• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Go figure

not sure where you were getting your information but it is not correct. the majority of democrats opposed the civil rights act.
:lamo

The difference between me and you is that I get my information from books and reputable news sources rather than right wing grifters. But here's the basic wiki page. Vote break down is in there, they even include the breakdown of the vote by the southern delegations which is a nice surprising bit of context.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia


in fact they filibustered the bill for hours and hours. It was the majority of republicans that over came it and they where the ones that pushed the bill through.

Southern Republicans also participated in that filibuster.

The fact is that democrats were the party of slavery, helped start the KKK and continue to keep people enslaved to the government.

Those are facts as is the fact that they were Southerners who were joined by Republican Southerners to oppose equality in 64' and 65'.

Slavery is nothing more then the suppression of a people and control over a group of people. If you are depending on me to give you food and shelter and
basic needs then i have the power over you and you will do what i say or you will suffer the consequences. that by definition is slavery.

Slavery is forced servitude what you describe is dependence. They are not the same thing. True slaves can be dependent on their captors for food, shelter and clothing but not all people dependent on others are slaves. Take children for example.
 
:lamo

The difference between me and you is that I get my information from books and reputable news sources rather than right wing grifters. But here's the basic wiki page. Vote break down is in there, they even include the breakdown of the vote by the southern delegations which is a nice surprising bit of context.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia

Fact Check: ‘More Republicans Voted for the Civil Rights Act as a Percentage Than Democrats Did’

again you should probably check your sources better. the vast majority of republicans voted for the civil rights act compared
to democrats.

Southern Republicans also participated in that filibuster.

again in a very minority part.

Those are facts as is the fact that they were Southerners who were joined by Republican Southerners to oppose equality in 64' and 65'.

facts are facts it was republicans that pushed through the civil rights acts

Slavery is forced servitude what you describe is dependence. They are not the same thing. True slaves can be dependent on their captors for food, shelter and clothing but not all people dependent on others are slaves. Take children for example.

yep that is what the welfare system does.
 
yep

and he had almost NO chance of being elected the first time too

keep driving the path from the middle to the far far left, and see what happens

i mean all i hear right now is

free college
reparations for slavery
universal insurance
$ 1000 a month given to everyone

and no way to pay for any of it.....

yeah....should be a riot come Nov 2020

The ONLY reason Trump squeezed in was the Electoral College. If it wasn't for your undemocratic electoral system the disgusting pervert would still be sleazing around young girl's changing rooms and feeling them up. I bet he misses that.
 
Fact Check: ‘More Republicans Voted for the Civil Rights Act as a Percentage Than Democrats Did’

again you should probably check your sources better. the vast majority of republicans voted for the civil rights act compared
to democrats.

:lamo:lamo:lamo

Buddy. We all have eyes. We can all see what you and I wrote previously. Here it is incase you forgot.

not sure where you were getting your information but it is not correct. the majority of democrats opposed the civil rights act.

Just because more Republicans voted for the bill doesn't mean that most Democrats voted against it. They didn't. As a party they passed the bill with a majority. That's a fact. It's also a fact that most Southern representatives voted against the bill. And it's a fact that the South votes overwhelmingly Republican today and has abysmal support among black voters.
 
It's sweet the Left thinks this NYT focus on slavery is all about equality and goodness. It's not. It's simply a narrative to frame Trump as a racist (and by extension, anyone who dares push back against their agitprop) to harm his re-election chances in 2020.
That's all it is.
When and if Trump wins in 2020 (or even before that when people tire of this latest drum banging) and the black slavery narrative is no longer useful, they will move on to the next narrative.

I find it to amusing that the folks who consider themselves to be "The Intelligentsia" consent to being led by their self installed nose rings by their masters.

They receive a tax cut and actually have more money. Their masters say they didn't get a tax cut and they believe what they are told instead of what they live.

Trump says "All Americans" and their masters say that Trump is a racist. They believe what they are told instead of what they live.

Their masters segment, slice and dice the population into every imaginable competing demographic. Trump says "All Americans" and their masters say TRUMP is divisive. They believe what they are told instead of what they live.

It's really astonishing how effective propaganda is. I just never realized. This is how the despots and the present of the past did it and do it. The Democrat Socialists are the authors. The American people are the victims.

We are living the demonstration of dictatorial propagandistic opinion shaping and the sheeple don't even see it.

