Sorry, I've been busy
and hadn't had time to respond to your finally trying to answer the
questions put to you. My letting you continue to comment does not
mean you successfully/correctly answered the questions... Only that
you made an attempt and we need to wade through your attempt.
DAN: "1.
DEFINE "Enemy of the State/People."
MARSHALL: Originally, you offered no definition from Wiki, but only examples of how the expression has been used in history. The actual definition from Wiki is as follows:
"An enemy of the state is a person accused of certain crimes against the state, such as treason."
I'm good with this definition, though it's hardly comprehensive if it says "certain crimes" but gives only one example.
So, IS this your definition or not? It's not clear, but I think it is.
Moving on, then, an immediate question arises... "The press" has not been seriously accused of any "crimes against the state." None.
A. Do you recognize that reality?
Perhaps in an attempt to deal with this, you bobble around, saying...
All that is truly required for the expression to be appropriately applied is that it satisfies the definition regarding crimes committed against the state/people. But even there, the question is, "Would that be 'crimes' of a type codified by law, or 'crimes' in the sense detrimental acts of any kind?"
MARSHALL: Originally, you offered no definition from Wiki, but only examples of how the expression has been used in history. The actual definition from Wiki is as follows:
"An enemy of the state is a person accused of certain crimes against the state, such as treason."
I'm good with this definition, though it's hardly comprehensive if it says "certain crimes" but gives only one example.
So, IS this your definition or not? It's not clear, but I think it is.
Moving on, then, an immediate question arises... "The press" has not been seriously accused of any "crimes against the state." None.
A. Do you recognize that reality?
Perhaps in an attempt to deal with this, you bobble around, saying...
All that is truly required for the expression to be appropriately applied is that it satisfies the definition regarding crimes committed against the state/people. But even there, the question is, "Would that be 'crimes' of a type codified by law, or 'crimes' in the sense detrimental acts of any kind?"
So, you are defining down YOUR definition of Enemy of the State/People to be "a group accused in a casual manner of some vague metaphorical "crime...", NOT an actual crime... Thus, if a person thinks that Trump's hairpiece is a 'crime against the state...' then TRUMP is an enemy of the state." Or, "If I think it's a crime for a media outlet to be biased in some way (some UNDEFINED way, since we're all unbiased to one degree or another,), then that makes one an enemy of the state..."
B. Is that what you're saying/doing? Watering down "enemy of the state" to the point where it means anyone you don't like of any offense can be reasonably considered an enemy of the state?
If so, the immediate problem arises that the phrase is meaningless. We are ALL "enemies of the state" in the minds of SOME group of people and thus, the term has no point, no meaning.
If the term has no meaning, then it remains a false claim. If we are ALL "enemies of the state" then NONE of us are enemies of the state. It's a ridiculously false claim.
Beyond that, this is not what "Enemy of the state" means.
Other follow up questions...
C. What "crime" is the media "guilty" of? Not being perfectly unbiased? No one is. By that measure, Fox News and you and Craig and Billy Graham are ALL enemies of the state. Is that what you mean?
D. By your measure, do you think Fox News is an enemy of the state? What's the difference? You appear to have no objective measure for what makes one an enemy of the state.
Marshall: To pretend that a media that can't help but spin stories to portray Trump in the worst light...indeed, they tend to spin stories to promote liberal points of view and have for some time...isn't detrimental to the people is to be complicit in the practice.
Here you appear to be defining "enemy of the state" as a media that is biased against Trump and, in YOUR estimation, portraying him in a bad light (what others would call portraying him accurately and HE makes his own self appear in a bad light because he is an awful, awful person, according to people across the political spectrum...)
E. Fox News was clearly biased against Obama. Does that make them an enemy of the state? Why not?
Your entire case appears to be based NOT on the meaning of the term Enemy of the State or People, but on you thinking it's okay to just make a claim that has no meaning and is not factual.
Again, the reality is that “the media” in all its forms has always been biased to one degree or another. Being biased does not make one an enemy of the state. And, if you were being consistent, then FoxNews would be an enemy of the state, as well, given your ridiculous definition.
It's simply a stupidly false claim.
