What's new

babe's Fact-Checking Service

There is no questions being posed here because I dont think you possess the ability to fact check.

Here lets see how this works out

Is Breitbart News actual News?
Is Fox News actual news?
Is Alex Jones a journalist who is a reliable source for information and news?
How about Andrew Wilkow, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity

What are the conservative versions of NYTimes and Washington Post?

Which president candidate did the Major news outlets support? By that I mean which candidate did they run more stories about, more positive stories about a less negative stories about?

What is the most reliable source for factual news?


This is partially in response to your post in the other thread. I was going to respond to that one but these are questions I have from that post for you. I would be happy to hear others responses as well.

OK, so you didn't here specifically say you absolutely believe anything you read, but you assert there are more reliable sources for factual news. So, which are they?

I think during the past campaign cycle, Fox news ran more stuff pro-Trump, but it seemed pretty clear to me that CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC and others were almost all in for Hillary. All these outfits have owners, people with definite preferences, and they all push their owners' interests. Therefore, none of them are legitimate "news" or "Press" institutions.

Pretty much, that's been "The Way It Is" since long before Cronkite. As far back as the Civil War.
 
Back to Judicial Watch's case for FOIA documents related to Benghazi

Judicial Watch must be credited for the 2015 release of official documents revealing that Obama, Hillary and other responsible officials knew of the impending attack on the consulate in Benghazi as much as ten days in advance of the action. The materials reveal that a demonstration was organized as "cover" for the actual terrorist action, and that Obama administration officials pushed the narrative that there was no terrorist involvement, just a demonstration gone amok.

Ron, all this stuff is undeniable per the actual official documents. Do you wonder why no "credible" news organization you prefer has been willing to give us the facts in these documents.

I say the people you put your trust in just have their own agenda. They are not "news" organizations in reality. Otherwise, this would be news.

here is one of the initial JW finds:

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press...ent-to-daughter-on-night-of-september-11-att/

Which of course proves Obama and Hillary and others clearly knew the true nature of the attack on the night it happened... which goes to my comments about their intelligence and the facts of their actual plan.

here is something else, which shows they also knew of arms movements involving these people, at the time of the attack.

https://world.wng.org/2015/05/us_aided_arms_flow_from_benghazi_to_syria

When ISIS was first hitting the news, there was a report in the mainstream media of Obama making a sort of jocular remark about them. When I heard his remark, it struck me that he was actually offering them advice about how to be more effective, and that he welcomed their help against the Assad regime..... he was actually pleased with their emergence.

and we were giving them arms.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq
 
Last edited:
It may not be the most strategic time to be citing/using Breitbart News as a source. (And I'm also thinking of the other thread by babe as well as this one). And the reason I say that is because of the expose of Breitbart that was published last week by Buzzfeed News. Based on Breitbart's own internal documents, emails, etc., the report by Buzzfeed, in a bottom line sense, blows that so-called news organ out of the water, drawing the connections and connecting the dots in a Breitbart-Bannon-Milo-White Nationalists-Neo Nazi kinda way. It's awfullly tough to deny the charges made in the Buzzfeed report, based as they are on the treasure trove of Breitbart documents Buzzfeed was able to obtain. Forbes has a short summary:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/janetw...bannon-milo-yiannopoulos-report/#71ea8bf8925c

"Citing a cache of leaked internal documents, an expose by BuzzFeed News has sought to connect the dots on how the alt-right's leading site has been pooling racist, sexist, and/or white nationalist ideals (and, at it happens, seemingly endless cracks about ************).

On Thursday, BuzzFeed News’ Joseph Bernstein published the results of a massive investigation into the strategic and ideological inner workings of Breitbart News, and particularly the actions and opinions of former Trump adviser and Breitbart executive Steve Bannon and former Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos.

Based on internal emails and documents from the company, the expose reveals how Bannon, Yiannopoulos, and a large cast of other Breitbart players and employees worked to develop and advance an agenda that embraced tactics, values, and assistance from neo-Nazi and white nationalist groups, among others.

