Tuesday, June 23, 2020

Chris Kimball Gets Biblical Concepts Wrong - Part V

Chris Kimball: I will not be an enabler! 

Then you wouldn't have responded to me in the first place. The fact that you did contradicts what you're trying to claim about your actions.

What you're really saying is that you will not resist the urge to do what you accuse others of doing... Forcing your politics and factually deficient arguments down people's throats. You will not sit back and refuse an opportunity to demonstrate anger, control, and narcissism issues.

Chris Kimball: So, you sir, go right ahead and try to bully all you want, but you won't bully me. 

Don't mistake my subjecting your argument to a blistering fact check scrutiny as my "being a bully". It isn't. However, your actions show that you're engaging in bullying. Your first response on the thread indicated such. You validated this with the remainder of your replies during the argument.

Chris Kimball: You really should try and be objective and less tunnel vision about Trump. 

You see, this is an example of you shoving your politics down peoples' throats.

I'm being objective and am basing my arguments on the facts. I will not debate a topic against the opposition unless I have extensive first-hand, or reading/researched, experience in the topic. My outlook on President Trump and on others is based on an extensive search of the facts.

Meaning, when people like you advance completely false statements, provably wrong statements, about President Trump, or about another topic, I'm going to prove the statements wrong. My doing so does not make me someone "with" "tunnel vision". It makes me somebody that is not susceptible to propaganda/gaslighting.

The reality? You, and others like you, are the ones that have tunnel vision on topics related to President Trump.

If you have read the Bible, as you implied, then you would be familiar with one of God's laws that requires a thorough investigation of claims against someone. You failed to do that would President Trump. I will demonstrate that below.

Chris Kimball: He says things(that his followers do not hear or see) and then denys he's said them. He's been video taped for heaven sake. He CAN'T deny it!!! So really, is he a trustworthy person? 

I've gone through the applicable transcripts of President Trump's speeches, and have read the statements on twitter and elsewhere. Additionally, I have seen some of the videos that you reference. Those videos are taken out of context. They cherry-pick those statements and force those cherry-picked statements to fit their propagandist narratives. However, when matched to what President Trump actually said, you get a completely different narrative.

I highly doubt that you have a sense of fairness to go through President Trump's actual speeches to see for yourself what he actually said. You would rather go by anti-Trump media, go by what they say, and fully accept their out of context/cherry-picked video content, as gospel.

Your insinuation, that anti-Trump media propaganda is "fact", given the availability of his actual statements providing a completely different narrative, demonstrates your narrowmindedness with regards to things related to President Trump.

Chris Kimball: Is this "TEXTBOOK PROPAGANDA"?

Yes, the videos and statements that you reference contain cherry-picked President Trump statements. The propagandists that created the videos you listened to selectively quoted President Trump in order to take him out of context and spew leftist propaganda.

We saw this in one of the briefings. A reporter tried to read back one of these out of context statements to the president. President Trump forced him to read his entire statement. When the reporter read President Trump's entire statement, the narrative completely changed from what the reporter initially pushed. President Trump responded by saying, "Thank you."

Again, one of my Army military occupational specialties is Psychological Operations (PSYOP). One of the things that PSYOP does overseas is counterpropaganda. What I did during our argument, as a private citizen/retired Soldier, is an example of what I would do if I were deployed as part of a psychological operations product and development team overseas when countering enemy propaganda.

Your references, based on your arguments, are textbook propaganda. Your argument is propaganda. You've advanced repeated leftist propaganda talking points and have failed to advance a valid argument showing how you've come to the erroneous conclusions that you've argued.

No comments: