PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on October 31, 2018, 06:38:22 AM
-
I know some people hate that the President tweets all the time. But I LOVE IT!
Look, he’s talking directly to us, with no media filter AT ALL. He is incredibly busy, works incredibly hard, for no pay, all under constant attack by the media, the Dems, and even some in his own party, and his Twitter feed reflects what he is ACTUALLY doing.
I read it every day. You should, too.
Thank you.
https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
-
I'd argue that this is not "news". But there is certainly nothing wrong with reading it as part of an information gathering process that involves your own investigation into the veracity of the "news".
-
I'd argue that this is not "news". But there is certainly nothing wrong with reading it as part of an information gathering process that involves your own investigation into the veracity of the "news".
The MSM has tried to make the case that internet news pages and bloggers are not actual news sources. At one point several lawmakers were considering some sort of legislation to "license" or accredit what they felt were legitimate news sources.
The MSM for years enjoyed being able to control the daily narrative and "filter" whatever they wanted from the POTUS. Social Media has now changed that dynamic and the MSM doesn't like that.
-
Can you imagine how hard Twitter is working trying to figure out how to kill Trumps Twitter feed without causing a freaking riot. I do wonder if they are behind the scenes unfollowing his followers.
-
The MSM has tried to make the case that internet news pages and bloggers are not actual news sources. At one point several lawmakers were considering some sort of legislation to "license" or accredit what they felt were legitimate news sources.
The MSM for years enjoyed being able to control the daily narrative and "filter" whatever they wanted from the POTUS. Social Media has now changed that dynamic and the MSM doesn't like that.
A single person's Twitter feed is one person's opinion. Granted, the opinion of the POTUS is weighty. And there is nothing wrong with reading a single person's opinion. We do this constantly. But one person's opinion is never "the news".
-
A single person's Twitter feed is one person's opinion. Granted, the opinion of the POTUS is weighty. And there is nothing wrong with reading a single person's opinion. We do this constantly. But one person's opinion is never "the news".
It is when it's the POTUS.
-
A single person's Twitter feed is one person's opinion. Granted, the opinion of the POTUS is weighty. And there is nothing wrong with reading a single person's opinion. We do this constantly. But one person's opinion is never "the news".
So when everything Trump says or does is spun, altered, clipped and cropped, de-contextized and fed to the citizenry as truth when in reality it is false, is that “the news?”
Semantics kills.
-
I am not one to twit. Nor am I a twit(evidence to the contrary). I don't want to make too fine a point on it but Trump has used his twitter account to write some pretty weird stuff too. That is the downside to unfiltered media feeds. The upside of course is that the filters applied by main stream are quite often badly slanted. As with all things, it is up to the individual to assess the quality of the info coming in.
-
Look, he’s talking directly to us, with no media filter AT ALL.
https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
To the contrary, his tweets are very much filtered.
I'd guess that 90% of the population do NOT follow his tweets directly. I know I don't.
Most people read the tweets that the MSM deems "Newsworthy" and pushes on their newsfeeds and websites. (ie. the tweets that can be used to make him sound stupid or just wrong). Then they believe that what the see on MSNBC/CNN etc is all there is.
-
To the contrary, his tweets are very much filtered.
I'd guess that 90% of the population do NOT follow his tweets directly. I know I don't.
Most people read the tweets that the MSM deems "Newsworthy" and pushes on their newsfeeds and websites. (ie. the tweets that can be used to make him sound stupid or just wrong). Then they believe that what the see on MSNBC/CNN etc is all there is.
So far, Twitter lets you see it without signing in at all.
What kind of idiots, when the actual source (the President's ACTUAL Twitter feed) is easily seen by them, ignore it? Oh, wait ...
-
So far, Twitter lets you see it without signing in at all.
What kind of idiots, when the actual source (the President's ACTUAL Twitter feed) is easily seen by them, ignore it? Oh, wait ...
I resemble that remark.
:-[
-
I'm sure this will be highlighted on CNN and MSNBC today......
https://twitter.com/sheryl_mascio/status/1057431800354664448 (https://twitter.com/sheryl_mascio/status/1057431800354664448)
-
So when everything Trump says or does is spun, altered, clipped and cropped, de-contextized and fed to the citizenry as truth when in reality it is false, is that “the news?”
Semantics kills.
That's a different question, separate from the question of whether one man's opinion is "the news". I certainly don't consider that semantics, and it's the same reasoning used to assert that watching Rachel Maddow also isn't "the news", nor is the editorial page of a newspaper "the news".
Maybe what you're getting at is that Trump is the source, and I think it's a truthful statement to say that the best way to know what someone is saying is to get it directly from the source. But that is still one person's opinion. It is incumbent upon someone who intends to be truly informed to consider more than the view and opinion of one person. And that includes Trump.
-
I'm sure this will be highlighted on CNN and MSNBC today......
https://twitter.com/sheryl_mascio/status/1057431800354664448 (https://twitter.com/sheryl_mascio/status/1057431800354664448)
Okay, I’m crying. Mostly because most of the country will never see it, but also because I know the President deserves much more appreciation than he is shown.
-
That's a different question, separate from the question of whether one man's opinion is "the news". I certainly don't consider that semantics, and it's the same reasoning used to assert that watching Rachel Maddow also isn't "the news", nor is the editorial page of a newspaper "the news".
Maybe what you're getting at is that Trump is the source, and I think it's a truthful statement to say that the best way to know what someone is saying is to get it directly from the source. But that is still one person's opinion. It is incumbent upon someone who intends to be truly informed to consider more than the view and opinion of one person. And that includes Trump.
Too few Americans check multiple sources. It’s one of the chief causes of division in our country. A friend’s daughter works as a nurse in a hospital. She told her mom that on one floor they watch CNN on all the TVs, and everyone on that floor hates Trump. On another floor, all the TVs are tuned to Fox, and everyone on that floor loves Trump. I’d like to believe there’s a move afoot, and WalkAway shows there is, for people to do their own research. It’s a common WalkAway theme.
