comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 10 minutes ago
So much whataboutery.
Didn't a judge rule that Tucker Carlson wasn't a factual reporter and his show was entertainment, not news?
Seeing as the discussion was about FOX specifically, that condemnation of one of their leading stars should preclude anyone from taking them seriously. Not sure why everyone can't discuss the topic without bringing CNN in to it.
One is a shiiiitty news channel.
The other is a shiiiitty entertainment channel, pretending to be a news channel.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s not whataboutery when our resident ‘genius’ only talks about one side of things as if it’s only the right side of things that are x, y or z when they’re both dreadful in this instance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They are both the "right" side..
You are using CNN as a defence (for some reason) against the fact that legally speaking, Fox isn't a news channel.
Honestly don't see why you care to defend either of them. I think it's more to do with the poster than the argument.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Defending? I’d love you to show me where I am defending either of them? I’ve done nothing but the complete opposite?
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - I got 5 on it. (U1282)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 10 minutes ago
So much whataboutery.
Didn't a judge rule that Tucker Carlson wasn't a factual reporter and his show was entertainment, not news?
Seeing as the discussion was about FOX specifically, that condemnation of one of their leading stars should preclude anyone from taking them seriously. Not sure why everyone can't discuss the topic without bringing CNN in to it.
One is a shiiiitty news channel.
The other is a shiiiitty entertainment channel, pretending to be a news channel.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s not whataboutery when our resident ‘genius’ only talks about one side of things as if it’s only the right side of things that are x, y or z when they’re both dreadful in this instance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nice try at justifying your whataboutery. This genius did not "talk about one side of things as if it’s only the right side of things" and you know it.
If he did then show me where.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s every week from you.
Every time you use your current phrase of the month ‘truth twisters’ it’s only ever about either the right side of the political spectrum.
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 18 seconds ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - I got 5 on it. (U1282)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 10 minutes ago
So much whataboutery.
Didn't a judge rule that Tucker Carlson wasn't a factual reporter and his show was entertainment, not news?
Seeing as the discussion was about FOX specifically, that condemnation of one of their leading stars should preclude anyone from taking them seriously. Not sure why everyone can't discuss the topic without bringing CNN in to it.
One is a shiiiitty news channel.
The other is a shiiiitty entertainment channel, pretending to be a news channel.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s not whataboutery when our resident ‘genius’ only talks about one side of things as if it’s only the right side of things that are x, y or z when they’re both dreadful in this instance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nice try at justifying your whataboutery. This genius did not "talk about one side of things as if it’s only the right side of things" and you know it.
If he did then show me where.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s every week from you.
Every time you use your current phrase of the month ‘truth twisters’ it’s only ever about either the right side of the political spectrum.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're generalising and trying to make things vague. Show me where I did it this week, in this instance. You claimed I did it. Show me where.
https://mobile.twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1455652316770676739
It’s getting quite ridiculous the levels of corruption but instead of dealing with corrupt let’s get rid of oversight.
That’ll help us become richer
And the usual Tory voters will love it “yay they are becoming even more unaccountable”
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 10 minutes ago
So much whataboutery.
Didn't a judge rule that Tucker Carlson wasn't a factual reporter and his show was entertainment, not news?
Seeing as the discussion was about FOX specifically, that condemnation of one of their leading stars should preclude anyone from taking them seriously. Not sure why everyone can't discuss the topic without bringing CNN in to it.
One is a shiiiitty news channel.
The other is a shiiiitty entertainment channel, pretending to be a news channel.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s not whataboutery when our resident ‘genius’ only talks about one side of things as if it’s only the right side of things that are x, y or z when they’re both dreadful in this instance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They are both the "right" side..
You are using CNN as a defence (for some reason) against the fact that legally speaking, Fox isn't a news channel.
Honestly don't see why you care to defend either of them. I think it's more to do with the poster than the argument.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Defending? I’d love you to show me where I am defending either of them? I’ve done nothing but the complete opposite?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whataboutery is a defence mechanism that allows you to maintain plausible deniability, but even that fades away when overused.
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - I got 5 on it. (U1282)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 10 minutes ago
So much whataboutery.
Didn't a judge rule that Tucker Carlson wasn't a factual reporter and his show was entertainment, not news?