Are the people intentionally blind or just incredibly stupid?
 
Do you question the timing or underpinnings for the NYT's decision to dedicate their raison d'etre to re-framing all of American history through the lens of slavery? Why now? Why them?
If you aren't question that, you should be.

Very good points. As far as I'm concerned NYT is nothing but a propaganda rag. I have not considered the propaganda value of these articles, but you ask good questions.
 
why?

why run a piece on slavery?

is it to garner support for the reparations crazies who are out there?

is it to garner support for a particular candidate?

slavery has been gone for since the civil war ended

civil acts was passed in the early 60's

why? why now?

Slavery was not ended by the Civil War. You might wish to do some online searches using the term "modern day slavery". Then think about all those "illegals" working on farms in the US - or not. Your choice.
 
I got it, "since the attempt to tie Trump to Russia failed, let's tie him to the coming of slavery to Virginia." Clever folks, these enemies of the people.

Paranoia strikes deep.

Only trying, apparently in vain, to alert you to the agenda of the propagandists that deceive the sheeple.

I'm reminded of a story told by Harrison Ford of a movie executive telling Ford that he'd never be a movie star.

The executive said that the first time he ever saw Tony Curtis was in a film clip in which Curtis played a waiter he said, "Now there's an actor!"

Harrison observed that he should have said, "No there's a waiter!"

I'm not saying that what the New York Times is doing is bad. I'm only saying that they have ceased to be journalists in the strictest sense and have chosen to be propagandists.

At least they are being honest in the revelation of their goals. However, their goal is NOT to REPORT news. It is to create opinions.

I prefer to boil down impartially presented facts and events to create my own opinions. You may have a different process in arriving at your own opinions.

I have to admit, when I watched Tony Curtis act, I always thought, "Now there's an actor". When I watched Harrison Ford, I always thought, "Go, Indy!"

In terms of deception only, Ford did a better job. Who can ever forget Curtis standing up and saying in a New York accent, "I'm Spartacus". Brilliant! Now there's an actor!
 
Only trying, apparently in vain, to alert you to the agenda of the propagandists that deceive the sheeple.

I'm reminded of a story told by Harrison Ford of a movie executive telling Ford that he'd never be a movie star.

The executive said that the first time he ever saw Tony Curtis was in a film clip in which Curtis played a waiter he said, "Now there's an actor!"

Harrison observed that he should have said, "No there's a waiter!"

I'm not saying that what the New York Times is doing is bad. I'm only saying that they have ceased to be journalists in the strictest sense and have chosen to be propagandists.

At least they are being honest in the revelation of their goals. However, their goal is NOT to REPORT news. It is to create opinions.

I prefer to boil down impartially presented facts and events to create my own opinions. You may have a different process in arriving at your own opinions.

I have to admit, when I watched Tony Curtis act, I always thought, "Now there's an actor". When I watched Harrison Ford, I always thought, "Go, Indy!"

In terms of deception only, Ford did a better job. Who can ever forget Curtis standing up and saying in a New York accent, "I'm Spartacus". Brilliant! Now there's an actor!

:screwy
 
Only trying, apparently in vain, to alert you to the agenda of the propagandists that deceive the sheeple.

(snip)

I prefer to boil down impartially presented facts and events to create my own opinions. You may have a different process in arriving at your own opinions.

(snip)

. . . and your sources for impartially presented facts and events are?
 
Slavery was not ended by the Civil War. You might wish to do some online searches using the term "modern day slavery". Then think about all those "illegals" working on farms in the US - or not. Your choice.

slave
/slāv/
noun
1.
a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.

synonyms: bondsman, bondswoman, bondservant, bondslave, serf, vassal, thrall;

now you can call illegals whatever you want to call them....but SLAVES sure in the hell doesnt fit

they sure in the hell arent owned, and arent property
 
Alas, if only the crap stirred up by the NYT never floated outside the pool of NYT readers.

The Times, for better or for worse, is the US's "newspaper of record". Anything controversial it writes spreads through the mediasphere and blogosphere like wildfire. These put their own spin on it, leveraging it to their own social or political causes, and eventually it winds up framing US national dialog. This isn't the Times' fault, but it does mean that if they stir up crap, it floats to the far corners of the US quickly and predictably. You yourself hastened to bring it to us here on DP.


Agree to disagree.

