|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
lakerjoshua
Franchise Player
Joined: 28 Nov 2007
Posts: 11277
Location: Bay Area
|
 Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2017 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Hey, I pointed out that you were smart . . . |
volt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Dominator
Star Player
Joined: 19 Nov 2005
Posts: 8676
Location: Irvine
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2017 4:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| adkindo wrote: | | ContagiousInspiration wrote: | | Raijin wrote: |
Yet Trump still won |
Against the will of the people |
Scoreboard |
For a guy that didn't vote for Trump you sure seem to come to his defense a lot |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kikanga
Retired Number
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29258
Location: La La Land
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2017 6:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just saw this quote. I like it.
| Quote: | | Citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express. |
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cutheon
Franchise Player
Joined: 10 Jul 2009
Posts: 12125
Location: Bay Area
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2017 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kikanga wrote: | Just saw this quote. I like it.
| Quote: | | Citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express. |
|
This guy reddits. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LakerSanity
Moderator
Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 33474
Location: Long Beach, California
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2017 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My step mother, a Trump voter, concedes today she wishes Hillary was in office. She was adamant anti-hillary and remains a fox news watcher, so it's not a small concession on her part. She isn't part of the Trump base, but I would count her as a swing voter. Yea, Trump will be a one term president.
Also, don't be surprised to see Nevada go from purple to blue next election cycle.
_________________
LakersGround's Terms of Service
Twitter: @DeleteThisPost |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChefLinda
Moderator
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 24158
Location: Boston
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2017 7:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
From March 2014:
| Quote: | Donald J. TrumpVerified account @realDonaldTrump
It's almost like the United States has no President - we are a rudderless ship heading for a major disaster. Good luck everyone! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
paymonM
Star Player
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Posts: 4393
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2017 8:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mnuchin making sure he gives himself a nice tax break ...... you would think he would be sensitive to neo-nazi threats ...... I guess a tax break is more important
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/143b415b-350e-3710-a3d7-3a559d71cba2/ss_mnuchin%E2%80%99s-former-yale.html#mycomments
Mnuchin tells Yale classmates: Trump does not equate neo-Nazis with peaceful protesters
"Two hundred and ninety-three members of the Yale class of 1985 have signed a letter requesting that their former classmate, Treasury Sec. Steven Mnuchin, immediately resign from his job. The letter claimed that President Trump has aligned himself with white supremacist fringe groups when he blamed "both sides" for the violence that erupted in the Charlottesville protests last week. "We call upon you, as our friend, our classmate, and as a fellow American, to resign in protest of President Trump's support of Nazism and white supremacy. We know you are better than this, and we are counting on you to do the right thing," it read. The letter to Mnuchin was posted at lettertostevemnuchin.com." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SweetP
Star Player
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 6054
Location: My own little piece of reality
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2017 8:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ChefLinda wrote: | From March 2014:
| Quote: | Donald J. TrumpVerified account @realDonaldTrump
It's almost like the United States has no President - we are a rudderless ship heading for a major disaster. Good luck everyone! |
|
I'm starting to think Trump is like Nostradamus, in his ability to foretell his own presidency in his historical tweets.
Everything Trump projected on Obama is happening with Trump.
There's a Twilight Zone episode in there somewhere.
_________________
“There is always light if only we're brave enough to see it, if only we're brave enough to be it.” --Amanda Gorman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
adkindo
Retired Number
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 40345
Location: Dirty South
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2017 8:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
First, I want to say I find this information mostly irrelevant in a vacuum because I find it unfair to judge anyone based on the actions of another, even if it is a close relative. That being said, I have seen many posts on LG about a report of Trumps father attending or being in the vicinity of a KKK event many years ago with insinuations that this must mean something....but you know what they say about those that live in glass houses...
Pelosi’s Dad Once Praised ‘The Lives’ Of Robert E. Lee And Stonewall Jackson At Statue Dedication
| Quote: | | At the dedication, D’Alesandro said of the monument, “Today, with our nation beset by subversive groups and propaganda which seeks to destroy our national unity, we can look for inspiration to the lives of Lee and Jackson to remind us to be resolute and determined in preserving our sacred institutions.” |
Link |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LakerSanity
Moderator
Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 33474
Location: Long Beach, California
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2017 9:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
^Everything is context. Trump's father's past is circumstantial evidence against Trump, only made relevant by Trump's racist/prejudice actions throughout his life, as a candidate and, finally, as a President. Conversely, that fact about Pelosi's father (assuming it is true as I'm not one to believe what comes from the daily caller) is made irrelevant by the fact that (a) there is no evidence of Pelosi being in any way a confederate supporter or a racist of any kind, (b) she has worked her life pursuing agendas that fight racism and (c) that in the present she wants both monuments taken down.
_________________
LakersGround's Terms of Service
Twitter: @DeleteThisPost |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
adkindo
Retired Number
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 40345
Location: Dirty South
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2017 9:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LakerSanity wrote: | | ^Everything is context. Trump's father's past is circumstantial evidence against Trump, only made relevant by Trump's racist/prejudice actions throughout his life, as a candidate and, finally, as a President. Conversely, that fact about Pelosi's father (assuming it is true as I'm not one to believe what comes from the daily caller) is made irrelevant by the fact that (a) there is no evidence of Pelosi being in any way a confederate supporter or a racist of any kind, (b) she has worked her life pursuing agendas that fight racism and (c) that in the present she wants both monuments taken down. |
I am not surprised that you are not a fan of the DC, but I think you would agree that they report from a conservative perspective; they do no create false quotes. I really do not want to get into an in depth debate on Pelosi, but lets just say that I agree with you that I do not think of her as a racist, but that is likely all we would agree on in regards to the Madam Speaker. My primary point is I do not care what her father said, nor do I care about if Trumps father was at a rally (which in the reports I have seen, it is mostly speculation), but the liberal media and the left weaponized this event in an attempt to shape the view of the man back when the only real "race" related ammo was that he wanted to build a wall. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LakerSanity
Moderator
Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 33474
Location: Long Beach, California
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2017 9:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| adkindo wrote: | | LakerSanity wrote: | | ^Everything is context. Trump's father's past is circumstantial evidence against Trump, only made relevant by Trump's racist/prejudice actions throughout his life, as a candidate and, finally, as a President. Conversely, that fact about Pelosi's father (assuming it is true as I'm not one to believe what comes from the daily caller) is made irrelevant by the fact that (a) there is no evidence of Pelosi being in any way a confederate supporter or a racist of any kind, (b) she has worked her life pursuing agendas that fight racism and (c) that in the present she wants both monuments taken down. |
I am not surprised that you are not a fan of the DC, but I think you would agree that they report from a conservative perspective; they do no create false quotes. I really do not want to get into an in depth debate on Pelosi, but lets just say that I agree with you that I do not think of her as a racist, but that is likely all we would agree on in regards to the Madam Speaker. My primary point is I do not care what her father said, nor do I care about if Trumps father was at a rally (which in the reports I have seen, it is mostly speculation), but the liberal media and the left weaponized this event in an attempt to shape the view of the man back when the only real "race" related ammo was that he wanted to build a wall. |
Sure.... if you aren't counting his housing discrimination case, the birther movement and his take on muslims as well. But yea, none of that implied anything about him.  And then there is everything else after that which I suppose we should all ignore too.
And nothing is weaponized. It's called reporting. That's what facts are. Saying otherwise implies the listener can't make their own informed opinion. Those who listen to facts aren't brainwashed by some so-called "liberal media," they just happen to believe that facts matter. It seems the "liberal media" tag is used whenever actual facts are reported, especially when such facts are contrary to what one would like to believe about themselves and especially those they support. Similarly, it's just like how the word "weaponized" is used when someone people support is attacked based on a fact that isn't liked by those same people or undermines their purported justifications for supporting that person.