Seeing as the discussion was about FOX specifically, that condemnation of one of their leading stars should preclude anyone from taking them seriously. Not sure why everyone can't discuss the topic without bringing CNN in to it.
One is a shiiiitty news channel.
The other is a shiiiitty entertainment channel, pretending to be a news channel.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s not whataboutery when our resident ‘genius’ only talks about one side of things as if it’s only the right side of things that are x, y or z when they’re both dreadful in this instance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They are both the "right" side..
You are using CNN as a defence (for some reason) against the fact that legally speaking, Fox isn't a news channel.
Honestly don't see why you care to defend either of them. I think it's more to do with the poster than the argument.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Defending? I’d love you to show me where I am defending either of them? I’ve done nothing but the complete opposite?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whataboutery is a defence mechanism that allows you to maintain plausible deniability, but even that fades away when overused.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Even conflating the organisations is an attempt to raise one and diminish the other.
It’s like “ all politicians are in it for themselves” or “ they’re all as bad as each other”
These sweeping statements damage those trying to do good and allow those who are solely interested in themselves to get away with it.
Haven't watched any US news shows in ages, (seen snippets on Twitter) but in regard to CNN they seemed to be completely obsessed with Trump, with wall to wall coverage, and from what I've seen of Fox News, it doesn't actually broadcast news, it's an entertainment programme.
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - I got 5 on it. (U1282)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 18 seconds ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - I got 5 on it. (U1282)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 10 minutes ago
So much whataboutery.
Didn't a judge rule that Tucker Carlson wasn't a factual reporter and his show was entertainment, not news?
Seeing as the discussion was about FOX specifically, that condemnation of one of their leading stars should preclude anyone from taking them seriously. Not sure why everyone can't discuss the topic without bringing CNN in to it.
One is a shiiiitty news channel.
The other is a shiiiitty entertainment channel, pretending to be a news channel.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s not whataboutery when our resident ‘genius’ only talks about one side of things as if it’s only the right side of things that are x, y or z when they’re both dreadful in this instance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nice try at justifying your whataboutery. This genius did not "talk about one side of things as if it’s only the right side of things" and you know it.
If he did then show me where.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s every week from you.
Every time you use your current phrase of the month ‘truth twisters’ it’s only ever about either the right side of the political spectrum.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're generalising and trying to make things vague. Show me where I did it this week, in this instance. You claimed I did it. Show me where.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’ve specified the exact phrase that you use when doing it. Vague? 😂😂😂😂😂
Genius
I’ve got better things to do than trawl through pages and pages of posts on a football forum.
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - I got 5 on it. (U1282)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 18 seconds ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - I got 5 on it. (U1282)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 10 minutes ago
So much whataboutery.
Didn't a judge rule that Tucker Carlson wasn't a factual reporter and his show was entertainment, not news?
Seeing as the discussion was about FOX specifically, that condemnation of one of their leading stars should preclude anyone from taking them seriously. Not sure why everyone can't discuss the topic without bringing CNN in to it.
One is a shiiiitty news channel.
The other is a shiiiitty entertainment channel, pretending to be a news channel.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s not whataboutery when our resident ‘genius’ only talks about one side of things as if it’s only the right side of things that are x, y or z when they’re both dreadful in this instance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nice try at justifying your whataboutery. This genius did not "talk about one side of things as if it’s only the right side of things" and you know it.
If he did then show me where.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s every week from you.
Every time you use your current phrase of the month ‘truth twisters’ it’s only ever about either the right side of the political spectrum.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're generalising and trying to make things vague. Show me where I did it this week, in this instance. You claimed I did it. Show me where.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’ve specified the exact phrase that you use when doing it. Vague? 😂😂😂😂😂
Genius
I’ve got better things to do than trawl through pages and pages of posts on a football forum.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So basically you can't substantiate your comment. Thanks for confirming that it was just more whataboutery.
Not one comment re Cucker or Fox but you've attacked CNN and me for daring to call out Cucker and Fox. But yeah, you're not defending them.
Thanks for coming.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - I got 5 on it. (U1282)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - I got 5 on it. (U1282)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 18 seconds ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - I got 5 on it. (U1282)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 10 minutes ago
So much whataboutery.
Didn't a judge rule that Tucker Carlson wasn't a factual reporter and his show was entertainment, not news?
