02-28-2018, 07:32 PM
Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise
›
Off Topic Forums
›
Politics & Religion 2.0
›
P & R Archive
CNN producer to Student: Stick to the script
CNN producer to Student: Stick to the script
Thread Rating:
|
CNN producer to Student: Stick to the script
|
02-28-2018, 08:24 PM
02-28-2018, 08:47 PM
(02-28-2018, 06:19 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: At the time of the original post we had the facts in front of us. I addressed what most likely happened earlier in the thread after the initial post. No at the time you had an accusation that the Daily Garbage Can ran with as truth, much like that Nazi haircut story. ![[Image: ulVdgX6.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/ulVdgX6.jpg) ![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png) 
02-28-2018, 11:34 PM
02-28-2018, 11:37 PM
(02-28-2018, 08:47 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: No at the time you had an accusation that the Daily Garbage Can ran with as truth, much like that Nazi haircut story. So a news organization reported a story then updated and corrected the story when new information came to light? Sounds like accurately reporting the news. Maybe you should spend less time making up names and more time reading the site. Don’t worry I will Post more articles for you. I don’t mind helping you out.
02-28-2018, 11:51 PM
(02-28-2018, 11:37 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: So a news organization reported a story then updated and corrected the story when new information came to light? My comment was directed at you suggesting that the Daily Wire reported facts not accusations. It wasn't a fact that CNN changed the kid's question and refused to let him ask about arming teachers. That was an accusation that later was proven to be a lie. Kind of like when you posted Daily Garbage Can article about how a guy was beat up for having a nazi haircut, using a facebook post as a source, only for it to be proven to a lie. Nothing in that story would have been considered a fact, even before it was discovered that it was just some new balance wearing neo nazi loser crying wolf on the internet. But, by all means, keep posting fake stories from a website created by someone who couldn't even hack it at Breitbart lol
02-28-2018, 11:59 PM
(02-28-2018, 11:51 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: My comment was directed at you suggesting that the Daily Wire reported facts not accusations. Running a story based on the facts present at the time is fine as long as you evolve with the facts and correct the story. Which was done. Heck CNN rarely corrects their narrative. Outside of Jake Tapper. Cuomo has his moments but it’s not enough imo
03-01-2018, 12:18 AM
(02-28-2018, 11:59 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Running a story based on the facts I'm going to stop your post here and direct you to my last post. 
03-01-2018, 02:19 AM
(02-28-2018, 06:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Clearly a jab at the ascribing of credibility to the positions of some of these students based on nothing but what you just put in quotes. A jab at "ascribing credibility" to any party while the relevant facts are wanting--"surviving a massacre" not being one of them.
03-01-2018, 02:23 AM
03-01-2018, 03:11 AM
(02-27-2018, 10:17 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Just because you run as a Republican doesn’t make you conservative. The progressive gop wing is basically democrat light. But it does make you a Republican. And that was the issue we were addressing. (02-27-2018, 10:17 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Choose a show on CNN and I will happily Post the bias reporting for the show. How bout Don Lemon. I want to know how/why his show is "leftist." (02-27-2018, 10:17 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Not sure why the dress code at Fox for women matter. REAL conservatives like traditional gender norms, and signal them with their appearance. No leggy blondes in short dresses and long eyelashes on MSNBC or the Communist News Network. "Feminazi" is a term Rush Limbaugh coined for women who are pro choice. It has currency in those circles where men still prefer submissive women and judge them by their looks. (02-27-2018, 10:17 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Obama is a socialist. And Hillary is a neocon. No one ever said she was a socialist. I'm pretty sure good conservatives and right wingers have ALWAYS said Hillary was a socialist. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/11/hillary-clintons-socialist-makeover-complete/ http://www.businessinsider.com/tom-cotton-hillary-clinton-socialist-2016-7 http://www.wnd.com/2016/07/hillary-clinton-part-socialist-part-crony-capitalist/ https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/letters/2017/09/24/letter-clintons-socialist-agenda-is-what-lost-her-the-election/comments/ http://templestream.blogspot.com/2016/07/hillary-clinton-socialism-and-marxism.html https://www.infowars.com/secret-service-agent-on-hillary-shes-going-to-move-towards-more-of-a-dictatorship/ https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-27/hillary-clintons-roadmap-america https://freedomoutpost.com/exposing-hillary-clintons-ties-to-saul-alinsky-communist-doctrine/ http://www.returnofkings.com/77373/hillary-clintons-socialist-manifesto-shows-why-women-shouldnt-be-involved-in-politics http://harddawn.com/hillarys-secret-socialist-agenda/ http://www.wstreet.com/member/commentary.asp?con_id=38179 And maybe that's a good reason to define socialism and, if you don't like it, resist applying the label to everyone and everything you don't like. Maybe you could go a little further and explain why Obama is a socialist, based upon specific policies and a clearly articulated definition of socialism which they fit? No one said religion and Christmas weren't on the same side. Someone said Fox News defends both in what it calls a "war" on them. Do conservatives defend religion and Christmas?
