Replies

RE :”The ‘press’ has every intention of NOT giving any coverage to blacks rioting. Riots hurt the illusion of democrats being the party of ‘oh so tolerant’ liberals... rather than the party that is propped up by a dependent angry black underclass”

Last week you said the exact opposite to me, that libs want us to see, or at least dont care if we see, the blacks riot:

To: sickoflibs
You don’t think riots help democrats? Gimme a break - it keeps all their ‘victim groups’ in line. Besides democrats don’t need the respectable or white vote anyhow. They’re the party of criminals...
#27 posted on Thursday, July 11, 2013 10:37:59 AM by GOPJ (Department of Justice organized rallies against George Zimmerman.)

I especially like the part 'gimme a break' when you were telling me the opposite.

Sick the way to know what dems are thinking is to read reports in the press. The press has 'sources' it's not just 'wordsmithing' it's names in a black book. Those with good 'sources' have control - those without don't. Sources are 'in the know' democrats.

So you're right about my comments - the press and dems were pushing the IDEA of riots - my guess as a way of influencing the outcome.

It didn't work.

Now they're in Plan B witch is 'we're still wonderful - we didn't lose the case - and only a few are acting out' or whatever term they'll find to downplay the mess. IF downplaying works best for them.

For now Dems are worrying about backlash - they don't want to be identified as the party of angry blacks propping up white liberal elites living around DC ( which is what they are) so the tactics will change as necessary.

The easiest way to see this process of liberal 'change' in action is to read the Drudge Report then compare that coverage to your average liberal newspaper. Drudge will follow the news - newspapers follow the democrat line. The rest of the MSM follows newspapers.

'It's not News until the New York Times says it's news' is strangely factual.

If riots aren't covered except on page 4 - at the bottom - it means dems don't want people talking about riots. If threats of violence are on page one - it means threats work at that time. When fudge excuses like 'we don't want to encourage' the few who are acting out appears, it means they're starting to lose control of the story. That's my guess. Who knows?

Just remember that Dems are vile - but they're not stupid. They'll can change on a dime if one idea focus tests better than another.