-
I'm sure this will be highlighted on CNN and MSNBC today......
https://twitter.com/sheryl_mascio/status/1057431800354664448 (https://twitter.com/sheryl_mascio/status/1057431800354664448)
That is awesome. Thanks for posting.
-
Too few Americans check multiple sources. It’s one of the chief causes of division in our country. A friend’s daughter works as a nurse in a hospital. She told her mom that on one floor they watch CNN on all the TVs, and everyone on that floor hates Trump. On another floor, all the TVs are tuned to Fox, and everyone on that floor loves Trump. I’d like to believe there’s a move afoot, and WalkAway shows there is, for people to do their own research. It’s a common WalkAway theme.
I wonder if one floor watches CNN because they hate Trump and the other floor watches FOX because they like Trump,
or do they hate Trump because they watch CNN?
-
And the Secret Service dude in "hands above the waist ready to go" position. Good job! :)
-
That's a different question, separate from the question of whether one man's opinion is "the news". I certainly don't consider that semantics, and it's the same reasoning used to assert that watching Rachel Maddow also isn't "the news", nor is the editorial page of a newspaper "the news".
A big part of the problem is that so many liberal news outlets mix their opinion in with their "news".
Or they present editorial opinions that are difficult to differentiate from news.
Or that they present "actual" news if it makes Trump look bad and do NOT report actual news that might make Trump look good.
I consider all of that "fake news'.
Now, it wouldn't bother me quite as much if they used the same techniques equally for all politicians, but they don't. In fact, it would make me ecstatic if they treated all politicians like they treat Trump.
-
A big part of the problem is that so many liberal news outlets mix their opinion in with their "news".
Or they present editorial opinions that are difficult to differentiate from news.
Or that they present "actual" news if it makes Trump look bad and do NOT report actual news that might make Trump look good.
I consider all of that "fake news'.
Now, it wouldn't bother me quite as much if they used the same techniques equally for all politicians, but they don't. In fact, it would make me ecstatic if they treated all politicians like they treat Trump.
That's just it. Everything the media puts out has a spin on it, nothing is just plain facts. What I want to know is, who's pulling the strings? Who are the masters? Who's bankrolling all this?
-
Too few Americans check multiple sources. It’s one of the chief causes of division in our country. A friend’s daughter works as a nurse in a hospital. She told her mom that on one floor they watch CNN on all the TVs, and everyone on that floor hates Trump. On another floor, all the TVs are tuned to Fox, and everyone on that floor loves Trump. I’d like to believe there’s a move afoot, and WalkAway shows there is, for people to do their own research. It’s a common WalkAway theme.
^^^THIS. There a guy named Tom Way who is on a mission to educate people about the dangers of exactly this. He calls it "information illiteracy".
There was a survey done in 2008 at Westlake High School in Westlake Village, CA where they asked students a question about whether the dangerous chemical, DHMO should be banned. The question was phrased three different ways and each person received only one of the three questions. The first phrasing was neutral as a control, the second emphasized the dangers of DHMO (all true) and the third emphasized the benefits of DHMO (also all true).
The difference in how they responded based on how the question was phrased is very alarming and very eye opening. Both questions 2 and 3 are accurate facts about DHMO but each presented only part of the picture.
Question 1 (Control). Should the substance DHMO be banned in the United States?
Total people surveyed 118 100%
Yes (in favor of ban) 40 34%
No (opposing a ban) 78 66%
Question 2 (Given information supporting a ban). Recent scientific evidence has shown the substance DHMO to be extremely dangerous to life. It is known to be a major component of acid rain and an important cause of erosion. Nationwide, thousands of deaths are attributed to DHMO every year. Historically, DHMO has been used in Nazi death camps as well as prisons in Turkey, Serbia, Croatia, Libya, Iraq, and Iran. Despite overwhelming evidence of DHMO's detrimental effects, people continue to be exposed to it, even in so-called "organic" and "natural" foods. Should DHMO be banned in the United States?
Total people surveyed 126 100%
Yes (in favor of ban) 79 63%
No (opposing a ban) 47 37%
Question 3 (Given information on the opposing side). DHMO is a naturally occurring substance that is highly beneficial to life as it helps maintain ecological balance. In addition, it creates thousands of jobs and generates billions of dollars of revenue. Despite overwhelming evidence, some people still want us to get rid of DHMO. DHMO does not cause adverse effects; in a recent survey, more than 90% of those who reported themselves to be "very happy" have had exposure to DHMO. Should DHMO be banned in the United States?
Total people surveyed 120 100%
Yes (in favor of ban) 33 28%
No (opposing a ban) 87 72%
If you want to learn more about DHMO and Tom Way's mission:
The goal became to educate, and to promote cautious consumption of information and an active skepticism about what we read, see and hear.
We feel strongly that there is no subject that should be off bounds to inquiry and questioning.
http://dhmo.org/presskit/
Username: press
Password: press
-
Ah, yes. The old DiHydrogen MonOxide, world's greatest blessing and curse.
You know what the answer is and always has been? Critical Thinking. Interestingly, kids ARE taught about this stuff. I know because within the last 2 or 3 years I've seen our kids work on homework that involved exactly this type of thing; how headlines and slanted stories can create false impressions; how statistics or their presentation thereof can "lie"; why thinking critically is important.
And from time to time we talk about it. Recently I posed a question to the whole family: Is the world today more dangerous for children than it used to be, say, when we were kids? All of them answered yes, when the truth is a resounding NO. The world is a much safer place for children than it was just 10 or 20 years ago. This opens up a great conversation about why many of us FEEL, myself perhaps included, that the world is so much more dangerous than it used to be.
So I think the question is, where are we going wrong as a society in preparing kids to IMPLEMENT critical thinking skills as young adults and beyond? Maybe it's not enough time on the subject. Maybe a two-year critical thinking class should be a mandatory part of the curriculum. Maybe Critical Thinking should be a required core class for all college underclassmen. Maybe we teach that critical thinking is important and then allow a structure on an institutional or societal level that says otherwise.
I'm not sure. And I know that some portion of the population can never be expected to think critically. But I know that if someone posed those DHMO questions to me, my answer would be, well, WTF is it? Not enough info, cannot answer.
How 'bout this one:
According to recent studies, all of which gained publication in multiple peer-reviewed scientific journals, PPAs are a leading cause of mortality in the United States and, increasingly, in developing countries. In fact, more than 2,000 children under 16 years of age die in the United States every year, with PPAs a factor in 100% of those cases. Further, data has shown that a complete ban on PPAs would completely eliminate these deaths. However, it is known that an attempted ban of PPAs would be vehemently fought by various global mega-corporations and their powerful lobbyists, with company profits as the unquestioned motive for their resistance to the ban.
Q: Would you support a ban on PPAs?
-
I just wrote a long letter to the editor of USA Today about this article:
https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/nation/2018/10/31/george-soros-and-migrant-caravan-how-lie-multiplied-online/1824633002/
It was a very interesting article. I suggest folks read EVERY word. To start with, USA Today makes a startling comment in the headline. The public commentary out there in social media, and in political speech about Soros funding the caravan is a lie. That would mean something truly stunning. That USA Today, had fully investigated the funding of the invasion, also spoken to Soros and got a blanket denial, and then followed that up with records, and other evidence that Soros is truly NOT funding the caravan. It is very, very hard to prove a negative but somehow, USA Today started out with this fantastical assumption. Reading the article I was prepared at every para to find investigative results, interviews with banks, intl money groups, even Soros himself where he claims it is not true. To my disbelief, not one word of denial is anywhere in the article. Nothing, zip, nada. No statements, no investigation, no follow-up on where the funding is coming from. It's not free to feed people for 2 months on the road. Even poor people have to eat. Where did the money that was handed out in Guatemala come from? So far no one has found out, but USA Today is CERTAIN that it did not come from Soros or one of his philanthropic organizations.
I am - amazed. People read this headline and it is an instant unverified statement: "The funding for the caravan is NOT from Soros". People will read this and believe it in the absence of any kind of evidence.
-
Soros is a currency manipulator by trade. I doubt he has any difficulty also MONEY LAUNDERING to give money to whomever he wants, whenever he wants. He has a number of organization that can be traced back to his funding, and I'm sure he has some that can't. This caravan stinks of Soros.
-
Ah, yes. The old DiHydrogen MonOxide, world's greatest blessing and curse.
You know what the answer is and always has been? Critical Thinking. Interestingly, kids ARE taught about this stuff. I know because within the last 2 or 3 years I've seen our kids work on homework that involved exactly this type of thing; how headlines and slanted stories can create false impressions; how statistics or their presentation thereof can "lie"; why thinking critically is important.
And from time to time we talk about it. Recently I posed a question to the whole family: Is the world today more dangerous for children than it used to be, say, when we were kids? All of them answered yes, when the truth is a resounding NO. The world is a much safer place for children than it was just 10 or 20 years ago. This opens up a great conversation about why many of us FEEL, myself perhaps included, that the world is so much more dangerous than it used to be.
So I think the question is, where are we going wrong as a society in preparing kids to IMPLEMENT critical thinking skills as young adults and beyond? Maybe it's not enough time on the subject. Maybe a two-year critical thinking class should be a mandatory part of the curriculum. Maybe Critical Thinking should be a required core class for all college underclassmen. Maybe we teach that critical thinking is important and then allow a structure on an institutional or societal level that says otherwise.
I'm not sure. And I know that some portion of the population can never be expected to think critically. But I know that if someone posed those DHMO questions to me, my answer would be, well, WTF is it? Not enough info, cannot answer.
How 'bout this one:
According to recent studies, all of which gained publication in multiple peer-reviewed scientific journals, PPAs are a leading cause of mortality in the United States and, increasingly, in developing countries. In fact, more than 2,000 children under 16 years of age die in the United States every year, with PPAs a factor in 100% of those cases. Further, data has shown that a complete ban on PPAs would completely eliminate these deaths. However, it is known that an attempted ban of PPAs would be vehemently fought by various global mega-corporations and their powerful lobbyists, with company profits as the unquestioned motive for their resistance to the ban.
Q: Would you support a ban on PPAs?
I agree completely with this post and I would add in addition to critical thinking classes, statistics and logic classes need to be mandated for all high school and college kids.
To answer your question, no I would not support a ban on PPAs but I generally oppose bans on almost everything. But like you I would first want to know, WTF is PPA?
I first assumed it must be Phenylpropanolamine which is of course under consideration for banning in the U.S. if it hasn't been already, but that substance is not known to kill children so much as adults. Anyway the paragraph says PPA is a leading cause of mortality, and Phenylpropanolamine is no where near a leading cause.
So next is Polyphthalamide which is an engineering polymer used in high performance applications. I'm trying to find data on kids choking on small plastic parts or suffocating in plastic bags but those things aren't usually made of PPA.
For it to be a leading cause it has to be accidents in that age group which could be either poisoning or choking, but could also be car crashes. If tires were made only of PPA then PPA would be involved in all car crash deaths and banning tires entirely would prevent them but tires aren't made of polyphthaldamide.
So next I looked at child car seats and seat belts, but they too are not made of PPA and in any case surely some children are not using them when they die in the car crash.
The logic of how the question is worded also bothers me. The phrase "more than 2,000 children under 16 years of age die in the United States every year" sounds like all causes, but then the dependent clause "with PPAs a factor in 100% of those cases" makes it unclear whether 2000 deaths total and all involve PPA, or 2000 deaths involving PPA but that's not the total deaths.
Also the logic of the statement "a complete ban on PPAs would completely eliminate these deaths" is not clear. It could mean it would eliminate "deaths where PPA is involved" but not eliminate the death itself. Of course it should eliminate the death itself if the statement that PPAs are the cause of these deaths is true but I have learned that many times information states X is the cause of Y when in truth X is actually associated with Y, and has never been proven to be the cause. In fact, Y might be the cause of X instead.