Seeing as the discussion was about FOX specifically, that condemnation of one of their leading stars should preclude anyone from taking them seriously. Not sure why everyone can't discuss the topic without bringing CNN in to it.
One is a shiiiitty news channel.
The other is a shiiiitty entertainment channel, pretending to be a news channel.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s not whataboutery when our resident ‘genius’ only talks about one side of things as if it’s only the right side of things that are x, y or z when they’re both dreadful in this instance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nice try at justifying your whataboutery. This genius did not "talk about one side of things as if it’s only the right side of things" and you know it.
If he did then show me where.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s every week from you.
Every time you use your current phrase of the month ‘truth twisters’ it’s only ever about either the right side of the political spectrum.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're generalising and trying to make things vague. Show me where I did it this week, in this instance. You claimed I did it. Show me where.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’ve specified the exact phrase that you use when doing it. Vague? 😂😂😂😂😂
Genius
I’ve got better things to do than trawl through pages and pages of posts on a football forum.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So basically you can't substantiate your comment. Thanks for confirming that it was just more whataboutery.
Not one comment re Cucker or Fox but you've attacked CNN and me for daring to call out Cucker and Fox. But yeah, you're not defending them.
Thanks for coming.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whatever soothes your insecurities bro
Only seen him (Carlson) broadcast via social media snippets but I see his own legal team stated his viewers could not be expected to believe the words that came out of his mouth.
"The "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.' "
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2019cv11161/527808/39/
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Golf Club Defeca... (U3126)
posted 25 minutes ago
Only seen him (Carlson) broadcast via social media snippets but I see his own legal team stated his viewers could not be expected to believe the words that came out of his mouth.
"The "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.' "
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2019cv11161/527808/39/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lots of people in the US seem to deploying that defense at the moment from alex Jones to Trumps Former Lawyers.
It's a strange defense to make tbh "I am obviously lying and lying so badly that nobody in their right mind could believe me" despite over 60% of the Republican believing the lies that he told.
It's the perfect siiihiteating excuse
Get to call hands and tails and then always say you're winning
Some are stupid enough to fall for it and others have low enough standards to accept it
comment by Samus (Isle of) Arran (U22669)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Golf Club Defeca... (U3126)
posted 25 minutes ago
Only seen him (Carlson) broadcast via social media snippets but I see his own legal team stated his viewers could not be expected to believe the words that came out of his mouth.
"The "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.' "
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2019cv11161/527808/39/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lots of people in the US seem to deploying that defense at the moment from alex Jones to Trumps Former Lawyers.
It's a strange defense to make tbh "I am obviously lying and lying so badly that nobody in their right mind could believe me" despite over 60% of the Republican believing the lies that he told.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fox won the case based on that defence.
The judge writing, "Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes."
"Whether the Court frames Mr. Carlson's statements as 'exaggeration,' 'non-literal commentary,' or simply bloviating for his audience, the conclusion remains the same — the statements are not actionable."
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Golf Club Defecator (U3126)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Samus (Isle of) Arran (U22669)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Golf Club Defeca... (U3126)
posted 25 minutes ago
Only seen him (Carlson) broadcast via social media snippets but I see his own legal team stated his viewers could not be expected to believe the words that came out of his mouth.
"The "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.' "
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2019cv11161/527808/39/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lots of people in the US seem to deploying that defense at the moment from alex Jones to Trumps Former Lawyers.
It's a strange defense to make tbh "I am obviously lying and lying so badly that nobody in their right mind could believe me" despite over 60% of the Republican believing the lies that he told.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fox won the case based on that defence.
The judge writing, "Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes."
"Whether the Court frames Mr. Carlson's statements as 'exaggeration,' 'non-literal commentary,' or simply bloviating for his audience, the conclusion remains the same — the statements are not actionable."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Golf Club Defecator (U3126)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Samus (Isle of) Arran (U22669)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Golf Club Defeca... (U3126)
posted 25 minutes ago
Only seen him (Carlson) broadcast via social media snippets but I see his own legal team stated his viewers could not be expected to believe the words that came out of his mouth.
"The "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.' "
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2019cv11161/527808/39/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lots of people in the US seem to deploying that defense at the moment from alex Jones to Trumps Former Lawyers.
It's a strange defense to make tbh "I am obviously lying and lying so badly that nobody in their right mind could believe me" despite over 60% of the Republican believing the lies that he told.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fox won the case based on that defence.
