FBI lawyer under criminal investigation for altering document
- Thread starter nail1988
- Start date
The NYT and WaPo are scrupulous about facts in their reporting. You can disagree with their editorial page, but you cannot, and have zero basis, to disagree with the accuracy of their reporting. It is respected, and feared, the world over. In a word, you are full of shit.
Good lord. Maggie Haberman is wrong more often than any reporter on the planet.
Bull! She's a great reporter, though not a perfect one. There are few who work as hard to get to the facts as Maggie (and she has to really bust her ass with this administration). I think the world of her. BTW, I know her well enough to say she's fairly moderate politically. She's more dedicated to her profession and the truth than to any political ideology. You'd like her once you accepted that facts can be inconvenient and don't always support your ideology, or mine. I know lots of investigative journalists, those who don't advocate for a party or ideolpgy, but attempt to gather facts for others to spin. If you watch Fox News or MSNBC, you're not seeing fact gatherers, but people who spin facts others have uncovered. Bottom line: we're entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts. For example, the facts uncovered by the impeachment hearings are uncontroverted. One can't reasonably dispute them. One can argue, however, that Trump ought not be impeached because of them......although I personally would argue that what Trump did is much worse than what Clinton did.
Last edited:
It’s no OAN or RedState, that’s for sure, who get quoted on here on the time. They make no bones about slanting their stories to conservative causes. But I guess you have no problem with that.
Is that even a question? I mean, Trumps violations are so extensive, it’s hard to pick just one.
I don’t quote them either - I know they’re in the tank for conservatives. The key is to read the highlights of several; I use RCP to get links to both sides:
NY Post versus NYT
Boston Herald vs Boston Globe
Washington Times vs Washington Post
The Hill vs Roll Call
Chicago Tribune vs Chicago Sun
I can go on for 20 other publications.... they all have slants to various degrees, of which the NYT and WaPo are slanted more than many..... and yes, both have published untruths
The most even handed paper out there might be USA Today, it’ll swing right for a while, then swing left - but it generally isn’t one or the other for too long
The NY Times and Washington post lie regularly by omission.
To each his or her own. USA Today has swung way left on Trump editorially. Again, I think you're mistaking facts for opinions. None of your favorites, IMO, come close to the NYT and Post for fact gathering, though they may editorially reflect your opinions. Except occasionally, I pay no attention to the far left or right, and I don't think you should either.
If something has been omitted, how do you know?
Name some facts either one of those papers have omitted, and tell us where you obtained the omitted fact.
She's a mouthpiece for the DNC. Wikileaks emails revealed that hillary called Maggie her 'pet'. She always posts 'sources within the White House are saying' that end up being factually inaccurate 99% of the time.
Accuracy was not the goal. Shaping public opinion was. Anyone that listens to anything from the NYT or WaPo wants to be deceived.
Why does the source of the lie matter, if the NYT or WaPo lied, then who told you about it is irrelevant.
During the first Bush 4 years, homeless stories were a regular part of the Times. The Clinton 8 years found the Times pushing homeless stories to the back burner. The second Bush found the Times homeless stories assuming their position front and center. Check it out.
The Palin daughters sometimes got front page coverage. Hunter Biden's drug problem could be found on page 23A. I could go on and on and on.
There are many scientists who are man made climate change detractors. Find me a mention in the NY Times or the Washington Post. I'm waiting.
The Palin daughters sometimes got front page coverage. Hunter Biden's drug problem could be found on page 23A. I could go on and on and on.
There are many scientists who are man made climate change detractors. Find me a mention in the NY Times or the Washington Post. I'm waiting.
Umm, I'm not talking about the source of the lie. What I'm saying is, if you say someone has lied, then you must know what the truth is. My question for you is, where do you get your truths so as to say Maggie or the NYT/WaPo have lied? The source of your truths is certainly relevant.
BTW, it is beyond preposterous to assert that the NYT investigates, then, rather than report the facts uncovered, lies about them. A paper doesn't last 168 years by routinely publishing lies.
You know, I would find you credible and respect your opinion if it didn't depend so much on saying a contrary opinion is based on lies. My complaint with Fox is not so much their facts (which aren't much different than those of the NYT), but their interpretation and spin. Their worldview is different than mine, and I'm okay with that. However, I'm not going to go bonkers and accuse Fox of routinely making up facts.
Last edited:
The fact that you deny man made climate change tells me all I need to know where you're coming from. You're the guy who, if 99 doctors say your child needs an operation to save his life, but one says he doesn't, your child doesn't have the operation. In other words, you're stupid and irresponsible. Goodbye.
A lot of people on Fox make up stuff all the time. Just like the NYT and Maggie Haberman, they aren;t in the business of reporting the facts, they are giving their audiences the stories they want to hear
You want to hear that ORANGE MAN BAD, so you only consult sources that sell you that story.
As an MNSBC anchor famously said: "It's not our job to report the news, it's our job to tell you what to think about it"
{Cough} {Cough} Mika Brzezinski.
I think he has you on ignore as well. Then again, I'll admit, you're not as obnoxious as I can be.
You're still not telling !e where you get your truth,, and I give up asking. BTW, one can't be told what to think about the news without someone having reported it to begin with.
I asked you what your top 3 sources for objective political information are, and you couldn't answer.
This is what sheep always do: When you give them the facts that they haven't been told, instead of doing independent research to VERIFY the information, sheep ask "well where are you getting this from?" then when you tell them, they immediately claim the source isn't valid, and therefore they don't have to believe the facts you have just given them.
This is also why sheep never learn anything
So, when you are unable to refute the facts presented on OANN, you go to the fall back position of claiming that they are not a credible source.
(your proof that OANN is not a credible news source?) crickets....
That's pretty funny, when you then list the MSM, many times proven FAKE NEWS, as your own solid sources...
WTF are you rambling about???So, when you are unable to refute the facts presented on OANN, you go to the fall back position of claiming that they are not a credible source.
(your proof that OANN is not a credible news source?) crickets....
That's pretty funny, when you then list the MSM, many times proven FAKE NEWS, as your own solid sources...
I bet myself $10 this is precisely the response I would receive.
I missed this, my apologies.
Try reading:
John Solomon
Sara Carter
Mollie Hemmingway
Kim Strassel
You're f-ing senile, man! First of all, I answered you're question. See previous parhe. Jesus! Second, you're the one who has yet to give any answer as to where you get your facts from!!!! Put a cork in the bottle next time you get to carry on a mature conversation. You, sunburn and 1988 are not credible people, just mindless drones - just who tyrants lk.
I will. Who do they write for?
It doesn't matter who they write for, what matters is what they say and if what they say has been proven to be credible.
I will say Solomon and Carter are two that frequently come behind Maggie Haberman and clean up her 'WH sources are telling me' with actual facts.
Now you have my apologies. I saw your post as I was writing mine and thought I’d deleted mine. You might enjoy this;
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2...sident-united-states-america-just-tweeted?amp
Then again, maybe not.
PS: the president’s weird post is fact. The article is opinion and spin.
Last edited:
Thing is, close to 99 out of 100 experts say man has contributed to global warming. It just floors me that a small minority of numbskulls are bound and determined to believe the 1%. So, in essence, you’d risk your son’s life on the 1%, and gloat about winning a bet against yourself. Don’t you see how weird and pathetic that is?
I'll let you in on a secret: 90% of the 'outrageous' stuff Trump tweets is done because he knows the media and liberals will make complete fools of themselves in response.
Did you see that WaPo actually wrote an article about Trump tweeting a photo of himself as Rocky?
I'm surprised CNN didn't tweet "Trump claims, without evidence, to have the chiseled body of Rocky"
Media doesn't realize it is making complete fools of themselves in an effort to paint Trump as a fool.
Contributing and causing are two completely different universes. @BSC911 is contributing to the world economy, but like man's contributing to the global temperature, it's not in a way that can be seen or felt.
Let me try to help, Richter.
You possess not one of the 16 characteristics of a critical thinker. Look them up. Study them closely. For now, forget the seven components of critical thinking. If you can't grasp the 16 characteristics, then there's nothing I can do.
Let's try this little exercise. This is what you've told me. You're a Warmist. Warmist is a religion. Facts mean nothing to the Warmist.
You prefer the English system of measure over the metric system. I know exactly why. You don't. Tell me if I'm wrong. For our little experiment to work we must be truthful. If you're less than truthful, clues will be present in your answer that will expose you.
Let's begin. If you choose not to cooperate, I completely understand. It might be a good idea for you not to question board members intelligence.
You possess not one of the 16 characteristics of a critical thinker. Look them up. Study them closely. For now, forget the seven components of critical thinking. If you can't grasp the 16 characteristics, then there's nothing I can do.
Let's try this little exercise. This is what you've told me. You're a Warmist. Warmist is a religion. Facts mean nothing to the Warmist.
You prefer the English system of measure over the metric system. I know exactly why. You don't. Tell me if I'm wrong. For our little experiment to work we must be truthful. If you're less than truthful, clues will be present in your answer that will expose you.
Let's begin. If you choose not to cooperate, I completely understand. It might be a good idea for you not to question board members intelligence.
Here's the thing abut that video: CNN knows that people like @UFRichter will never research their claims, they will just accept them because they want to believe that ORANGE MAN BAD.
Critical thinkers know better, that's why they no longer watch CNN.
The good news is that there's no indication that that isolated issue impacted any of the work that was being done by the FBI here," Vance continued. "It didn't result in a prosecution of Carter Page. And the important takeaway is that everything that President Trump has been saying for the last couple of years about the deep state and the effort by the Obama Justice Department to attack his campaign, that's all been made up. None of it was true."
But it was fomented and it was really put into progress, as much as by the president, by his attorney general, Bill Barr, who famously went in front of Congress and talked about spying, which is not what the Justice Department does," she added. "The Justice Department does court-ordered supervision or court-ordered evidence collection. The notion that the attorney general would call it 'spying' was shocking to many of us then, and the inspector general report confirms that it was indeed untrue."
But it was fomented and it was really put into progress, as much as by the president, by his attorney general, Bill Barr, who famously went in front of Congress and talked about spying, which is not what the Justice Department does," she added. "The Justice Department does court-ordered supervision or court-ordered evidence collection. The notion that the attorney general would call it 'spying' was shocking to many of us then, and the inspector general report confirms that it was indeed untrue."
If you only knew.
I will say this unequivocally: if you deny man’s significant contribution to global warming and poor stewardship of the plant over the past 150 years, and if you still support Trump, despite the overwhelming evidence that he is a corrupt individual, then the intelligence you claim to have is for naught. You might as well be an ape in the forest picking off fleas for all the good your mind has done you.
You sound like a real doosh. Just saying, Mr. Mensa.
PS. You buy into all of Ghost’s BS conspiracy theories so it sounds like you are missing a few qualifications yourself.
Last edited:
Mind is slave to emotions. The sooner one realizes that, the sooner one can attempt to be open minded. The problem is, some of the most intelligent are afflicted by a debilitating arrogance that doesn’t allow them to see any view but their own.
nail has littered this board with a myriad of sources who oppose Al Gore's weather ruse. 97 or 99 percent of U. S. scientists do not buy into man made global warming. Of course, one won't read about it in the NY Times or the Washington Post. We're not dealing with wave mechanics here. There is nothing hard here. Most of us get it. Sorry.
