DeSantis Uses Racist Dog Whistle...

[Mountain Man]

I'm not big on this kind of news story.

But you're apparently big on sketchy anti-Trump hit-pieces published by The New York Times.

[Mountain Man]

But you haven't detected a flaw with my logic. That is the point. You just don't like the conclusion.

Deliberately misconstruing someone's words is not logic, it's dishonesty

[carpedm9587]

But you're apparently big on sketchy anti-Trump hit-pieces published by The New York Times.

To which story are you referring?

[Mountain Man]

To which story are you referring?

And I thought my sense of humor was dry.

[carpedm9587]

And I thought my sense of humor was dry.

So...no response?

[Mountain Man]

So...no response?

So, wait, you weren't being sarcastic? Huh...

I'm of course referring to this thread:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...d-from-the-NYT

[carpedm9587]

So, wait, you weren't being sarcastic? Huh...

I'm of course referring to this thread:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...d-from-the-NYT

So you're referring to an article I already said I thought was a poor decision?

[Roy]

Do you not read the news? Several twitter stories make it to the major news networks weekly. I see them on the yahoo news feed on a 3 times or more weekly bases.

Yeah, twitter posts make it to news stories. That does not mean the twitter posters are members of the media.

Unless you can cite an actual false accusation made by the media, you're the one who is lying, and no amount of name-calling or attempts to rewrite history will change that.

No actual false accusations made by the media cited.

Deal with the rest of my post, scum bag or go away and lie elsewhere

You mean this bit: ? The bit where you introduced an irrelevant straw-man?

This was your claim: the lying media falsely accused a women, of mixed Jewish and Mexican heritage, of giving white supremest signs." That claim appears to be false. The accusations did not originate in the media, they were only reported (and refuted) by them. Unless "the media" is expanded to include all twitter posters, in which case your attack on journalists is unwarranted.

I don't lie, Crystal. I leave that to you.

[lilpixieofterror]

Yeah, twitter posts make it to news stories. That does not mean the twitter posters are members of the media.

Of the major media, no they re not, but did I specify what media? No.

No actual false accusations made by the media cited. You mean this bit: "Quote me where I said, ‘media’ only includes published articles or TV news."? The bit where you introduced an irrelevant straw-man?

This was your claim: "I mean, you still haven’t dealt with how the lying media falsely accused a women, of mixed Jewish and Mexican heritage, of giving white supremest signs." That claim appears to be false. The accusations did not originate in the media, they were only reported (and refuted) by them. Unless "the media" is expanded to include all twitter posters, in which case your attack on journalists is unwarranted.

I don't lie, Crystal. I leave that to you.

[Roy]

Of course you can. It's stupid, misleading and dishonest, but that never stopped you before.

The main problem with doing so, however, is that you originally made your accusation in response to Jim's post about professional reporters:

No, actually they don't. You people like to banter TDS around, but you have this obsessive fear of one of the most important elements of our democracy: The Free Press. And that fear is essentially allowing you to live in a bubble and you just are not getting a good view of what is happening. Heck, even when you look you don't want to see. You think every story, every event has been cast and chosen to create a false picture of what is 'really' going on. And this paranoia is the wave Trump has leveraged to manipulate a lot of good people into standing with him.

Cable news is mostly opinion - that is true for Fox and CNN and MSNBC and whatever. But 'the news', the actual articles written by the reporters out there covering what is happening are for the most part written by professionals. Professionals working under certain ideals designed to create unbiased reporting. And we have access to multiple writers on every topic. I am generally impressed when I read those articles by how they try to present multiple sides of the story, and how they report even what is detrimental to what may well be their personal opinion.

At the same time, I am not blind to the biases of the various media sources, and no-one, no matter how hard they try, can truly be unbiased. But all one really needs to do is broaden one's scope and read articles from multiple opposing potential biases to get a clearer picture of how the facts can be viewed from different perspectives.

But no, I am officially pushing back on that line. That line is Trump fed and ignorance base paranoia. The media does not 'lie for a living'. These reporters go to extreme lengths to bring us information about the world that is as honest and as unbiased as they can make it. Sometimes they literally risk their lives and put themselves in the middle of extremely hostile situations to make sure we can have that information. And they do not deserve to be painted the way conservatives in this country paint them.

And yet they falsely accused a women of mixed Jewish and Mexican heritage of giving a white nationalist sign

You responded to a post about professional reporters - people who report news for a living - but are now trying to claim you were talking about twitter users. You're busted.

[lilpixieofterror]

Of course you can. It's stupid, misleading and dishonest, but that never stopped you before.

The main problem with doing so, however, is that you originally made your accusation in response to Jim's post about professional reporters:



You responded to a post about professional reporters - people who report news for a living - but are now trying to claim you were talking about twitter users. You're busted.

Which was retweeted around the web, even by some who are mainstream reporters. Busted, try again Roy.

[Tassman]

But you're apparently big on sketchy anti-Trump hit-pieces published by The New York Times.

Your "sketchy anti-Trump hit-piece published by The New York Times" is consistent with a raft of "pieces" written by the likes of Michael Wolff, Omarosa and, significantly, Bob Woodward. Plus endless, ongoing reportage from all the electronic media (except for the defacto state media Fox News). They all present a similar picture of an unhinged, reckless, president incapable of being honest and totally unfit for office.