Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 54 of 54

Thread: Assad Confirmed Dead, Iran Attempts To Control Syria Army

  1. #51
    Sage
    Perotista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,958
    Blog Entries
    25

    Re: Assad Confirmed Dead, Iran Attempts To Control Syria Army

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    Yeah ... but then again, Hugo may have expired long before it was confirmed.
    Yes ... different set of circumstances.
    I am sure if anyone seriously thought Assad was dead, the news media would be all over the place saying unconfirmed reports have it that he was dead. More to come.
    This Reform Party member thinks it is high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first and their political party further down the line. But for way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

  2. #52
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,313

    Re: Assad Confirmed Dead, Iran Attempts To Control Syria Army

    Quote Originally Posted by Perotista View Post
    I am sure if anyone seriously thought Assad was dead, the news media would be all over the place saying unconfirmed reports have it that he was dead. More to come.
    Agreed.

  3. #53
    Sage
    AliHajiSheik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,390

    Re: Assad Confirmed Dead, Iran Attempts To Control Syria Army

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    and you know fully well why he did not write about the violence.. you are just making excuses for him. He is against gay marriage and one of those that promote "left wing violence" while finding excuses for right wing violence... and in this case it was right wingers that went violent and he mentions nothing about it. Had it been the left doing the violence then there is no doubt that he would have written "Left wing riots in France". And I would bet that if he could have found a news site that slanted the reporting from France as he wanted it, then he would have used it ... but it is a bit hard to totally ignore riots in reporting over a protest gone bad.



    I said he implies "all". He does not distinguish and hence one must assume all. He could have written "some" but choose not too. And the fact is, a huge majority of those loosing their money are not citizens.. they are at best residents.



    Again not factually correct. Both you and Drudge are wrong and even the article provides most of the information to debunk those views. It is simple.. if this deal did not happen then ALL the people would loose ALL their money in the banks.. The banks are bankrupt, that is the sad fact (something he also constantly "forgets to mention"). Now in this case 2 banks are being targeted.. one is being closed... but those with 100k and under are not going to loose their money, where as those over will have to pay a % in "tax/fee/bailout"... and that is a hell of a lot better than the alternative of loosing everything, which is the alternative to this deal... bankruptcy of the banking system and followed by that... the state of Cyprus. If a US bank goes under, then anyone with savings over X dollars looses that money.. it is no different here.

    What Drudge is doing is typical of tabloid journalism, but in his case there is the American right wing anti-European/EU angle as well. His whole coverage of the situation is slanted for the most part.



    and you are just finding excuses for Drudge because you thought he was a real journalist and not a partisan right wing hack.
    I'm not making excuses for anyone and I don't view Drudge as journalism but as a consolidator of the journalism of others. I gave you quotes and you gave me a lot of "I said he implies "all". He does not distinguish and hence one must assume all."

    "Again not factually correct. Both you and Drudge are wrong": Now you accuse me of being wrong about something but I only asserted what Drudge actually wrote and how it was also in the article about hundreds of thousands, you were the one who said he was wrong and didn't back it up although I asked you to. You see his biases and interpret them as he meant to say or he implied. You seem to view anything that disagrees with you has hackery. Is it, I don't know, I don't worry about it. Do I get my news from the Drudge Report? No, I'm made aware of news and make my own judgment of the content and his content tends to be very varied in his links.

    I make no judgment of your motivations and since you like to read things into what people write, I'll give you my own words: I didn't see the story on Drudge, but I've seen him link to things that turn out to be wrong. The point is that most of what is has on his site are links to the content of others. It is very rare that he has something original. Unfortunately I tend to find those who call someone else a hack to be exactly that themselves. I'm not one of those people who label the links of others as worthless or hackery, I follow them and read them for what they say and how accurate they end up being--regardless of the source. You however immediately dismiss anything that is on a site for which you disagree. I gave you an opportunity to make your claim and again, you are unconvincing in this case. Perhaps another time you will be, but I don't know that will do anything to close my open mind. Keep trying, though.

  4. #54
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,092

    Re: Assad Confirmed Dead, Iran Attempts To Control Syria Army

    Quote Originally Posted by AliHajiSheik View Post
    I'm not making excuses for anyone and I don't view Drudge as journalism but as a consolidator of the journalism of others. I gave you quotes and you gave me a lot of "I said he implies "all". He does not distinguish and hence one must assume all."
    Okay lets put it this way. Lets say I say.. "American's are racist". Now, what am I implying here... all, some, or just one? What is the thing you though off when you read that comment? Be honest.

    "Again not factually correct. Both you and Drudge are wrong": Now you accuse me of being wrong about something but I only asserted what Drudge actually wrote and how it was also in the article about hundreds of thousands, you were the one who said he was wrong and didn't back it up although I asked you to. You see his biases and interpret them as he meant to say or he implied. You seem to view anything that disagrees with you has hackery. Is it, I don't know, I don't worry about it. Do I get my news from the Drudge Report? No, I'm made aware of news and make my own judgment of the content and his content tends to be very varied in his links.
    Err unless I mixed something up (not out of the bounds of possibility), I did not say he was wrong on the France story.. I said he was biased and spinning it faster than a wheel going down hill. I said he was wrong on the Cyprus story. Like it or not, the French story is not about hundreds of thousands protesting against gay marriage.. it is that it turned violent and he totally ignores it in his headline. You do realize that those bigots in France used children as human shields against the police right? What do you think the headline on Drudge would have been if it was OWS that used children as human shields? Do you really think it would be near at the bottom and not have that fact in its headline?

    I make no judgment of your motivations and since you like to read things into what people write, I'll give you my own words: I didn't see the story on Drudge, but I've seen him link to things that turn out to be wrong. The point is that most of what is has on his site are links to the content of others. It is very rare that he has something original. Unfortunately I tend to find those who call someone else a hack to be exactly that themselves. I'm not one of those people who label the links of others as worthless or hackery, I follow them and read them for what they say and how accurate they end up being--regardless of the source. You however immediately dismiss anything that is on a site for which you disagree. I gave you an opportunity to make your claim and again, you are unconvincing in this case. Perhaps another time you will be, but I don't know that will do anything to close my open mind. Keep trying, though.
    And my point is, he uses his headlines to "link" to stories, and in those headlines he is biased and spinning like mad. The two stories I provided are clear examples of this. He is taking small parts of the stories he is linking and making that the headline, and totally ignoring the actual facts, and in the case of the France story.. the actual story pretty much and he does it in such a way that it promotes his right wing homophobic bull**** bias.

    Listen you can take any legit story and spin the headline so much that the headline has zero to do with what is actually in the story. The Daily Mail are masters at this in the UK and there are many other tabloids that take an innocent story on a subject and turn it into a biased crusade.. and often based on a few words. But that does not make the Daily Mail or Drudge anything remotely legitimate in the news world.. it makes them biased hacks with an agenda.
    PeteEU

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •