|
Replies: 25
| visibility 1
|
All-TigerNet [13098]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14101
Joined: 11/2/15
|
|
|
|
 |
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
But but Fox News!!!!
Jan 6, 2022, 10:45 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24030]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12155
Joined: 9/1/14
|
Re: But but Fox News!!!!
Jan 6, 2022, 10:51 PM
|
|
These people are full of bull
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17773]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16662
Joined: 9/1/12
|
Re: But but Fox News!!!!
Jan 7, 2022, 7:50 AM
[ in reply to But but Fox News!!!! ] |
|
At least they post retractions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42139]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38225
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Fox doesn't have to make corrections.
Jan 7, 2022, 7:54 AM
[ in reply to But but Fox News!!!! ] |
|
They just settle it quietly in court.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [97704]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64844
Joined: 7/13/02
|
Article is a little vague. Is this the Trump and
Jan 7, 2022, 7:29 AM
|
|
Pub Congress stimulus, or the Biden Dem split Congress stimulus that Trump said should have been more?
It gets so confusing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13098]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14101
Joined: 11/2/15
|
Re: Article is a little vague. Is this the Trump and
Jan 7, 2022, 7:39 AM
|
|
What does that have to do with dishonest reporting?
I think all the stimulus payments were dumb no matter who passed them. Big contributor to other problems we have now (inflation, job participation).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [97704]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64844
Joined: 7/13/02
|
My question is why were felons suddenly stimulated when
Jan 7, 2022, 7:56 AM
|
|
Biden signed it, but the notion was never brought up when Trump signed it? You know they were too, but it was never brought up?
I agree, they're both bad. As for the WAPO, well, I don't read them so I have no clue about the "reporting". I don't even read fact checkers, or if I do I fact check them. Often fact checkers refute things by saying "there's no evidence", which is a big red flag.
I just assumed crooks and felons would get simulated under Trump and under Biden, and that is what has been proven to have happened. I don't like either of them and can honestly say I didn't vote for either of them in 2020. So I have no skin in the game.
I'll fall on a sword for my candidate if my candidate ever won the primary. 45 years, 27 now voting, and that's never happened. They never have, so I'm really have no skin in the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42139]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38225
Joined: 11/30/98
|
"Dishonest reporting"
Jan 7, 2022, 7:57 AM
[ in reply to Re: Article is a little vague. Is this the Trump and ] |
|
Calling out a politician's prediction at the time, which was unsubstantiated, isn't "dishonest reporting". It would have been dishonest if the WaPo didn't admit Cotton was right. He did.
That's no more dishonest than me calling BS if you predicted Clemson to win the NCAA tournament and then by some absurd miracle, they did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13098]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14101
Joined: 11/2/15
|
Re: "Dishonest reporting"
Jan 7, 2022, 9:12 AM
|
|
Cotton and Barrasso earn Two Pinocchio," the fact-checker added.
Not only dishonest, he's the mfkn "fact checker", lol.
Furthermore, he only corrected AFTER being called out, not through his own guilt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4679]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6557
Joined: 4/11/20
|
Re: WaPo, wrong again
Jan 7, 2022, 7:32 AM
|
|
Boston bomber gets a check. Makes you want to just run out and gladly pay more taxes doesn’t it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42139]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38225
Joined: 11/30/98
|
And per the article...
Jan 7, 2022, 7:58 AM
|
|
They're likely going to take that money from him and give it to the victims since he owes them a #### ton.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4679]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6557
Joined: 4/11/20
|
Re: And per the article...
Jan 7, 2022, 8:03 AM
|
|
So, the money he received from the tax payers will be used to help pay his debt? It’s ridiculous that checks when to people like this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42139]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38225
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Considering that...
Jan 7, 2022, 8:07 AM
|
|
He likely won't ever acquire enough money to pay that debt, I'm okay with helping out those families.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [40927]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42943
Joined: 11/30/98
|
well, why not personally send them a check
Jan 7, 2022, 8:34 AM
|
|
that would be the appropriate thing to do since you are okay with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42139]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38225
Joined: 11/30/98
|
What an extraordinarily stupid response.***
Jan 7, 2022, 8:41 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4679]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6557
Joined: 4/11/20
|
Re: What an extraordinarily stupid response.***
Jan 7, 2022, 9:14 AM
|
|
I interpreted Neal’s post as suggesting the govt send the money to the families and not have any go through the hands of the dog meat sitting in prison.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42139]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38225
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Heh, no.
Jan 7, 2022, 9:15 AM
|
|
He very clearly said I should send it. "Personally" and "you".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4679]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6557
Joined: 4/11/20
|
Re: Heh, no.
Jan 7, 2022, 9:35 AM
|
|
Well maybe you’re right. But you actually could send some money to the families I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [40927]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42943
Joined: 11/30/98
|
I imagine the majority of the people in here did not get a
Jan 7, 2022, 8:32 AM
[ in reply to Re: WaPo, wrong again ] |
|
check
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42139]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38225
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: WaPo, wrong again
Jan 7, 2022, 7:55 AM
|
|
So Cotton made some outlandish statements. WaPo guy called him out for it. One of those outlandish statements actually came true. WaPo guy admits it publicly that Cotton got one right.
Seems like a big crisis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34105]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33608
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: WaPo, wrong again
Jan 7, 2022, 10:29 AM
|
|
Bet you had no idea that journalism is dead because of this. And you call yourself a journalist. Pfft.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42139]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38225
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Yep...
Jan 7, 2022, 10:39 AM
|
|
One journalist got it wrong when a politician's wild prediction came true. Shut down the whole system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34105]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33608
Joined: 9/13/99
|
And the craziest part
Jan 7, 2022, 10:49 AM
|
|
is that he showed journalism was dead by posting an... article... from a news source.
Which we can trust? No, wait, we can't because journalism is dead. Crap.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [20540]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11683
Joined: 10/15/02
|
Re: WaPo, wrong again
Jan 7, 2022, 8:27 AM
|
|
You are of course aware that you are doing the classic loser's trick of using a negative...to try to prove a positive?
Congrats. You have successfully established that this fact-checker was in error in one particular instance. That's all you've established. Now test the veracity of the other tens of thousands of facts the man has checked. If it's riddled and replete with similar errors, I will posit you have a point. In the interim all you've established is that he is not 100% correct all the time. So...we're down to 99.99%, at this moment?
You've proven nothing, intellectually, not to anyone serious. Yes, we're already aware no source is perfect, but at the end of the day you're just going after the veracity of fact-checkers because they're lethal to "conservative media"...which again, isn't really media at all, it's just anti-media and propaganda.
WaPo's main problem is bias, not factual veracity.
By the way, here's what your doing with the negative fallacy:
No fish are dogs, and no dogs can fly, therefore all fish can fly.
Any serious examination of this statement would show you exactly where you've gone wrong...but having zero ability to admit mistakes, you'll never actually do that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34105]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33608
Joined: 9/13/99
|
OK, I read the original WaPo article
Jan 7, 2022, 10:58 AM
|
|
and the writer NEVER said that prisoners didn't receive checks. He said that they have been receiving checks all along, making Cotton's remark an insincere bit of fear-mongering.
So Fox News is, as usual, being misleading. Who knew.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 25
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
