Capitol building overrun by protesters

[metis]

It only matters if (R)’s do that. Looting, violence, property destruction, political prosecution are acceptable on the left.

What sheer nonsense. However, neither left nor right are "saints".

 

[Secret Chief]

Without doubt with anyone who is actually a serious educator. Fox is a propaganda channel, but it's no surprise that you would use that as supposedly being an unbiased source.

And Reuters is not reliable apparently.

 

[Jose Fly]

Yep, and do you really expect anything different from the likes of Fox?

Nope. They can't really be referred to as a "news organization", after the revelations in the Dominion lawsuit...especially how their executives and on-air personalities reacted to internal fact-checking.

 

[metis]

And Reuters is not reliable apparently.

It's better than most, imo, but even they I would never fully trust.

 

[metis]

Nope. They can't really be referred to as a "news organization", after the revelations in the Dominion lawsuit...especially how their executives and on-air personalities reacted to internal fact-checking.

Yes, and I have been following that quite closely. The e-mails from those in Fox have been VERY damning, thus I think it's likely they will have hell to pay. However, it is my understanding that the talking heads at Fox do not cover them.

 

[Father Heathen]

Yep, and as we have repeatedly seen, the Pubs are more in love with their guns than with America's children. Also, the wording of the OP appears to be bogus, but that doesn't come as any surprise to me at least. You?

It's without a doubt that they see the death of children as an acceptable sacrifice, but know they can't outright admit it.

 

[Secret Chief]

It's without a doubt that they see the death of children as an acceptable sacrifice, but know they can't outright admit it.

Oh no that'll set off the murder of the unborn again.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Not really.

It gets a bit wacked when you see stuff like , Edited by " XXxFluffyxXX"

But is XXxFluffyxXX editing the stuff correctly and accurately? They very well could be.

XXxFluffyxXx sounds more credible than "Tucker Carlson" at this point. ;-)

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Oftentimes, in events like this, checking out the local news sites might give different perspectives than the national news sites.

Yes, I agree.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Looting, violence, property destruction, political prosecution are acceptable on the left.

Not at all. I've never read that opinion from a liberal - just from the liars you let tell you what liberals think. I

Insurrection, however, seems to be acceptable to the right. Did you want to rebut that? What are your feelings about what Trump, his consiglieres and his soldiers did on January 6th? "Legitimate political discourse"? A "peaceful tour?" Do you object to what they did, or would you prefer that the J6 committee and the DOJ have given them a pass?

More like bussed in out of state I'll bet by the leftest rabble.

You have no evidence for that, but what if that were true. So what? The right keeps coming up with objections that aren't objectionable to patriotic Americans, by which I mean the ones who defend cherished American principles like democracy rather than assault it and claim that patriotic status for themselves anyway.

An angry mob estimated to be over 1,000 people overran a Capitol building. The mob took over the lobby of the building and caused a disruption of the legislative session. They attempted to enter the legislative chambers and fought with the police trying to keep them out. Three legislators supported the mob.

Well done, protestors! Another cherished American activity - the right to assemble and express dissent peacefully. I can tell that you disapprove.

Most of the left wing media are ignoring the story.

I assume that by left wing media you mean any source that isn't an apologist for Trump and the Republicans. That's already been debunked.

You would think they would cover it if they were credible and objective.

You need to look at more than Fox, OANN, and Newsmax. It's no wonder you have no idea what the rest of the world is saying.

A protest that took over a state Capitol's facilities and disrupted the legislature. All that is excused by you because you think you know their intentions.

Of course we know their intentions, and their behavior was excused because it wasn't criminal.

Most of those sources don't discuss the fighting between the protesters and the police.

What fighting? Did anybody need to be shot in the face?

You are suggesting Wikipedia is a more credible source than Fox News. Based on those standards of yours I think we can dismiss your complaint.

Fox News? You pick that as your standard of credibility? Are you unaware that they have recently been caught lying to their audience, and will now pay big bucks to Dominion for that? They stated explicitly that what they print doesn't need to be true, just profitable. Yet on you about "left-wing media."

I'm sorry but it looks like you are defending the January 6th protesters now.

The J6 protestors who didn't break the law need no defense. The rest, who are also rioters and insurrectionists, have none, which is why so many any serving or facing jail time.

What do you think the net effect of this thread has been - to tarnish the left as appears to be your purpose, or something else? Something got tarnished here.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Observations & evidence filtered thru inflammatory
news media skew one's Weltanschauung towards woe.
You're too pessimistic...or optimistic, depending your wants.