_________________
LakersGround's Terms of Service
Twitter: @DeleteThisPost
Last edited by LakerSanity on Sat Aug 19, 2017 9:42 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
adkindo
Retired Number
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 40345
Location: Dirty South
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2017 9:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LakerSanity wrote: |
Sure.... if you aren't counting his housing discrimination case, the birther movement and his take on muslims. But yea, none of that implied anything about him.
And nothing is weaponized. It's called reporting. That's what facts are. Saying otherwise implies the listener can't make their own informed opinion. Those who listen to facts aren't brainwashed by some so-called "liberal media," they just happen to believe that facts matter. It seems the "liberal media" tag is used whenever actual facts are reported, especially when such facts are contrary to what one would like to believe about themselves and especially those they support. |
I can admit you got me on my point about it being limited to the wall at that time. In regards to the "liberal media" tag, I recognize it is and will continue to be used for political reasons, but none of that negates the vast majority of national media is liberal and reports with a liberal bias, not so much in what they report, but more often in what they choose not to report. The three networks, CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, WaPo, LA Times.....all have a liberal bent that is not encapsulated within their editorial departments, but is deeply embedded in their news rooms. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LakerSanity
Moderator
Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 33474
Location: Long Beach, California
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2017 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| adkindo wrote: | | LakerSanity wrote: |
Sure.... if you aren't counting his housing discrimination case, the birther movement and his take on muslims. But yea, none of that implied anything about him.
And nothing is weaponized. It's called reporting. That's what facts are. Saying otherwise implies the listener can't make their own informed opinion. Those who listen to facts aren't brainwashed by some so-called "liberal media," they just happen to believe that facts matter. It seems the "liberal media" tag is used whenever actual facts are reported, especially when such facts are contrary to what one would like to believe about themselves and especially those they support. |
I can admit you got me on my point about it being limited to the wall at that time. In regards to the "liberal media" tag, I recognize it is and will continue to be used for political reasons, but none of that negates the vast majority of national media is liberal and reports with a liberal bias, not so much in what they report, but more often in what they choose not to report. The three networks, CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, WaPo, LA Times.....all have a liberal bent that is not encapsulated within their editorial departments, but is deeply embedded in their news rooms. |
Disagree. Its just that the right has gone so far into fantasy land that suddenly anyone who reports actual facts is "liberal." Those same people, before the right went off the deep end into believing everything their propaganda wings tell them, used to just be called reporters.
It makes little sense that a decade or two ago, these same reporters were credible and respected... and now they are suddenly the so-called "liberal media"? No, what changed was not the credibility of these reporters but, rather, the conservative base's willingness to listen to them and recognize actual reporting/facts for the what it is. Its not a coincidence either that this same paradigm originated at the same time Fox news began its mission of becoming the primary source of information for the right. Where do you think you and other conservatives got the phrase "the liberal media" from in the first place? I'll give you a hint - its the same people that don't want you to listen to anyone but them.
_________________
LakersGround's Terms of Service
Twitter: @DeleteThisPost |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tlim
Star Player
Joined: 26 Jun 2002
Posts: 6649
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 20, 2017 1:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Daily Caller is less reputable and accurate than Faux Nus. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LakesGnrLake
Star Player
Joined: 07 Apr 2011
Posts: 1293
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 20, 2017 7:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LakerSanity wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | | LakerSanity wrote: |
Sure.... if you aren't counting his housing discrimination case, the birther movement and his take on muslims. But yea, none of that implied anything about him.