In the current social climate, they're stirring up hatred and sowing the seeds of discontent, and they know it.


When I wrote this, I didn't realize that you Yankees placed such significance on the date 1619.

As the Smithsonian article points out, the date has no legitimate significance, and it simply isn't taught in Canada (or, I imagine, anywhere outside the US). When you said "what started 400 years ago this month" in the OP, I thought you were being facetious.

Live and learn. :shrug:

There is no controversy here, except for those who think that history should only include talking about the cotton gin and never mentioning the slaves that picked the cotton. And I can imagine that 1619 might not be taught outside the US, much as the Glorious Revolution isn't taught much outside the UK. But 1619 was certainly taught to me, an Italian-American in a Catholic school with no black kids in Brooklyn, far away from Virginia, just as 1607 and the settlement of Jamestown was taught. (Naturally, being Catholic, the settlement of Maryland was also given significant play by the nuns.) It's about America. Stop teaching about 1619, and you might as well stop teaching about the Mayflower or the first Thanksgiving. And as I said, by the standard you propose, we should not teach about the holocaust, the Indian wars or the takeover of the southwest from Mexico, lest we find ourselves "stirring up hatred and sowing the seeds of discontent."

Grownups can handle this stuff, even if Gingrich can't. We learn so we can live... Shrug.
 
There is no controversy here, except for those who think that history should only include talking about the cotton gin and never mentioning the slaves that picked the cotton. And I can imagine that 1619 might not be taught outside the US, much as the Glorious Revolution isn't taught much outside the UK. But 1619 was certainly taught to me, an Italian-American in a Catholic school with no black kids in Brooklyn, far away from Virginia, just as 1607 and the settlement of Jamestown was taught. (Naturally, being Catholic, the settlement of Maryland was also given significant play by the nuns.) It's about America. Stop teaching about 1619, and you might as well stop teaching about the Mayflower or the first Thanksgiving. And as I said, by the standard you propose, we should not teach about the holocaust, the Indian wars or the takeover of the southwest from Mexico, lest we find ourselves "stirring up hatred and sowing the seeds of discontent."

Grownups can handle this stuff, even if Gingrich can't. We learn so we can live... Shrug.
The NYT isn't a school, isn't a museum, and isn't a historical society. It is a newspaper.

If it wants to digress from reporting the news to educate Americans about ancient history, I have no objection to this, but only if it presents the facts as would a school, a museum, or a historical society: objectively, with full historical context, and without any ulterior political motive. No "connecting" slavery 400 years ago to "the rise of white supremacy" today. No spinoff editorials about "systemic racism" circa 2019. No bootstrapping rants against the alt right, southern US states, Pres. Trump, or white supremacists. Not even a whiff of editorializing on reparations, "white privilege", Affirmative Action, or modern Democratic pipe dreams. If Project 1619 bludgeons 400-year-old history into a pretext for any of these things, the NYT is no longer acting like a school or a museum, is no longer a benevolent teacher of the American people, it is a progressive political crap-stirrer stirring up anger, enmity, and feelings of entitlement.

If you can tell me you sincerely believe the Times will get all the way to the end of Project 1619 without stirring up the aforementioned crap--that it will behave as would a legitimate educator such as a school or a museum--then while I disagree with your prediction, I can at least see the logic in your "the Times is just teaching history" defense.

If, like me, you fully expect Project 1619 to morph into a full-on pro-reparations pro-Affirmative-Action anti-Trump anti-Republican ragefest, perhaps you'll see the logic in accusing the Times of "stirring up hatred and sowing the seeds of discontent".

I guess we'll find out whose assessment is right as time goes on. I'll be happy to be proven wrong.
 
A bit overstated with the "rotten bastards" comment, but otherwise true. LBJ predicted it.

As a Georgian who was raised on stories about how the Civil War was over states rights, then eventually read the different states' articles of secession where they explicitly stated that they were leaving over slavery, I don't believe that it's overstated to call the people of my region rotten bastards. We might have gotten far enough along the generations that we aren't rotten bastards by choice, but doesn't mean we stopped being rotten bastards. You ought to hear my laundry list of awful, racist **** I've heard friends and loved ones say behind the backs of other people I know. The parts about my "coal-burning whore of a cousin" is particularly shocking.