The judge writing, "Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes."
"Whether the Court frames Mr. Carlson's statements as 'exaggeration,' 'non-literal commentary,' or simply bloviating for his audience, the conclusion remains the same — the statements are not actionable."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
“Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation…”
In other words, his employers understand and admit that they willingly retain a lying prikk
comment by Titliv - Ben Shapiro fanboy, and what about those milkers (U11882)
posted 3 minutes ago
Hasn't Alex Jones argued he is literally insane so that he doesn't face legal action
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Surely he can’t argue that under the Catch 22 premise?
comment by Titliv - Ben Shapiro fanboy, and what about th... (U11882)
posted 14 minutes ago
Hasn't Alex Jones argued he is literally insane so that he doesn't face legal action
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe he is arguing the government has made him insane but he previously admitted in his divorce case that the "Alex Jones" we hear on the radio is a character.
Why would anyone in the UK watch US news stations?
To hear James Earl Jones dulcet tones
comment by IvanGolacIsMagic (U5291)
posted less than a minute ago
Why would anyone in the UK watch US news stations?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Potentially to hear what is happening in one of the most important countries in the world?
Why would anyone support Dundee United
comment by Samus (Isle of) Arran (U22669)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by IvanGolacIsMagic (U5291)
posted less than a minute ago
Why would anyone in the UK watch US news stations?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Potentially to hear what is happening in one of the most important countries in the world?
Why would anyone support Dundee United
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because they are your local team so therefore entirely relevant to what's going on around them?
comment by IvanGolacIsMagic (U5291)
posted 13 minutes ago
Why would anyone in the UK watch US news stations?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't even watch UK news stations.
Sign in if you want to comment
Arguing w/strangers cause I'm lonely thread
Page 1903 of 4823
1904 | 1905 | 1906 | 1907 | 1908
posted on 3/11/21
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 10 minutes ago
So much whataboutery.
Didn't a judge rule that Tucker Carlson wasn't a factual reporter and his show was entertainment, not news?
Seeing as the discussion was about FOX specifically, that condemnation of one of their leading stars should preclude anyone from taking them seriously. Not sure why everyone can't discuss the topic without bringing CNN in to it.
One is a shiiiitty news channel.
The other is a shiiiitty entertainment channel, pretending to be a news channel.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s not whataboutery when our resident ‘genius’ only talks about one side of things as if it’s only the right side of things that are x, y or z when they’re both dreadful in this instance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They are both the "right" side..
You are using CNN as a defence (for some reason) against the fact that legally speaking, Fox isn't a news channel.
Honestly don't see why you care to defend either of them. I think it's more to do with the poster than the argument.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Defending? I’d love you to show me where I am defending either of them? I’ve done nothing but the complete opposite?
posted on 3/11/21
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - I got 5 on it. (U1282)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 10 minutes ago
So much whataboutery.
Didn't a judge rule that Tucker Carlson wasn't a factual reporter and his show was entertainment, not news?
Seeing as the discussion was about FOX specifically, that condemnation of one of their leading stars should preclude anyone from taking them seriously. Not sure why everyone can't discuss the topic without bringing CNN in to it.
One is a shiiiitty news channel.
The other is a shiiiitty entertainment channel, pretending to be a news channel.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s not whataboutery when our resident ‘genius’ only talks about one side of things as if it’s only the right side of things that are x, y or z when they’re both dreadful in this instance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nice try at justifying your whataboutery. This genius did not "talk about one side of things as if it’s only the right side of things" and you know it.
If he did then show me where.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s every week from you.
Every time you use your current phrase of the month ‘truth twisters’ it’s only ever about either the right side of the political spectrum.
posted on 3/11/21
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 18 seconds ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - I got 5 on it. (U1282)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 10 minutes ago
So much whataboutery.
Didn't a judge rule that Tucker Carlson wasn't a factual reporter and his show was entertainment, not news?
Seeing as the discussion was about FOX specifically, that condemnation of one of their leading stars should preclude anyone from taking them seriously. Not sure why everyone can't discuss the topic without bringing CNN in to it.
One is a shiiiitty news channel.