Of course if PPA stands for "Preclude Pulmonary Aeration" that would explain the 100% association with the deaths but a ban would be unenforceable and what mega-corporations are lobbying for a ban on people breathing?.
So I give up. What's PPA? Or is there no such thing as PPA and this is a trick designed to show how willing people are to ban even non-existent made up stuff?
-
Rush -
I appreciate the effort you put into that! I didn't expect you to go to all that, especially since I wrote the paragraph myself and just meant it as another example of how easy it can be to just write this stuff up and get folks to respond emotionally.
PPA stands for Private Passenger Auto. I probably would need to tweak the wording to make the paragraph 100% accurate.
-
So how is it that CNN has it's racist host spewing out one racist rant after another, and yet no outrage from the progressives?
And how is it Felonious makes yet another racist remark, and the MSM defends her?
Yet all we hear from the MSM is how conservatives and republicans are "racist" without an ounce of evidence to back up their claims.
-
Rush -
I appreciate the effort you put into that! I didn't expect you to go to all that, especially since I wrote the paragraph myself and just meant it as another example of how easy it can be to just write this stuff up and get folks to respond emotionally.
PPA stands for Private Passenger Auto. I probably would need to tweak the wording to make the paragraph 100% accurate.
No problem, I love exercising my critical thinking skills. I'm bummed I didn't come up with Private Passenger Auto dangit, it's so obvious now. I was on the right track with car accidents and tires, gosh it was RIGHT THERE staring me in the face, LOL!
-
I just wrote a long letter to the editor of USA Today about this article:
https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/nation/2018/10/31/george-soros-and-migrant-caravan-how-lie-multiplied-online/1824633002/
It was a very interesting article. I suggest folks read EVERY word. To start with, USA Today makes a startling comment in the headline. The public commentary out there in social media, and in political speech about Soros funding the caravan is a lie. That would mean something truly stunning. That USA Today, had fully investigated the funding of the invasion, also spoken to Soros and got a blanket denial, and then followed that up with records, and other evidence that Soros is truly NOT funding the caravan. It is very, very hard to prove a negative but somehow, USA Today started out with this fantastical assumption. Reading the article I was prepared at every para to find investigative results, interviews with banks, intl money groups, even Soros himself where he claims it is not true. To my disbelief, not one word of denial is anywhere in the article. Nothing, zip, nada. No statements, no investigation, no follow-up on where the funding is coming from. It's not free to feed people for 2 months on the road. Even poor people have to eat. Where did the money that was handed out in Guatemala come from? So far no one has found out, but USA Today is CERTAIN that it did not come from Soros or one of his philanthropic organizations.
I am - amazed. People read this headline and it is an instant unverified statement: "The funding for the caravan is NOT from Soros". People will read this and believe it in the absence of any kind of evidence.
When is a lie a lie? Is it at the point that certain and concrete evidence to the contrary is produced? Or is it at the point that the contention is made without any supporting evidence? Someone could accuse me right now of murdering someone in 1998. I promise that is a lie. But I can't prove it. So does that mean it's not a lie?
-
No problem, I love exercising my critical thinking skills. I'm bummed I didn't come up with Private Passenger Auto dangit, it's so obvious now. I was on the right track with car accidents and tires, gosh it was RIGHT THERE staring me in the face, LOL!
In the insurance world PPA is common industry jargon, which is probably the only reason I know it.
-
I just wrote a long letter to the editor of USA Today about this article:
https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/nation/2018/10/31/george-soros-and-migrant-caravan-how-lie-multiplied-online/1824633002/
It was a very interesting article. I suggest folks read EVERY word. To start with, USA Today makes a startling comment in the headline. The public commentary out there in social media, and in political speech about Soros funding the caravan is a lie. That would mean something truly stunning. That USA Today, had fully investigated the funding of the invasion, also spoken to Soros and got a blanket denial, and then followed that up with records, and other evidence that Soros is truly NOT funding the caravan. It is very, very hard to prove a negative but somehow, USA Today started out with this fantastical assumption. Reading the article I was prepared at every para to find investigative results, interviews with banks, intl money groups, even Soros himself where he claims it is not true. To my disbelief, not one word of denial is anywhere in the article. Nothing, zip, nada. No statements, no investigation, no follow-up on where the funding is coming from. It's not free to feed people for 2 months on the road. Even poor people have to eat. Where did the money that was handed out in Guatemala come from? So far no one has found out, but USA Today is CERTAIN that it did not come from Soros or one of his philanthropic organizations.
I am - amazed. People read this headline and it is an instant unverified statement: "The funding for the caravan is NOT from Soros". People will read this and believe it in the absence of any kind of evidence.
I’ve seen this over and over in the liberal press. They just use the headlines to herd their sheeple hither and thither, and to keep them believing the correct narrative. It’s so easy. Just create the damning, lying headline, and subtly deny its veracity waaaaaaaay down near the end of the article where no one will read it except conservatives like you and I.
This is why our President calls fake news the enemy of the people.
-
When is a lie a lie? Is it at the point that certain and concrete evidence to the contrary is produced? Or is it at the point that the contention is made without any supporting evidence? Someone could accuse me right now of murdering someone in 1998. I promise that is a lie. But I can't prove it. So does that mean it's not a lie?
Only a liberal would ask this question. For some reason they have trouble with the eternal verities.
-
Only a liberal would ask this question. For some reason they have trouble with the eternal verities.
Bullshit. Muster a response that matches your intelligence.
-
Truth is truth. The more you struggle to decide whether some particular statement is true or not, the more obscure the truth becomes. At some level you know what the truth is, but feel the need to start analyzing anyway. This phenomenon is likely due to the human tendency to want to avoid the truth if it makes us uncomfortable.
