|
Post by cindosha on Feb 20, 2022 23:10:47 GMT
Yes CNN, NBC, the Washington Post, and how many other so called "reliable sources" had to pay Nicholas Sandmann millions? for vilifying him with out of context clipped videos. They knew there was more to the video and they did it anyway. You must have a really good inside source, since the terms of the settlements were not made public. And obviously in the history of litigation, no entity has ever settled with a complainant just because it's cheaper than going to court. It's always because they're totes guilty. No one has ever filed a lawsuit hoping for just such an outcome. If it was a small amount, the news sources would have been bragging about it. It’s not a stretch to assume he got millions. As he should have.
|
|
sudsy
Full Member
Posts: 146
Sept 15, 2019 12:55:18 GMT
|
Post by sudsy on Feb 20, 2022 23:12:22 GMT
That is untrue and you should be ashamed of yourself for lying. Honestly, the behaviour of some participants on these boards is truly sad. What I said was: While I don't condone what the respondents said, if I were to disseminate lies I would expect a nasty reaction. I have already explained what happened when someone attempted to bring "the flag" through the protest and that Justine Trudeau's photographer was caught there photographing the person holding the flag. If you'll notice, this person is posting from Waterloo Ontario which is not where the protest that this thread is about is located. I'm going to guess that she was not at the protest and therefore cannot offer any additional helpful information, such as pictures or videos of "white nationalists". That is defending the White Supremacist by justifying its post. Did you not even read the posts she posted the screenshots of? The ones you responded to and said should be expected? One of them had the username “White Supremacist.” She didn't need to be there or post additional photos. Why not read what you are actually responding to? I’ll include it again, since you were so happy to explain it away, you didn't read it the first go around: I started by saying "while I don't condone what the respondents said". What are you not understanding about that? In other words, I would not expect that type of reaction but I would expect someone to call me out for disseminating false information. No, it is not right that they responded in that way. I will never condone that.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Feb 20, 2022 23:12:42 GMT
I'll remind you that, no matter how you twist it, being able to understand why someone does something is not the same as excusing it. There's that pesky double standard again. I'll remind you that has been the standard by you and your buddies for at least more than a decade, so you can't NOW deny that it isn't the same as excusing it. Because after years of saying it IS the same, your quoted statement above doesn't hold a single drop of water. Every single correction of disinformation, was dismissed because it literally "meant you were excusing" whatever the issue was. So either that applies across the board, or it doesn't apply at all. "More than a decade." How unfortunate that we're not able to dredge up all the idiotic word salad you've posted here in that time, since you deleted your previous account(s). I have no idea what you're trying to say with the above rant, so I'll just submit it as Exhibit A for the foaming nonsense you're posting under your current identity.
|
|
|
Post by cindosha on Feb 20, 2022 23:13:34 GMT
Not when you you are so black/white (your sources=truth, non-bias, factual) (right sided reporting=wrong/lies/misinformation.) there are no shades of gray. Really not hard to figure out what outlets you get your news from either. It’s a pretty defined line based on what you say here. I have never claimed that any source is 100% reliable. What I object to is your characterization that none are ever reliable, and we should just choose what to believe. Some sources are much more reliable than others without meeting the 100% standard. I'm going for the highest degree of reliability available. See how that works? We all have to decide what the highest degree of reliability is. And I have decided that your sources most certainly are not.
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Feb 20, 2022 23:14:54 GMT
I'll remind you that, no matter how you twist it, being able to understand why someone does something is not the same as excusing it. There's that pesky double standard again. I'll remind you that has LITERALLY been the standard of you and your buddies for at least more than a decade now. So you can't NOW claim it isn't. Your above quoted statement doesn't hold even a single drop of water. Any time someone (anyone) corrected disinformation, it was claimed as defending whatever the issue of the moment was. It either applies across the board- even to you, or it doesn't apply at all.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Feb 20, 2022 23:15:22 GMT
You must have a really good inside source, since the terms of the settlements were not made public. And obviously in the history of litigation, no entity has ever settled with a complainant just because it's cheaper than going to court. It's always because they're totes guilty. No one has ever filed a lawsuit hoping for just such an outcome. If it was a small amount, the news sources would have been bragging about it. It’s not a stretch to assume he got millions. As he should have. You do realize that if Sandmann was prevented by the terms of the settlement from disclosing its specifics, the news outlets were also prevented from disclosing them, right? Whether he got "millions" or not, none of that is evidence of guilt on the part of the news outlets. Corporations with deep pockets pay out settlements all the time because it's cheaper than going to court. Greedy and duplicitous lawyers like *checks notes* noted crazy person and sleazy lawyer Lin Wood bank on this.