In his roles as Breitbart voice and Bannon surrogate, BuzzFeed reported, Yiannopoulos in particular sought input and content from white nationalists and neo-Nazis, but also collaborated with like-minded (if previously more low profile) members of the media and business communities.

Bernstein wrote, "These new emails and documents [clearly] show that Breitbart does more than tolerate the most hate-filled, racist voices of the alt-right. It thrives on them, fueling and being fueled by some of the most toxic beliefs on the political spectrum--and clearing the way for them to enter the American mainstream." He continued, "They [also] reveal how the website--and, in particular, Yiannopoulos--links the Mercer family, the billionaires who fund Breitbart, to underpaid trolls who fill it with provocative content, and to extremists striving to create a white ethnostate."

-----------------------------------------------------

But no need to settle for second hand analysis. Here is the expose from Buzzfeed News, thanks to whom may Breitbart never be able to hide again:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbern...te-nationalism?utm_term=.un3PldpOV#.hunEqaOyp

Here's How Breitbart and Milo smuggled Nazi and White Nationalist ideas into the mainstream:

"These documents chart the Breitbart alt-right universe. They reveal how the website — and, in particular, Yiannopoulos — links the Mercer family, the billionaires who fund Breitbart, to underpaid trolls who fill it with provocative content, and to extremists striving to create a white ethnostate.

They capture what Bannon calls his “killing machine” in action, as it dredges up the resentments of people around the world, sifts through these grievances for ideas and content, and propels them from the unsavory parts of the internet up to TrumpWorld, collecting advertisers’ checks all along the way.

And the cache of emails — some of the most newsworthy of which BuzzFeed News is now making public — expose the extent to which this machine depended on Yiannopoulos, who channeled voices both inside and outside the establishment into a clear narrative about the threat liberal discourse posed to America. The emails tell the story of Steve Bannon’s grand plan for Yiannopoulos, whom the Breitbart executive chairman transformed from a charismatic young editor into a conservative media star capable of magnetizing a new generation of reactionary anger. Often, the documents reveal, this anger came from a legion of secret sympathizers in Silicon Valley, Hollywood, academia, suburbia, and everywhere in between."
 
ok,, so take the miuurderes gun away!

we are ok with that.


just dont punish all other gun owners by taking their guns away!


do we take away all computers because a hacker stole trillions.
do we take away alcohol because a drunk guy raped a woman.
do we take away all other cars because some guy committed vehicle manslaughter!

stop advancing nazi germany policies!

I have never once suggested outlawing firearms, and I don't believe it would work if they tried. So please stop with your incoherent rambling to consider the irony in republicans fighting for the rights of a killer while at the same time fighting against the rights of his victims.

If it were up to me, I'd probably legalize hand grenades if the republicans would agree to universal health care in this country. I'm much more disturbed by the death grip the health insurance companies have on the country than the lack of gun control.
 
I have never once suggested outlawing firearms, and I don't believe it would work if they tried. So please stop with your incoherent rambling to consider the irony in republicans fighting for the rights of a killer while at the same time fighting against the rights of his victims.

If it were up to me, I'd probably legalize hand grenades if the republicans would agree to universal health care in this country. I'm much more disturbed by the death grip the health insurance companies have on the country than the lack of gun control.

aah yes. saying you would not ban firearms. and then in the same sentence suggest another nazi policy one nazi germany was the first to implement the universal healthcare!
 
I have never once suggested outlawing firearms, and I don't believe it would work if they tried. So please stop with your incoherent rambling to consider the irony in republicans fighting for the rights of a killer while at the same time fighting against the rights of his victims.

If it were up to me, I'd probably legalize hand grenades if the republicans would agree to universal health care in this country. I'm much more disturbed by the death grip the health insurance companies have on the country than the lack of gun control.

Sounds like somebody has come down with a illness he dint properly plan for an is now outraged that life has him by the you know whats an now wants everone else ta pay for his mistakes.
 
[MENTION=970]babe[/MENTION]

Frankly I am not that concerned about the election still. Clinton lost and Trump is our president. I dont really feel a need to criticize Clinton since she is not our president. I have little to no interest in her. But for you edification ill respond to some of the stuff you are typing about. I have so far not said anything about your Judicial watch info despite the fact you are defending it to me for some reason.

1st of all you claim the media was in Clintons pocket and on her side making them dishonest. That is an incorrect fact with faulty logic. Here is the fact about media coverage over the entire campaign:
ver the course of the entire campaign, Clinton was covered more negatively than Trump, with 62 percent negative and 38 percent positive coverage compared to Trump's coverage, which was 56 percent negative and 44 percent positive.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-me...verage-overwhelmingly-negative-in-tone-232307
Trump’s name appeared in 1.8x the number of headlines that Clinton’s did.
So he got a lot more media coverage than any other candidate by a long shot.

The other problem is it is faulty logic to claim the media is biased or dishonest because of their tone about a candidate. They are providing news, so if one candidate has more negative stories than they should report that, not pick and choose what stories to run and how to be "fair" to a candidate. In fact many news organizations have lamented about this fact from this election that they tried to hard to be "fair" with stories and realized later it is not their job to be even with news stories about candidates. On a side note there are many criticisms to have about media but you choose very out there claims about them.

I think some of your criticism of "media" is based on opinion pieces from News and not their actual news. Yes certain newspapers have a much more conservative or liberal readership and the opinions reflect that. But opinion pieces are not news, based on who you go to for you "facts and "information" I think establishing the difference between those two things is very important.

Now to you claim about media not reporting Benghazi stuff.
First of all the emails and situation was well investigated by the FBI that is overwhelmingly conservative personally. I know you think some silly claim about some FBI people including Comey and Mueller but they are very well respected by FBI agents and by people on both sides politically. I respect what they found in their investigation and a lot of the information they released summed up everything very nice. As far as your claim that the "media" wasnt reporting on any of the Benghazi stuff you are out in the night on that one. They reported and reported a lot on it.

I was going to post all the CNN, NYTimes, Washington Post about the informtation you linked but it was overwhelming. Just find the facts from those articles you posted (not the headline or opinions that are in it) search those papers and you will find tons of articles on those. Clinton was hammered about Benghazi by those papers.

As far as Judicial watch goes you do know that it is a far right group? They are heavily biased.

Here are a few Snopes articles about them:
http://www.snopes.com/tag/judicial-watch/

I dont find a group that sues over and over to defraud someone a good source. It is very dishonest to sue when you know you dont have a case or get info just to try and make someone look bad.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/us/politics/judicial-watch-hillary-clinton.html

They have gotten some decent information out to the public which I think is great but they are not a good source. They are heavily biased and filter all information through that bias since they have an obvious agenda.

Yes, a lot of news places have an agenda and that agenda is to increase readership. So they do post more articles and information about news that interests the public. That is why the winner of every election in modern history has had more articles about them from major news sources. But they dont lie to push their news. When they do print incorrect information they correct it. News does make mistakes, that is inevitable but good ones correct themselves and minimize or eliminate their biases. They also dont filter news through an agenda or sprinkle opinions conveniently in to misguide the reader.

Breitbart has printed many many unfounded conspiracies with 0 evidence or sources, Many many false stories that are made up and rarely retract them, and a lot of general fasle information. I mean they were one of the places pushing the silly pizza gate story where they falsely accused Clinton and others of running a child sex slave ring out of a pizza joint. How can you take this type of places serious? Its kind of embarrassing for someone to prop up a organization like this. But it makes sense you think that other real news is lies and you believe is so many far fetched conspiracies that I think how does someone even begin to believe this. So this thread and minor research from me has helped me understand you little better.
 
[MENTION=970]babe[/MENTION]

Frankly I am not that concerned about the election still. Clinton lost and Trump is our president. I dont really feel a need to criticize Clinton since she is not our president. I have little to no interest in her. But for you edification ill respond to some of the stuff you are typing about. I have so far not said anything about your Judicial watch info despite the fact you are defending it to me for some reason.