I believe liberals, especially those of the ilk who are easily led around, know the truth. They know America is a shining city on a hill, a thing worth defending by rule of law, and even that the sacred rule of law must be maintained. But to embrace that truth, they would have to support Donald Trump. As proof of my theory, witness the tens of thousands of Democrats who did see the truth and are walking away. A better question than “what is truth” or “what is a lie” would be “what keeps us from seeing truth?” What took them so long to act on the truth that was inside them all along? For many it was the Kavanaugh hearings. They could no longer pretend the Democrat Party deserved to be defended ... because literally there WAS no defense for those deeds.
And all this goes with the truth that we are often most enlightened when we are most confused. It is only when we buffer our analytics a bit that we can see the truth shining just beyond it.
I’m sure when your stepdaughter prevaricates, your bullshit detectors are blinking double red despite any objective proof. You will listen to that, and remember it, and use it throughout her teenage years many times. And you will think of Becky, and all those on Pilot Spin who helped gently guide you toward the light of truth.
:)
-
I’ve seen this over and over in the liberal press. They just use the headlines to herd their sheeple hither and thither, and to keep them believing the correct narrative. It’s so easy. Just create the damning, lying headline, and subtly deny its veracity waaaaaaaay down near the end of the article where no one will read it except conservatives like you and I.
This is why our President calls fake news the enemy of the people.
Exactly. There is no doubt in my mind that the 4th Estate has purposefully turned into the 5th Column.
-
“In politics, perception is reality.”
God help us.
https://moonbattery.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-exploits-pittsburgh-dead/
-
When is a lie a lie? Is it at the point that certain and concrete evidence to the contrary is produced? Or is it at the point that the contention is made without any supporting evidence? Someone could accuse me right now of murdering someone in 1998. I promise that is a lie. But I can't prove it. So does that mean it's not a lie?
The right leaning media has made statements, and some outside the admin have made statements that they want an investigation to find out where the money is coming from. If not from Soros, that's fine. Some on the right have indeed speculated that Soros was funding the invaders(I have stopped using 'caravan'). It is up to both sides to make their case. If the right is convinced to some degree, the admin will start the investigation and that will run its course. The issue in this case is the headline says point blank that Soros funding the invasion is a lie. This is not speculation, this is not an opinion, this is not the frantic scribblings of a basement madman - this is USA Today.
The article goes on to trace the social media trip the theory made, starting from a FB post I think(I'm not going to bother looking). Yes, it was widely viewed, and yes it was extended on social media platforms. For people like me with no social media presence, the first thing I wondered was where these people were getting the money to make a 2000 mile trip over 2 months? I've seen some of the photos of people in the invasion force, and they are not skin and bones. Most are healthy, young, filled out men. Some are even slightly obese. So - where is the money coming from? We could speculate this was a false flag op from the conservatives, but does that hold up? Where are Woodward, Bernstein? When to we get actual answers to this statement that Soros funding the invasion is a lie, or the truth?
-
“Telling the truth is now ‘hate speech.’”
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/11/when-truth-is-hate.html
“Soros’s agenda is fundamentally about the destruction of national borders,” researchers David Galland and Stephen McBride wrote in a 2016 article titled “How George Soros Singlehandedly Created The European Refugee Crisis — And Why.” Galland and McBride documented the involvement of Soros’s Open Society Foundation in the crisis that flooded Europe with millions of Muslim migrants. When Hungary’s prime minister Viktor Orban took action to halt the influx of “refugees” into his country and named Soros as the sponsor of this invasion, Soros responded: “[Orban’s] plan treats the protection of national borders as the objective and the refugees as an obstacle. Our plan treats the protection of refugees as the objective and national borders as the obstacle.”
This was a startling admission, and it is clear that Soros also views America’s borders as an “obstacle” to his plans. In their book The Shadow Party, Horowitz and his co-author Richard Poe explained that a massive 2006 pro-amnesty rally in Los Angeles involved no fewer than eight groups funded by Soros, including the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) and the National Council of La Raza. As for the current migrant caravan from Honduras, it is being supported by the so-called “CARA Family Detention Pro Bono Project,” a coalition of four organizations, three of which receive funding from — you guessed, didn’t you? — George Soros.
To identity Soros as the sponsor of this open-borders agenda, however, is to be guilty of hate, as explained last week in a Washington Post headline: “Conspiracy theories about Soros aren’t just false. They’re anti-Semitic.” You will not be surprised to learn that the author of that article, Talia Levin, works for Media Matters, which is funded by Soros. Levin previously worked at the New Yorker, but was fired in June after falsely accusing an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent of having a Nazi tattoo (the agent, it turned out, is a Marine Corps combat veteran who lost both legs in Afghanistan). So here we have a Soros-funded writer declaring in the pages of the Washington Post that it is an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory to say that Soros is doing what he’s actually doing.
In other words, telling the truth is now “hate speech.”
-
Truth is truth. The more you struggle to decide whether some particular statement is true or not, the more obscure the truth becomes. At some level you know what the truth is, but feel the need to start analyzing anyway. This phenomenon is likely due to the human tendency to want to avoid the truth if it makes us uncomfortable.
I believe liberals, especially those of the ilk who are easily led around, know the truth. They know America is a shining city on a hill, a thing worth defending by rule of law, and even that the sacred rule of law must be maintained. But to embrace that truth, they would have to support Donald Trump. As proof of my theory, witness the tens of thousands of Democrats who did see the truth and are walking away. A better question than “what is truth” or “what is a lie” would be “what keeps us from seeing truth?” What took them so long to act on the truth that was inside them all along? For many it was the Kavanaugh hearings. They could no longer pretend the Democrat Party deserved to be defended ... because literally there WAS no defense for those deeds.
And all this goes with the truth that we are often most enlightened when we are most confused. It is only when we buffer our analytics a bit that we can see the truth shining just beyond it.
I’m sure when your stepdaughter prevaricates, your bullshit detectors are blinking double red despite any objective proof. You will listen to that, and remember it, and use it throughout her teenage years many times. And you will think of Becky, and all those on Pilot Spin who helped gently guide you toward the light of truth.
:)
Cool speech and all, and I appreciate the ending lecture, but it fails to address the point under discussion, not in national politics, but in this forum post.