03-01-2018, 03:31 AM
(03-01-2018, 02:23 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm thrilled we agree that these kids have no credibility above any other citizen despite their surviving this horrible shooting. One of them has lost some credibility, hasn't he? Blame him for losing it, not me for pointing it out. How did we go from "relevant facts wanting" in the case of one kid vs CNN to "these kids have NO credibility"? Credibility with respect to what, exactly, in this case? Your comments on credibility implied that when "someone had to be lying," you favored the liar in this case. Then you decided you were "correct" when the less credible party turned out to be truthful.
03-01-2018, 10:16 AM
(03-01-2018, 03:11 AM)Dill Wrote: But it does make you a Republican. And that was the issue we were addressing. 1. Just being a republican isn’t good enough. Republican doesn’t not equal conservative. 2. Don Lemon race baits almost nightly. That is leftist 101. Shame people to believing your POV by calling them a racist for challenging. 3. MSNBC all wear the same gender nuetral glasses. Or at least they did .... I think Chris Hayes is now wearing the brown Sally Jesse Rapheal’s. MSNBC obviously do not care about appearance on air. Fox does..... nothing wrong with that at all. Ugly women do not sell. As for feminazi.... never heard of it. I thought of this I can’t speak for “conservative and right wingers”.... I can only speak for myself. Anyone can call themselves a conservative, heck John McCain, George Bush/W Bush, Graham, etc try and call themselves conservative all the time. That doesn’t make it so. I don’t think her core policies are socialist. She had to go socialist because Bernie forced her that way in he primary. She would have governed like a Bush. There really is no difference. She would not have cut taxes. Obama tried to govern like a radical socialist. Obamacare, DACA, and race baiting.
03-01-2018, 10:17 AM
(03-01-2018, 03:31 AM)Dill Wrote: One of them has lost some credibility, hasn't he? Blame him for losing it, not me for pointing it out. Clearly reading is not a strong suit for you. Miss the part of having no more credibility "above any other citizen". Quote:Your comments on credibility implied that when "someone had to be lying," you favored the liar in this case. I didn't favor anyone, again reading comprehension issues. I said not long ago I would have believed CNN without hesitation. Their credibility issues of late prevent me from doing that now. Quote:Then you decided you were "correct" when the less credible party turned out to be truthful. Again, reading comprehension fail. I said someone was obviously lying, someone was. This is why "discussing" anything with you or your two buddies is both futile and annoying, you deliberately argue points that weren't made or twist points that were. This does not happen with Matt, Benton, 'Zona, Wyche or basically any other poster but you and your two buddies. Sad. 
