and does it's absolute best to paint an accurate picture of reality to ensure an informed populace for the benefit of the Republic. :smilelol5:
"Journalism, n. A job for people who flunked out of STEM courses, enjoy making up stories, and have no detectable integrity or morals."

From the WeaponsMan blog, weaponsman.com

User avatar

baldeagle
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 5240
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:26 pm
Location: Richardson, TX

Re: NRA Video: Moms

#17

Post by baldeagle » Wed Sep 23, 2015 6:14 pm

dale blanker wrote:Reply in Bold.
baldeagle wrote: In 2007 there was about 10,000 at the A.N.S.W.E.R. protest. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_17, ... ar_protest
Wikipedia does not support your claim. Have you even read it???
Of course I've read it. Let me help you:
Organizers estimated 15,000 to 30,000 protesters attended, while the police gave informal estimates of 10,000 to 20,000.[1]
Do you see where the police estimated 10,000 to 20,000 at the A.N.S.W.E.R. protest? I say 10,000 because I saw them. I doubt seriously it was anywhere near the upper limit of 20,000 that the police estimated.
dale blanker wrote:Anyway, thanks for protecting The Wall - I would too if I was sure the threat was real and not contrived to get attention.
baldeagle wrote:It was not contrived. There were threats on anarchist and anti-war discussion forums and active plans to deface the Wall. The Gathering of Eagles was a grassroots reaction to that threat.
Defacing The Wall makes no sense for pacifists who are objecting to war. The memorials are honoring those who gave their lives and are not glorifying war. But of course there are some that will believe anything.
So I give you eyewitness information and you "refute" it with "logic"? Clearly you don't want to believe me, so why not just say, "I don't believe you. I think you are lying."?

I clearly stated that A.N.S.W.E.R. is a communist front. Communists are not pacifists. I also stated that anarchists made threats. Anarchists aren't pacifists. You ignored all of that so you could take issue with my claims. Apparently you have an agenda.
dale blanker wrote:
baldeagle wrote:We stood in line, three abreast, waiting to get in to the Wall while the protesters marched past us, heads down, signs down and reversed so they couldn't be read until they passed us. There were vets there spoiling for a fight, and if one protester had said something, they would have been cold cocked right there.
Hmm, so those who fought and died for our freedoms, including the 1st amendment, would have been proud(?) Don't think so. If the media saw this threat and did not report it maybe the media was doing the country a favor.
Where did I say they would be proud? Please stop putting words in my mouth and calling me a liar. I was there. I am faithfully reporting what I saw, and you are calling me a liar. You claim you're skeptical that the media would not have reported this when I told you the media wasn't there. They had ZERO interest in covering our counter protest. ZERO. Which was the entire point of my post. Not one reporter, not one camera crew, ever came to our counter protest. No one at our protest was interviewed, as far as I know. The media was CLEARLY not interested in what we were doing. It was obvious. I was there. I saw it. You can't make that go away with the wave of your hand.

First you owe me an apology for calling me a liar. Then you need to go back and read what I wrote and respond to that rather than your concocted scenario which has no relationship to what I stated.
The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. James Madison
NRA Life Member Texas Firearms Coalition member

User avatar

Topic author
Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 17040
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: NRA Video: Moms

#18

Post by Charles L. Cotton » Wed Sep 23, 2015 6:59 pm

dale blanker wrote:It sure makes sense to have protection at home but hearing about the old media conspiracy or media bias is tiresome. This stuff just appeals to the lowest common denominator. I'm sure NRA can do a lot better than this. :tiphat:
Between this garbage and your personal attack on another Forum Member, you won't be here much longer. Stop now or leave.

Chas.
Image

User avatar

dale blanker
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 337
Joined: Sat May 02, 2015 1:49 am

Re: NRA Video: Moms

#19

Post by dale blanker » Wed Sep 23, 2015 11:39 pm

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
dale blanker wrote:It sure makes sense to have protection at home but hearing about the old media conspiracy or media bias is tiresome. This stuff just appeals to the lowest common denominator. I'm sure NRA can do a lot better than this. :tiphat:
Between this garbage and your personal attack on another Forum Member, you won't be here much longer. Stop now or leave.

Chas.
I do apologize because I have not been clear.

I was not calling Baldeagle a liar. I believe that he believed his mission was worthwhile. I found it hard to believe that guys opposed to the Iraq war would deface the memorial of another war. It makes their point.

Baldeagle at first referred to a 2005 antiwar protest and then corrected the date to 2007. Ok. Then he provided a Wikipedia description of the 2007 event but Wikipedia was talking about the number of protesters, not the number of GoE members which was the original point. His original point was that the media did not fairly report the GoE rally which contained 10 times the size of the protester rally. That would put the number in the GoE rally at 100,000 to 300,000. And the media would not report this?? Baldeagle's Wikipedia reference also noted that the antiwar protesters had prayer meeting at the National Cathedral the night before the rally. That does not sound like a violent group to me but Baldeagle believed it might be and he may have been right.