There is a caravan of folks heading toward our southern border. The story in question, posted by invflatspin, chronicles the viral social media contention that the caravan is funded by George Soros. I've read the story twice now and done some additional research online, and I can find no evidence that points to the funding of the caravan by Soros. And by no evidence, I mean that literally. There is not even a weak connection.
Now, I asked a simple question. At what point is a lie considered a lie? And I gave what I consider to be a good example, using myself as the guinea pig. But let's turn it toward you for a moment, just for effect. Did you assault a liberal activist two weeks ago? I bet you didn't. But I can't be sure you didn't. What if someone tweeted that you did, and pointed to your staunch, public, anti-liberal sentiments on this board?
I couldn't give two shits about Soros. And when Vanessa says she got a zero on yesterday's assignment because she "forgot" to turn it in, I'm certainly skeptical. And this isn't about your grande speech on objective truth. This is about the fundamentals of debate. If you make an accusation and can present literally NO evidence to support it, is that a lie? Is the moon made of cheese? Did the US government fake the moon landing? Did you murder puppies by the dozens in the latter half of the 90s?
-
There is a caravan of folks heading toward our southern border. The story in question, posted by invflatspin, chronicles the viral social media contention that the caravan is funded by George Soros. I've read the story twice now and done some additional research online, and I can find no evidence that points to the funding of the caravan by Soros. And by no evidence, I mean that literally. There is not even a weak connection.
See, the problem is that people are too quick to yell "Liar" when a politician says something they disagree with. Even though they often right and it is a lie.
But what doesn't hold water is when citizens say they have researched it and cannot find any evidence. Just how well do you think your research tools stacks up to those at the President's disposal. Even worse, most of your research tools are searching the MSM, who is known to hide good things about Trump and publicize negative things. So what research did you do? Did you do a forensic accounting of Soros's books, including those of the spiderweb of subsidiaries and shadow corporations he controls?
NSA knows a whole lot more than they should, therefore they know a lot they can't publicize. Trump has a big mouth and if her hears about it, he might spill the beans, or at least make an unwarraned allusion. That is a bad thing, but it also means that a lot of what he says is true, even if Mr. Asechrest can't find the proof.
Maybe it is a lie. But we have absolutely no grounds for stating it is a lie without proof that it is a lie.
-
Cool speech and all, and I appreciate the ending lecture, but it fails to address the point under discussion, not in national politics, but in this forum post.
There is a caravan of folks heading toward our southern border. The story in question, posted by invflatspin, chronicles the viral social media contention that the caravan is funded by George Soros. I've read the story twice now and done some additional research online, and I can find no evidence that points to the funding of the caravan by Soros. And by no evidence, I mean that literally. There is not even a weak connection.
Now, I asked a simple question. At what point is a lie considered a lie? And I gave what I consider to be a good example, using myself as the guinea pig. But let's turn it toward you for a moment, just for effect. Did you assault a liberal activist two weeks ago? I bet you didn't. But I can't be sure you didn't. What if someone tweeted that you did, and pointed to your staunch, public, anti-liberal sentiments on this board?
I couldn't give two shits about Soros. And when Vanessa says she got a zero on yesterday's assignment because she "forgot" to turn it in, I'm certainly skeptical. And this isn't about your grande speech on objective truth. This is about the fundamentals of debate. If you make an accusation and can present literally NO evidence to support it, is that a lie? Is the moon made of cheese? Did the US government fake the moon landing? Did you murder puppies by the dozens in the latter half of the 90s?
I’m pretty convinced Soros is someone to be concerned about, and feel (believe? know?) that Post 37 in this thread substantially supports that concern. The caravan certainly isn’t a lie, and clearly has major, major funding by a source dedicated to eliminating borders. Eliminating borders facilitates globalism, and open global business dealings of the nefarious type Soros and his ilk are known for, easier. Hillary Clinton was all set to keep her stream of money flowing by keeping those borders open. This technique goes way beyond just making Republicans, with their silly ideas about sovereign nations, look heartless just before an election. Borders are a real problem for globalists.
In fact, if the left-controlled media insists something, I’m going to assume it is not true until I can look further into it. The left has shown itself to be viciously unscrupulous. I call that behavior clear evidence of its agenda, which has now entered the American political lexicon as “Kavanaugh.”
No evidence was presented that his accuser was telling the truth. No evidence was presented that his denial was a lie. The entire decision to confirm rested on two things: the substanceless of the accusation combined with the Democrats’ known tactic of crudely smearing, and the spotless life led by the accused, attested to merely by, I believe it was around 100, actual written and spoken testimonies.
Your argument is weakened by the “is the moon made of cheese” example. We know empirically that it’s isn’t. As for whether I assaulted a liberal or murdered puppies, I suspect I could prove my innocence much as Kavanaugh did.
At what point is a lie a lie? It is a lie in its whole existence, from thought to utterance. It is a lie despite its appearance 24/7 running on CNN’s screen banner. It is a lie forever. My claim that the truth is known to us, even to liberals, stands.
We do the best we can. I read Powerline, American Thinker, Conservative Tree House, the President’s tweets, and watch Right Side Broadcasting for coverage of the President. There we can see what he actually says, full video, not out-of-context, narrative-driven clips. They televise the rallies with total coverage, including showing the massive crowd sizes and the President’s entire speech.
I also confer with a family member who watches and reads only mainstream media. Both of us are amazed and chagrined at the stark differences, but they are entirely due to the fact (fact!) that the mainstream media contorts the truth in their attempt to control the narrative, resulting in ... lies. They lie. Trust in the media is at an all-time low.
What is evidence to me, as with Soros’ culpability, may not be evidence to you of same. Why might that be?
G. K. Chesterton said that the aim of argument is to differ to agree, while the failure of argument is to agree to differ. Today in America, we take the latter stance to avoid discomfort, and stay there, thus failing to solve anything with true, productive discourse.
-
See, the problem is that people are too quick to yell "Liar" when a politician says something they disagree with. Even though they often right and it is a lie.
But what doesn't hold water is when citizens say they have researched it and cannot find any evidence. Just how well do you think your research tools stacks up to those at the President's disposal. Even worse, most of your research tools are searching the MSM, who is known to hide good things about Trump and publicize negative things. So what research did you do? Did you do a forensic accounting of Soros's books, including those of the spiderweb of subsidiaries and shadow corporations he controls?
NSA knows a whole lot more than they should, therefore they know a lot they can't publicize. Trump has a big mouth and if her hears about it, he might spill the beans, or at least make an unwarraned allusion. That is a bad thing, but it also means that a lot of what he says is true, even if Mr. Asechrest can't find the proof.
Maybe it is a lie. But we have absolutely no grounds for stating it is a lie without proof that it is a lie.
Excellent points. I hadn’t thought of the President’s big mouth that way but I think it’s true that we are far more likely to hear the truth from him than we were from any president in my lifetime. And Americans are resonating to that direct contact.
Often “research” just means actively trying to find evidence against one’s own conclusions, to establish a greater measure of accuracy.
Before the 2016 election I googled “Hillary Clinton’s health” and found nothing but glowing accounts of her work to reform health care in the 90s, and her plans for health care reform if elected. We all know her personal health was a real issue, but google wasn’t having it.
-
Maybe it is a lie. But we have absolutely no grounds for stating it is a lie without proof that it is a lie.
I call that behavior clear evidence of its agenda, which has now entered the American political lexicon as “Kavanaugh.”
Now wait a minute. Let's get some logical and intellectual consistency, here. The Kavanaugh smear was rightly blasted, partly for being an accusation without evidence. And yet here you are, standing on your heads, defending an accusation without evidence. And not only defending it, but going further by saying we can't call it a lie without PROOF that it is a lie. Well shit, guys, I guess it's time to remove Kavanaugh from the bench. An accusation was made, and there is no proof it was a lie!
I'm down to the fundamentals of debate, here. I take accusations without evidence with a massive grain of salt. And I can't blame those fighting the accusation if they call it a lie. I think we should all have the guts to follow our own logic and morals no matter from which political side we approach it.
-
Now wait a minute. Let's get some logical and intellectual consistency, here. The Kavanaugh smear was rightly blasted, partly for being an accusation without evidence. And yet here you are, standing on your heads, defending an accusation without evidence. And not only defending it, but going further by saying we can't call it a lie without PROOF that it is a lie. Well shit, guys, I guess it's time to remove Kavanaugh from the bench. An accusation was made, and there is no proof it was a lie!
I'm down to the fundamentals of debate, here. I take accusations without evidence with a massive grain of salt. And I can't blame those fighting the accusation if they call it a lie. I think we should all have the guts to follow our own logic and morals no matter from which political side we approach it.
I agree, for myself I never assumed CBF was lying. She may have been, but we can't prove she was. I did not like when people said she was lying any more than I like the article saying its a lie that Soros funded the caravan. Personally I think Ford was mixing up memories and Kavanaugh was never involved, but that's not the same as saying she was lying.
Likewise it's totally irresponsible for USAToday to say it's a lie that Soros funded the caravan when there is no evidence they can provide backing up their statement other than "because right wingers think it's true".
I am interested in getting to the truth, whatever that is. I don't know if the NSA knows it. Someone does. More than one person does. There are certain facts to take into consideration and Soros's past behavior funding certain things can be presumed to be a good prediction of present or future behavior. However there are others besides Soros using their power as being in the most richest people in the world to try to manipulate all the rest of us.
Someone is funding it. Who are the likely culprits? I'm going to ignore all the social media speculations and shame on USAToday making a story out of it. Social media mob mentality exists everywhere and on all sides, so what of it? That's not evidence that it isn't true any more than it's evidence that it is.
-
I wonder which of these smart caravan marchers decided to sue the U.S. Government. No doubt they are well versed on our laws
-
When “proof” is lacking, we look at all available evidence to come to the most robust conclusion possible. That conclusion can be wrong, but it doesn’t erase the truth, which continues to exist untrammeled and pure.
Plenty of guilty people are free today because a lie or lies couldn’t be proven to be such, and innocent people are in prison for the same reason.
If you are looking for absolute certainty and find it, please share. I reserve the right to question your certainty.
In the meantime, I see an obviously well-funded invasion heading for our border. Conservative voters, or “the right,” made illegal immigration and “the wall” key issues in the election that resulted in President Trump. Therefore I think it is reasonable to assume that the left is in this thing up to their eyeballs. Change my mind.
-
Now wait a minute. Let's get some logical and intellectual consistency, here. The Kavanaugh smear was rightly blasted, partly for being an accusation without evidence. And yet here you are, standing on your heads, defending an accusation without evidence. And not only defending it, but going further by saying we can't call it a lie without PROOF that it is a lie. Well shit, guys, I guess it's time to remove Kavanaugh from the bench. An accusation was made, and there is no proof it was a lie!
I'm down to the fundamentals of debate, here. I take accusations without evidence with a massive grain of salt. And I can't blame those fighting the accusation if they call it a lie. I think we should all have the guts to follow our own logic and morals no matter from which political side we approach it.
First, Becky and I are different people. Demanding or even expecting consistency between us is purely argumentative and illogical. You are better than that.
Also, I just cannot bring myself to equate the 30 year old charges of an anti-trump activist with the statements of a sitting President about a current situation when he has the entire Alphabet soup (NSA, FBI, CIA, CBP, ICE at his disposal. And it is a rather indisputable fact that thousands of migrants are headed our way with the intention of forcing themselves into our country without proper authorization. The only way you can justify that is to challenge the concept of "Our Country", which many liberals seem to be doing. But not me.
And yet I STILL said Maybe it is a lie
. So where is my inconsistency?
-
Now wait a minute. Let's get some logical and intellectual consistency, here. The Kavanaugh smear was rightly blasted, partly for being an accusation without evidence. And yet here you are, standing on your heads, defending an accusation without evidence. And not only defending it, but going further by saying we can't call it a lie without PROOF that it is a lie. Well shit, guys, I guess it's time to remove Kavanaugh from the bench. An accusation was made, and there is no proof it was a lie!
