It takes a certain level of evil to grab power by lying about a massacre.
The Media Industry
- Thread starter texas_ex2000
- Start date
As many of you know there was a shooting the other night on 6th street. They've apprehended the perps. Here is something from the Statesmans website:
"The American-Statesman is not including the description as it is too vague at this time to be useful in identifying the shooter and such publication could be harmful in perpetuating stereotypes."
Just so you know, the shooters were black. That has been confirmed on other outlets.
The media in this town is 100% all in on defunding the police and bashing white people. Draw your own conclusions as to whether or not the media and the local government are working together.
AGAIN. THE FRAUD WAS NOT AT THE VOTING BOOTH; IT WAS AND IS THE MEDIA WORKING ON BEHALF OF LIBERALS.
"The American-Statesman is not including the description as it is too vague at this time to be useful in identifying the shooter and such publication could be harmful in perpetuating stereotypes."
Just so you know, the shooters were black. That has been confirmed on other outlets.
The media in this town is 100% all in on defunding the police and bashing white people. Draw your own conclusions as to whether or not the media and the local government are working together.
AGAIN. THE FRAUD WAS NOT AT THE VOTING BOOTH; IT WAS AND IS THE MEDIA WORKING ON BEHALF OF LIBERALS.
I think the point is this: Left-wingers (government/media joined at the hip) use everything to their advantage. They are ruthless and they are being enable by Liberal voters. Whether or not it worked in that particular instance is irrelevant.
But for some reason, you think the media is a hero to us all when they lie or when people criminally leak information about something that is not a violation of the law. We just don't get it.
I made a post on Yahoo about the woman who dropped out of the French Open because she said her mental illness made it difficult for her to talk to the media. She didn't want to talk to them after the matches and the Open officials held their ground. Quite a few prominent people are now blasting the Open officials.
Here was my post:
"Nobody has an inherent right to show up and start making demands. That is the problem with the human race. Saying they must be catered to is selfish. Either you have what it takes or you don't."
Yahoo deleted it with this comment:
"Your reply on French Open organizers: 'We really tried to engage' with Naomi Osaka ahead of withdraw has been rejected as it contains content that is in breach of our community guidelines."
THAT IS PCness AND IT IS LIBERALISM TO THE CORE.
Here was my post:
"Nobody has an inherent right to show up and start making demands. That is the problem with the human race. Saying they must be catered to is selfish. Either you have what it takes or you don't."
Yahoo deleted it with this comment:
"Your reply on French Open organizers: 'We really tried to engage' with Naomi Osaka ahead of withdraw has been rejected as it contains content that is in breach of our community guidelines."
THAT IS PCness AND IT IS LIBERALISM TO THE CORE.
Duck Dodgers
1,000+ Posts
It's the most common way to shade an article.
Media likes you - they pick out the photo of you that looks like a glamor shot.
They don't like you - they pick the photo taken from below, mouth open, eyes half closed, or such.
Media likes you - they pick out the photo of you that looks like a glamor shot.
They don't like you - they pick the photo taken from below, mouth open, eyes half closed, or such.
Duck Dodgers
1,000+ Posts
Ha, another picture pick - the one where they like him has him standing proudly, swearing to tell the truth! While in the one where they don't like him, he's looking puzzled, some random out of focus dude in the background wearing a Wuhan face hugger.
M Garland has turned out to a complete and total piece of ****. And yet, every member of the Ruling Class told me in 2016 how wonderful and moderate and middle of the road he was, after he was nominated to the Supreme Court.
So glad, so very glad, this partisan hack, who's intent on using the immense power of the Justice Department against his political enemies, will never be on that court.
It's as if these dolts think stuff on the internet disappears.
He probably would have been by Democratic standards. The problem is that when Republicans and Democrats appoint "moderates," they are moderate on different things. A Democratic moderate is a judge who's solidly liberal on social issues but is more friendly to business and/or prosecutors than a hardcore liberal judge would be. (See Stephen Breyer as compared with Sonia Sotomayor.) A Republican moderate is a judge who's staunchly pro-business and pro-prosecutor but more socially liberal than a hardcore conservative judge would be. (See Anthony Kennedy as compared with Clarence Thomas.)
Had Garland gotten on the Court, he likely would have resembled Breyer more than Sotomayor.
Duck Dodgers
1,000+ Posts
Thankfully, what the seat resembles is Gorsuch.
It's hard being a Republican. You more or less have to do the clean sweep on elections, as if the Democrats get any position of power, they don't fiddle around like the GOP does - they use that power to ram through what they want.
The SC has had a Republican majority since when, the 80's? Probably since the end of the Warren court anyway. And there's been very slight, incremental movements on prayer, guns, and abortion.
But if that seat had been filled by Garland, giving a 5 vote Democrat majority, plus whatever scraps they'd throw over to the Coward John Roberts to make it wonderfully bi-partisan, there would have been more leftward movement of the court in one term than rightward movement in the past 20.
That, plus at least Ginsberg's replacement, possibly Kennedy though he may have decided to gut it out till 21 and hope for an R in the White House, would have been an extinction level event for conservative court rulings for the next generation.
Of all of Donald Trump's accomplishment, the prevention of this was possibly the most important.
It's hard being a Republican. You more or less have to do the clean sweep on elections, as if the Democrats get any position of power, they don't fiddle around like the GOP does - they use that power to ram through what they want.
The SC has had a Republican majority since when, the 80's? Probably since the end of the Warren court anyway. And there's been very slight, incremental movements on prayer, guns, and abortion.
But if that seat had been filled by Garland, giving a 5 vote Democrat majority, plus whatever scraps they'd throw over to the Coward John Roberts to make it wonderfully bi-partisan, there would have been more leftward movement of the court in one term than rightward movement in the past 20.
That, plus at least Ginsberg's replacement, possibly Kennedy though he may have decided to gut it out till 21 and hope for an R in the White House, would have been an extinction level event for conservative court rulings for the next generation.
Of all of Donald Trump's accomplishment, the prevention of this was possibly the most important.
Duck Dodgers
1,000+ Posts
So apparently, this retired General who's the epitome of the media / military / industrial complex (look up his seamless record of going from the military to media talking head to corporate boards), now thinks it's a fireable offense for journalist to make comments about the head military leader in the country.
So much for freedom of the press. Not that the press will stick up for Tucker Carlson - he's not part of the leftist Borg so isn't protected by others in the Ruling Class.
And anyone else get the creeps that this washed-up general uses the word "terminated" instead of just fired? Is he auditioning for a role as Obergruppenführer, ready to crush dissent and order fire on US citizens in return for a 5th star?
Last edited:
Even as a retiree, McDumbassery is probably in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
If this is all they have after looking under every stone then good for them. Something has to be done to stop leftists from using the courts to go after their political opponents. If you did this fishing expedition to Bill Gates (or any billionaire) I'm sure you would find corrupt employees at Microsoft pulling shenanigans as well.
With no evidence of any wrong doing the AG of NY ran her campaign on going after Trump. This is 3rd world country stuff. If a republican had pulled this he would have been suspended or lost his law license. Something has to be done about NY's and DC's corruption.
Last edited:
Watch the cnn clip here where O’Brien straight out lies and obfuscates about critical race theory.
Media Matters: Andrew Breitbart's Attack on Critical Race Theory 'Appears to be Working'
Media Matters: Andrew Breitbart's Attack on Critical Race Theory 'Appears to be Working'
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Donald Trump, via Slytherin's Stephen Miller's new gravy train America First Policy Institute have filed suit against Zuckerberg, Dorsey and Google's CEO Pichai.
Yep, he's filed suit against the individuals, not the companies. I'll leave it to the lawyers to interpret if his suit has any merit. Personally I think it's simply a PR stunt.
Yep, he's filed suit against the individuals, not the companies. I'll leave it to the lawyers to interpret if his suit has any merit. Personally I think it's simply a PR stunt.
Your own quoted text says he has ALSO filed against the companies. He is simply bringing in the decision makers...not at all uncommon.
When people sue the Texas prison system, the current Director is typically named. This is no different other than the vendetta that some on the left have against a person who wanted nothing but the best for the nation...
Duck Dodgers
1,000+ Posts
And shouldn't all freedom loving people be against censorship based on political views? Or is that totally OK when it's your side that shuts down free speech?
Party before country for them, always.
Party before country for them, always.
Duck Dodgers
1,000+ Posts
Old senile man eats ice cream, while media waits patiently in line for a chance to pull his diaper down and eat his *******.
Ben and Jerry should create a new flavor for them - Joe Biden's ******* flavor, now even softer and less solid.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
Fire in a crowded theater?
Discussion of conservative viewpoints (or conversely, a group of 'tards discussing liberal viewpoints) is not even remotely close to 'fire' in a crowded theatre, and I would expect even the denizens of Mobilhoma to grasp that difference.
Many of these "fires" that have been censored have ended up being true.
Duck Dodgers
1,000+ Posts
The fire and theater argument is always the last refuge of the scoundrel or wanna-be dictator. Let me put this out to pasture, not for Barry's sake, but for others who hear that same tiresome statement and wish to refute it.
1. It's not illegal to shout fire in a crowded theater. If the theater is on fire, it's what should be done. And if someone thinks the theater is on fire it's what should be done. If it turns out later that the smoke is actually from some dope heads lighting up in the back corner, that's still not a reason not to warn others based on what you think is the case.
2. It is usually illegal to deliberately lie to people in a malicious attempt that can cause harm - though not illegal anymore in California to lie about having AIDS before boofing someone bareback - such is the power of the gay lobby.
Now for our knighted and saintly media class, the courts have invented, out of thin air, the idea that to win a libel/slander suit, you have to prove they've said a lie, prove they knew it was a lie, and did it deliberately out of spite and malice, not just being biased/lazy/stupid like CNN.