1st of all you claim the media was in Clintons pocket and on her side making them dishonest. That is an incorrect fact with faulty logic. Here is the fact about media coverage over the entire campaign:http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-me...verage-overwhelmingly-negative-in-tone-232307
So he got a lot more media coverage than any other candidate by a long shot.

The other problem is it is faulty logic to claim the media is biased or dishonest because of their tone about a candidate. They are providing news, so if one candidate has more negative stories than they should report that, not pick and choose what stories to run and how to be "fair" to a candidate. In fact many news organizations have lamented about this fact from this election that they tried to hard to be "fair" with stories and realized later it is not their job to be even with news stories about candidates. On a side note there are many criticisms to have about media but you choose very out there claims about them.

I think some of your criticism of "media" is based on opinion pieces from News and not their actual news. Yes certain newspapers have a much more conservative or liberal readership and the opinions reflect that. But opinion pieces are not news, based on who you go to for you "facts and "information" I think establishing the difference between those two things is very important.

Now to you claim about media not reporting Benghazi stuff.
First of all the emails and situation was well investigated by the FBI that is overwhelmingly conservative personally. I know you think some silly claim about some FBI people including Comey and Mueller but they are very well respected by FBI agents and by people on both sides politically. I respect what they found in their investigation and a lot of the information they released summed up everything very nice. As far as your claim that the "media" wasnt reporting on any of the Benghazi stuff you are out in the night on that one. They reported and reported a lot on it.

I was going to post all the CNN, NYTimes, Washington Post about the informtation you linked but it was overwhelming. Just find the facts from those articles you posted (not the headline or opinions that are in it) search those papers and you will find tons of articles on those. Clinton was hammered about Benghazi by those papers.

As far as Judicial watch goes you do know that it is a far right group? They are heavily biased.

Here are a few Snopes articles about them:
http://www.snopes.com/tag/judicial-watch/

I dont find a group that sues over and over to defraud someone a good source. It is very dishonest to sue when you know you dont have a case or get info just to try and make someone look bad.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/us/politics/judicial-watch-hillary-clinton.html

They have gotten some decent information out to the public which I think is great but they are not a good source. They are heavily biased and filter all information through that bias since they have an obvious agenda.

Yes, a lot of news places have an agenda and that agenda is to increase readership. So they do post more articles and information about news that interests the public. That is why the winner of every election in modern history has had more articles about them from major news sources. But they dont lie to push their news. When they do print incorrect information they correct it. News does make mistakes, that is inevitable but good ones correct themselves and minimize or eliminate their biases. They also dont filter news through an agenda or sprinkle opinions conveniently in to misguide the reader.

Breitbart has printed many many unfounded conspiracies with 0 evidence or sources, Many many false stories that are made up and rarely retract them, and a lot of general fasle information. I mean they were one of the places pushing the silly pizza gate story where they falsely accused Clinton and others of running a child sex slave ring out of a pizza joint. How can you take this type of places serious? Its kind of embarrassing for someone to prop up a organization like this. But it makes sense you think that other real news is lies and you believe is so many far fetched conspiracies that I think how does someone even begin to believe this. So this thread and minor research from me has helped me understand you little better.

Hahaha! The media thought Turnip had absolutely zero chance of winning so they censored coverage to make him win the primaries. Than they flipped the switch which made it all obvious they are bias an Trump used it to show the nation the media wants to control are elections.
 
Oh yeah an how they only chose 6-7 papers from the major population centers? Talk bout a skewed study.
There are many other studies showing the same thing. I chose this one since it included the ones that are questioned. Also that should be skewed against what I am claiming based on the organizations used, so that observation you made helps my argument.

Media being corrupt liberal misinformation is simply propaganda from the right. But it has been successful. That still doesn't make it true.
 
There are many other studies showing the same thing. I chose this one since it included the ones that are questioned. Also that should be skewed against what I am claiming based on the organizations used, so that observation you made helps my argument.