The other is a shiiiitty entertainment channel, pretending to be a news channel.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s not whataboutery when our resident ‘genius’ only talks about one side of things as if it’s only the right side of things that are x, y or z when they’re both dreadful in this instance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nice try at justifying your whataboutery. This genius did not "talk about one side of things as if it’s only the right side of things" and you know it.
If he did then show me where.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s every week from you.
Every time you use your current phrase of the month ‘truth twisters’ it’s only ever about either the right side of the political spectrum.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're generalising and trying to make things vague. Show me where I did it this week, in this instance. You claimed I did it. Show me where.
posted on 3/11/21
https://mobile.twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1455652316770676739
It’s getting quite ridiculous the levels of corruption but instead of dealing with corrupt let’s get rid of oversight.
That’ll help us become richer
And the usual Tory voters will love it “yay they are becoming even more unaccountable”
posted on 3/11/21
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 10 minutes ago
So much whataboutery.
Didn't a judge rule that Tucker Carlson wasn't a factual reporter and his show was entertainment, not news?
Seeing as the discussion was about FOX specifically, that condemnation of one of their leading stars should preclude anyone from taking them seriously. Not sure why everyone can't discuss the topic without bringing CNN in to it.
One is a shiiiitty news channel.
The other is a shiiiitty entertainment channel, pretending to be a news channel.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s not whataboutery when our resident ‘genius’ only talks about one side of things as if it’s only the right side of things that are x, y or z when they’re both dreadful in this instance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They are both the "right" side..
You are using CNN as a defence (for some reason) against the fact that legally speaking, Fox isn't a news channel.
Honestly don't see why you care to defend either of them. I think it's more to do with the poster than the argument.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Defending? I’d love you to show me where I am defending either of them? I’ve done nothing but the complete opposite?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whataboutery is a defence mechanism that allows you to maintain plausible deniability, but even that fades away when overused.
posted on 3/11/21
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - I got 5 on it. (U1282)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 10 minutes ago
So much whataboutery.
Didn't a judge rule that Tucker Carlson wasn't a factual reporter and his show was entertainment, not news?
Seeing as the discussion was about FOX specifically, that condemnation of one of their leading stars should preclude anyone from taking them seriously. Not sure why everyone can't discuss the topic without bringing CNN in to it.
One is a shiiiitty news channel.
The other is a shiiiitty entertainment channel, pretending to be a news channel.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s not whataboutery when our resident ‘genius’ only talks about one side of things as if it’s only the right side of things that are x, y or z when they’re both dreadful in this instance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They are both the "right" side..
You are using CNN as a defence (for some reason) against the fact that legally speaking, Fox isn't a news channel.
Honestly don't see why you care to defend either of them. I think it's more to do with the poster than the argument.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Defending? I’d love you to show me where I am defending either of them? I’ve done nothing but the complete opposite?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whataboutery is a defence mechanism that allows you to maintain plausible deniability, but even that fades away when overused.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Even conflating the organisations is an attempt to raise one and diminish the other.
It’s like “ all politicians are in it for themselves” or “ they’re all as bad as each other”
These sweeping statements damage those trying to do good and allow those who are solely interested in themselves to get away with it.
posted on 3/11/21
Haven't watched any US news shows in ages, (seen snippets on Twitter) but in regard to CNN they seemed to be completely obsessed with Trump, with wall to wall coverage, and from what I've seen of Fox News, it doesn't actually broadcast news, it's an entertainment programme.
posted on 3/11/21
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - I got 5 on it. (U1282)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 18 seconds ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - I got 5 on it. (U1282)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 10 minutes ago
So much whataboutery.
Didn't a judge rule that Tucker Carlson wasn't a factual reporter and his show was entertainment, not news?
Seeing as the discussion was about FOX specifically, that condemnation of one of their leading stars should preclude anyone from taking them seriously. Not sure why everyone can't discuss the topic without bringing CNN in to it.
One is a shiiiitty news channel.
The other is a shiiiitty entertainment channel, pretending to be a news channel.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s not whataboutery when our resident ‘genius’ only talks about one side of things as if it’s only the right side of things that are x, y or z when they’re both dreadful in this instance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nice try at justifying your whataboutery. This genius did not "talk about one side of things as if it’s only the right side of things" and you know it.
If he did then show me where.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s every week from you.