And nothing is weaponized. It's called reporting. That's what facts are. Saying otherwise implies the listener can't make their own informed opinion. Those who listen to facts aren't brainwashed by some so-called "liberal media," they just happen to believe that facts matter. It seems the "liberal media" tag is used whenever actual facts are reported, especially when such facts are contrary to what one would like to believe about themselves and especially those they support. |
I can admit you got me on my point about it being limited to the wall at that time. In regards to the "liberal media" tag, I recognize it is and will continue to be used for political reasons, but none of that negates the vast majority of national media is liberal and reports with a liberal bias, not so much in what they report, but more often in what they choose not to report. The three networks, CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, WaPo, LA Times.....all have a liberal bent that is not encapsulated within their editorial departments, but is deeply embedded in their news rooms. |
Disagree. Its just that the right has gone so far into fantasy land that suddenly anyone who reports actual facts is "liberal." Those same people, before the right went off the deep end into believing everything their propaganda wings tell them, used to just be called reporters.
It makes little sense that a decade or two ago, these same reporters were credible and respected... and now they are suddenly the so-called "liberal media"? No, what changed was not the credibility of these reporters but, rather, the conservative base's willingness to listen to them and recognize actual reporting/facts for the what it is. Its not a coincidence either that this same paradigm originated at the same time Fox news began its mission of becoming the primary source of information for the right. Where do you think you and other conservatives got the phrase "the liberal media" from in the first place? I'll give you a hint - its the same people that don't want you to listen to anyone but them. |
lets not act like CNN doesnt push a certain agenda. Every network does it. Just a list of stories CNN has published where they cut quotes or dont tell entire story to push theor narrative. FOX does the same thing so lets stop acting like watching news is anything more than jerking your own viewpoint.
https://www.taskade.com/v/ByzMWWQkql
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5y7lko/i_wanted_to_compile_every_cnn_fake_news_story/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LakerSanity
Moderator
Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 33474
Location: Long Beach, California
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 20, 2017 8:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
^My point stands. Yes, they all want ratings and sensationalize stories, but one definitely cares more about facts than the other.
_________________
LakersGround's Terms of Service
Twitter: @DeleteThisPost |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hector the Pup
Retired Number
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 35946
Location: L.A.
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 20, 2017 9:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
What a surprise. Someone is chanting fake news. At what point will they stop with the librul news and just admit that the majority of the news repoters are saying these things because its the truth and it needs to be said?
Most of the country does not like trump. There are facts to support why and many of them are so egregious that they wouldn't associate with him as an acquaintance.
Pro tip. If you need to cherry pick reasons to like someone much less support them then they're not someone you should like or support. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90304
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 20, 2017 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
The funny thing about using CNN as an example is that they have lost a lot of their credibility by the practice of pretending that every issue and event has two equally accurate sides. But even they have run out of ways to make it seem credible that theres a pro trump position that is rational and engaged in factual dialogue.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lucky_Shot
Star Player
Joined: 10 Jan 2016
Posts: 5140
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 20, 2017 11:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Omar Little wrote: | | The funny thing about using CNN as an example is that they have lost a lot of their credibility by the practice of pretending that every issue and event has two equally accurate sides. But even they have run out of ways to make it seem credible that theres a pro trump position that is rational and engaged in factual dialogue. |
Evertime I watch CNN they're destroying the President at every turn. They covered Obama with much more respect. It gets old watching CNN always talking about trump and they're always bashing him.
But honestly Trump asks for it, the guy just isn't smooth like Obama. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67579
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 20, 2017 11:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
NSFW. Takes a few seconds to load.
Don't know if this has been posted. Elle Reeve is a brave woman.
Christopher Cantwell is what the alt-right/White supremacist movement, however you want to label them is all about.
If You Are Not Angry You Are Not Paying Attention.
22:04 minuets in duration.
LINK
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90304
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 20, 2017 11:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lucky_Shot wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | The funny thing about using CNN as an example is that they have lost a lot of their credibility by the practice of pretending that every issue and event has two equally accurate sides. But even they have run out of ways to make it seem credible that theres a pro trump position that is rational and engaged in factual dialogue. |
Evertime I watch CNN they're destroying the President at every turn. They covered Obama with much more respect. It gets old watching CNN always talking about trump and they're always bashing him.
