DC Tom Posted June 12, 2017 Posted June 12, 2017 Trump isn't running around pretending his totally fake marriage has been going on since the early 1980s, just for some kind of political wishiness... Don't know that I'd call the Clintons' marriage "totally fake" as much as "nontraditional." And Donald's current marriage...I have no idea what to call that at all...
row_33 Posted June 12, 2017 Posted June 12, 2017 Don't know that I'd call the Clintons' marriage "totally fake" as much as "nontraditional." And Donald's current marriage...I have no idea what to call that at all... That's a real estate tycoon and his trophy wife, I know tons of people like that. I'm sure the Clinton's were legally married, but pretending they are in love adds to the fakeness of everything their political campaigns portray. Worked for him but you can't transfer that kind of snakeoil. Bill and Hill have less warmth than Norm and Carla tried in order to fool the IRS auditor on Cheers.
Doc Brown Posted June 12, 2017 Posted June 12, 2017 So what do you now do to try to rig it for the Dems? But what % actually watch CNN to gain any insight on events? 10% tops? Most of the ratings have to come from them being on all the TVs in airports which nobody is paying attention to after the 15 seconds of worthiness in most stories. CNN had their best year ratings wise ever last year. They know the more they bash Trump the stronger his loyal supporters resolve is no matter what stupid thing he does or says. They'd love another seven years of Trump.
row_33 Posted June 12, 2017 Posted June 12, 2017 CNN had their best year ratings wise ever last year. They know the more they bash Trump the stronger his loyal supporters resolve is no matter what stupid thing he does or says. They'd love another seven years of Trump. I can't believe CNN did better than when people actually watched network news as a habit of inertia every night, the 3 networks and CNN religiously. Ratings, yeah I believe that has any measure of reality......
B-Man Posted June 12, 2017 Posted June 12, 2017 HEH: CNN To Launch Real News Spinoff Site. ATLANTA, GA—After years of publishing distorted headlines, slanted news articles, and heavily biased news coverage, media giant CNN announced Friday that it has decided to launch a spinoff site that focuses on real news comprised of objective facts. Dubbed “CNN: Real,” the site is designed to bring the news media empire into the arena of publishing real news, a step away from its roots as a channel that covers entirely fabricated stories and shamelessly spins all news into liberal talking points. “We know this is going to get some push-back from our viewer base, but don’t worry: the original CNN site and cable channel are still a large part of our business,” company Vice President Michael Bass said during an announcement on the shift toward real news. “Anytime you want to have your biases confirmed, CNN will be there.” “But with CNN: Real, we’re going to try our hand at reporting facts, and doing so in an unbiased manner.” Painting the new site as an “experiment,” Bass admitted to reporters that he is not entirely confident the real news angle will resonate with the company’s regular viewership, but CNN executives decided it was worth a shot, saying, “If it doesn’t work out, we can always just go back to focusing all of our energy on making stuff up.”
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 12, 2017 Posted June 12, 2017 HEH: CNN To Launch Real News Spinoff Site. ATLANTA, GA—After years of publishing distorted headlines, slanted news articles, and heavily biased news coverage, media giant CNN announced Friday that it has decided to launch a spinoff site that focuses on real news comprised of objective facts. Dubbed “CNN: Real,” the site is designed to bring the news media empire into the arena of publishing real news, a step away from its roots as a channel that covers entirely fabricated stories and shamelessly spins all news into liberal talking points. “We know this is going to get some push-back from our viewer base, but don’t worry: the original CNN site and cable channel are still a large part of our business,” company Vice President Michael Bass said during an announcement on the shift toward real news. “Anytime you want to have your biases confirmed, CNN will be there.” “But with CNN: Real, we’re going to try our hand at reporting facts, and doing so in an unbiased manner.” Painting the new site as an “experiment,” Bass admitted to reporters that he is not entirely confident the real news angle will resonate with the company’s regular viewership, but CNN executives decided it was worth a shot, saying, “If it doesn’t work out, we can always just go back to focusing all of our energy on making stuff up.” BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
B-Man Posted June 14, 2017 Posted June 14, 2017 (edited) FAKE NEWS: Media gullibility spurs yet another bogus news cycle, and this time it’s about the Golden State Warriors. Edited June 14, 2017 by B-Man
Chef Jim Posted June 14, 2017 Posted June 14, 2017 A friend posted that yesterday. I didn't even bother to respond because I assumed it was BS and didn't want to get in to it with her.
Deranged Rhino Posted June 14, 2017 Posted June 14, 2017 ONLY FIVE? Here Are Five Fake Stories CNN Pushed.
B-Man Posted June 15, 2017 Posted June 15, 2017 (edited) Shame on the New York Times. Shame.by David French The New York Times published its editorial in response to yesterday’s vicious, violent, and explicitly political attack on Congressional Republicans — an attack that wounded four and left Representative Steve Scalise in critical condition in a Washington-area hospital — and it is abhorrent. It is extraordinarily cruel, vicious, and — above all — dishonest. The editorial doesn’t just twist the truth to advance the board’s preferred narratives; it may even be libelous, a term I choose carefully. Yesterday’s shooter, James Hodgkinson, left little doubt as to his political leanings and his political motivations. He was a vocal Bernie Sanders supporter, belonged to Facebook groups with names such as “Terminate the Republican Party” and “The Road to Hell is paved with Republicans,” and he was constantly sharing angry anti-GOP messages and memes. Before opening fire, he reportedly asked whether the players on the baseball field were Democrats or Republicans. In other words, all available signs point to an act of lone-wolf progressive political terror. How does the Times deal with this evil act? The editorial begins innocently enough, describing the shooting and even forthrightly outlining Hodgkinson’s politics. But then, the board says this — and it’s worth quoting at length: Was this attack evidence of how vicious American politics has become? Probably. In 2011, when Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl, the link to political incitement was clear. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs. Conservatives and right-wing media were quick on Wednesday to demand forceful condemnation of hate speech and crimes by anti-Trump liberals. They’re right. Though there’s no sign of incitement as direct as in the Giffords attack, liberals should of course hold themselves to the same standard of decency that they ask of the right. (Emphasis added.) Let’s be blunt. In its zeal to create moral equivalencies and maintain a particular narrative about the past, the Times flat-out lied. There is simply no “link to political incitement” in Loughner’s murderous acts. The man was a paranoid schizophrenic who first got angry at Gabby Giffords years before Palin published her map. The Times editorial board didn’t have far to go to understand Loughner’s motivations; it could have asked . . . New York Times reporters. In an excellent reported piece published just days after the Tucson shootings, the paper described Loughner’s mental illness and nonsensical political beliefs in disturbing detail. For example, as he descended into the depths of his disease, he not only spewed bizarre and incoherent political ideas, he rejected conventional math and grammar. In short, he broke with reality: Palin is a public figure, and that means that newspapers rightly have a wide berth to attack her, to criticize her, and to make even the wildest arguments about her. They do not, however, have the right to intentionally lie about her. Given the body of evidence now available about Loughner, including evidence reported in their own paper, what is the editorial board’s defense? Let’s not forget, this is the same editorial board that, one year ago, laid blame on Republican Christian politicians for an Orlando terrorist attack by a confessed Islamic jihadist. Omar Mateen swore allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, but the Times editors believed (again, without any evidence) that he was inspired in part by Republican objections to granting men access to women’s restrooms. Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448664/new-york-times-steve-scalise-shameful-editorialhttps://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/14/opinion/steve-scalise-congress-shot-alexandria-virginia.html?_r=1 Edited June 15, 2017 by B-Man
GG Posted June 15, 2017 Posted June 15, 2017 WTF? Loughner wasn't a Palin supporter and there was no evidence that he even saw Palin's map.
B-Man Posted June 15, 2017 Posted June 15, 2017 WTF? Loughner wasn't a Palin supporter and there was no evidence that he even saw Palin's map. Exactly, and the NYT knew that, but printed it anyway. Palin may sue.
Tiberius Posted June 15, 2017 Posted June 15, 2017 Here is what the Times editorial really says. B-Man's link is a lie Was this attack evidence of how vicious American politics has become? Probably. In 2011, Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl. At the time, we and others were sharply critical of the heated political rhetoric on the right. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map that showed the targeted electoral districts of Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs. But in that case no connection to the shooting was ever established. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/14/opinion/steve-scalise-congress-shot-alexandria-virginia.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
Doc Brown Posted June 15, 2017 Posted June 15, 2017 Here is what the Times editorial really says. B-Man's link is a lie https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/14/opinion/steve-scalise-congress-shot-alexandria-virginia.html?ref=opinion&_r=0 No. That's the correction they made to the editorial after the complaints. B-man cited the original editorial.
Tiberius Posted June 15, 2017 Posted June 15, 2017 No. That's the correction they made to the editorial after the complaints. B-man cited the original editorial. True that. Glad they fixed it
B-Man Posted June 15, 2017 Posted June 15, 2017 In the real world, those of us who follow twitter, read this appalling, deceitful editorial online around 9:30 last evening. Criticism of the LIE was quick from both Conservatives and Liberals. The NYT HAD TIME to pull it before their print edition came out. They chose not to..........They deliberately printed something that they knew was libelous. Lawyer-induced corrections only impress dullards like Gator. GUY BENSON: New York Times Only Partially Corrects-Palin-Giffords Lie. The Times has added an online correction on this coruscating inaccuracy, reducing the likelihood that they’ll get sued over their libelous bilge. I obviously approve of the decision to alter this grossly inaccurate content, but the fact that their essay was approved as fit to print in the first place last evening is quite revealing. A central piece of their argument was rooted in fantastical left-wing folk lore, repeated so frequently by people who populate institutions like the New York Times editorial board that it morphed into a “fact.” The new version of the editorial still mentions Palin’s map, which is totally unconnected to anything of relevance on this subject. A bizarre non-sequitur. Their utterly wrong, unsupported implication remains intact. How about deleting the entire piece? Also, having made a change to their virtual copy under intense criticism today, will the Times showcase an apology and retraction in tomorrow’s print edition? Outlook not so good.
row_33 Posted June 15, 2017 Posted June 15, 2017 So every Dem working on this is a non-essential federal employee? That helps when lay-off time arrives.
Recommended Posts