calfoxwc Posted February 3, 2017 Report Share Posted February 3, 2017 they got their jollies with "fake news" of Bush and Cheney outing Julie Plame. but they never did. When we finally knew who actually DID... they still happily bashed Bush and Cheney for it. for years. right on this board, even. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted February 3, 2017 Report Share Posted February 3, 2017 The conway strikes again. She is a cooky flake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted February 3, 2017 Report Share Posted February 3, 2017 The conway strikes again. She is a cooky flake If that was true she would be a democrat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted February 3, 2017 Report Share Posted February 3, 2017 So can you please explain where these stories are passing an Op-Ed as fact? Or do you mean that they are passing the incident as factual when it is unproven? If that's the argument, both articles do use the words 'reportedly' and 'alleged' which indicate that they are not passing it off as fact. You're a smart guy. I know that, so let me ask you a serious question. Do you think that matters to the legions of left-cals that ran with it? All that matters is the initial perception because perception is reality Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted February 3, 2017 Report Share Posted February 3, 2017 If that was true she would be a democrat. Cmon obf, that is one odd bird and you know it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted February 3, 2017 Report Share Posted February 3, 2017 http://ll-media.tmz.com/2017/01/20/0120-kellyanne-conoway-nutcracker-reuters-3.jpg I rest my case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted February 3, 2017 Report Share Posted February 3, 2017 My 8 yr old niece clowned on that outfit and her parents are huge trump supporters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted February 3, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2017 You're a smart guy. I know that, so let me ask you a serious question. Do you think that matters to the legions of left-cals that ran with it? All that matters is the initial perception because perception is reality Probably not. Left-Cals and Right-Cals are always looking for a story to justify their views, not facts that may force them to alter them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted February 3, 2017 Report Share Posted February 3, 2017 I see the left is nit picking what is real and what isn't. How surprising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 4, 2017 Report Share Posted February 4, 2017 Well, wish we had a right osiris-sissy on this board, too, and not just the Muslim ottoman empire worshiper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted February 4, 2017 Report Share Posted February 4, 2017 http://ll-media.tmz.com/2017/01/20/0120-kellyanne-conoway-nutcracker-reuters-3.jpg I rest my case I'm an odd bird myself I guess. I thought that outfit looked great particularly for a presidential inauguration. I know she got slammed all over the place for it by the left. Conway has been a political strategist for a long time and I have seen her many times on the political talking head shows. She always impressed me with her political skills and I am glad to see her get a nice reward with her successful campaign for Trump. I believe she had an impact on him winning. Trump had three campaign managers and they all were the right people at the right time. Lewandowsky was the right man at the beginning letting Trump be Trump in the primaries, it was a winning strategy. Manafort was the right man to come in when he did and shore up the delegates that Cruz was outmaneuvering Trump for and picking some off and Manafort put a stop to that quickly. Manafort made sure Trump was in control of the RNC convention and there was no rebellion. Conway helped him down the stretch and came in at the right time when Manafort was getting to be a distraction with his Russian connections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted February 4, 2017 Report Share Posted February 4, 2017 Only a gay or transgendered man would criticize what a woman wears. I think we all know this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 4, 2017 Report Share Posted February 4, 2017 Well, wish we had a right osiris-sissy on this board, too, and not just the Muslim ottoman empire worshiper Are you a child? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted February 4, 2017 Report Share Posted February 4, 2017 Only a gay or transgendered man would criticize what a woman wears. I think we all know this. I have zero fashion sense i would never cut it as a gay man, but even i can see she looks ridiculous. Its not a big deal but she is "odd", and that alice in wonderland through the looking glass get up proves it. Thought you had me on ignore again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted February 4, 2017 Report Share Posted February 4, 2017 I would comment, but I've never seen NPR or CNN do that. If you have any examples I would like to see them. Ultimately I'm not talking about peddling Op-Eds as fact, though. We all know an Op-Ed is by definition meant for authors to express their opinions. That's why newspapers include the disclaimer on the bottom of Op-Ed pages. Here is an example of a fake news story put out by the guy interviewed in the OP, This story ran in a fake news outlet called "The Denver Guardian": http://alexanderhiggins.com/fbi-agent-behind-hillary-email-leaks-found-dead-murder-suicide/ It was widely circulated, especially by Trump supporters, as fact. Snopes later debunked it: http://www.snopes.com/fbi-agent-murder-suicide/ The person who owns "The Denver Guardian" is interviewed in the NPR link. He created a company called "Disinfomedia." he is also responsible for this website: http://nationalreport.net/ Read some of the headlines and it will become clear that it's a joke. I'm not arguing against nonsense articles that are clearly bullshit. If people are stupid enough to believe those articles, they're beyond help. I'm more concerned with the way journalism has been headed. It's no longer about presenting facts and