Big Blitz Posted December 17, 2021 Share Posted December 17, 2021 There are 51 Senators that do not support that disaster of a bill. Not 1 holding it up.....51. Shows exactly what the media thinks of half the country. It doesn't exist to them. 1 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted December 17, 2021 Share Posted December 17, 2021 I love it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaCrispy Posted December 18, 2021 Share Posted December 18, 2021 (edited) 20 hours ago, Big Blitz said: There are 51 Senators that do not support that disaster of a bill. Not 1 holding it up.....51. Shows exactly what the media thinks of half the country. It doesn't exist to them. If he just switched over to the Republican Party, then the media wouldn’t be able to say there was one senator holding up the bill anymore...funny how that works...shows how stupid their premise is (that all people of a particular party MUST vote a certain way)...😉 Edited December 18, 2021 by JaCrispy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted December 18, 2021 Share Posted December 18, 2021 8 minutes ago, JaCrispy said: If he just switched over to the Republican Party, then the media wouldn’t be able to say there was one senator holding up the bill anymore...funny how that works...shows how stupid there premise is (that all people of a particular party MUST vote a certain way)...😉 Well, remember McCain was heroic and courageous for his famous “ thumbs down” vote on ACA, but Manchin is being obstructionist 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted December 18, 2021 Share Posted December 18, 2021 (edited) $$$$$ Edited December 18, 2021 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted December 19, 2021 Share Posted December 19, 2021 On 9/26/2021 at 7:48 AM, Doc said: LOL. You’d think they would have planned on staying longer… totes unplanned... And this gem: Idiots Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted December 19, 2021 Share Posted December 19, 2021 22 hours ago, B-Man said: $$$$$ It’s telling that a news organization that will go to incredible lengths to tell a story, including exposing a 16 year old boy to the collective hate and rage of the masses, yet requires complete confidentiality as a part of a settlement for their misdeeds. Additionally, no other major news organization seems interested in the details of the story and settlement—an issue that would be a matter of massive public interest. Being part of the “free press” must be complicated. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
716er Posted December 19, 2021 Share Posted December 19, 2021 19 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: an issue that would be a matter of massive public interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted December 19, 2021 Share Posted December 19, 2021 20 minutes ago, 716er said: You understand that you’re aligning with a character best described as a simpleton, yes? Never mind, I withdraw the question. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orlando Buffalo Posted December 19, 2021 Share Posted December 19, 2021 4 hours ago, 716er said: You aren't interested in how much it cost a news organization to lie about a child? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All_Pro_Bills Posted December 19, 2021 Share Posted December 19, 2021 (edited) 7 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: It’s telling that a news organization that will go to incredible lengths to tell a story, including exposing a 16 year old boy to the collective hate and rage of the masses, yet requires complete confidentiality as a part of a settlement for their misdeeds. Additionally, no other major news organization seems interested in the details of the story and settlement—an issue that would be a matter of massive public interest. Being part of the “free press” must be complicated. That's because they are a mechanism for disseminating propaganda, have no ethical standards, and lying is a requirement of their function as State media outlet. Bagdad Bob, Tokyo Rise, MSNBC Rachel Madcow. If the Kings and Clerics of the Middle Ages had today's media they'd be insisting the Earth was flat and the center of the Universe while those disagreeing are spreading misinformation. And then burning them at the stake. Unfortunately for CNN and MSNBC burning heretics at the stake is illegal. At least for now. Edited December 19, 2021 by All_Pro_Bills 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted December 20, 2021 Share Posted December 20, 2021 "Appears"? You mean to you? I balk at this headline in The Guardian: "Why Trump appears deeply unnerved as Capitol attack investigation closes in." They have to use the word "appears," because they obviously don't know how Trump feels — deeply or shallowly — inside. Then the word throws off the whole idea, so it seems to be