Regardless of that, I'm quite proud of the 60's Democratic party in the North & West for passing the CRA & VRA, even knowing it would damage them electorally. If we still had that kind of moral spine in the Democratic party today, I'd register with them & start supporting them at the local level in a heartbeat.
 
The NYT isn't a school, isn't a museum, and isn't a historical society. It is a newspaper.

If it wants to digress from reporting the news to educate Americans about ancient history, I have no objection to this, but only if it presents the facts as would a school, a museum, or a historical society: objectively, with full historical context, and without any ulterior political motive. No "connecting" slavery 400 years ago to "the rise of white supremacy" today. No spinoff editorials about "systemic racism" circa 2019. No bootstrapping rants against the alt right, southern US states, Pres. Trump, or white supremacists. Not even a whiff of editorializing on reparations, "white privilege", Affirmative Action, or modern Democratic pipe dreams. If Project 1619 bludgeons 400-year-old history into a pretext for any of these things, the NYT is no longer acting like a school or a museum, is no longer a benevolent teacher of the American people, it is a progressive political crap-stirrer stirring up anger, enmity, and feelings of entitlement.

If you can tell me you sincerely believe the Times will get all the way to the end of Project 1619 without stirring up the aforementioned crap--that it will behave as would a legitimate educator such as a school or a museum--then while I disagree with your prediction, I can at least see the logic in your "the Times is just teaching history" defense.

If, like me, you fully expect Project 1619 to morph into a full-on pro-reparations pro-Affirmative-Action anti-Trump anti-Republican ragefest, perhaps you'll see the logic in accusing the Times of "stirring up hatred and sowing the seeds of discontent".

I guess we'll find out whose assessment is right as time goes on. I'll be happy to be proven wrong.

If as the series goes on, I see nothing wrong with the Times mentioning the forbidden subjects you list. "40 acres and a mule" was a promise of emancipation, never kept. No different than discussing the broken promises about how the Southwest would be governed after the Mexican War, or discussion of broken treaty promises to the Indians. It's history, and doesn't mean reparations or giving the Dakotas back to the Sioux, thought people are free to agitate for such things in an open society. But the paranoia that has emerged in some quarters about this would make a fascinating political science paper.

Ultimately, this series is no different than what Ken Burns has done or "Little Big Man" or "Schlinder's List" or the various movies about the Alamo. Would you have objected to the series "Roots", which fascinated the country some years ago?
 
If as the series goes on, I see nothing wrong with the Times mentioning the forbidden subjects you list. "40 acres and a mule" was a promise of emancipation, never kept. No different than discussing the broken promises about how the Southwest would be governed after the Mexican War, or discussion of broken treaty promises to the Indians. It's history, and doesn't mean reparations or giving the Dakotas back to the Sioux, thought people are free to agitate for such things in an open society. But the paranoia that has emerged in some quarters about this would make a fascinating political science paper.
As I say, if I'm being paranoid and the NYT doesn't twist ancient history into "social justice" rhetoric, advocacy for reparations, anti-Trump polemics, etc., I'll be happy to be proven wrong.

Ultimately, this series is no different than what Ken Burns has done or "Little Big Man" or "Schlinder's List" or the various movies about the Alamo. Would you have objected to the series "Roots", which fascinated the country some years ago?
I know nothing about the series "Roots".

"Little Big Man" and "Schlinder's List" are movies--drama--intended to manipulate the emotions of the audience. More importantly, neither one was twisted into a vector for political activism at the time of release.
 
It’s hilarious watching people defend the rat party in both their past history of overtly enslaving and killing black people and in their modern day continued actions to keep them devastated as a community. Their actions are no different than a rapist ****ing someone in the ass whispering in their ear that don’t worry...it’s for your own good...you’ll like it, you’ll see...this is what you REALLY want. Because of that rat love, the black American community kills more babies than they produce, their inner city populations in every rat controlled city lives in poverty, entire schools of black American children can’t read, write, or have a basic understanding of mathematics, have the highest percentage of rape, assault, and murder victims committed BY black Americans, who commit crimes t a rate dramatically higher than all other racial groups, which leaves about 30% of black American men in prison or on parole at any given time.

Rats **** the black
American communities in ways today that their rat klan ancestry could only dream of.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
the black American community kills more babies than they produce
You mean "...than they carry to term", and this threshold has only been crossed for certain major cities, such as New York.