You can minimize the impact of inflammatory media by cross-checking a story in multiple sources from both sides of the aisle and in the center.

Living here, I see things being so much better.
Our legal system works no worse than before.
Our economy is humming along (doesn't know the words).
Trump's prosecution portends presidential impunity waning.
The new John Wick & Avatar movies await my viewing.
The cold wars are risky, but this is so for all of us.

The US, like any country, has pros and cons. Right now, I see the cons—mainly theocratically minded laws (such as abortion bans), economic inequality, gun violence, and extreme polarization—as having a larger effect on its politics than before. Perhaps this effect will wane over the next few years, but I'm not sure that will be the case, especially given the added pressure of competing with an increasingly powerful China.

 

[Revoltingest]

You can minimize the impact of inflammatory media by cross-checking a story in multiple sources from both sides of the aisle and in the center.

You'll see what you expect to see.

The US, like any country, has pros and cons. Right now, I see the cons—mainly theocratically minded laws (such as abortion bans), economic inequality, gun violence, and extreme polarization—as having a larger effect on its politics than before. Perhaps this effect will wane over the next few years, but I'm not sure that will be the case, especially given the added pressure of competing with an increasingly powerful China.

You're young & foreign. You lack my sense
(as a progressive) of how much better things
generally are here in Ameristan.
I notice that you cite only what you see as
worse. That's a limited & illusory focus.
As for those bad things....that pendulum
swings to & fro over more decades than
you've seen. Hence my optimism.

I haven't been able to phrase that
without sounding patronizing.

 

[Debater Slayer]

You'll see what you expect to see.

Why do you assume so? Is no one capable of minimizing such cognitive biases to the point where they don't noticeably take over their views, in your opinion?

 

[Revoltingest]

Why do you assume so?

Based upon your overly pessimistic posts.

 

[crossfire]

Wikipedia is far more reliable than FOX. The fact that anyone can edit an article, but, and this is the important part, has to be able to justify an edit, keeps it honest. I had a debate with a person like you on another forum. He made the same sorts of complaints. He was also able to edit on Wikipedia. I challenged him to show that Wikipedia was not reliable by editing an article. He took me up on it. He edited an article, but ended up confirming my claim. He made a valid edit of an article where he added factual information. I asked him why he didn't put something false in there since we were talking about reliability. He stated that he did not want too lose his privilege to edit and it was not worth the risk. That had been my argument all along.


If someone puts a false claim into a political article it will be edited out rather quickly and the person that made the false change could lose his right to edit.

Oh, do you mean that if someone in a Wiki article puts up pictures of the Minneapolis riots in the Seattle Chop Zone article, (like Fox News did) and poorly photoshopped composites of the Minneapolis riots to make it look like Seattle (like Fox News did) someone will take it down and they might get banned? (Unlike how they do it at Fox.)

 

[Shaul]

Yes I do, they were extremely up front about why they were there (to protest the legislature's inaction on guns). Why you think knowing their names is required to know their intent is a mystery.

No, you really don't. It is patently absurd that you think you could know the intentions of all those protesters. You aren't a mind reader.

 

[Shaul]

Without doubt with anyone who is actually a serious educator. Fox is a propaganda channel, but it's no surprise that you would use that as supposedly being an unbiased source.

Feel free to show how any part of this particular story is incorrect.

 

[Shaul]

And Reuters is not reliable apparently.

In 1977 both the Rolling Stone and the New York Times (Carl Bernstein) reported that Reuters was cooperating with the CIA. Carl Bernstein
So which one is unreliable, the New York Times for a false accusation or Reuters for cooperating with the CIA?

 

[Colt]

In 1977 both the Rolling Stone and the New York Times (Carl Bernstein) reported that Reuters was cooperating with the CIA. Carl Bernstein
So which one is unreliable, the New York Times for a false accusation or Reuters for cooperating with the CIA?

Much of the media in America is the (D) party explaining the events of the day!

 

[Secret Chief]

In 1977 both the Rolling Stone and the New York Times (Carl Bernstein) reported that Reuters was cooperating with the CIA. Carl Bernstein
So which one is unreliable, the New York Times for a false accusation or Reuters for cooperating with the CIA?

As a generalisation, Faux is simply a propaganda rag.
eg
"Under oath following lawsuits regarding Fox News' coverage of the 2020 presidential election, Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch testified that Fox anchors endorsed conservative conspiracy theories about the election."

- Fox News - Wikipedia