Every time you use your current phrase of the month ‘truth twisters’ it’s only ever about either the right side of the political spectrum.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're generalising and trying to make things vague. Show me where I did it this week, in this instance. You claimed I did it. Show me where.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’ve specified the exact phrase that you use when doing it. Vague? 😂😂😂😂😂
Genius
I’ve got better things to do than trawl through pages and pages of posts on a football forum.
posted on 3/11/21
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - I got 5 on it. (U1282)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 18 seconds ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - I got 5 on it. (U1282)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 10 minutes ago
So much whataboutery.
Didn't a judge rule that Tucker Carlson wasn't a factual reporter and his show was entertainment, not news?
Seeing as the discussion was about FOX specifically, that condemnation of one of their leading stars should preclude anyone from taking them seriously. Not sure why everyone can't discuss the topic without bringing CNN in to it.
One is a shiiiitty news channel.
The other is a shiiiitty entertainment channel, pretending to be a news channel.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s not whataboutery when our resident ‘genius’ only talks about one side of things as if it’s only the right side of things that are x, y or z when they’re both dreadful in this instance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nice try at justifying your whataboutery. This genius did not "talk about one side of things as if it’s only the right side of things" and you know it.
If he did then show me where.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s every week from you.
Every time you use your current phrase of the month ‘truth twisters’ it’s only ever about either the right side of the political spectrum.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're generalising and trying to make things vague. Show me where I did it this week, in this instance. You claimed I did it. Show me where.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’ve specified the exact phrase that you use when doing it. Vague? 😂😂😂😂😂
Genius
I’ve got better things to do than trawl through pages and pages of posts on a football forum.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So basically you can't substantiate your comment. Thanks for confirming that it was just more whataboutery.
Not one comment re Cucker or Fox but you've attacked CNN and me for daring to call out Cucker and Fox. But yeah, you're not defending them.
Thanks for coming.
posted on 3/11/21
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 3/11/21
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - I got 5 on it. (U1282)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - I got 5 on it. (U1282)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 18 seconds ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - I got 5 on it. (U1282)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 10 minutes ago
So much whataboutery.
Didn't a judge rule that Tucker Carlson wasn't a factual reporter and his show was entertainment, not news?
Seeing as the discussion was about FOX specifically, that condemnation of one of their leading stars should preclude anyone from taking them seriously. Not sure why everyone can't discuss the topic without bringing CNN in to it.
One is a shiiiitty news channel.
The other is a shiiiitty entertainment channel, pretending to be a news channel.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s not whataboutery when our resident ‘genius’ only talks about one side of things as if it’s only the right side of things that are x, y or z when they’re both dreadful in this instance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nice try at justifying your whataboutery. This genius did not "talk about one side of things as if it’s only the right side of things" and you know it.
If he did then show me where.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s every week from you.
Every time you use your current phrase of the month ‘truth twisters’ it’s only ever about either the right side of the political spectrum.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're generalising and trying to make things vague. Show me where I did it this week, in this instance. You claimed I did it. Show me where.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’ve specified the exact phrase that you use when doing it. Vague? 😂😂😂😂😂
Genius
I’ve got better things to do than trawl through pages and pages of posts on a football forum.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So basically you can't substantiate your comment. Thanks for confirming that it was just more whataboutery.
Not one comment re Cucker or Fox but you've attacked CNN and me for daring to call out Cucker and Fox. But yeah, you're not defending them.
Thanks for coming.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whatever soothes your insecurities bro
posted on 3/11/21
Only seen him (Carlson) broadcast via social media snippets but I see his own legal team stated his viewers could not be expected to believe the words that came out of his mouth.
"The "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.' "
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2019cv11161/527808/39/
posted on 3/11/21
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Golf Club Defeca... (U3126)
posted 25 minutes ago
Only seen him (Carlson) broadcast via social media snippets but I see his own legal team stated his viewers could not be expected to believe the words that came out of his mouth.
"The "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.' "
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2019cv11161/527808/39/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lots of people in the US seem to deploying that defense at the moment from alex Jones to Trumps Former Lawyers.
It's a strange defense to make tbh "I am obviously lying and lying so badly that nobody in their right mind could believe me" despite over 60% of the Republican believing the lies that he told.
posted on 3/11/21
It's the perfect siiihiteating excuse
Get to call hands and tails and then always say you're winning
Some are stupid enough to fall for it and others have low enough standards to accept it
posted on 3/11/21
comment by Samus (Isle of) Arran (U22669)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Golf Club Defeca... (U3126)
posted 25 minutes ago
Only seen him (Carlson) broadcast via social media snippets but I see his own legal team stated his viewers could not be expected to believe the words that came out of his mouth.