Their actions are no different than a rapist [...] whispering in their ear that don’t worry...it’s for your own good
The Democrats may be throwing wide the doors to abortion clinics, fatherless homes, victimhood culture, and failed experiments in social engineering, but black Americans are the ones voluntarily running through those doors. You can't claim rape if it's consensual.
 
it depends on how they framed it and if they actually told the truth.
The main party for slavery are democrats that started with Jackson.
Democrats fought every civil rights act that there was and the starting on the KKK were all democrats.

they continue their slavery programs today just in a different form trying to get everyone dependent on government.
for some reason though i doubt the NY time mentioned this.

The founder of planned parenthood is a devout democrat and racist.
it is funny that she put most of the planned parenthood in black communities.
which also corresponds to the plummet in black births.
A history lesson for you: The Democrats you’re referring to are the group that became known as Republicans. Ever hear of “Dixiecrats”?

Also, your assertion of Sanger is equally wrong.
 
What a batch of unhinged trash this is.

The Democrats are racist?

If that's so, then after the 2013 partial overturning of the voting rights act, why were the REPUBLICANS asking for racial voting data? Explicitly, who and what color of people were registering to vote with a drivers license number?

Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about. Richard Spencer is a republican.

The southern strategy is real and the republicans today are the Democrats of 50 years ago.

Boom!
 
How do ya figure?

Even Ben Franklin?

Like most citizens of his time Benjamin Franklin owned slaves and viewed them as inferior to white Europeans, as it was believed they could not be educated.

link...
 
“Throughout 1775, tensions had been rising between Virginian patriots and their royalist governor, Lord Dunmore,” Hershthal wrote in Slate in 2013. “The War of Independence had broken out earlier that year, in Lexington, Mass., but not a single shot had been fired in the South. Virginia’s patriots managed to uphold a boycott against British goods, but it was far from clear that most Virginians would join the patriots’ side. Many remained neutral, wary of casting their lot with a ragtag militia that dared to fight one of the mightiest militaries in the world.”
Then, on Oct. 26, 1775, the war crossed the Mason-Dixon line. The two sides exchanged fire at Hampton, Va., after patriots burned a beached British ship, the Liberty, to a charred-out shell. The Battle of Hampton lasted less than a day, with both sides retreating. But it set in motion a sequence of events that led many neutral southerners to support a war they had at first embraced only tepidly. Critical to those events was Dunmore’s formal proclamation, in early November, granting freedom to slaves who fought for his army. Though not as well-known as early battles in the North, like Bunker Hill, the Battle of Hampton was a pivotal moment in the nascent conflict, bringing the war to the South by preying upon southerners’ worst fear: a full-blown slave revolt.
Dunmore’s Proclamation; in their written records, Virginians unite behind the patriots’ cause because of the proclamation. “The Inhabitants of this Colony are deeply alarmed at this infernal Scheme,” Philip Fithian, who was traveling through Virginia when Dunmore made his proclamation.* “It seems to quicken all in Revolution to overpower him at any Risk.” Richard Henry Lee added that “Lord Dunmore’s unparalleled conduct in Virginia has … united every man in that large colony.” Archibold Cary perhaps put it most piquantly, writing that “The Proclamation from Lord D[unmore], has had a most extensive good consequence. … Men of all ranks resent the pointing of a dagger to their Throats, through the hands of their slaves.”
Even though Dunmore’s Proclamation was intended only for Virginia’s slaves, it set off a flurry of rumors throughout America’s slave colonies. Many slaves believed the British were coming to free them, while others simply used the chaos of war to escape, hoping that the British would have mercy. From Georgia to South Carolina, hundreds of slaves began fleeing their plantations looking for refuge among the British. When 200 slaves deserted a South Carolina plantation in March 1776, patriot officer Col. Stephen Bull gave strict orders to his men: “It is far better for the public and the owners, if the deserted negroes … be shot, if they cannot be taken.”