|
|
|
Post by cindosha on Feb 20, 2022 23:15:59 GMT
If it was a small amount, the news sources would have been bragging about it. It’s not a stretch to assume he got millions. As he should have. You do realize that if Sandmann was prevented by the terms of the settlement from disclosing its specifics, the news outlets were also prevented from disclosing them, right? Whether he got "millions" or not, none of that is evidence of guilt on the part of the news outlets. Corporations with deep pockets pay out settlements all the time because it's cheaper than going to court. Greedy and duplicitous lawyers like *checks notes* noted crazy person and sleazy lawyer Lin Wood bank on this. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Feb 20, 2022 23:16:53 GMT
You do realize that if Sandmann was prevented by the terms of the settlement from disclosing its specifics, the news outlets were also prevented from disclosing them, right? Whether he got "millions" or not, none of that is evidence of guilt on the part of the news outlets. Corporations with deep pockets pay out settlements all the time because it's cheaper than going to court. Greedy and duplicitous lawyers like *checks notes* noted crazy person and sleazy lawyer Lin Wood bank on this. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 I'll take your laughter as evidence that you have no argument against this. Thanks for conceding the point.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Feb 20, 2022 23:17:19 GMT
I’m confused. Is this accurate reporting to you because it’s from a mainstream media source, because it relies on a Twitter feed for its information, or because it’s an opinion piece rather than a hard news piece?Is it INACCURATE to you because it’s from a main stream media source, because it relies on a Twitter feed for its information, or because it’s an opinion piece rather than a hard news piece? It’s all garbage reporting. It simply depends on what you read, what you believe, and who you believe. Nothing more nothing less. As evidenced by your non-factual posting the majority of the time. You post the most inaccurate, biased lies all the time, and you present it as fact. When reality it’s that “echo chamber “ you and Gia/pixiechik are so fond of…
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Feb 20, 2022 23:17:51 GMT
Yes CNN, NBC, the Washington Post, and how many other so called "reliable sources" had to pay Nicholas Sandmann millions ? for vilifying him with out of context clipped videos. They knew there was more to the video and they did it anyway. You must have a really good inside source, since the terms of the settlements were not made public. And obviously in the history of litigation, no entity has ever settled with a complainant just because it's cheaper than going to court. It's always because they're totes guilty. No one has ever filed a lawsuit hoping for just such an outcome. I guess you missed the ? you quoted. The one indicating a guess.
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Feb 20, 2022 23:20:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cindosha on Feb 20, 2022 23:20:15 GMT
I'll take your laughter as evidence that you have no argument against this. Thanks for conceding the point. Nope I’m laughing at your attempt to try and make me think that the news sources that had to pay would have any integrity about keeping it quiet. I laugh again.
|
|
|
Post by cindosha on Feb 20, 2022 23:21:55 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Feb 20, 2022 23:22:16 GMT
I have never claimed that any source is 100% reliable. What I object to is your characterization that none are ever reliable, and we should just choose what to believe. Some sources are much more reliable than others without meeting the 100% standard. I'm going for the highest degree of reliability available. See how that works? We all have to decide what the highest degree of reliability is. And I have decided that your sources most certainly are not. No, "we" don't have to decide. It's not difficult to compare an organization's reporting to things that actually happened. For example, my sources correctly reported that there is no credible evidence of voter fraud that would have come anywhere close to reversing the outcome of the 2020 election. This is borne out by court records. Your sources reported batshit crazy stuff about voting machines and fake ballots, presented zero evidence to back up their claims, and are now enjoying being served with lawsuits by the makers of the Dominion machines. "We" don't have to decide anything. It's right there in front of your face.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Feb 20, 2022 23:23:41 GMT
You must have a really good inside source, since the terms of the settlements were not made public. And obviously in the history of litigation, no entity has ever settled with a complainant just because it's cheaper than going to court. It's always because they're totes guilty. No one has ever filed a lawsuit hoping for just such an outcome. I guess you missed the ? you quoted. The one indicating a guess. Since I was replying to cindosha and not you, you'd need to look to her claim that Sandmann was awarded "millions." ETA: ope, nope, my bad. It was to you - implying that the news outlets conceded guilt as part of the settlement. We don't know if they did or didn't. That hasn't been disclosed.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Feb 20, 2022 23:24:12 GMT
I'll take your laughter as evidence that you have no argument against this. Thanks for conceding the point. Nope I’m laughing at your attempt to try and make me think that the news sources that had to pay would have any integrity about keeping it quiet. I laugh again. OK, show me your evidence. Let's see it. Otherwise, it's just bullshit as usual.