I'm out of time but I'm going to go ahead and post this and give you a chance to respond, Marshall.
39 comments:
"So, IS this your definition or not? It's not clear, but I think it is."
How can "I'm good with this definition" not be clear to you? It's not vague at all. It's not equivocating. It's not ambiguous. How can it possibly NOT signify agreement? I'll narrow it down for you:
An enemy of the state is anyone who acts in a manner detrimental to the state
I could say this in any number of alternative ways and still be consistent with the Wiki definition.
"Moving on, then, an immediate question arises... "The press" has not been seriously accused of any "crimes against the state." None."
Considering I posted numerous links to articles that describe their "crimes" in a variety of ways, both here at your blog and then at mine after you deleted them, it is difficult to regard this claim as anything but a willful lie. Maybe I'm not understanding you again. Thus, your claim is not reality because it's not at all true.
"So, you are defining down YOUR definition of Enemy of the State/People to be "a group accused in a casual manner of some vague metaphorical "crime...", NOT an actual crime..."
Pretty much the question I posed with regard to what is meant by a "crime" against the state/people. Supporting the murder of innocent children is a crime to most Christians, for example, but abortion is legal. So my question is suggests that what passes for "a crime" to satisfy the definition is largely based on how the expression is used.
"Thus, if a person thinks that Trump's hairpiece is a 'crime against the state...' then TRUMP is an enemy of the state."
Oh yeah. That's a legitimate example, all right. You run with that. In the meantime, I'll continue resisting any urge that might arise within me to insult your intelligence (because someone recently chided me about being a better commenter).
"B. Is that what you're saying/doing? Watering down "enemy of the state" to the point where it means anyone you don't like of any offense can be reasonably considered an enemy of the state?"
No. That's what you're hoping I'm saying/doing. Sorry to disappoint. In the meantime, you're doing all you can to limit how the expression is defined to purposely exclude Trump's usage. This gives you one more thing to whine about with regard to the man. More on that later.
"Beyond that, this is not what "Enemy of the state" means."
Except that YOU have not provided a definition so much as examples of how the expression has been used, as well as by whom. In your defense (somewhat), Wiki also restricted historic mentions of the expression to only the worst people in history. But of course, this provides you even more license to smear Trump. The fact is, those examples don't mean there aren't legitimate uses of the expression. As I put forth earlier, there are legitimate enemies of the state/people as well as those so accused by despots to further an evil agenda.
What's more, the word "enemy" is subject to subjectivity as well. How badly does one have to act in order to be worthy of the label? Where's the cutoff? This is an important thing to consider. Again, you want to narrow the term to whatever extent allows you to further criticize Trump. Thus, you prove the point regarding subjectivity in the use of the expression.
"C. What "crime" is the media "guilty" of? Not being perfectly unbiased?"
Nope. The links you deleted provided examples of the crime for which the term is appropriately applied to the media. Since it's so much trouble to go access them at my blog, I can re-post them here for your convenience if need be.
"D. By your measure, do you think Fox News is an enemy of the state?"
Nope. The difference is that they don't engage in outright lies, distortions, half-truths and the like. Again, would you like me to re-post those links? There you will find plenty of examples that constitute an "objective measure".
"Here you appear to be defining "enemy of the state" as a media that is biased against Trump"
What the hell's wrong with you? You type my words and then immediately and blatantly misrepresent them!! "THERE" I was clearly (not "appearing") referencing "spin", which is a purposeful distortion intended to project a preferred meaning. We here in the real world call that "lying". ("This is what actually happened, but we'll report it this way, so that Trump looks really, really bad!" ) It's not merely a matter of a viewer wanting to believe the media is lying, but a matter of the story actually told with the intention to distort the truth and manipulate the viewer. Once again, the links I provided contained examples of this. If you would have read them instead of simply deleting them, you'd have less confusion now about my position (and Trump's) on the media.
"E. Fox News was clearly biased against Obama."
Once again. It's not a matter of mere bias. As you said, we're all biased. But when , because of bias, a media outlet lies, that's when a media outlet becomes an enemy of the people.