However intoxicating the heady rhetoric of ‘rights’ and ‘liberty’ emanating from Patriot orators and journalists, for the majority of farmers, merchants and townsmen in Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia (the vast majority of whom owned between one and five negroes), all-out war and separation now turned from an ideological flourish to a social necessity. Theirs was a revolution, first and foremost, to protect slavery. Edward Rutledge, one of the leading South Carolina Patriots, was right when he described the British strategy of arming free slaves as tending ‘more effectively to work an eternal separation between Great Britain and the colonies than any other expedient could possibly be thought of.’”
~ History Simon Schama, author of the book “Rough Crossings: The Slaves, the British, and the American Revolution”

the deity that has been made of the founders is revealed to be very flawed by this 1619 effort. the south would not have participated in that great enterprise, the American revolution, but for fears by the southerners that their right to own other persons would be squelched by the british offering safe haven to slaves who fought against the revolutionaries
what 1619 tells us is the founders' feet were of clay on this issue ... and especially so for those sons of the south
 
Like most citizens of his time Benjamin Franklin owned slaves and viewed them as inferior to white Europeans, as it was believed they could not be educated.

link...

You forgot this(wink)


After 1758 Franklin gradually changed his mind when his friend Samuel Johnson brought him to one of Dr. Bray’s schools for black children. Dr. Bray Associates was a philanthropic association affiliated to the Church of England. In 1759 he joined the association by donating money.

Abolition Society
In 1759 he met Anthony Benezet who started a school in Philadelphia and who later co-founded the Abolition Society. In 1763 Franklin wrote that African shortcomings and ignorance were not inherently natural but come from lack of education, slavery and negative environments. He also wrote that he saw no difference in learning between African and white children.

In 1787 Franklin became the President of the Philadelphia Society for the Relief of Free Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage, often referred as the Abolition Society. The Society was formed by a group of abolitionist Quakers and Anthony Benezet in 1774. The Abolition Society was the first in America and served as inspiration for the formation of abolitionist societies in other colonies. The group focused not only in abolishing slavery but also in education, moral instruction and employment.

In Address to the Public, a letter dated November 9th, 1789, Franklin wrote wholeheartedly against the institution of slavery. He argued that slaves have long been treated as brute animals beneath the standard of human species. Franklin asked for resources and donations to help freed slaves adjust to society by giving them education, moral instruction and suitable employment.

On February 3rd, 1790, less than three months before his death, Franklin petitioned Congress to provide the means to bring slavery to an end
 
Last edited:
. . . and your sources for impartially presented facts and events are?

Usually, very hard to find.

Getting the story from our various presenters of "news and information" is like stitching together a quilt. Knowing what to listen for is important.

On the NBC Nightly News the other night, Kristen Welker presented a story on the ongoing feud between the 4 Sea Hags and the God King. (I watch NBC Nightly news every night until I start to throw up.)

She referred to the three Tweets from Trump regarding the the Squad simply as his "racist tweets".

She referred to the antisemitic hate and comments from Omar and Tlaib as "reported as being antisemitic".

Noticing the obvious bias in the sources is the first step to understanding how biased presentations have become for the scripted, edited and approved "News Reports".

That said, though, when a guy frames his comments in terms of ALL Americans, and the lying propagandists presenting those comments misrepresent those comments as being racist, there is really not any question regarding the bias.

So far, the lying propagandists have presented Trump as being a lying, racist, homophobe, rapist, traitor stealing from the American People who ran for office only to enrich himself.

EVERYTHING he does undermines this presentation and yet they go on. THINKING people are more and more seeing and hearing their "news" as "lies".

The Emperor has no clothes and the thinking people are both seeing this and turning away in disgust.

F'rinstance:

CNN Has Double-Digit Monthly Ratings Loss in Primetime … Again

<snip>
[FONT=&quot]In May, the channel lost 16 percent of its weekday evening audience from the previous month, falling to just 761,000 viewers and [/FONT][FONT=&quot]winding up dead last [/FONT][FONT=&quot]among such cable networks as liberal rival MSNBC and the dominant Fox News Channel.[/FONT]
<snip>
[FONT=&quot]Nolte noted that during the past six years, from “as soon as Jeff Zucker took over [as president], CNN got every major national story exactly wrong.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]To prove his point, he described each important news story during that time as reported by that network, including the following (links added to NewsBusters articles on the topic):[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“And in every one of those cases,” he continued, “CNN got it deliberately wrong” because the liberal network “is nothing less than a hysterical propaganda outlet, a fire hose of hate, violence and lies” and thus has crashed and burned “in every possible metric -- including integrity, decency, honesty and humanity.”
<snip>

-End Quote-

When CNN gets every major story exactly wrong and the resulting error is condemnation of Trump, we may assume with sound foundation that the intention in presentation does not include accuracy.


[/FONT]
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom