Yeah, that's a false equivalence. One side at least strives to have some journalistic integrity, and the other is just straight up propaganda and bullshit. Which one is which is left as an exercise for the reader.

Damn it, how did I miss that, I even pulled juicebox up on exactly the same construct in the other thread recently. Obviously off my game today!

LOL. CNN has zero credibility.

Their moderator falsely fact checked Mitt Romney during a Presidential Debate! The biggest stage of the year!

Obama won that election, though, so I guess it was the right thing to do...

In your view, is lying bad? What do you think of the president's 16,000 lies since he took office? Does he have credibility in your eyes? What about his propaganda arm, Fox news, do they have credibility?

Also, re: fact checking. It's much easier to spew bullshit than it is to refute it. Mistakes are bound to be made, especially with the volume of bullshit Trump & his enablers spew. Congratulations on finding a dozen examples out of probably thousands or tens of thousands of successfully debunked statements. Maybe as someone who cares so much about truth and accuracy, it should bother you more that your own side lies literally all the ****ing time?

I usually vote Libertarian, but Gary Johnson sucked as a candidate, so Trump isn't my side.

The level of lies out of the Trump administration seems about on par with the level of lies out of the Obama and Bush administration. No excuse for it, but it is what it is out of administrations.

I haven't seen the really big lie out of Trump yet that led to massive policy mistake yet. I think he was wrong on coronavirus early on, but didn't manufacture weapons of mass destruction or sell an overhaul of the health care system based on if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.

Lol no. Both are trash propaganda.
And NPR is National Petroleum Radio.

Well, "trash" is a subjective topic, and it is not surprising that you, with your conspiratorial obsession, will put anything "mainstream" as trash. However, all that does is serve your personal agenda, one which most other humans regard as "trash."

I mean - I thought it was trash that you posted pictures of a child without permission from her parents. You did not think it was trash. It is all relative in the end.


I see what you did there!!! That was Super Human Intelligent Talking!!





How about this them being the proud libertarian. In between sessions of building your own roads, can you list an equivalent list of media lies from the conservative broadcasters, just as you did from what I assume you believe to be the left leaning media.

I assume over the years there has been as earth changing a lie as correcting a person that you mention over and over, so given that - why not show some balance and provide a list from the other side of specific areas where the media lied or misled. That way when others question if you are being balanced you can show that to them and tell them to rub that on their titties, and then after continue building your own road.

All the best.

Oh, my mistake, I thought you wanted to have a good faith discussion (**** knows why, none of you people ever do). Carry on.

My list of lies from CNN was in response to a question.

Set your own thread about how Fox News and Breitbart kisses Trump's butt, and we can fact check it there. This thread is about CNN vs. Trump, not about how the media as a whole sucks. You are getting off track from the original thread.

What do you think of Alex Jones? Is he the hero we need, bringing the TRUTH to the people?

LOL, D2, if Trump had a whooper as bad as weapons of mass destruction, that cost thousands of lives and trillions of dollars, please tell me what it was!

So glad to have another neutral not-a-Trumper who always takes the Trump/GOP side on absolutely everything in the forum. We were running really short on those round here.

LOL. The thread is titled CNN Vs. Trump. Why would you fact check other outlets for that thread?

And as a Libertarian, sure, I lean more towards Trump than Biden or Clinton. They are all disasters for Libertarian view point, but at least Trump's Supreme Court picks have lined up more to my ideology than Clinton's would have.

Clearly it seems that you don't think that lying about absolutely everything, day in, day out, as Trump does, is a big problem. I happen to think it's a very big problem. Any sort of productive political discourse depends on both sides being able to use logic and agree on facts. When one side denounces those principles, and decides that reality is whatever they choose it to be that day, productive discourse is no longer possible. This is the state of affairs under Trump, becuase he invents "reality" and his followers go along with it.

He is also a propagandist.

Although his target market is very fringe, he caters to them (perhaps believing some of his stuff, who knows/cares). He does the same thing you do, only he better monetized it by targeting and catering to a segment of the population who will pay him for his silver/zinc shots or whatever. You are more a true believer in your stuff, so your payment comes from "educating" the world by reporting on what the conspiracy media is pitching. Same process - he just makes money doing it, while you do it for the endorphins it creates within you.


Very convenient of you trying hard to stick to the thread title as a means to avoid answering the question, but here is the thing - by answering the question you will help point out the magnitude of the Trump vs CNN factor is by showing the equivalent perspective from the other side.

So, with that in mind - I assume you will not do it? You probably have to go out to build that road of yours. I understand.

All the best.

You enjoy bringing up what "most people think". It's a trash talking point. Sometimes most people are correct and sometimes they aren't.

It all comes down to a variant of the "Boy Who Cried Wolf" story. If a person cries wolf over and over in the form of a deep wolf conspiracy run by a shadow wolf government, to keep the sheeple in line for wolfy reasons, and every time people come running it aint what the guy is screaming about - then eventually as he continues to yell about wolves, he may get bitten by one when nobody bothered coming any more. That just means that by having a history of bluster, no-one cares if and when he is even right about something in the future.

As to the sometimes people are right and sometimes they are not. Well, it is not the same as 50/50 - I win the lottery or I do not. Some people innately are wrong a lot, or pitch ideas that are based in their fabricated thought constructs that lack any basis of reality. If that is their trend, then even if they happen to be right about something (either by chance or insight) - well, kind of too bad that they built up that history before then.

Anyway, this is off topic, so if you want to post a last word on this then go for it for the endorphins that will produce, and then we can then get back to the riveting topic that is this thread.

All the best.

To add to the above, I think we can narrow down the probabilities. If you recall, in the film "Conspiracy Theory" (which admittedly I watched about 20 years ago, so my memory is hazy), the Mel Gibson character is a Luckbox-type individual who luckboxes (tee hee) on a real conspiracy theory and the baddies (gubment) go after him for it. So, if we assume that to be an accurate depiction of how events in conspiracy world unfold, we would have to say that on the balance of probabilities, Luckbox has never been right, otherwise he would have been taken out by now.

Needs more

I didn't come up with it. It was apparently a friend of a rather influential sociology professor I had a long time ago. But (in my conspiratorial mind)--I sort of think it was his own construction but he felt the need to ascribe it to someone else.

Are you struggling with how quotes work, Luckbox? Or are you still not getting the part that needs more ?

I'll give you a clue - think about the super smart thing your professor's "friend" did, and do it in reverse.

I could have quoted Monteroy. Sure. I quoted you though who was praising his post. Doesn't seem to be a big difference there.

Au contraire, mon ami.

I understood what you were going for. I just ignored it.
My point is that there are degrees of media "respectability". You might think that CNN (or NPR) is great and objective when you compare it to FOX. That doesn't actually make it so though. Wendy's is great compared to McDonald's. It's still fast food though.