But honestly Trump asks for it, the guy just isn't smooth like Obama. |
Well, smooth is one part of it, dignified, professional, and sane as well. But CNN hosted a lot of panels where opponents took shots at Obama, and they covered it all. They actually were quite generous to Trump during the campaign, despite him being so deliberately and transparently awful. He basically had infomercial time on CNN whenever he wanted. It's just gotten so bad even they can't find a balance.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lakersken80
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 38771
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 20, 2017 11:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LakerSanity wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | | LakerSanity wrote: |
Sure.... if you aren't counting his housing discrimination case, the birther movement and his take on muslims. But yea, none of that implied anything about him.
And nothing is weaponized. It's called reporting. That's what facts are. Saying otherwise implies the listener can't make their own informed opinion. Those who listen to facts aren't brainwashed by some so-called "liberal media," they just happen to believe that facts matter. It seems the "liberal media" tag is used whenever actual facts are reported, especially when such facts are contrary to what one would like to believe about themselves and especially those they support. |
I can admit you got me on my point about it being limited to the wall at that time. In regards to the "liberal media" tag, I recognize it is and will continue to be used for political reasons, but none of that negates the vast majority of national media is liberal and reports with a liberal bias, not so much in what they report, but more often in what they choose not to report. The three networks, CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, WaPo, LA Times.....all have a liberal bent that is not encapsulated within their editorial departments, but is deeply embedded in their news rooms. |
Disagree. Its just that the right has gone so far into fantasy land that suddenly anyone who reports actual facts is "liberal." Those same people, before the right went off the deep end into believing everything their propaganda wings tell them, used to just be called reporters.
It makes little sense that a decade or two ago, these same reporters were credible and respected... and now they are suddenly the so-called "liberal media"? No, what changed was not the credibility of these reporters but, rather, the conservative base's willingness to listen to them and recognize actual reporting/facts for the what it is. Its not a coincidence either that this same paradigm originated at the same time Fox news began its mission of becoming the primary source of information for the right. Where do you think you and other conservatives got the phrase "the liberal media" from in the first place? I'll give you a hint - its the same people that don't want you to listen to anyone but them. |
I'd say the news media especially the 24 hour news channels has changed radically since when it was first introduced. They stopped strictly reporting the news and went to full on commentary mode since the 90's. Many reasons for this include the fact that instead of a single go to channel, which cable viewers went for news, CNN, at the time, now there are multiple outlets MSNBC and FOX News which came onboard in the 1996. And then later Current TV which later became Al Jazeera, RTN, etc....more competition meant that the networks couldn't simply just report the news they had to differentiate themselves from the competition which meant inserting themselves into the conversation and siding with a particular view. This meant more ratings which translates into more money for the networks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Huey Lewis & The News
Star Player
Joined: 18 Dec 2015
Posts: 5234
Location: So what's the uh...topic of discussion?
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 20, 2017 11:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LakesGnrLake wrote: | | LakerSanity wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | | LakerSanity wrote: |
Sure.... if you aren't counting his housing discrimination case, the birther movement and his take on muslims. But yea, none of that implied anything about him.
And nothing is weaponized. It's called reporting. That's what facts are. Saying otherwise implies the listener can't make their own informed opinion. Those who listen to facts aren't brainwashed by some so-called "liberal media," they just happen to believe that facts matter. It seems the "liberal media" tag is used whenever actual facts are reported, especially when such facts are contrary to what one would like to believe about themselves and especially those they support. |
I can admit you got me on my point about it being limited to the wall at that time. In regards to the "liberal media" tag, I recognize it is and will continue to be used for political reasons, but none of that negates the vast majority of national media is liberal and reports with a liberal bias, not so much in what they report, but more often in what they choose not to report. The three networks, CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, WaPo, LA Times.....all have a liberal bent that is not encapsulated within their editorial departments, but is deeply embedded in their news rooms. |
Disagree. Its just that the right has gone so far into fantasy land that suddenly anyone who reports actual facts is "liberal." Those same people, before the right went off the deep end into believing everything their propaganda wings tell them, used to just be called reporters.