Media being corrupt liberal misinformation is simply propaganda from the right. But it has been successful. That still doesn't make it true.

Uh huh sure. Why don't you simply admit the media is corrupt. It is obvious an obvious on both sides. Admitting it would git a generally sensible kid such as yourself a whole lot more credit an platform then defendin a corrupt media does.

Listen kid, I have bin around for a long time. We don't have much journalism anymore, we have media. An it is bias as all get out. Now, I thought someone like yourself who wants changes made would readily call out a media tryin ta influence an election an creatin the exact opposite of what they was tryin ta do. You know it is more true then the Russia election influence stuff.
 
Uh huh sure. Why don't you simply admit the media is corrupt. It is obvious an obvious on both sides. Admitting it would git a generally sensible kid such as yourself a whole lot more credit an platform then defendin a corrupt media does.

Listen kid, I have bin around for a long time. We don't have much journalism anymore, we have media. An it is bias as all get out. Now, I thought someone like yourself who wants changes made would readily call out a media tryin ta influence an election an creatin the exact opposite of what they was tryin ta do. You know it is more true then the Russia election influence stuff.

Well again you really help me out with your arguments. You do a good job of making me sound sensible.

Media is better than it ever has been in the history of the world. Their job is harder now than ever and they have to be more truthful than ever. With the ability to get news from so many places and fact check claims media and news is much much better than it ever has been. Journalists are doing fantastic work in the world as a whole right now. Yes some suck but there are more than enough great ones to make up for it.

The reality is the people complain about the world getting worse and things used to be better but that is simply not true. The world is getting better and the media is keeping up!
 
Well again you really help me out with your arguments. You do a good job of making me sound sensible.

Media is better than it ever has been in the history of the world. Their job is harder now than ever and they have to be more truthful than ever. With the ability to get news from so many places and fact check claims media and news is much much better than it ever has been. Journalists are doing fantastic work in the world as a whole right now. Yes some suck but there are more than enough great ones to make up for it.

The reality is the people complain about the world getting worse and things used to be better but that is simply not true. The world is getting better and the media is keeping up!

I like to make ya sound sensible cause ya are.

Media is not bettar then it has evar been an you know it. You cannot sit here an tell me with a straight face that New York Times er Wasington Times isn't biased an tryin ta influence politics. Both are!

Hell, harder now? How so? Harder ta skew all this new information ta prove there point ta people that have no clue what that info really means? GMAFB. You know what people with partial facts an partial info do with it? They abuse it! That is are media.
 
I like to make ya sound sensible cause ya are.

Media is not bettar then it has evar been an you know it. You cannot sit here an tell me with a straight face that New York Times er Wasington Times isn't biased an tryin ta influence politics. Both are!

Hell, harder now? How so? Harder ta skew all this new information ta prove there point ta people that have no clue what that info really means? GMAFB. You know what people with partial facts an partial info do with it? They abuse it! That is are media.

I mean it would be easier to take serious if you talked about one organization but when you say "the Media" it means there is no logic or reasoning left.

New York Times is a fantastic news organization with many upstanding excellent journalists. Most journalist aspire to work there because they are great.
 
I have never once suggested outlawing firearms, and I don't believe it would work if they tried. So please stop with your incoherent rambling to consider the irony in republicans fighting for the rights of a killer while at the same time fighting against the rights of his victims.

If it were up to me, I'd probably legalize hand grenades if the republicans would agree to universal health care in this country. I'm much more disturbed by the death grip the health insurance companies have on the country than the lack of gun control.

wow.

well, personally, I agree that health care corporates and the cartel insurance corporates are particularly disingenuous. Do you realize they actually wrote the Obamacare package? Congress does things that way a lot, turning complex issues over to the corporates with their lobbyists to actually write up the legislation they
want. That is part of the reason I see our government as "fascist"..... too cozy between "our" representatives and the corporates who supply most of the campaing funds. Really, it's like sending your wife to the store and having her sleep with the clerks and store owners and run up the tab on your credit card. And you're supposed to smile. And if you imagine something's wrong, well, you've got the media, and everybody else calling you a "conspiracy theorist".

Well, universal or single payer is not the answer either. As long as there are different choices you can make, you've still got some influence on what happens in your care. When it's "universal" or "single payer", it'll be the grand fascists and their stooge ho legislators and you are completely cut out of the deal.

really, I don't see how anyone can imagine totalitarian government is gonna do the people right.
 
You're doing good work RM.

yes indeed. The political team in here does do some fantastic work. Almost makes me wonder if there is not some professional political staff writer supplying well-written stock answers as well as guiding you along in the talking points..... lol.

I can't match your work.

I watch the TV news all the time, and know what I see. I listen to talk radio when I can't watch TV, and I know what I hear. I even listen to the XM libs sometimes. I scan the airwaves where ever I go, and I'm glad to report that there are a scad of local conservative hosts doing local gigs all over this country. I think they are mostly good.

There are some ignorant things a lot of conservatives tend to do.... sure I could argue the same for libs... but this is for you. Mark Levin calling Putin a KGB thug, and painting the Chinese government as dark as NK's little walking talking puppet.... well, Sen. Paul ranting about unions too....

I still think I can bust up the censorship ring in JFC that has achieved a nearly unanimous political consensus by teaming up on their ideological foes one at a time, though.

Who knows, maybe you'll need to bring out your big guns once again, Sir Kicky and Rev. Until they show up, I know it looks like a safe sector in the war against original personal views that are not just people reeling out political talking points for "the cause".

Why is it so important to achieve that cozy communitarian society where everyone will just roll out every day to do their duty to the corporates?
 
I mean it would be easier to take serious if you talked about one organization but when you say "the Media" it means there is no logic or reasoning left.

New York Times is a fantastic news organization with many upstanding excellent journalists. Most journalist aspire to work there because they are great.

While I absolutely agree with Boris' point, sometimes I wonder..... could this possibly be PW? I think the typo thing is overdone. Ain't nobody ever gonna match Ain't in writing vernacular.
 
[MENTION=970]babe[/MENTION]

Frankly I am not that concerned about the election still. Clinton lost and Trump is our president. I dont really feel a need to criticize Clinton since she is not our president. I have little to no interest in her. But for you edification ill respond to some of the stuff you are typing about. I have so far not said anything about your Judicial watch info despite the fact you are defending it to me for some reason.

1st of all you claim the media was in Clintons pocket and on her side making them dishonest. That is an incorrect fact with faulty logic. Here is the fact about media coverage over the entire campaign:http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-me...verage-overwhelmingly-negative-in-tone-232307
So he got a lot more media coverage than any other candidate by a long shot.

The other problem is it is faulty logic to claim the media is biased or dishonest because of their tone about a candidate. They are providing news, so if one candidate has more negative stories than they should report that, not pick and choose what stories to run and how to be "fair" to a candidate. In fact many news organizations have lamented about this fact from this election that they tried to hard to be "fair" with stories and realized later it is not their job to be even with news stories about candidates. On a side note there are many criticisms to have about media but you choose very out there claims about them.

I think some of your criticism of "media" is based on opinion pieces from News and not their actual news. Yes certain newspapers have a much more conservative or liberal readership and the opinions reflect that. But opinion pieces are not news, based on who you go to for you "facts and "information" I think establishing the difference between those two things is very important.

Now to you claim about media not reporting Benghazi stuff.
First of all the emails and situation was well investigated by the FBI that is overwhelmingly conservative personally. I know you think some silly claim about some FBI people including Comey and Mueller but they are very well respected by FBI agents and by people on both sides politically. I respect what they found in their investigation and a lot of the information they released summed up everything very nice. As far as your claim that the "media" wasnt reporting on any of the Benghazi stuff you are out in the night on that one. They reported and reported a lot on it.

I was going to post all the CNN, NYTimes, Washington Post about the informtation you linked but it was overwhelming. Just find the facts from those articles you posted (not the headline or opinions that are in it) search those papers and you will find tons of articles on those. Clinton was hammered about Benghazi by those papers.