"Your entire case appears to be based NOT on the meaning of the term Enemy of the State or People, but on you thinking it's okay to just make a claim that has no meaning and is not factual."
You've long lost sight of what the case actually is. It's your whining about Trump calling certain members of the press "enemies of the people", without considering why he does and what he means by it. You think he's out of bounds using the term as a rhetorical flourish in order to make a point about the behavior of too many in the press. Somehow, YOU think he can't make his point in that manner, while for years we've been putting up with far worse abuses of the English language by Democrats to demonize (illegitimately) center-right figures and/or policies. Case in point: "War on Women". Does "war" have only one meaning, or has it been used rhetorically in hundreds of ways by hundreds of people?
Despite their ongoing bad behavior, many people still rely upon the "MSM" for their information on what's going on in the world. If the media can't be counted on to be truthful and objective, they are causing harm by allowing people, if not intentionally influencing them, to believe that which isn't true. Try and tell me that wouldn't make them enemies of the people! Would you like to make a bad decision because you weren't given factual information? That's what's at stake here. Trump's use of the expression is NOT without some level of justification, as my links clearly demonstrate. Read them.
Oh, and by the way, you do the very thing that those media outlets do. You have been saying Trump is "attacking the press" or "against a free press" or words to that effect. That's spin. That's a false representation of the reality, which is that Trump was ALWAYS speaking against particular news outlets and particular members of the press. He's said so from the beginning, and honest people understood what he meant without him explaining it because it's so clear to see what certain members of the press are doing.
And through it all, he's done absolutely NOTHING to inhibit the press, with the notable exception of taking one reporter's press pass away. Yet still that reporter was free to report. So his rhetoric does NOTHING to harm anyone or anything...it is not an assault on the press to call them out for their bad behavior. It's been going on for decades and people have been fed up with it for as long. He's just one more person speaking out against it.
Marshall, the fact is that Trump is literally repeatedly stupidly attacking the press. Calling them "fake news" when they literally are not. Saying that "80%" of them are the "enemy" when he has NO data to support the 80% claim.
You seem to be finding evidence that SOME media stories are less than perfect and conflating that with "fake news." There is a difference.
Do you recognize the difference between "fake news" and "imperfect news?"
Do you recognize the reality that there IS NO support for an "80% fake news" claim? That he literally pulled that number out of his ass? (Okay, not literally, but that he just made the number up and there is no factual significance to it).
All your many words and you still are missing this point, it would appear. Just answer these specific questions, literally and directly and clearly.
Just to repeat the facts:
1. Trump has repeatedly made the false charge that the media (or at least "80%" of them) are the "enemy of the people/state" (for the record, I think he's said Enemy of the People, mainly... not that this helps).
2. Marshall appears to think that this is okay because "enemy of the people" can include the meaning of "when the press reports negatively on Trump (specifically Trump, apparently) in ways that Marshall does not approve of..." (or even if/when they get some facts wrong - and that happens, although I don't know that Marshall has any valid support for that... more like he doesn't like what they're saying, not that it's factually wrong)...
3. In addition to that not being the definition of the term, there is NO data to support an 80% charge. By all appearances, Trump just made up a number.
4. Historically/normally, the definition of Enemy of the people has been
"The term enemy of the people is a designation for the political or class opponents of the subgroup in power within a larger group. The term implies that by opposing the ruling subgroup, the "enemies" in question are acting against the larger group, for example against society as a whole. It is similar to the notion of "enemy of the state"...
and...
"The Law of 22 Prairial in 1794 extended the remit of the Revolutionary Tribunal to punish "enemies of the people", with some political crimes punishable by death, including "spreading false news to divide or trouble the people"."
So, it's a pretty serious charge, typically used by oppressors as an excuse to kill/imprison those who disagree with them publicly/to limit free speech. Given the reality of how it has normally been used, it's a very dangerous term, in addition to being stupidly false.
4. Marshall has no standard by which to rationally differentiate between Fox News and CNN... by his measure, all media who are found to have been imperfect/to have made mistakes/had biases would be considered "enemies of the people." But Marshall denies this... but not based upon any criteria or standard, just by his whimsical say so.