03-01-2018, 11:32 AM
(02-28-2018, 06:26 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: we'll be dead before he admits he was wrong
People suck
03-01-2018, 02:22 PM
(03-01-2018, 11:32 AM)Griever Wrote: we'll be dead before he admits he was wrong Seems there are quite a few people on this board like that... ![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif) Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self. 
03-01-2018, 02:35 PM
(03-01-2018, 11:32 AM)Griever Wrote: we'll be dead before he admits he was wrong thats the way children get their way and push back against progress right? you know, those humans incapable of complex thought and critical thinking, all balled up arms crossed in the corner? all pissed because they saw a mirror for the first time and are more upset by the idea of the mirror rather than grotesque disheveled image it projected back. 
03-01-2018, 06:44 PM
03-01-2018, 08:08 PM
(03-01-2018, 06:44 PM)ballsofsteel Wrote: They take after their daddy donald drumph. Some. Some claim to not support him. It gets silly. Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
03-01-2018, 10:27 PM
(03-01-2018, 10:17 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Clearly reading is not a strong suit for you. Miss the part of having no more credibility "above any other citizen". Simply claiming someone has "comprehension issues" is not demonstrating it. I said that, based upon Lucy's DW post, we did not have enough relevant information to decide who was lying. Then your post #3 you attempted to add an inference I did not make. "So, either this student is lying or CNN is. Your assertion then is that this student, who survived a massacre, is lying to score political points?" Why would you need to know that if your ONLY POINT was that "someone"--no favorites here--was lying? Looks to me like "either this student is lying or CNN is" is a premise, not a conclusion or your main point. It is the basis on which you infer, or try to, that I imply or mean to imply the student is lying. (Which I guess would be really bad because he survived a massacre.) You are not trying to convince readers that "someone"--as in anyone--is lying. You are assessing the likelihood of who is. That is why I immediately ask, "Where are you going with this?" And in post #22 you repeat your premise, again as a premise: So either this kid and his dad are lying or CNN is lying. Four or five years ago I would have trusted CNN, they just don't have much credibility anymore. So if your ONLY point is that "someone must be lying," why the need to add that CNN, is "untrustworthy"? How is that "not favoring anyone"? Especially in contrast to a student hero? Funny--when I say there is not enough factual basis to make a judgment either way--without claiming anyone is "untrustworthy"--you need to know whether I am calling a student "survivor" a liar. But after you EXPLICITLY say one party is untrustworthy, you claim a problem with my comprehension if I say that looks like favoring the other party, the "survivor." In short, your points were not simply to establish that "someone was lying"--which no one disputed or was interested in disputing--but to establish a likelihood of who was lying. But Fred, BPat, Dino, and Benton smelled a rat where you saw a hero. And your "untrustworthy" party turned out to be telling the truth. Hence the surprise at your post #84, where we get: So when I said someone is lying I was correct. Fred and I could not help noting the Twisty McTwist. Your NEW MAIN POINT is that all along you were only claiming SOMEONE was lying--AND YOU WERE CORRECT. All the talk of survivors and CNN's lack of credibility has evaporated. Nothing to see here folks. It's like you just spent three posts on Feb.3 arguing that someone must win the Superbowl and "incidentally" pointing out the Patriots are five time winners who survived a 20 point deficit in the last Superbowl and the untrustworthy Eagles have always lost. Then on Feb. when the Eagles win you remind everyone you were "correct," someone had to win. No one in this forum EVER just argues that "someone must win the Superbowl" because the point is so trivial and no one disputes it. But people are twisting your words if they suggest you were doing anything more than making a non-point with all your talk of credibility. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
![[Image: image.jpg]](http://memecrunch.com/meme/necn/dafuq-bird/image.jpg)
![[Image: 15-01%2B~%2BGIF%2B~%2BPlease%2BWait.gif]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-qAZEM0Gz3ow/VC5ctIPqBrI/AAAAAAAAMvQ/tIDMkxgzTI0/s1600/15-01%2B~%2BGIF%2B~%2BPlease%2BWait.gif)
Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)
