CNN losing credibility as each day passes... Its pure propaganda at this point

[njbuff]

3 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

He's right, actually. It brings no value to the discussion, but gives the left the ammo they need to show conservatives as intolerant homophobes.

 

 

There is also a large gay conservative community who support Trump. Are they fudge-packers, too? Or they're the acceptable type of fudge-packer?

 

See what we mean? The pejoratives tied to sexual preference bring no value to the discussion.

 

Fine, you won't see or hear another peep about sexuality any more.

 

I know a lot of gay people who are good people and I will leave it alone.

[row_33]

9 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

He's right, actually. It brings no value to the discussion, but gives the left the ammo they need to show conservatives as intolerant homophobes.

 

 

There is also a large gay conservative community who support Trump. Are they fudge-packers, too? Or they're the acceptable type of fudge-packer?

 

See what we mean? The pejoratives tied to sexual preference bring no value to the discussion.

 

No....

 

Takser goes right off the deep end if you disagree in anything with him or her

 

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

19 minutes ago, njbuff said:

 

My God, this is what I mean.

 

If you can't take criticism, then one shouldn't criticize.

 

For the 37th time............................... the gay community hates Trump more than anyone and THEY will get called out on it.

 

People shouldn't be critical of things they disagree with politically unless they want to be attacked for their sexuality?

 

Are you sure you don't want to think that through?

 

Edit:  Thank you.

Edited August 15, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[IDBillzFan]

4 minutes ago, njbuff said:

 

Fine, you won't see or hear another peep about sexuality any more.

 

I know a lot of gay people who are good people and I will leave it alone.

 

I appreciate your reconsidering. If you want to fight the fight...and it's clear you've had enough of the leftist slash-burn-destroy efforts to make you want to fight...then it helps if you fight in a way that truly marks the conservative approach; facts. There is no greater kryptonite to the left than facts because they simply don't believe they matter.

 

This is why they do so many drive-bys at this site. They show up, bark something ridiculous, get asked for facts to back their ridiculousness, and leave.

 

Why? Because facts are simply not on their side.

 

Hit them with facts. Leave the pejoratives to the left.

 

You may not always agree with TYTT, but he's pretty damn good at holding leftists  up to a mirror to see their errors.

[TakeYouToTasker]

11 minutes ago, njbuff said:

 

Fine, you won't see or hear another peep about sexuality any more.

 

I know a lot of gay people who are good people and I will leave it alone.

 

Excellent.

 

I appreciate you doing the right thing.

[IDBillzFan]

14 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

No....

 

Takser goes right off the deep end if you disagree in anything with him or her

 

 

 

I don't find that to be the case at all. What I typically find is that his opening hand on a topic is even-tempered and primarily fact-based from his perspective. In fact, his back and forth with JSP about how JSP would like to see various media shut down was a good example of relatively mutually respective discourse.

 

I'm not saying we all don't get a little batschitlococxrazy dealing with the repetitive idiocy of the left, but otherwise...

[3rdnlng]

A Mike Rowe post on Facebook:

 

"Being John Markiewicz"

Yesterday, in response to a fan who wondered why I frequently appear on Fox News, I posted a link to an interview I just finished over at CNBC. Among the many comments that followed, was a question directed to me from a guy named John Markiewicz. Before I could reply, John’s question led to a spirited conversation among hundreds of individuals on this page.

To his credit, John Markiewicz kept the conversation lively. He engaged with other posters and linked to a study that bolstered his position. However, after a lot of back and forth, the veracity of the study John cited was called into question, and the majority of those following the thread concluded it was patently false. Fake news, if you will.

The result – while not exactly a love-letter to civil discourse – was a very useful dialogue that illustrated some universal flaws in what passes for present-day logic. Anyway, I read through entire thread, and decided to address John’s question directly. Alas, just as I was about to post my reply, John Markiewicz deleted the entire thread. Hundreds of comments, thousands of words…your words...gone in an instant.

Why, Facebook? Why allow a person to come to a public page, start a public conversation around a topic that actually matters, and then give them the power to erase the entire exchange? It’s one thing to be able to edit your own post - everyone deserves a mulligan now and then. But what possible good can come from allowing us to erase the words of another?