As far as Judicial watch goes you do know that it is a far right group? They are heavily biased.

Here are a few Snopes articles about them:
http://www.snopes.com/tag/judicial-watch/

I dont find a group that sues over and over to defraud someone a good source. It is very dishonest to sue when you know you dont have a case or get info just to try and make someone look bad.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/us/politics/judicial-watch-hillary-clinton.html

They have gotten some decent information out to the public which I think is great but they are not a good source. They are heavily biased and filter all information through that bias since they have an obvious agenda.

Yes, a lot of news places have an agenda and that agenda is to increase readership. So they do post more articles and information about news that interests the public. That is why the winner of every election in modern history has had more articles about them from major news sources. But they dont lie to push their news. When they do print incorrect information they correct it. News does make mistakes, that is inevitable but good ones correct themselves and minimize or eliminate their biases. They also dont filter news through an agenda or sprinkle opinions conveniently in to misguide the reader.

Breitbart has printed many many unfounded conspiracies with 0 evidence or sources, Many many false stories that are made up and rarely retract them, and a lot of general fasle information. I mean they were one of the places pushing the silly pizza gate story where they falsely accused Clinton and others of running a child sex slave ring out of a pizza joint. How can you take this type of places serious? Its kind of embarrassing for someone to prop up a organization like this. But it makes sense you think that other real news is lies and you believe is so many far fetched conspiracies that I think how does someone even begin to believe this. So this thread and minor research from me has helped me understand you little better.

everyone has a point of view, hence a "bias", even snopes and Factcheck and other services that attempt to present a credible report on any political controversy.

The TV media and the radio media diverge, so if you count up all the references in both you can get some "balanced" statistic.

I didn't count the various TV references, but I consider them to be fairly influential. I mean, I can't get my breakfast at my motel without watching them, really. They are still considered "mainstream" and present themselves as a holy sort of order of objective reporters and cool dudes/gals who are just beyond question as they read their scripts... and smile at the cameras. But they have lost a lot of respect because so many people, like me, can see the bias in their faces and tones and can see the plainly obvious fact of who they support.

The "news" material I know is highly selected, as are the reporters who have the job of gathering material and organizing the presentations.

In short, as good as you have done in presenting the case for the media, I think Sean Hannity has done better research and reporting over the past two years. And yes, I like his bias.

The big picture is still that we have a sort of fascist establishment in this country that heavily influences most of the old line media, our educational system from pre-K through college grad schools, our popular media, our legal establishment, and every professional association, and both the R and D political establishment.

It's been very influential for over a hundred years already. And yes, the common consensus among the elites is for a managed world, run by them. Even if you are some leftwing extremist or rightwing extremist, you are likely under the sway of very determined "influence" from elitists. They love to divide and conqueor, they love to pit the little people against one another, and then put a thumb on the scale to make things move along the "right" way.

This may very well be universal human nature in organized societies. It may not mean there is anyone with enough influence to have their way all the time. I think China and Russia are much the same, and every other country so far as I care to imagine.

But clearly, the Brit school of socialism and globalism has been prevailing for a long time. Lord Cecil Rhodes may very well be still more historically influential than David Rockefeller, principally because the Rocks have been so charmed by his ideas.
 
wow.
As long as there are different choices you can make, you've still got some influence on what happens in your care. When it's "universal" or "single payer", it'll be the grand fascists and their stooge ho legislators and you are completely cut out of the deal.

really, I don't see how anyone can imagine totalitarian government is gonna do the people right.

You can still choose who you get your health care from in Universal health care. Facilities can still operate privately.

o you realize they actually wrote the Obamacare package?
Source please

I don't see how anyone can imagine totalitarian government is gonna do the people right.

True dat buddy, good thing no one here wants that or is an option on the table for what would happen.

Come on you cant expect people to even begin to take you serious when you throw crap out like this. I know I know you have some silly definition of the word but its still not applicable or remotely correct.
 
Back
Top