It makes little sense that a decade or two ago, these same reporters were credible and respected... and now they are suddenly the so-called "liberal media"? No, what changed was not the credibility of these reporters but, rather, the conservative base's willingness to listen to them and recognize actual reporting/facts for the what it is. Its not a coincidence either that this same paradigm originated at the same time Fox news began its mission of becoming the primary source of information for the right. Where do you think you and other conservatives got the phrase "the liberal media" from in the first place? I'll give you a hint - its the same people that don't want you to listen to anyone but them. |
lets not act like CNN doesnt push a certain agenda. Every network does it. Just a list of stories CNN has published where they cut quotes or dont tell entire story to push theor narrative. FOX does the same thing so lets stop acting like watching news is anything more than jerking your own viewpoint.
https://www.taskade.com/v/ByzMWWQkql
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5y7lko/i_wanted_to_compile_every_cnn_fake_news_story/ |
Enough. You went to bat for pizzagate. You're fake news.
_________________
"All wars are civil wars, because all men are brothers."
http://forums.lakersground.net/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=13018 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LakesGnrLake
Star Player
Joined: 07 Apr 2011
Posts: 1293
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 20, 2017 11:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Huey Lewis & The News wrote: | | LakesGnrLake wrote: | | LakerSanity wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | | LakerSanity wrote: |
Sure.... if you aren't counting his housing discrimination case, the birther movement and his take on muslims. But yea, none of that implied anything about him.
And nothing is weaponized. It's called reporting. That's what facts are. Saying otherwise implies the listener can't make their own informed opinion. Those who listen to facts aren't brainwashed by some so-called "liberal media," they just happen to believe that facts matter. It seems the "liberal media" tag is used whenever actual facts are reported, especially when such facts are contrary to what one would like to believe about themselves and especially those they support. |
I can admit you got me on my point about it being limited to the wall at that time. In regards to the "liberal media" tag, I recognize it is and will continue to be used for political reasons, but none of that negates the vast majority of national media is liberal and reports with a liberal bias, not so much in what they report, but more often in what they choose not to report. The three networks, CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, WaPo, LA Times.....all have a liberal bent that is not encapsulated within their editorial departments, but is deeply embedded in their news rooms. |
Disagree. Its just that the right has gone so far into fantasy land that suddenly anyone who reports actual facts is "liberal." Those same people, before the right went off the deep end into believing everything their propaganda wings tell them, used to just be called reporters.
It makes little sense that a decade or two ago, these same reporters were credible and respected... and now they are suddenly the so-called "liberal media"? No, what changed was not the credibility of these reporters but, rather, the conservative base's willingness to listen to them and recognize actual reporting/facts for the what it is. Its not a coincidence either that this same paradigm originated at the same time Fox news began its mission of becoming the primary source of information for the right. Where do you think you and other conservatives got the phrase "the liberal media" from in the first place? I'll give you a hint - its the same people that don't want you to listen to anyone but them. |
lets not act like CNN doesnt push a certain agenda. Every network does it. Just a list of stories CNN has published where they cut quotes or dont tell entire story to push theor narrative. FOX does the same thing so lets stop acting like watching news is anything more than jerking your own viewpoint.
https://www.taskade.com/v/ByzMWWQkql
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5y7lko/i_wanted_to_compile_every_cnn_fake_news_story/ |
Enough. You went to bat for pizzagate. You're fake news. |
strawman all you want. doesnt change the fact cnn along with other networks have been caught multiple times altering stories to fit their narrative. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