only what it is: How it looks to the Guardian writer (Hugo Lowell). I haven't read the piece, not yet anyway, but the easy answer to "Why Trump appears deeply unnerved" is that the author is seeing what he wants to see — which is Trump deeply unnerved. The brief headline also contains a second element of wishful perception: the Capitol attack investigation is closing in on Trump. Is it? We're expect to believe that it is, but that's not what I think. And I don't think Trump is deeply unnerved. I'm not convinced he's deeply anything. Posted by Ann Althouse https://althouse.blogspot.com/2021/12/appears-you-mean-to-you.html 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All_Pro_Bills Posted December 20, 2021 Share Posted December 20, 2021 1 minute ago, B-Man said: "Appears"? You mean to you? I balk at this headline in The Guardian: "Why Trump appears deeply unnerved as Capitol attack investigation closes in." They have to use the word "appears," because they obviously don't know how Trump feels — deeply or shallowly — inside. Then the word throws off the whole idea, so it seems to be only what it is: How it looks to the Guardian writer (Hugo Lowell). I haven't read the piece, not yet anyway, but the easy answer to "Why Trump appears deeply unnerved" is that the author is seeing what he wants to see — which is Trump deeply unnerved. The brief headline also contains a second element of wishful perception: the Capitol attack investigation is closing in on Trump. Is it? We're expect to believe that it is, but that's not what I think. And I don't think Trump is deeply unnerved. I'm not convinced he's deeply anything. Posted by Ann Althouse https://althouse.blogspot.com/2021/12/appears-you-mean-to-you.html It's a propaganda piece worthy of the best Pravda had to offer. Provide no facts or evidence of anything but draw unsupported conclusions for their faithful readers. Most of these "News" outlets have devolved into official propaganda extensions of government. They are not independent, they are not objective, they work under no requirement to tell the truth. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted December 20, 2021 Share Posted December 20, 2021 27 minutes ago, B-Man said: "Appears"? You mean to you? I balk at this headline in The Guardian: "Why Trump appears deeply unnerved as Capitol attack investigation closes in." They have to use the word "appears," because they obviously don't know how Trump feels — deeply or shallowly — inside. Then the word throws off the whole idea, so it seems to be only what it is: How it looks to the Guardian writer (Hugo Lowell). I haven't read the piece, not yet anyway, but the easy answer to "Why Trump appears deeply unnerved" is that the author is seeing what he wants to see — which is Trump deeply unnerved. The brief headline also contains a second element of wishful perception: the Capitol attack investigation is closing in on Trump. Is it? We're expect to believe that it is, but that's not what I think. And I don't think Trump is deeply unnerved. I'm not convinced he's deeply anything. Posted by Ann Althouse https://althouse.blogspot.com/2021/12/appears-you-mean-to-you.html 20 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said: It's a propaganda piece worthy of the best Pravda had to offer. Provide no facts or evidence of anything but draw unsupported conclusions for their faithful readers. Most of these "News" outlets have devolved into official propaganda extensions of government. They are not independent, they are not objective, they work under no requirement to tell the truth. It's a tactic employed by a certain poster here. It's all about their feelz. Meanwhile we wait for the facts to emerge to validate these feelz and...they never do. As I've been saying, if there were something tying Trump to the idiots entering the Capitol, we would have heard well before now. Just holding a rally isn't even close to enough. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All_Pro_Bills Posted December 20, 2021 Share Posted December 20, 2021 31 minutes ago, Doc said: It's a tactic employed by a certain poster here. It's all about their feelz. Meanwhile we wait for the facts to emerge to validate these feelz and...they never do. As I've been saying, if there were something tying Trump to the idiots entering the Capitol, we would have heard well before now. Just holding a rally isn't even close to enough. Months ago, the FBI has issued statements and reached the conclusion there is no evidence of any organized planning or collusion within the administration or between the administration and protesters on 1/6. But somehow a politically motivated committee run by a dictatorial House Speaker with all the rules and procedures designed (and the rules ignored too when necessary) to avoid any contention to their pre-conceived conclusions of guilt is going to uncover evidence full-time and experienced Federal law enforcement has somehow missed. Yet how preposterous this is, the faithful still cling to hope. Rather than being angry at the result they might be better served targeting their anger at the messengers of the false narratives they believe. But after several failures there is no evidence of a learning curve here. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted December 21, 2021 Share Posted December 21, 2021 The American Media Should Not Be Trusted Reason #5,297 The Press Draws Lines on Voting - Democrats Ethically Redistrict States While GOP Is Hatefully Gerrymandering https://redstate.com/bradslager/2021/12/21/the-press-draws-lines-on-voting-democrats-ethically-redistrict-states-while-gop-is-hatefully-gerrymandering-n494927 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted December 22, 2021 Share Posted December 22, 2021 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 3, 2022 Share Posted January 3, 2022 Will the Times apologize for lying about Officer Sicknick’s death? An unruly crowd entered the US Capitol on Jan. 6, while then-President Donald Trump addressed a rally several blocks away. One member of that crowd, Ashli Babbitt, an unarmed woman and a veteran, was shot by the Capitol Police. The next day, Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick died in the hospital. On Jan. 8, The New York Times reported that Officer Sicknick had died after being struck in the head with a fire extinguisher by violent Trump supporters. This story was quickly repeated by numerous other media outlets. Millions believed it. The story was false. Sicknick died of two strokes, which occurred many hours after the invasion of the Capitol. The blue-check-media fallback was that bear spray used by the Capitol invaders had caused the officer’s strokes. That also turned out to be false. After a curiously long delay, the DC medical examiner’s office released its report this week, and it concludes that Sicknick suffered no injuries, internal or external. He didn’t have a reaction to bear spray, the chief medical examiner reported. So the single most important “fact” about the events of Jan. 6 was false. That leaves some questions. First, who were the Gray Lady’s sources? The Times story quoted two anonymous “law-enforcement officials,” but anyone associated with the Capitol Police, or any investigation, should have known that Sicknick wasn’t struck in the head with a fire extinguisher. Having been misled by its sources, will the Times tell us who they were? Will the Times apologize for its error? It could have independently confirmed its claims by checking with Sicknick’s family or with the hospital. Or the paper could simply have waited until it had definitive confirmation of the facts and refrained from reporting a falsehood in the meanwhile. As leftist journalist Glenn Greenwald notes, the Times didn’t check the facts because the paper needed the story to be true. And it still hasn’t apologized. They actively encourage and excuse violence from the left, while manufacturing lies about violence from the right — remember when the NYT blamed Sarah Palin for Gabby Giffords’ shooting? They’re despicable, awful people and have no standing to talk about decency or democracy. https://nypost.com/2021/04/22/will-the-times-apologize-for-lying-about-officer-sicknicks-death/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 3, 2022 Share Posted January 3, 2022 This thread sounds like something the Chinese government is saying about the free press Quote How Beijing Has Muted Hong Kong’s Independent Media Citizen News, a small but aggressive online publication, is the latest outlet to fold amid relentless pressure from the authorities. HONG KONG — Citizen News, a small online news site in Hong Kong known for its in-depth coverage of courts and local politics, said it would stop publishing on Monday night, deepening concerns about the collapse of the city’s once-robust media. Just days earlier, another independent online media outlet, Stand News, closed after hundreds of police raided its offices and arrested seven people. Two former senior editors at Stand News and the publication itself were charged with conspiracy to publish seditious materials. Quote https://www.nytimes.com/article/hong-kong-media-muzzled.html Chinese communists sound A LOT like Trumpers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orlando Buffalo Posted January 3, 2022 Share Posted January 3, 2022 1 hour ago, Tiberius said: This thread sounds like something the Chinese government is saying about the free press Chinese communists sound A LOT like Trumpers I would argue with you but you obviously feel truth is less important than narrative which is why you can't see the difference between not trusting a liar and the government stopping the truth. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts