Jump to content

CNN losing credibility as each day passes... Its pure propaganda at this point


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

Go home, CNN, you’re DRUNK: CNN’s take on Martin Luther King is their dumbest take YET

Appears CNN finally figured out that Martin Luther King Jr. was actually a registered Republican so in their desperation to IGNORE that inconvenient tidbit they decided to make him a socialist hero.

What in the blue Hell are they talking about?

 

 

 

DTlC4KKXcAEQDY-.jpg

 

Socialism has never been and will never be COOL.

 

From CNN:

If you’re concerned about inequality, health care, climate change or even the nastiness of our political disagreements, then King has plenty to say to you. To see that version of King, though, we have to dust off the cliches and look at him anew

If you’re more familiar with your smartphone than your history, try this: Think of King not just as a civil rights hero, but also as an app — his legacy has to be updated to remain relevant.

Think of MLK as an app?

 
 


 

 

Coming up in the next hour: CNN celebrates those radical 60's freedom fighters, the Manson Family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, B-Man said:

Go home, CNN, you’re DRUNK: CNN’s take on Martin Luther King is their dumbest take YET

Appears CNN finally figured out that Martin Luther King Jr. was actually a registered Republican so in their desperation to IGNORE that inconvenient tidbit they decided to make him a socialist hero.

What in the blue Hell are they talking about?

He never was a registered Republican or Democrat and never endorsed a candidate.  It's a myth that's been propagated among conservative circles, although friends think that he did vote Republican when he was a young man fighting the Dixiecrats.  King made it a point to never endorse a candidate or swear allegiance to a party.  He spoke out against Goldwater in '64 (here's his letter), but never directly endorsed Johnson.  King's father was a registered Republican and switched to a Democrat when Kennedy ran in '60.

  • Like (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, KD in CA said:

Fake news awards handed out and to no one's surprise, CNN reaped the biggest haul.   Congratulations CNN!!!

 

https://gop.com/the-highly-anticipated-2017-fake-news-awards/

 

The awards Rosened the GOP's website

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-announces-fake-news-awards-crashing-gop-website-n838631

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CNN declares breaking news every 15 minutes for decades, there’s really been only a dozen honest events since 1980 worthy of interrupting our daily lives.

 

maybe  not even a dozen

 

Edited by row_33
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just here to read the work of such stable geniuses. You guys are, like, really smart.

On ‎1‎/‎15‎/‎2018 at 8:46 PM, Doc Brown said:

He never was a registered Republican or Democrat and never endorsed a candidate.  It's a myth that's been propagated among conservative circles, although friends think that he did vote Republican when he was a young man fighting the Dixiecrats.  King made it a point to never endorse a candidate or swear allegiance to a party.  He spoke out against Goldwater in '64 (here's his letter), but never directly endorsed Johnson.  King's father was a registered Republican and switched to a Democrat when Kennedy ran in '60.

Once upon a time Republicans held noble positions on a wide host of issues, not the least of which was their championing of civil rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, KW95 said:

You guys bite all the time.  CNN is a business.  Talking about big fat Trump sells. Its as easy as that.

 

I've seen their ratings weekly. 

 

It doesn't sell nearly as well it did before Zucker turned it into a partisan gossip rag. 

 

There are middling YouTube channels that draw more viewers. Why do you think Zucker is thinking about jumping ship to ESPN? Because he's getting his ass kicked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I've seen their ratings weekly. 

 

It doesn't sell nearly as well it did before Zucker turned it into a partisan gossip rag. 

 

There are middling YouTube channels that draw more viewers. Why do you think Zucker is thinking about jumping ship to ESPN? Because he's getting his ass kicked.

 

Tom and Jerry reruns on Boomerang do better ratings.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, KW95 said:

You guys bite all the time.  CNN is a business.  Talking about big fat Trump sells. Its as easy as that.

So, what you are saying is that CNN is not news based but only profit based? Nice place to get your "news".

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

More on that....................

 

CLUELESS AT CNN

Maeve Reston, a national politics reporter at CNN, complained today that “when you talk to people about Russia — and that’s all we talk about at CNN basically — they say they don’t care.” Reston attributed the nation’s indifference to the fact that the matter of alleged collusion between President Trump and Russia “doesn’t have any effect on their lives.”

 

That’s one theory. Here’s mine. CNN and other anti-Trump news outlets have been talking ad nauseam about alleged collusion for more than a year but have failed to provide any reason to believe collusion occurred.

 

In other words, the problem for CNN isn’t that the public doesn’t care about collusion with Russia. The problem is it doesn’t care about a collusion story that, from all that appears now, lacks a factual basis.

 

CNN has tantalized the viewing public with intimations of collusion but, night-after night, week-after week, failed to deliver. Naturally, the public long ago lost interest.

 

In the unlikely event that Robert Mueller and his team of Trump-haters come up with evidence that backs a Trump-Russia collusion story, I’m pretty sure the American public will be interested. I certainly will be.

 

Until then, it’s unreasonable to expect all but anti-Trump partisans to care about the story at this point.

 

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/9/2018 at 11:23 AM, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Now you're speaking my language. 

 

We are told, every day, that those on the left or right have VASTLY different priorities. In terms of the right and left in office, they (for the most part) are just different wings on the same bird. In terms of individuals, if you lay out point by point the items people care the most about, I believe those lists would be very similar.

 

More similar than one would expect if they based their opinion on what we're told day in and day out by the media and other messengers. 

 

The division in this country is (largely) manufactured by external sources. 

It's not because of those of us that vote the people in our out.  I vote for people that DO speak to having a right-bent.  If they then go to congress and don't do what they ran on, I vote them out.  I wish they'd do what we sent then for, what they run on.

 

But I'm sure you're right, they get there, and then go along to get along.  That's why we need term limits like no one's business!  Get in, get out, do what you're voted in to do.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/9/2018 at 12:21 PM, Cugalabanza said:

 

I'm with ya there too.

 

I would qualify as liberal on most social issues (especially among those around here).  However, I've been spending a lot of breath lately speaking with liberal minded people, trying to stick up for Freedom of Speech (that's the big one).  I agree with many people on this forum that a lot of liberals have been overreacting and making fools of themselves.

 

Some examples:

- Don't be the person who sees a fan dressed as bacon and starts tweeting that it's blatant anti-Semitism.  That's ridiculous.

- When a pitcher in baseball gets his third strikeout of the game and fans are holding up three K's, that doesn't mean that there is a racist conspiracy happening through network broadcasts of major league baseball--it's just three strikeouts.  That's ridiculous.

- If you are a student or faculty member at a university, if someone is scheduled to speak that you don't like (or even find repulsive), it's not your duty as a citizen to prevent that, at all costs, from happening.  Quite the opposite. 

 

 

Perhaps my definition of liberal and your definition of conservative differ.  They must.  As you're defining me.  I define myself as conservative.  I don't give a flying turd what you do, so long as you don't infringe upon my rights, and I won't infringe upon yours.  Now, that doesn't mean you can break the laws as they are on the books.  If you don't like the laws, elect people to change them.

 

I hope most people are like that.  You do you, I do me, and we all get along.  That's conservatism to me.  I know that is classic liberal, but the term has been so bastardized that I speaking in today's terms.  So I'm today's conservative, as I know it to be.  We need to define language, so we know where we're coming from.  I bet most of us are more similar than dis-similar in that.

13 hours ago, Cinga said:

Chelsea was so cute as a baby, what happened? 

ROFL, not nice :P, but too damn funny!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

that was a lead story on news.google.com

 

it's amazing how bias that site is.

 

Please read past the headlines. Here's what was said on CNN...

 

"In space same year (2013), for more than two weeks, NASA reportedly stopped monitoring potentially dangerous asteroids," he added. "A big one, by the way, is expected to brush by Earth on February 4th."

 

Both sentences in that are facts.

 

"In space same year (2013), for more than two weeks, NASA reportedly stopped monitoring potentially dangerous asteroids," he added.  - Fact

 

"A big one, by the way, is expected to brush by Earth on February 4th." - Fact

 

Nowhere does the commentator say the Earth is going to get hit by an undetected asteroid strike.

 

 

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, garybusey said:

 

Please read past the headlines. Here's what was said on CNN...

 

 

Nowhere does the commentator say the Earth is going to get hit by an undetected asteroid strike.

 

 

 

 

Please read the replies more carefully ............NO ONE said that

 

The spin that we are "more at risk" because of the evil shutdown, is what we are laughing at.

 

 

 

 

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, garybusey said:

 

Please read past the headlines. Here's what was said on CNN...

 

"In space same year (2013), for more than two weeks, NASA reportedly stopped monitoring potentially dangerous asteroids," he added. "A big one, by the way, is expected to brush by Earth on February 4th."

 

Both sentences in that are facts.

 

"In space same year (2013), for more than two weeks, NASA reportedly stopped monitoring potentially dangerous asteroids," he added.  - Fact

 

"A big one, by the way, is expected to brush by Earth on February 4th." - Fact

 

Nowhere does the commentator say the Earth is going to get hit by an undetected asteroid strike.

 

 

You want facts?

 

In 1957 Harold Lloyd Jenkins was looking to rebrand himself with a more memorable name when he spotted "Conway, Arkansas" on a map and "Twitty, Texas." He combined the name to become "Arkansas Texas" a famous country singer spanning decades with hits.  He started with rock and pop hits until getting a chance at country music.  

 

If not for DACA funding we might never have had such hits as "Lucille," Hello darlin, that's my job, slow hand, Louisiana woman Mississippi man, I see the want to in my eyes, and tubthumping.

33 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

Please read the replies more carefully ............NO ONE said that

 

The spin that we are "more at risk" because of the evil shutdown, is what we are laughing at.

 

 

 

 

 

.

The sky is falling b!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...