IF you think you have some consistent standard, Marshall, cite it. The definition you cite "An enemy of the state is a person accused of certain crimes against the state, such as treason." literally does not apply to the press. You expand it by saying anything someone might THINK is a crime (vaguely), but then, why is Fox News not an enemy but CNN is? WHAT STANDARD?
No more comments here, Marshall, unless you provide your standard or admit that you have none. That your expanded "definition" is entirely whimsical and can mean anything.
Marshall...
The difference is that they don't engage in outright lies, distortions, half-truths and the like. Again, would you like me to re-post those links? There you will find plenty of examples that constitute an "objective measure".
I KNOW that YOU THINK you have links that prove "the press" has engaged in outright lies. You have no proof of that. At best, you have perhaps found some individual instances of bad reporting, but those are individual instances, not a credible charge against "the press" or even "80% of the press."
Here's a link to FoxNews false claims/bad reporting...
https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox/
Do instances of bad reporting at Fox News make them an enemy of the people? Mean that they engaged in "crimes..."?
Let's look at just one of your supposed examples of "fake news..." I glanced through your propaganda pile and found, at random, this "example" of supposedly "fake news..."
https://mic.com/articles/159094/at-least-2-trans-youth-have-committed-suicide-since-election-lgbtq-hotline-calls-surge#.W0f64P6aS
It's a report on how some in the LGBTQ crowd have reported a spike in suicides following Trump's election. The allegations are real. People HAVE noted it. The "press" in question (mic.com, not a source I'm familiar with as a news organization, but maybe they are, I don't know anything about that source) reported what they'd heard.
What about that story is "fake news..."?
Please support the claim that this is fake news or admit that your example is not an example of fake news. At worst, it might be sloppy news reporting (i.e., maybe they didn't do enough research on the claim... I don't know... all I know is that this is not an example of "fake news" or an "outright lie, distortion or half truth..."
Further, news groups (including Fox News) regularly do sloppy reporting, including "half truths and distortions..." so again, by what consistent criteria does this only apply to some vague, unidentified "80% of the press..."?
Support your claim or retract it with an apology.
I'm giving you a chance to make your case.
If you don't like the story I chose at random, find a story of your choice and prove that it is "fake news..." THEN prove that the report applies to "80% of the media" and which specific 80% it applies to.
Looking at another one of your examples of "fake news," I found the 2005 story by Newsweek where they reported that the military had flushed a koran to intimidate/effect Muslim detainees. Here's what I found about that report from a fact check organization...
"As it turned out, Newsweek now says, there was one source. And Mr. Whitaker said that because that source had "backed away" from his original account, the magazine could "no longer stand by" it."
So, Newsweek had a source that reported this happened, they reported it based on that report, then, when that one source backed away, they withdrew the report, apologizing for the mistake.
Is THAT an example of an "outright lie, distortion and half truth..."? Because, it sounds like to me that it was a MISTAKE which they eventually retracted. But it was not a lie, they were reporting what they heard from a source. It was not a distortion or a half truth, they reported what they heard from a source.
It was literally a mistake, one which they eventually admitted to and apologized for.
So, if THAT is an example of what makes one a "fake news" source, then does that mean that ALL news organizations who make mistakes and eventually retract the mistake "fake news..."? Because you know, don't you, that Fox News has made mistakes in the reporting?
Do you even understand why your argument doesn't hold up to scrutiny?
It comes down to the notion that you are conflating human mistakes with intentional lies and attempts to undermine the US. Which is, itself, a false claim. Stupidly false.
Wow! There's a lot to unpack here, and it will make for a long response, so I will begin from your first response and work my way down. Along the way, I will point out where you yourself are engaging in the very same type of distortion, misrepresentation and/or obfuscation. In fact, you do so in your very first sentence:
"Marshall, the fact is that Trump is literally repeatedly stupidly attacking the press."
The actual fact is that Trump is literally repeatedly attacking certain news outlets and reporters. We know this because he has literally repeatedly clarified this distinction. The following piece by Andrew McCarthy speaks to much of what I've put forth, but also directly to this point of towards whom Trump references with his use of the expression "enemy of the people".