|
|
|
Post by cindosha on Feb 20, 2022 23:24:36 GMT
Is it INACCURATE to you because it’s from a main stream media source, because it relies on a Twitter feed for its information, or because it’s an opinion piece rather than a hard news piece? It’s all garbage reporting. It simply depends on what you read, what you believe, and who you believe. Nothing more nothing less. As evidenced by your non-factual posting the majority of the time. You post the most inaccurate, biased lies all the time, and you present it as fact. When reality it’s that “echo chamber “ you and Gia/pixiechik are so fond of… Is that answer because you don’t have a good argument?
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Feb 20, 2022 23:26:30 GMT
Yes CNN, NBC, the Washington Post, and how many other so called "reliable sources" had to pay Nicholas Sandmann millions? for vilifying him with out of context clipped videos. They knew there was more to the video and they did it anyway. You must have a really good inside source, since the terms of the settlements were not made public. And obviously in the history of litigation, no entity has ever settled with a complainant just because it's cheaper than going to court. It's always because they're totes guilty. No one has ever filed a lawsuit hoping for just such an outcome. Nope, you were replying to me.
|
|
|
Post by cindosha on Feb 20, 2022 23:26:44 GMT
Nope I’m laughing at your attempt to try and make me think that the news sources that had to pay would have any integrity about keeping it quiet. I laugh again. OK, show me your evidence. Let's see it. Otherwise, it's just bullshit as usual. There’s nothing to show. It was my opinion. Never said it was a fact.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Feb 20, 2022 23:27:48 GMT
OK, show me your evidence. Let's see it. Otherwise, it's just bullshit as usual. There’s nothing to show. It was my opinion. Never said it was a fact. So, bullshit as usual. Thanks for acknowledging it.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Feb 20, 2022 23:28:14 GMT
You must have a really good inside source, since the terms of the settlements were not made public. And obviously in the history of litigation, no entity has ever settled with a complainant just because it's cheaper than going to court. It's always because they're totes guilty. No one has ever filed a lawsuit hoping for just such an outcome. Nope, you were replying to me. Yes, I edited above.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Feb 20, 2022 23:29:43 GMT
I’m confused. Is this accurate reporting to you because it’s from a mainstream media source, because it relies on a Twitter feed for its information, or because it’s an opinion piece rather than a hard news piece? It's a video that you can watch. That is all. If you don't believe what you're seeing, that is fine. So my hubby and I watched several views of this incident. a part of his profession he is trained to listen and watch—people remember what they hear much better than what they see. He says— 1. You see mounted horses put into place to disperse the crowd. 2. You see many people, ignoring the directive of the mounted law enforcement (clear the area/get out of the way—and this is a gentler method of crowd dispersement than say tear gas and rubber bullets) some protester’s are jostled, some seem to be pushed. 3. You HEAR a person, one of the protestors presumably—given his perspective and words—saying things that the viewers eyes are not seeing. No where in that video do we see a woman in a walker being trampled by horses. (I’m not saying that somewhere a lady wasn’t trampled but it’s just not seen in the video). This so called “reporting” people on the ground video, is NOT all unbiased as you seem to present here.
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Feb 20, 2022 23:30:49 GMT
She’ll never believe it. It’s like arguing with my oldest brother. Pointless. But I admire the effort.
|
|
|
Post by cindosha on Feb 20, 2022 23:32:30 GMT
See how that works? We all have to decide what the highest degree of reliability is. And I have decided that your sources most certainly are not. No, "we" don't have to decide. It's not difficult to compare an organization's reporting to things that actually happened. For example, my sources correctly reported that there is no credible evidence of voter fraud that would have come anywhere close to reversing the outcome of the 2020 election. This is borne out by court records. Your sources reported batshit crazy stuff about voting machines and fake ballots, presented zero evidence to back up their claims, and are now enjoying being served with lawsuits by the makers of the Dominion machines. "We" don't have to decide anything. It's right there in front of your face. I go to news sources I like, you go to news sources you like. You decide your reliability and I’ll decide mine.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Feb 20, 2022 23:34:18 GMT
I didn’t say that. But when it comes to accuracy, yes, mainstream hard news reporting (not opinion pieces/vlogs) are more accurate than your propaganda sites.Thanks for the sympathy. The last five years have been tough with people on your side spouting lies and nonsense. Which sites do you purport to know that I read, watch or listen to? The last five years have been tough with people on your side spouting lies and nonsense. I keep forgetting that “your side” is the side of truth and unbiased reporting. Not to mention, justice and acceptance of any view that is different than “yours”. Oh sweetheart, we can certainly tell what you’re watching given on what you’ve posted. And absolutely 100% yes—in comparison to your party, we ARE the party of Justice and acceptance. And absolutely yes—in comparison to right wing “”news” outlets, the more left leaning outlets, while not perfect are much more reliable and honest. You’re a member of a party that does hatred for anyone not white, Christian, or kissing the ass if Republican politicians. There’s a lot more of us than of your ilk.
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Feb 20, 2022 23:34:59 GMT
No, "we" don't have to decide. It's not difficult to compare an organization's reporting to things that actually happened. For example, my sources correctly reported that there is no credible evidence of voter fraud that would have come anywhere close to reversing the outcome of the 2020 election. This is borne out by court records. Your sources reported batshit crazy stuff about voting machines and fake ballots, presented zero evidence to back up their claims, and are now enjoying being served with lawsuits by the makers of the Dominion machines. "We" don't have to decide anything. It's right there in front of your face. I go to news sources I like, you go to news sources you like. You decide your reliability and I’ll decide mine. Daniel Patrick Moynihan said it well - “You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.”
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Feb 20, 2022 23:35:51 GMT
The right to protest does not equal the right to shut down all movement in a major city for weeks, nor to deny its citizens the quiet enjoyment of their own private homes with excessive noise and diesel fumes. Violence doesn’t have to equal looting and shooting. It can look like a long-term occupation in the streets of a major city. Perhaps some of the protestors are not white nationalists, but they are happily taking funding and support from those who are. Perhaps some have legitimate reasons to remain unvaccinated, but they are taking money and support from people who have promoted conspiracy theories and outright falsehoods about vaccines, to the detriment (and sometimes death) of millions. If they want to convince people their cause is just, taking money from charlatans, grifters, and criminals is not the way to do it. Their funding is dirty and they are all tainted by it, as well as by their own actions. Oh and as to their feeding anyone who comes by - you know who else feeds people and provides aid to those who need it? Hamas. Well-recognized terrorist organization in the Middle East. So that argument doesn’t really hold up. Your truckers there are being funded by white nationalists and wannabe terrorists, are keeping the peaceful citizens of Ottawa from their daily business and a presumably a decent night’s sleep, and are using some of the money to feed deluded looky-loos who walk by. Yay. Very impressive. David Dorn shot to death for defending his friend's pawn shop. Another pawn shop burned down with Oscar Stewart a father of 5, inside. A father of 5, dead. A federal courthouse burned, a police station run out of a community that needed it. A building with people locked inside and set on fire. People hunted down and shot. People having their skulls bashed in for helping someone avoid being beaten. Hundreds of police attacked with rocks and bricks and molotov cocktails, hundreds injured. Looting, trashing, burning and destroy all the businesses, many of them black owned. Billions in damages across the country. You're one that EXCUSED, deflected and dismissed the violence, death and destruction of 2020 when you agreed with the protest. Nope. Those on the left did not condone tgat at all. Stop lying.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 15:25:37 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2022 23:36:00 GMT
Some sources are much more reliable than others without meeting the 100% standard. Not that this will convince the "my opinions are as good as other people's facts and peer-reviewed science" crowd. But for the rest who are interested, here is adfontes chart of bias and reliability.
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Feb 20, 2022 23:36:18 GMT
I'll remind you that, no matter how you twist it, being able to understand why someone does something is not the same as excusing it. Since you had such a "hard time" understanding the point... In a nutshell... You and your buddies have said in response to every single correction of DISINFORMATION or understanding of where someone was coming from, that it LITERALLY "meant you were excusing" whatever the issue was. So, you can't say NOW that it doesn't mean that when applied to your statements. Not without being a raging hypocrite.
|
|
|
Post by cindosha on Feb 20, 2022 23:37:06 GMT
There’s nothing to show. It was my opinion. Never said it was a fact. So, bullshit as usual. Thanks for acknowledging it. If that’s what you want to believe, I’m not going to change your mind because your beliefs are different than mine. See how that works?
|
|