letting your consumers decide. Instead, it's about pushing a narrative to your audience. CNN has clearly been in camp Clinton this entire election cycle (with one of their anchors going so far as to cheat and help her in the debates) and even NPR is guilty having a dog in the fight, too. http://www.npr.org/2017/01/28/512199324/countries-listed-on-trumps-refugee-ban-dont-include-those-he-has-business-with Just reading the title of this article tells you what the authors want the audience to think. Yet there's no mention of the Obama legislation Immigration and Nationality Act that Trump's EO cites as reason to stop travel from 6 of the 7 countries. The inclusion of Iran and the exclusion of Saudi Arabia and shitholes like Niger would be valid criticisms of the EO, but instead, NPR wants to keep pushing the narrative that Trump is putting his businesses before the country, which is a tenuous accusation at best, subtle fearmongering at worst. http://www.npr.org/2016/11/16/502304157/breitbart-editor-steve-bannon-has-no-prejudices This interview truly irritated me. Read the transcript and please tell me with a straight face that Inskeep doesn't have a dog in this fight. If you actually listen to it, Pollak talked circles around a frustrated Inskeep who has no answers to valid criticisms Pollak levels towards NPR. This is awful journalism. I expect more of NPR. Have some respect for the listeners and their ability to think for themselves. I listen to NPR every day, but I'm starting to believe that they should have their federal funding pulled if this is how they're going to present the news. BBC news hour is probably the least offensive option on the station. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted February 4, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2017 I'm not arguing against nonsense articles that are clearly bullshit. If people are stupid enough to believe those articles, they're beyond help. I'm more concerned with the way journalism has been headed. It's no longer about presenting facts and letting your consumers decide. Instead, it's about pushing a narrative to your audience. CNN has clearly been in camp Clinton this entire election cycle (with one of their anchors going so far as to cheat and help her in the debates) and even NPR is guilty having a dog in the fight, too. http://www.npr.org/2017/01/28/512199324/countries-listed-on-trumps-refugee-ban-dont-include-those-he-has-business-with Just reading the title of this article tells you what the authors want the audience to think. Yet there's no mention of the Obama legislation Immigration and Nationality Act that Trump's EO cites as reason to stop travel from 6 of the 7 countries. The inclusion of Iran and the exclusion of Saudi Arabia and shitholes like Niger would be valid criticisms of the EO, but instead, NPR wants to keep pushing the narrative that Trump is putting his businesses before the country, which is a tenuous accusation at best, subtle fearmongering at worst. http://www.npr.org/2016/11/16/502304157/breitbart-editor-steve-bannon-has-no-prejudices This interview truly irritated me. Read the transcript and please tell me with a straight face that Inskeep doesn't have a dog in this fight. If you actually listen to it, Pollak talked circles around a frustrated Inskeep who has no answers to valid criticisms Pollak levels towards NPR. This is awful journalism. I expect more of NPR. Have some respect for the listeners and their ability to think for themselves. I listen to NPR every day, but I'm starting to believe that they should have their federal funding pulled if this is how they're going to present the news. BBC news hour is probably the least offensive option on the station. I understand where you are coming from. NPR often brings in someone from the opposing viewpoint to argue that case and they should've done that here. Said person could have argued that we have strategic alliances with some of the countries on the list. A left representative could have argued that the fact that Trump excluded countries with businuess ties AND still refuses to release his tax records makes his actions highly suspicious. The debate would have made for good radio. I agree on BBC, I read it often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted February 6, 2017 Report Share Posted February 6, 2017 Another day another Trump 'talking point'. "Any negative polls are fake news" For real? "Anything negative anyone has to say is all lies, only I will tell you the truth, ignore everything else, just follow me" This doesn't even remotely raise a little red flag in the back of anyone's mind? That maybe, just maybe, this guy isn't quite who you were expecting him to be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 6, 2017 Report Share Posted February 6, 2017 Actually for me it underscores the dishonesty of the press. You are probably too young to remember when Bill was coach of the Cleveland Browns. The first thing he did was alienate the sportswriters. Hard to talk to and banned them from the team bus and plan to travel from City to City excluding them from the party. That meant everybody from the beat writer to the talk show host hated the guy. Now think about this do you think it made for more positive or more negative coverage? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted February 6, 2017 Report Share Posted February 6, 2017 Actually for me it underscores the dishonesty of the press. You are probably too young to remember when Bill was coach of the Cleveland Browns. The first thing he did was alienate the sportswriters. Hard to talk to and banned them from the team bus and plan to travel from City to City excluding them from the party. That meant everybody from the beat writer to the talk show host hated the guy. Now think about this do you think it made for more positive or more negative coverage? WSS Such a false equivalency it's unreal. You're talking about sports. Where it's all ultimately trivial and all a matter of opinion. This is the presidency of the most powerful and influential nation on the planet, with tangible effects, and Trump is continually lying about easily disprovable things, then telling you anyone who contradicts him is 'fake news'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 6, 2017 Report Share Posted February 6, 2017 Differing levels of worldwide influence between politics and sports do not disprove the basic point that if the press hates you the coverage will not be fair. I've said often enough that Administration should think about things they say a lot more carefully. But one reason for that is that they should be smart enough to understand the press, that hates them, will overreact to everything. A great example is CNN giving credence to the BuzzFeed story about pissing on Obama's bed. We didn't hear them give credence to the rumors that Hillary and her aides murdered. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 6, 2017 Report Share Posted February 6, 2017 And the guy that controls the broadcast has the last word. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted February 6, 2017 Report Share Posted February 6, 2017 And the guy that controls the broadcast has the last word. WSS Not anymore - this isn't the eighties where your sources for news were the TV and newspaper. The information (and disinformation) is all readily available on the internet. You can easily see for yourself, for example, the inauguration pictures showing Trump had a smaller crowd. Not a big deal you'd think, but Trump then tells everyone he had the biggest crowd ever. Then Spicer goes up in front of the press corps and says 'nobody can know because the national parks office doesn't keep numbers' literally seconds before saying 'we definitely had the biggest crowd'. Trump is trying to be the guy that controls the broadcast so he gets the last word, without realising he can't control the broadcast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 6, 2017 Report Share Posted February 6, 2017 He most certainly is trying to be that guy as well he should. And yes there are plenty of places to get your news. I still think the major newspapers and the network news is, and should be, considered the mainstream media. Yes yes yes Fox News MSNBC Breitbart slate you name it they exist. But I don't think it's a huge contingent of fans that follow those sources. I don't think thereither are that many voters that spend much time on politics at all oh, certainly not as much as we do here and we are by no means Insiders. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted February 6, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 6, 2017 Another day another Trump 'talking point'. "Any negative polls are fake news" For real? "Anything negative anyone has to say is all lies, only I will tell you the truth, ignore everything else, just follow me" This doesn't even remotely raise a little red flag in the back of anyone's mind? That maybe, just maybe, this guy isn't quite who you were expecting him to be? Are you paraphrasing or did he actually say those things? I mean that's definitely the message I have been getting, but just curious if he actually said that word-for-word. Either way, of course it raises a red flag. That's been the central theme in half of my posts in the last two weeks. This kind of thought-control is what dictators have been doing in the ME. No wonder Trump is such a big fan of Sisi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted February 6, 2017 Report Share Posted February 6, 2017 Are you paraphrasing or did he actually say those things? Half and half. He actually said: "Any negative polls are fake news, just like the CNN, ABC, NBC polls in the election. Sorry, people want border security and extreme vetting." I paraphrased it to highlight the Orwellian parallels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 6, 2017 Report Share Posted February 6, 2017 Half and half. He actually said: "Any negative polls are fake news, just like the CNN, ABC, NBC polls in the election. Sorry, people want border security and extreme vetting." I paraphrased it to highlight the Orwellian parallels. Just in case does anybody think the polls are either accurate or immune from manipulation??? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted February 6, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 6, 2017 Half and half. He actually said: "Any negative polls are fake news, just like the CNN, ABC, NBC polls in the election. Sorry, people want border security and extreme vetting." I paraphrased it to highlight the Orwellian parallels. Got it. Don't think you need to paraphrase for the Orwellian parallels to be obvious, though. I am really interested to know what 'extreme vetting' means, in terms of policy details. Every time I bring up how rigorous the vetting process already is, people here don't seem interested in discussing the topic... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted February 6, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 6, 2017 Just in case does anybody think the polls are either accurate or immune from manipulation??? WSS This is why you have to look at polling from multiple sources asking the same or similar questions and take the results in aggregate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted February 6, 2017 Report Share Posted February 6, 2017 It means you check the fuck out of people coming from Terrorist ridden countries. Non citizens have no right to enter into the USA, period. End of story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted February 6, 2017 Report Share Posted February 6, 2017 Not anymore - this isn't the eighties where your sources for news were the TV and newspaper. The information (and disinformation) is all readily available on the internet. You can easily see for yourself, for example, the inauguration pictures showing Trump had a smaller crowd. Not a big deal you'd think, but Trump then tells everyone he had the biggest crowd ever. Then Spicer goes up in front of the press corps and says 'nobody can know because the national parks office doesn't keep numbers' literally seconds before saying 'we definitely had the biggest crowd'. Trump is trying to be the guy that controls the broadcast so he gets the last word, without realising he can't control the broadcast. Ah, but he can. And he will. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.