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/11/trump-media-criticism-enemy-of-the-people-charge/
It's a really good article and covers a lot about what this issue is all about, beyond Trump's use of the expression. What's more, his use of the expression provoked the very type of "fake news" that he derides. A good, honest journalist would have asked him immediately what he meant by his use of the expression and/or to whom he was directing it. But no, the media went bat-shit crazy and presented it as an attack on the entire industry and the American concept of a free press...JUST AS YOU'VE BEEN DOING!
"Saying that "80%" of them are the "enemy" when he has NO data to support the 80% claim."
But that's only his opinion. I'd say it's not so much an opinion regarding any actual percentage, but a suggestion of just how bad the reporting has come to be. As such, to demand "hard data" in order for him to be able to indulge in hyperbole and exaggeration is absurd. It's a purposeful distraction from the point in order to add to the goofy list of lies he's allegedly told since becoming president.
"You seem to be finding evidence that SOME media stories are less than perfect and conflating that with "fake news." There is a difference."
First of all, it wasn't the least bit difficult in finding examples of false reports in the media. The real issue was in deciding which of the many articles available to me I would use. Evidently, there is no number of examples that will make a difference to you if it means striking just one complaint about Trump from your list hangs in the balance. That first from The Federalist was from the first week of Feb 2017...just three months after Trump was elected and just two weeks or so on the job.
"Do you recognize the difference between "fake news" and "imperfect news?""
Yes. I also realize that if the latter is negative toward Trump, it will be repeated constantly without concern for its lack of accuracy until they are held to account by a better source. Also, too often that which you would be quick to categorize as "imperfect" is imperfect due to the bias of the reporter or news outlet. As such, the "imperfect" stories are appropriately categorized as fake as well due to the laziness or incompetence of the original report as well as the failure of other outlets to dig deeper to confirm or refute until they have no choice.
"Do you recognize the reality that there IS NO support for an "80% fake news" claim? "
I don't know, but would guess he's mistakenly conflating the "80% of journalists are liberal" belief with how much news is false. Big deal. Serious people don't give this stat the time of day. Less than serious people are those the liberal media depends upon to respond negatively toward Trump or whomever they target with their bad reporting.
"All your many words and you still are missing this point, it would appear."
Not at all. Your point is fallacious, even allowing that Trump's choice of words is poor. The point is the honesty and integrity of too much of the MSM...or rather, that they are too lacking in either when it comes to reporting on Trump.
"Just to repeat the facts:" (here we go)
1. "Trump has repeatedly made the false charge that the media (or at least "80%" of them) are the "enemy of the people/state""
DAN'S FAKE NEWS!!! The actual fact is that Trump has rendered his opinion that certain news outlets and reporters are the enemy of the people due to their inaccurate reporting. The 80% figure is just an "off the top of my head" response. Meaningless in light of the point regarding the behavior of those certain outlets and reporters.
2. "Marshall appears to think that this is okay because "enemy of the people" can include the meaning of "when the press reports negatively on Trump (specifically Trump, apparently) in ways that Marshall does not approve of...""
DAN'S FAKE NEWS!!! The reality is that there's nothing in anything I said that "appears" to say this at all. While I have no doubt that Trump dislikes negative press (because who likes it, right?), there is plenty of reason to agree that the what and who he's referencing plays fast and loose with the facts.
3. "In addition to that not being the definition of the term, there is NO data to support an 80% charge. By all appearances, Trump just made up a number."
You're obsessed. Serious people are not.
4. "4. Historically/normally, the definition of Enemy of the people has been"
Irrelevant, because apparently you believe there is absolutely no possible way the term can be used legitimately.
"spreading false news to divide or trouble the people".
And this is what he accuses those particular outlets and reporters of doing, and he's one among at least half the nation that has been saying as much for some time. Yet, though you'd like to believe otherwise, he has yet to call for any action to be taken against the press, including those he has in mind when using the expression, aside from perhaps no longer holding press conferences, which he is not obliged to hold anyway. Thus, he's only calling attention to a problem that is already well known and doing it louder than past presidents, each of whom have expressed their own displeasure with the press.
