|
|
Post by Merge on Feb 20, 2022 23:37:31 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. Welp, I like as much accuracy as I can get. Apparently you've decided to like propaganda that supports your biases. An interesting choice, and part of the reason we're all in this mess. |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Feb 20, 2022 23:38:25 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. Liar. Liar. Liar. You can lie everyday Gia/pixiechik but it still doesn’t make it true. |
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Feb 20, 2022 23:38:49 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. Are you claiming you've corrected disinformation at some point?? |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Feb 20, 2022 23:39:15 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. The point us, it wasn’t made public, so you and your ilk making statements about it is just lying. You lie. |
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Feb 20, 2022 23:40:11 GMT
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? I mean ... if you're willing to stand here and tell all of us that your "beliefs" are based in lies and you have no interest in truth, I'm not going to stop you. |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Feb 20, 2022 23:40:18 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. You live in a fantasy world if lies and misinformation. Peas here just keep calling you out in your bullshit and lying. |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Feb 20, 2022 23:41:35 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Feb 20, 2022 23:41:47 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. But the fact is (oh believe me, I know you don’t care about facts) that they haven’t released it. See how that works? |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Feb 20, 2022 23:42:28 GMT
Like merge said above…it’s clear who you listen to and get your so called news. |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Feb 20, 2022 23:43:13 GMT
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? It’s fact sweetie. Something you seem to know nothing about. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Feb 20, 2022 23:43:31 GMT
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. Are you claiming you've corrected disinformation at some point?? Yes and in one instance it was fought against to the death and then when they couldn't deny it anymore, the goal posts were moved. |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Feb 20, 2022 23:44:19 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. You go to sources who lie. We use sources who will actually post facts. It’s sad that you cannot tell the difference. |
|
|
|
Post by cindosha on Feb 20, 2022 23:44:40 GMT
I go to news sources I like, you go to news sources you like. You decide your reliability and I’ll decide mine. Welp, I like as much accuracy as I can get. Apparently you've decided to like propaganda that supports your biases. An interesting choice, and part of the reason we're all in this mess. That would be the left’s fault we are in this. |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Feb 20, 2022 23:45:10 GMT
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? Your “beliefs” are just not facts sweetie. |
|
|
|
Post by cindosha on Feb 20, 2022 23:45:20 GMT
I go to news sources I like, you go to news sources you like. You decide your reliability and I’ll decide mine. You go to sources who lie. We use sources who will actually post facts. It’s sad that you cannot tell the difference. That couldn’t be further from the truth. |
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Feb 20, 2022 23:45:58 GMT
Welp, I like as much accuracy as I can get. Apparently you've decided to like propaganda that supports your biases. An interesting choice, and part of the reason we're all in this mess. That would be the left’s fault we are in this. Do tell me how. Show evidence. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 13:40:58 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2022 23:46:14 GMT
Police regain control of most of Canada’s capital Glory. Hoping that the concept of civilized society and LAWFUL protests have returned. "A few bands of people with Canadian flags walked around yelling, “Freedom!” But their shouts fell flat in the otherwise quiet streets of Canada’s capital, which were nearly completely back in control of authorities Sunday after a weekend operation to disperse the self-styled “Freedom Convoy” that pushed the government to invoke never-before-used emergency powers. As of Sunday, police arrested more than 190 protesters, issued 389 charges, towed nearly 80 vehicles, and fenced or cordoned off large swaths of the capital as law enforcement entered what Ottawa interim police chief Steve Bell called the “maintenance phase” to keep out demonstrators deemed illegal." |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Feb 20, 2022 23:46:30 GMT
Welp, I like as much accuracy as I can get. Apparently you've decided to like propaganda that supports your biases. An interesting choice, and part of the reason we're all in this mess. That would be the left’s fault we are in this. Bwaashahahaaaaa. More bullshit out of cindoshas mouth. |
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Feb 20, 2022 23:46:37 GMT
Are you claiming you've corrected disinformation at some point?? Yes and in one instance it was fought against to the death and then when they couldn't deny it anymore, the goal posts were moved. OK. Was it on your current persona? Can you link us to it? |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Feb 20, 2022 23:46:56 GMT
Regrettably, the people who need to see this the most don't care. They will stick to Fox and social media because of confirmation bias, stubbornness, loyalty to a party or some other reason. www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 13:40:58 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2022 23:52:24 GMT