I never said and still don't think Baldeagle was deliberately lying. I was challenging his perception of the situation that was supposed to show the media was unfair and pointing out errors in his postings. My grandfather was a reporter for the St. Louis Post Dispatch and it's his memory that has prompted my defense of the media in general. But, do they always get it right? Heck NO.
"You cannot be serious." John McEnroe

User avatar

Topic author
Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 17040
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: NRA Video: Moms

#20

Post by Charles L. Cotton » Thu Sep 24, 2015 12:07 am

dale blanker wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
dale blanker wrote:It sure makes sense to have protection at home but hearing about the old media conspiracy or media bias is tiresome. This stuff just appeals to the lowest common denominator. I'm sure NRA can do a lot better than this. :tiphat:
Between this garbage and your personal attack on another Forum Member, you won't be here much longer. Stop now or leave.

Chas.
I do apologize because I have not been clear.

I was not calling Baldeagle a liar. I believe that he believed his mission was worthwhile. I found it hard to believe that guys opposed to the Iraq war would deface the memorial of another war. It makes their point.

Baldeagle at first referred to a 2005 antiwar protest and then corrected the date to 2007. Ok. Then he provided a Wikipedia description of the 2007 event but Wikipedia was talking about the number of protesters, not the number of GoE members which was the original point. His original point was that the media did not fairly report the GoE rally which contained 10 times the size of the protester rally. That would put the number in the GoE rally at 100,000 to 300,000. And the media would not report this?? Baldeagle's Wikipedia reference also noted that the antiwar protesters had prayer meeting at the National Cathedral the night before the rally. That does not sound like a violent group to me but Baldeagle believed it might be and he may have been right.

I never said and still don't think Baldeagle was deliberately lying. I was challenging his perception of the situation that was supposed to show the media was unfair and pointing out errors in his postings. My grandfather was a reporter for the St. Louis Post Dispatch and it's his memory that has prompted my defense of the media in general. But, do they always get it right? Heck NO.
You just won't quit. Yes, you were calling him a liar and this latest crap from you is just your attempt to deny the obvious.

Good-bye.
Chas.
Image

User avatar

Topic author
Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 17040
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: NRA Video: Moms

#21

Post by Charles L. Cotton » Thu Sep 24, 2015 9:06 pm

dale blanker wrote:It sure makes sense to have protection at home but hearing about the old media conspiracy or media bias is tiresome. This stuff just appeals to the lowest common denominator. I'm sure NRA can do a lot better than this. :tiphat:
Try to defend the media all you like, but no one outside of the media are going to listen to you. You imply that the NRA is spreading false allegations against the media and that's garbage. The media is biased pure and simple.

Chas.
Image

User avatar

Charlies.Contingency
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 808
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2014 4:58 pm
Location: South Central Texas

Re: NRA Video: Moms

#22

Post by Charlies.Contingency » Thu Sep 24, 2015 9:58 pm

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
dale blanker wrote:It sure makes sense to have protection at home but hearing about the old media conspiracy or media bias is tiresome. This stuff just appeals to the lowest common denominator. I'm sure NRA can do a lot better than this. :tiphat:
Try to defend the media all you like, but no one outside of the media are going to listen to you. You imply that the NRA is spreading false allegations against the media and that's garbage. The media is biased pure and simple.

Chas.
:iagree: There is an obvious snarling agenda that can be observed when it come to the media. In my experience, it is absolutely disgusting what some would cover up and ignore, and what will be blown out of proportion, and sometimes even speculated upon or lied about, all for the sake of what seems to me a political agenda.

Thank you Chas for chiming in. I have held my tongue to avoid coming off as rude and obnoxious to a new member, but my respect for baldeagle and the allegations were beginning to aggravate me.

Also, thank you for sharing the video here. My wife fortunately already knows how corrupted the media has been, and currently is.
Sent from Iphone: Please IGNORE any grammatical or spelling errors.
ALL of my statements are to be considered opinionated and not factual.

User avatar

VMI77
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 6096
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 5:49 pm
Location: Victoria, Texas

Re: NRA Video: Moms

#23

Post by VMI77 » Tue Sep 29, 2015 10:06 am

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/09 ... m=Firewire

Here's how the anti-gun crowd has responded. Anti-gun liberals repeatedly demonstrate their psychopathology. People like this are not susceptible to reason or facts, which is why arguing with them is a waste of breath.
An anti-gun Twitter user on Sunday posted his edited version of a Dana Loesch NRA promotional video in which TheBlaze TV host shoots herself in the head.
Image
"Journalism, n. A job for people who flunked out of STEM courses, enjoy making up stories, and have no detectable integrity or morals."

From the WeaponsMan blog, weaponsman.com

Post Reply

Return to “National Rifle Association”