The New Lounge
- Thread starter hpnole
- Start date
The LGBT community has been historically underrepresented in bird watcher communities around the world so it’s time to rectify this injustice. Money well spent.
The example was 100% sound. It was just chosen over blander examples for its ability to make you focus on the wrong thing. It was a test you failed gloriously. You still don't see the puppet strings over you, do you? 🤣 🤣 🤣
My point is also that in part because these allegations pre-existed their nominations, there is nothing remotely suspicious about their coming to light now. Even the most right-wing honest** journalist would uncover them.
Find an example of allegations popping out for the first time after the fact, like Christine Blasey Ford's accusations against now Justice Kavanaugh, and you'll have earned a trip to the free throw line. You'd still have to hit at least one free throw to have a point. (And for the record, Blasey Ford's accusations were not proven false on the basis of a GOP-controlled Senate holding a hearing -- not a trial -- where they voted in lockstep to confirm.) I'd empathize with your suspicion, though I would not at that point concede your likely conclusion stated in the last sentence of the parenthetical below.
(**Having personal bias, left or right, does not exclude journalists from being honest. Fox News, for example, eventually conceded that President Trump lost the 2020 election fair and square. Plenty of media are able to put aside personal bias to report facts and plenty who still reveal some bias in their reporting nonetheless operate in good faith and do credible work. Y'all are the ones who throw out the baby with the bathwater when you have the slightest dislike of journalism you thereafter call "msm" and "fake news," not me.)
What are you talking about? I conceded the election, and said so here, before VP Harris did. I'm very aware that the Democratic Party is out of touch with the average American and has been so since at least 2016, the 2020 Presidential win being more circumstantial than evidence to the contrary. You keep trying to tie my positions here to the current political prospects of the Democratic Party in a lazy attempt to dismiss what I say without dealing with it substantively.
I'd slow clap for your acknowledgement that the GOP isn't much better, but you conveniently don't elaborate, so it's really just a façade of being fair and balanced in any way. I'm afraid you're really saying that MAGA is the answer to the GOP's problems, and I submit that it's actually the cause. The GOP's surrender to a narcissist conman is the end of any claim to moral high ground or family values. Like Biden in 2020, Trump has ridden circumstances to victory and power. That is all the GOP stands for, and it's all they have.
You continue to show that you don't understand the distinction between disagreement and character. Repeatedly, you state that no one could possibly disagree with you unless they are foolish, incompetent, dishonest, or/and evil.
This is a Tweet by the agency the owner of Twitter leads, citing an article from the proudly extremist Heritage Foundation. In and of itself, that does not invalidate it. Repeating for those in the back: IN AND OF ITSELF, THAT DOES NOT INVALIDATE IT. It does warrant skepticism and looking into it further.
What have you done to vet this information in any way, shape, or form? Have you ever written or read a grant? They're loooooong and detailed and precise and so, so tedious. And that tweet summarizes each of 3 cherry-picked grants in less than a sentence each. I get how convenient it is for your consumption. I do that, too. What I don't do, though, is run w/ that info as is w/o looking at other sources, considering context, and applying critical thinking skills. I repeat, WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO VET THIS INFORMATION IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM? Thank you in advance for your thoughtful response.
The original headline and the rewrite are both awful. They are clickbait for their base and they are trolling the opposition.
It is also, however, a result of what Fox News has wrought.
More to the point, did Jose Ibarra deserve the presumption of innocence and a fair trial? It's yes or no. It's not a gotcha question. I'm not asking you whether he received both of those things or not; I'm asking you whether he was rightfully entitled to them.
I would similarly ask MSNBC, besides suspicion they had from the beginning of the trial, what evidence do they have that the trial was anything but fair?
Delusions of grandeur. We’ll add that to the growing number of tell tale signs that you are an unstable dude
Selection of an impartial jury will always be a challenge in a case like this. Prior to tv and social media, the jury in this case would likely be over populated by illiterates who didn’t read the papers or liars who claimed they knew nothing about it. In this case, it’s highly doubtful that any of the jurors hadn’t predetermined his guilt, but given the overwhelming evidence, we’ll just have to live with it.
Given that he’s not a citizen, one could argue that he was lucky to receive the same protections granted to the rest of us by the US Constitution in the first place
I hate to break it to you, but we’re not students in your shitty little classroom. No one here answers to you.
Take it down a notch, Professor
I have absolutely written grants, successfully by the way. They were to get things like technology in the hands of underserved children. Did the media, whose job it is, vet the laptop story? Did they vet the very fine people hoax? Did they vet the bloodbath hoax? Did they vet the Chaney hoax? Did you take those stories at face value or did you take the media's word for it. It is impossible to vet all information that is out there. Sometimes you have to put trust in those you believe in. I'm sure you have no problem swallowing the tripe that is fed you. It is proven on a daily basis on this board.