"The "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.' "
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2019cv11161/527808/39/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lots of people in the US seem to deploying that defense at the moment from alex Jones to Trumps Former Lawyers.
It's a strange defense to make tbh "I am obviously lying and lying so badly that nobody in their right mind could believe me" despite over 60% of the Republican believing the lies that he told.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fox won the case based on that defence.
The judge writing, "Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes."
"Whether the Court frames Mr. Carlson's statements as 'exaggeration,' 'non-literal commentary,' or simply bloviating for his audience, the conclusion remains the same — the statements are not actionable."
posted on 3/11/21
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Golf Club Defecator (U3126)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Samus (Isle of) Arran (U22669)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Golf Club Defeca... (U3126)
posted 25 minutes ago
Only seen him (Carlson) broadcast via social media snippets but I see his own legal team stated his viewers could not be expected to believe the words that came out of his mouth.
"The "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.' "
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2019cv11161/527808/39/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lots of people in the US seem to deploying that defense at the moment from alex Jones to Trumps Former Lawyers.
It's a strange defense to make tbh "I am obviously lying and lying so badly that nobody in their right mind could believe me" despite over 60% of the Republican believing the lies that he told.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fox won the case based on that defence.
The judge writing, "Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes."
"Whether the Court frames Mr. Carlson's statements as 'exaggeration,' 'non-literal commentary,' or simply bloviating for his audience, the conclusion remains the same — the statements are not actionable."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow
posted on 3/11/21
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 3/11/21
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Golf Club Defecator (U3126)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Samus (Isle of) Arran (U22669)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Golf Club Defeca... (U3126)
posted 25 minutes ago
Only seen him (Carlson) broadcast via social media snippets but I see his own legal team stated his viewers could not be expected to believe the words that came out of his mouth.
"The "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.' "
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2019cv11161/527808/39/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lots of people in the US seem to deploying that defense at the moment from alex Jones to Trumps Former Lawyers.
It's a strange defense to make tbh "I am obviously lying and lying so badly that nobody in their right mind could believe me" despite over 60% of the Republican believing the lies that he told.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fox won the case based on that defence.
The judge writing, "Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes."
"Whether the Court frames Mr. Carlson's statements as 'exaggeration,' 'non-literal commentary,' or simply bloviating for his audience, the conclusion remains the same — the statements are not actionable."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
“Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation…”
In other words, his employers understand and admit that they willingly retain a lying prikk
posted on 3/11/21
comment by Titliv - Ben Shapiro fanboy, and what about those milkers (U11882)
posted 3 minutes ago
Hasn't Alex Jones argued he is literally insane so that he doesn't face legal action
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Surely he can’t argue that under the Catch 22 premise?
posted on 3/11/21
comment by Titliv - Ben Shapiro fanboy, and what about th... (U11882)
posted 14 minutes ago
Hasn't Alex Jones argued he is literally insane so that he doesn't face legal action
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe he is arguing the government has made him insane but he previously admitted in his divorce case that the "Alex Jones" we hear on the radio is a character.
posted on 3/11/21
Why would anyone in the UK watch US news stations?
posted on 3/11/21
To hear James Earl Jones dulcet tones
posted on 3/11/21
comment by IvanGolacIsMagic (U5291)
posted less than a minute ago
Why would anyone in the UK watch US news stations?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Potentially to hear what is happening in one of the most important countries in the world?
Why would anyone support Dundee United
posted on 3/11/21
comment by Samus (Isle of) Arran (U22669)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by IvanGolacIsMagic (U5291)
posted less than a minute ago
Why would anyone in the UK watch US news stations?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Potentially to hear what is happening in one of the most important countries in the world?
Why would anyone support Dundee United
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because they are your local team so therefore entirely relevant to what's going on around them?
posted on 3/11/21
comment by IvanGolacIsMagic (U5291)
posted 13 minutes ago
Why would anyone in the UK watch US news stations?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't even watch UK news stations.
Page 1903 of 4823
1904 | 1905 | 1906 | 1907 | 1908