"So, it's a pretty serious charge, typically used by oppressors as an excuse to kill/imprison those who disagree with them publicly/to limit free speech."
Yeah, I know, and it's blatantly obvious that it's important to you that it is viewed through this lens only so as to provoke fears that he'd actually move in that direction. In other words, what you're doing is working "to divide or trouble the people". You have no cause to imagine that Trump is akin to those oppressors. None whatsoever. Why just call him Hitler and get it over with? It's this kind of hyperbolic response that is the real danger, because again, serious people don't wet themselves over every stupid thing Trump says. They don't pretend it means more than just poor word choices and focus on the underlying point (which isn't really lying so far under).
4. (your second 4, which is really your 5) "Marshall has no standard by which to rationally differentiate between Fox News and CNN"
Wow! This sounds suspiciously like your defense of your bad Biblical interpretations!
"by his measure, all media who are found to have been imperfect/to have made mistakes/had biases would be considered "enemies of the people.""
Of course I deny this! It's not an accurate assessment of my position. It's not a matter of imperfections, mistakes or even biases...and none of my links dealt in those, except in terms of who ran with the mistakes and how long it took to post corrections and how obviously posted they were.
The real question is why so many mistakes in the first place? How can so many inaccuracies be published? Where's the hunt for truth? If there's no dedication to truth and accuracy, if the point is to entrap the president in press conferences, if the leftists in media spend zero time reporting on the good things Trump has done, then we're dealing with news outlets and reporters that are intentionally attempting to influence rather than report. That's not why they exist, and that's not what is expected of them by those who look to them for accurate and truthful information. Fox has the tag line, "We report. You decide." You can argue about what they report and how they report it, but the sentiment is how media is supposed to work.
"IF you think you have some consistent standard, Marshall, cite it."
Truth.
"The definition you cite "An enemy of the state is a person accused of certain crimes against the state, such as treason." literally does not apply to the press."
It literally does. The crime is misinformation. As the first of my links demonstrated, the failure to highlight corrections with the same vigor they highlighted the "mistake" is a part of that misinformation. One can also insist they are guilty of shoddiness, laziness and a marked disinterest in making sure they have the facts right.
"You expand it by saying anything someone might THINK is a crime (vaguely)"
DAN'S FAKE NEWS!! I never said anything remotely like this. Thanks for putting words in my mouth.
"but then, why is Fox News not an enemy but CNN is? WHAT STANDARD?"
I believe that their mistakes are honest. I don't deal with Fox as much as you need to believe I do, but I don't recall any specific cases where they said something that I immediately suspected as stupidly false or misleading. Here's a simple but routine example of what I mean: It is not uncommon for a Republican politician's party affiliation be given in reports when accused or convicted of wrongdoing (the "R" is always present). You don't see a Dem politician's part affiliation as routinely given in similar reports about them. No doubt you'll disagree in your typical knee-jerk fashion, but if it didn't stand out, I wouldn't be saying it now. (I believe one of my links might mention this, but it could be from one I didn't post.)
On the other hand, I routinely see story headlines from leftist sources that are completely contradicted in their own stories! They know the lede is what many will content themselves with and so the hype is put there purposely. But the left does it dishonestly more as a matter of standard operation procedure. The same is true with the crawls at the bottom of the screen when watching CNN or MSNBC. Note the link I posted (at my blog because you deleted it here) that was a letter to an editor about this very practice of misleading headlines.
"That your expanded "definition" is entirely whimsical and can mean anything."
But my "definition" isn't expanded at all. As if you're doing a feo impression, you're attributing to me that which I did not say. My definition is the same as Wiki's, except I don't feel compelled to make sure I use words like "treason" to influence what one thinks of when referring to "crimes against the people", nor, for that matter, specific words to your liking.
YOU, on the other hand, are purposely trying to narrow the definition so as to further denigrate and attack the president. YOU, on the other hand, evidently believe there is no legitimate use of the term "enemy of the people" that those leaders who are not despots can use...that anyone who uses the term must be just like those despots who used the term to rationalize oppressing good and innocent people. You know what that is? DAN'S FAKE NEWS!!
"I KNOW that YOU THINK you have links that prove "the press" has engaged in outright lies."
And this is where you equivocate. "Outright lies"? That implies one specific thing, as if it must only be that specific thing or there is no foul. But lies, outright or otherwise, come in many forms. I'll be getting into this more as we go.
"...you have perhaps found some individual instances of bad reporting, but those are individual instances, not a credible charge against "the press"..."
My links aren't comprehensive, nor meant to be taken as comprehensive. Again, there are plenty of examples. I don't intend to provide a constant flow of them until you're forced to acknowledge the reality...assuming you even would at any point. Here the point is that it's the number of them that suggests a trend or intention on the part of some members of the press.
But even if one wishes to concede that all the reports that have been used, as well as those I haven't, indicate mere "mistake" on the part of the press, then that's a problem as well. It's every bit as detrimental to the people as intentional deceit, because the result is the same...a misinformed public acting on that bad information. Yet, why are such mistakes made and why are they so numerous, particularly when they concern center-right figures and specifically when they concern Trump? We're both well aware that Trump is fully capable of saying stupid things all by himself without some Trump-hating reporter purposely choosing to take his inarticulate utterances literally when his meaning isn't at all obscured by his shabby speech.
"Here's a link to FoxNews false claims/bad reporting..."
I'm not going to spend time on how Politifact is a great example of "fake news". Their work has been called out before by others, including this site that exists for the purpose of pointing out their journalistic malfeasance.
Rather, I'll assume you're using them as an example of someone pointing out the imperfections of FoxNews...never mind the biased manner in which they do it. Then you ask your question: "Do instances of bad reporting at Fox News make them an enemy of the people?"
If it was just a matter of bad reporting, incompetent reporting by those sincerely trying to find and report the truth, we wouldn't be having this discussion because I fully doubt that Trump...or anyone else...would assume it's intentional. He likely would still rip on them, but not as if they were purposely misleading, and that's the feelings of half the nation and has been for decades.
"Let's look at just one of your supposed examples of "fake news..." I glanced through your propaganda pile and found..."
"Propaganda pile"??? DAN'S FAKE NEWS!!!
"It's a report... The allegations are real. People HAVE noted it. The "press" in question...reported what they'd heard."
First, it's not enough for a journalist of any kind to "report what they'd heard". They're supposed to verify what they'd heard and if unable to do so, they don't run the freakin' story. And to take the word of those pushing the narrative must be reported in that way, or at least make sure that it is noted that there is no way to verify the testimony of those pushing the narrative...which was the case. And of course, as you perused the link carefully, you certainly noted the bit about Reason wherein writer Elizabeth Nolan Brown described the lengths she went in an attempt to verify the claims. She came up empty in a manner that more suggests the claims were crap than not, though she still had the class to allow that they might be true. The point here is that Brown demonstrated what journalistic investigation should look like when before a story is published for public consumption. With that kind of diligence, she could be 100% wrong and still not be an "enemy" due to her sincere intentions. So, "What about that story is "fake news..."?" It appears far more likely that no suicides took place because of Trump's victory and that those who reported on it did little to verify the story before publishing it. That's fake news.
However, there are far too many cases where a left-leaning outlet will publish a false tale and some kid blogger easily debunks it with facts the outlet should already have uncovered. "Hands up, don't shoot" wasn't a "mistake". The Covington kids was not a "mistake". "Black congressmen were spit upon" wasn't a mistake.
"THEN prove that the report applies to "80% of the media" and which specific 80% it applies to."
I have no intention of trying to prove or disprove the 80% claim of Trump. I doubt he'd lay money on it himself. It's just a wild hunch and serious people don't take it seriously. You shouldn't either, unless you're desperate for ammo.
"Looking at another one of your examples of "fake news," I found the 2005 story by Newsweek where they reported that the military had flushed a koran to intimidate/effect Muslim detainees....etc."
-snip-
"...it sounds like to me that it was a MISTAKE which they eventually retracted."