I'm down to the fundamentals of debate, here. I take accusations without evidence with a massive grain of salt. And I can't blame those fighting the accusation if they call it a lie. I think we should all have the guts to follow our own logic and morals no matter from which political side we approach it.
Kavanaugh stood ready, and did sit in front of congressional committee, under oath, before the entire world and put his reputation, and his legal life, and possibly his liberty in jeopardy to defend this accusation. In the face of very, very weak allegations. Becky has provided enough touchpoints, and threads for me to put Soros under subpoena and have him sit in the hot seat, and answer questions directed at finding the funding of the invasion. Would you support that? BTW, the article I linked was NOT an accusation of some kind of maybe, possibly, potentially, could-be happenstance. USA Today boldly stated in large print type, on the front page, above the fold(you can get the print copy for Oct 31 if you doubt me) that Soros funding of the invasion from the south was a LIE.
No problem demanding defense of an accusation. As has been said, Kavanaugh stepped up and faced the music. Where's Soros with even a generic denial? Soros is damn lucky I'm not president. I would have the guy served with a warrant to appear, and put him under oath. I'm pretty sure words to the effect of; 'on the basis of my 5th amendment rights, I refuse to answer', as most of the liberals in the Kavanaugh circus have done.
-
First, Becky and I are different people. Demanding or even expecting consistency between us is purely argumentative and illogical. You are better than that.
True. Becky is much cuter than you, I'm sure. ;)
Also, I just cannot bring myself to equate the 30 year old charges of an anti-trump activist with the statements of a sitting President about a current situation when he has the entire Alphabet soup (NSA, FBI, CIA, CBP, ICE at his disposal. And it is a rather indisputable fact that thousands of migrants are headed our way with the intention of forcing themselves into our country without proper authorization. The only way you can justify that is to challenge the concept of "Our Country", which many liberals seem to be doing. But not me.
And yet I STILL said . So where is my inconsistency?
If I am mistaken that you thought the Kavanaugh deal was BS, I apologize. If you did think it was BS, correct me if I'm wrong, but part of the reason you thought it was BS is because it was an accusation without evidence, with a hefty dose of guilty until proven innocent thrown in. Kavanaugh resoundingly called the accusations false.
And yet, with the Caravan/Soros issue, you have the same fundamentals. An accusation without evidence, with the opposition saying the accusation is false. Your inconsistency arises when you treat the fundamentals differently, and complain about people calling it a lie without PROOF it's a lie. Fine. I get it. There is no proof it's a lie. But there is also no EVIDENCE to support the original assertion.
BOTH sides needed to handle this differently.
RIGHTWINGERS: How is this caravan being funded? I wonder if it's Soros, since he has a track record of this sort of thing?
LEFTWINGERS: There is no evidence it is Soros.
What actually happened:
RIGHTWINGERS: IT'S SOROS THAT FUCKER
LEFTWINGERS: THAT'S A COMPLETE LIE YOU SUCK
-
True. Becky is much cuter than you, I'm sure. ;)
Well, we can probably agree on that, even without proof.
If I am mistaken that you thought the Kavanaugh deal was BS, I apologize. If you did think it was BS, correct me if I'm wrong, but part of the reason you thought it was BS is because it was an accusation without evidence, with a hefty dose of guilty until proven innocent thrown in. Kavanaugh resoundingly called the accusations false.
All that is true, PLUS, I feel that her anti-Trump activism gave her motivation to prevaricate. I know women that wish they could prove they knew Kavanaugh ( or any Trump associates) so they could accuse them of shit too.
And yet, with the Caravan/Soros issue, you have the same fundamentals. An accusation without evidence, with the opposition saying the accusation is false.
AFAIK, Soros has not denied it. Of course, I don't suppose anyone has thought to actually ask him. As opposed to Kavanaugh, who had to face an Congressional inquisition.
Your inconsistency arises when you treat the fundamentals differently, and complain about people calling it a lie without PROOF it's a lie. Fine. I get it. There is no proof it's a lie. But there is also no EVIDENCE to support the original assertion.
I treat them as fundamentally different because I see the two situations as fundamentally different.
Suppose your kid tells a lie about where they were last night. It is a LIE. But it is fundamentally different than a criminal lying about there whereabouts while they were committing a crime.
Analogies are easy. They are also almost always wrong and only believed by those that already wish to believe them.
BOTH sides needed to handle this differently.
RIGHTWINGERS: How is this caravan being funded? I wonder if it's Soros, since he has a track record of this sort of thing?
LEFTWINGERS: There is no evidence it is Soros.
What actually happened:
RIGHTWINGERS: IT'S SOROS THAT FUCKER
LEFTWINGERS: THAT'S A COMPLETE LIE YOU SUCK
Or:
Rightwingers: This is an organized event and there are probably criminals in the midst of the Caravan and we need to vet them before allowing them in.
Leftwingers: They are all innocent victims and we should welcome them all into our homes, (except my home).
-
(https://i0.wp.com/hardnoxandfriends.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/g3.jpg?w=615)
-
BOTH sides needed to handle this differently.
RIGHTWINGERS: How is this caravan being funded? I wonder if it's Soros, since he has a track record of this sort of thing?
LEFTWINGERS: There is no evidence it is Soros.
What actually happened:
RIGHTWINGERS: IT'S SOROS THAT FUCKER
LEFTWINGERS: THAT'S A COMPLETE LIE YOU SUCK
Well, I believe in this thread the top is pretty much how I have behaved. I haven't said it IS Soros but the left is adamantly saying it is NOT Soros.
Further, I don't think the left has much of a etiquette foot to stand on, given one of them has paraded around with the bloody stump of the presidents head, they are shooting up campaign offices, shooting AT Rep congressmen, kicking conservatives in the head, and kicking them when they are down. You want some respect? Earn it.