As for you, John Markiewicz, why exercise your first amendment right with such vigor, only to delete your arguments, along with the arguments of those who dared disagree with you? I’ve visited your page, looking for clues, but found no answers. Aside from your love of football, you have no history. Perhaps you’ve deleted that as well? Or maybe, this was just an accident? Maybe you just fat-fingered your keyboard and accidentally blew the entire conversation into oblivion?

Either way, don’t fret – I saved your name, your original question, and my answer, all of which are posted below. You're welcome. As for the hundreds of other comments mysteriously expunged from the record, that phenomena shall be henceforth be remembered on this page, as a “Markiewicz.”

John Markiewicz writes…

"Mike, I understand the importance of your message but I think the question that Art and others are trying to get at is, does the reputation of the network where you spread your message matter to you, or are you just looking to go where you’re called?"

Hi John. I have no reason to think Art was trying to “get at” anything beyond the literal question he asked. I can assure you, I meant nothing beyond the literal answer I provided. But regardless, your question is leading, because it assumes that the “reputation” of a network can be determined by a limited group of people, and that of course, is simply not true. Yes, Fox is despised by many liberals, and yes, CNN is despised by many conservatives. But neither network can be said to have a “reputation,” because a reputation requires more than a mere majority – it requires an overwhelming consensus. And right now, the country is not capable of a consensus, because most of us are living in a bubble. So, if you’re sincerely asking me whether or not I care about what liberals or conservatives might think of a particular news outlet or media personality, the answer is no. I honestly could not care less.

“Would you go on North Korea state TV or Alex Jones or any other more extreme propaganda source or is Fox News where you draw the line?”

You’re doing it again, John. In your question, you casually equate North Korean television with Fox News. You also imply that Fox is a source of “propaganda.” In other words, your slip is showing, and it’s obvious. To answer your question, I’m happy to share my message with any audience on any live program. I’m sometimes a bit more circumspect with taped interviews, because I can’t control the editing. But by and large, I’ll go wherever there’s an audience, because my message is relevant to anyone who relies on a skilled workforce.

“How much would an organization have to mislead the public before you decide that their message would skew your message?”

I don’t think organizations “mislead” the public – I think individuals do. Nor do I think corporations commit fraud – I think individuals do. If I were invited onto a program hosted by someone who I believed was deliberately misleading their audience, I wouldn’t decline the invitation. I’d show up and do my best to tell the truth as I see it. Likewise, if I was going to march in a protest, I wouldn’t hide my face behind a bandana. And of course, if I started a conversation on Facebook that didn’t go the way I wanted it to, I wouldn’t delete it. I’d let the record stand, and allow people to form their own opinions.

Mike

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Chris Cuomo is a piece of ****.

 

That is all.

 

[4merper4mer]

13 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

A Mike Rowe post on Facebook:

 

"Being John Markiewicz"

Yesterday, in response to a fan who wondered why I frequently appear on Fox News, I posted a link to an interview I just finished over at CNBC. Among the many comments that followed, was a question directed to me from a guy named John Markiewicz. Before I could reply, John’s question led to a spirited conversation among hundreds of individuals on this page.

To his credit, John Markiewicz kept the conversation lively. He engaged with other posters and linked to a study that bolstered his position. However, after a lot of back and forth, the veracity of the study John cited was called into question, and the majority of those following the thread concluded it was patently false. Fake news, if you will.

The result – while not exactly a love-letter to civil discourse – was a very useful dialogue that illustrated some universal flaws in what passes for present-day logic. Anyway, I read through entire thread, and decided to address John’s question directly. Alas, just as I was about to post my reply, John Markiewicz deleted the entire thread. Hundreds of comments, thousands of words…your words...gone in an instant.

Why, Facebook? Why allow a person to come to a public page, start a public conversation around a topic that actually matters, and then give them the power to erase the entire exchange? It’s one thing to be able to edit your own post - everyone deserves a mulligan now and then. But what possible good can come from allowing us to erase the words of another?

As for you, John Markiewicz, why exercise your first amendment right with such vigor, only to delete your arguments, along with the arguments of those who dared disagree with you? I’ve visited your page, looking for clues, but found no answers. Aside from your love of football, you have no history. Perhaps you’ve deleted that as well? Or maybe, this was just an accident? Maybe you just fat-fingered your keyboard and accidentally blew the entire conversation into oblivion?

Either way, don’t fret – I saved your name, your original question, and my answer, all of which are posted below. You're welcome. As for the hundreds of other comments mysteriously expunged from the record, that phenomena shall be henceforth be remembered on this page, as a “Markiewicz.”

John Markiewicz writes…

"Mike, I understand the importance of your message but I think the question that Art and others are trying to get at is, does the reputation of the network where you spread your message matter to you, or are you just looking to go where you’re called?"

Hi John. I have no reason to think Art was trying to “get at” anything beyond the literal question he asked. I can assure you, I meant nothing beyond the literal answer I provided. But regardless, your question is leading, because it assumes that the “reputation” of a network can be determined by a limited group of people, and that of course, is simply not true. Yes, Fox is despised by many liberals, and yes, CNN is despised by many conservatives. But neither network can be said to have a “reputation,” because a reputation requires more than a mere majority – it requires an overwhelming consensus. And right now, the country is not capable of a consensus, because most of us are living in a bubble. So, if you’re sincerely asking me whether or not I care about what liberals or conservatives might think of a particular news outlet or media personality, the answer is no. I honestly could not care less.

“Would you go on North Korea state TV or Alex Jones or any other more extreme propaganda source or is Fox News where you draw the line?”

You’re doing it again, John. In your question, you casually equate North Korean television with Fox News. You also imply that Fox is a source of “propaganda.” In other words, your slip is showing, and it’s obvious. To answer your question, I’m happy to share my message with any audience on any live program. I’m sometimes a bit more circumspect with taped interviews, because I can’t control the editing. But by and large, I’ll go wherever there’s an audience, because my message is relevant to anyone who relies on a skilled workforce.

“How much would an organization have to mislead the public before you decide that their message would skew your message?”

I don’t think organizations “mislead” the public – I think individuals do. Nor do I think corporations commit fraud – I think individuals do. If I were invited onto a program hosted by someone who I believed was deliberately misleading their audience, I wouldn’t decline the invitation. I’d show up and do my best to tell the truth as I see it. Likewise, if I was going to march in a protest, I wouldn’t hide my face behind a bandana. And of course, if I started a conversation on Facebook that didn’t go the way I wanted it to, I wouldn’t delete it. I’d let the record stand, and allow people to form their own opinions.

Mike

I'd be much more impressed if Rowe ended his note by saying........"and sorry your Ravens will start out 0-1."

[row_33]

1 hour ago, joesixpack said:

Chris Cuomo is a piece of ****.

 

That is all.

 

 

only aware he exists from Gutfeld mocking him

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[LB3]

28 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

The comments are both hilarious and terrifying.

[Deranged Rhino]

Jim, Jim, Jim... Tell us again how you're a real journalist...

 

 

 

 

[row_33]

didn't the same media tell me not to read Wikileaks because it was illegal information?

 

 

[njbuff]

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

When I look at political commentary, I just sit back and watch the pundits talk, without emotion whatsoever.

 

But, this Rye POS does not deserve a platform whatsoever. She should be in a mental hospital, and I am not even joking. The way she acts is how mental patients act.

 

Rye is one of the big reasons that CNN is crucified in being called fake news.

 

I know everyone deserves to be heard, but this Rye character is the very definition of a hateful beeotch.

4 hours ago, row_33 said:

 

only aware he exists from Gutfeld mocking him

 

 

I really don't watch the because Juan Williams doesn't deserve to be seen by me or heard by me, but Gutfeld is actually pretty funny.

 

I would watch though if Katie Pavlich was on. All I can say about her is..............................MW (Major W......, oh you get it).

[IDBillzFan]

1 hour ago, njbuff said:

 

When I look at political commentary, I just sit back and watch the pundits talk, without emotion whatsoever.

 

Here;s another beauty from a CNN panel:

 

 

[njbuff]

2 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

Here;s another beauty from a CNN panel:

 

 

 

Why does that bald guy always look and act angry?

[LaDexter]

and here is where CNN cheered and attacked those who thought something was wrong.... in this case, a Presidential campaign illegally raising CASH from an enemy superpower....

 

 

 

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

57 minutes ago, njbuff said:

 

Why does that bald guy always look and act angry?

 

Projection. Look into his background. 

[njbuff]

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Projection. Look into his background. 

 

TDS is strong with that one.