And these are the people that are supposed to be our great 4th Estate, who write and speak for a living. If that's the standard for them, then certainly it should be no more for the rest of us, who just want to express our views on political topics.
3. Just for fun, go stand up and shout fire in a crowded theater. You'll get some stares, some shss's, some "hold the noise down". What you won't get is a mad panic towards the door, crushing anyone who gets in the way.
For all the faults of the America public, they are smarter than that. And smart enough to be able to tune out various garbage conspiracy theories, such as that RUSSIA!!! stole my election and controls the White House. If only the FBI had been that smart, but it suited them to use that rubbish to tear down the guy they all didn't vote for. It's what America's own version of the KGB does, and will happen again if the people dare elect a non-Ruling Class candidate.
4. Every dictatorship on the other hand, be they China, North Korea, or the Democrat Party and their Big Tech Overlords, thinks the public is so easily swayed that they should be protected for their own good, but mostly for the good of the Party, from those other, strange, non-approved ideas and thoughts. Otherwise they might be temped to do something like overthrown the dictatorships, or vote Republican.
5. So they attempt to equate views different from their own as lies (using selected rubber stamps like Politfact, Snoops, and the Fakebook Independent Totally Non-Biased No Way Part of Fakebook Oversight Board) to brand differing views all Lies! Dirty, stinking lies!, and a danger to the good of us all, like hollering fire in a theater. So of course, for the good of us all (but mostly the Party) they censor, cancel, and de-platform.
The censorship is so broad and so bad that Big Tech acts in collusion with each other to stamp out non-Party believers, such as when Amazon cancelled their contract with to host Parler, who dared to allow free speech by those who'd been cast out by Twitter.
6. Traditionally, at least before 50% of the political spectrum fully embraced censorship, political speech was considered something that should be protected, argued, debated, insults hurled towards each other and their mama's, but not censored.
But that's changed in the past 10 years, non-coincidently as the left completed its takeover of the education complex, the media, and all tech companies. Democracy and free speech truly were a streetcar they rode till it got them where they wanted to go, then they got off.
.
1. It's not illegal to shout fire in a crowded theater. If the theater is on fire, it's what should be done. And if someone thinks the theater is on fire it's what should be done. If it turns out later that the smoke is actually from some dope heads lighting up in the back corner, that's still not a reason not to warn others based on what you think is the case.
2. It is usually illegal to deliberately lie to people in a malicious attempt that can cause harm - though not illegal anymore in California to lie about having AIDS before boofing someone bareback - such is the power of the gay lobby.
Now for our knighted and saintly media class, the courts have invented, out of thin air, the idea that to win a libel/slander suit, you have to prove they've said a lie, prove they knew it was a lie, and did it deliberately out of spite and malice, not just being biased/lazy/stupid like CNN.
And these are the people that are supposed to be our great 4th Estate, who write and speak for a living. If that's the standard for them, then certainly it should be no more for the rest of us, who just want to express our views on political topics.
3. Just for fun, go stand up and shout fire in a crowded theater. You'll get some stares, some shss's, some "hold the noise down". What you won't get is a mad panic towards the door, crushing anyone who gets in the way.
For all the faults of the America public, they are smarter than that. And smart enough to be able to tune out various garbage conspiracy theories, such as that RUSSIA!!! stole my election and controls the White House. If only the FBI had been that smart, but it suited them to use that rubbish to tear down the guy they all didn't vote for. It's what America's own version of the KGB does, and will happen again if the people dare elect a non-Ruling Class candidate.
4. Every dictatorship on the other hand, be they China, North Korea, or the Democrat Party and their Big Tech Overlords, thinks the public is so easily swayed that they should be protected for their own good, but mostly for the good of the Party, from those other, strange, non-approved ideas and thoughts. Otherwise they might be temped to do something like overthrown the dictatorships, or vote Republican.
5. So they attempt to equate views different from their own as lies (using selected rubber stamps like Politfact, Snoops, and the Fakebook Independent Totally Non-Biased No Way Part of Fakebook Oversight Board) to brand differing views all Lies! Dirty, stinking lies!, and a danger to the good of us all, like hollering fire in a theater. So of course, for the good of us all (but mostly the Party) they censor, cancel, and de-platform.
The censorship is so broad and so bad that Big Tech acts in collusion with each other to stamp out non-Party believers, such as when Amazon cancelled their contract with to host Parler, who dared to allow free speech by those who'd been cast out by Twitter.
6. Traditionally, at least before 50% of the political spectrum fully embraced censorship, political speech was considered something that should be protected, argued, debated, insults hurled towards each other and their mama's, but not censored.
But that's changed in the past 10 years, non-coincidently as the left completed its takeover of the education complex, the media, and all tech companies. Democracy and free speech truly were a streetcar they rode till it got them where they wanted to go, then they got off.
.
Last edited:
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
President Biden Accountability Thread
- Started by 2003TexasGrad
- Replies: 4K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