Police regain control of most of Canada’s capital, say protesters will continue to be identified and charged as holdouts persist |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Feb 20, 2022 23:52:43 GMT
Yes and in one instance it was fought against to the death and then when they couldn't deny it anymore, the goal posts were moved. OK. Was it on your current persona? Can you link us to it? I have a street hockey game to organize. I thought you had to go? |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 13:40:58 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2022 23:58:10 GMT
That's why I like adfontes better as they have two axes - bias & reliability - based on their methodology for determining both. The chart above is just bias w/no indication of reliability - hidden, mis- and/or disinformation. |
|
|
|
Post by bc2ca on Feb 21, 2022 0:10:14 GMT
No, sorry. My original question to you was: What was Trudeau's justification for invoking the emergencies act? . The short answer is it was needed to allow coordination of local, provincial and federal police agencies to break up the existing blockades and designate areas where blockades were prohibited (ie. border crossings). Although it is in effect immediately, Parliament must pass the EA within 7 days. Trudeau has a minority Liberal government so needs the support of one of the opposition parties and, from what I have read, he should get it. The EA expires after 30 days unless renewed by Parliament. |
|
|
|
Post by cindosha on Feb 21, 2022 0:11:50 GMT
Regrettably, the people who need to see this the most don't care. They will stick to Fox and social media because of confirmation bias, stubbornness, loyalty to a party or some other reason. www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart That’s what amazes me about this site. No matter what someone’s point of view is, no matter what their beliefs are no matter what proof they have to back their story/post, if someone doesn’t like what they have to say, even if the proof is undeniable, that person will be shit on, swore at and degraded. There really is no room for neutral here. Why can’t people be entitled to their own beliefs and/or opinions without being told that their opinion/beliefs don’t matter??? Why is that? |
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Feb 21, 2022 0:11:58 GMT
OK. Was it on your current persona? Can you link us to it? I have a street hockey game to organize. I thought you had to go? Awww, you know I always come back, Gia. So that's a no on being able to link it for us? |
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Feb 21, 2022 0:15:25 GMT
Regrettably, the people who need to see this the most don't care. They will stick to Fox and social media because of confirmation bias, stubbornness, loyalty to a party or some other reason. www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart That’s what amazes me about this site. No matter what someone’s point of view is, no matter what their beliefs are no matter what proof they have to back their story/post, if someone doesn’t like what they have to say, even if the proof is undeniable, that person will be shit on, swore at and degraded. There really is no room for neutral here. Why can’t people be entitled to their own beliefs and/or opinions without being told that their opinion/beliefs don’t matter??? Why is that? Can you show us where the lefties hurt you? When did you show "undeniable" proof? Usually when questioned, you back off and say, I never said it was fact, just my opinion. A half-baked opinion from you or your favorite infotainer is not "undeniable proof." A video or article that doesn't actually show what is being claimed is not "undeniable proof." An article based on wild assertions with no evidence to back them up is not "undeniable proof." |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Feb 21, 2022 0:17:46 GMT
That's why I like adfontes better as they have two axes - bias & reliability - based on their methodology for determining both. The chart above is just bias w/no indication of reliability - hidden, mis- and/or disinformation. Yes, the adfontes one offers a more complete picture and the reliability piece is important. I added the media bias one just to provide another resource. I generally look at both just to compare. |
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Feb 21, 2022 0:18:39 GMT
That's why I like adfontes better as they have two axes - bias & reliability - based on their methodology for determining both. The chart above is just bias w/no indication of reliability - hidden, mis- and/or disinformation. Same. Bias on a site with high accuracy tends to look more like which topics are covered and the slant of their opinion page. It doesn't make the news unreliable. Low accuracy sites, regardless of potential bias, should be avoided by everyone. |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Feb 21, 2022 0:22:27 GMT
Regrettably, the people who need to see this the most don't care. They will stick to Fox and social media because of confirmation bias, stubbornness, loyalty to a party or some other reason. www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart That’s what amazes me about this site. No matter what someone’s point of view is, no matter what their beliefs are no matter what proof they have to back their story/post, if someone doesn’t like what they have to say, even if the proof is undeniable, that person will be shit on, swore at and degraded. There really is no room for neutral here. Why can’t people be entitled to their own beliefs and/or opinions without being told that their opinion/beliefs don’t matter??? Why is that? Sorry to repeat this, but you're entitled to your own opinion or beliefs, not your own set of facts. And your proof from nypost, fox or other right wing source is not rock solid or undeniable. |
|