Again with the "mistakes". How could it have been published in the first place? Because those who reported it wanted it to be true. The story being true further implicates the evil people involved in running Gitmo and keeping it open for business. In short, it was meant to tarnish Bush's image. "Look what they're doing at Gitmo!!" So they had ONE source and ran with it because it was juicy anti-Bush stuff. Real journalists would have gone farther than ONE source. What did they do to verify that ONE source? In similar fashion, why didn't you post which fact-check organization you used? Wasn't it the game-winner you want me to believe it is?
"Fake news" is not a term that only means "intentional" lying. The manner and speed with which they print retractions...should they do so at all...also factors into the equation. The lazy manner in which they "investigate" a story factors into the equation. The cheap and leading manner they choose to print headlines and ledes factors into the equation. I'm sorry "fake news" isn't defined the way you need it to be. I'm sorry Trump doesn't care about how YOU think "enemy of the people" must be used. But my argument is sound and it is shared by millions of Americans as it has been for decades. It's just worse than ever before whether you want to believe it or not.
I suppose now you're going to delete all this. I wouldn't be surprised. But I took a lot of time in order to be precise, direct and unambiguous in my answers so that my position is clear with regard to why Trump's expression of "enemy of the people" as well as "fake news" is not the big deal you want it to be. The press has a responsibility because they work for US, the American people. It is their duty to set aside their personal opinions about Trump (except to save them for editorials...which still must be factual in what they say) and to make damned sure what they intend to publish for public consumption is not in any way (to the best of their sincerest ability) going to lead the public anywhere but to the complete and unvarnished truth. If they were doing that, and it was obvious...which is absolutely NOT the case now...NO ONE would back Trump on his position. But millions do and millions believe that bad reporting is harmful to the nation. Don't you want to be told the truth?
https://www.facebook.com/7976226799/posts/10157386430916800?sfns=mo
"Fake news" is not a term that only means "intentional" lying. The manner and speed with which they print retractions...should they do so at all...also factors into the equation.
Trying to make sense of your position. So, are you saying that it's fake news to you if they make mistakes that they shouldn't have made and thus, they are an "enemy of the people..."? But by that measure, Fox News has made mistakes they shouldn't have made, so they would be an enemy of the people as well.
Also, clear something up for me: Given that you appear to think that sloppy news reporting that is (in your estimation) more propaganda and deliberate hostility towards a given politician than sincere news reporting, then clearly, you'd put Alex Jones/Info Wars in the fake news and enemy of the people category, is that right? I mean, the man is a sick joke, as is his "network."
By that measure, you'd also have to put Breitbart in the "enemy of the people" category, is that right?
I just don't see what measure you are using that would differentiate a Fox News from a CNN.
And what of BBC and NPR... very reputable solid news organizations. Are they part of the 80% of media that are an "enemy of the people..."?
And as to the 80%, you appear to be glad to admit that it IS an entirely fictional number he just pulled out of his ass, is that right? That you don't think anyone should take that claim seriously?
How serious is the problem, then? is it over half the media that is complicit in being enemies of the people? 25%?
It really comes down to (it appears) if YOU and TRUMP THINK that a group is not being a good enough media reporter, then they are "fake news" because they make mistakes and therefore, making mistakes and being deemed "fake news" makes one an enemy of the people... but it is entirely subjective. You HAVE NO OBJECTIVE CRITERIA for how many mistakes or what sorts of mistakes how many times by what percentage of reporters makes one "fake news" and thus an "enemy of people..." Is that right?
If so, then why should anyone treat it as anything but a false claim, made NOT based on objective data, but on self-interested opinion based on nothing but feelings?
Please answer these questions.
"...are you saying that it's fake news to you if they make mistakes that they shouldn't have made and thus, they are an "enemy of the people..."?"
No.
"Given that you appear to think that sloppy news reporting that is (in your estimation) more propaganda and deliberate hostility towards a given politician than sincere news reporting..." Not quite what I said. "then clearly, you'd put Alex Jones/Info Wars in the fake news and enemy of the people category, is that right?"
You don't listen to Alex Jones at all. Neither do I. I can't answer because I don't know what he says or does.
"By that measure, you'd also have to put Breitbart in the "enemy of the people" category, is that right?"
I'd wager you don't spend much time with Breitbart, either. I'm only slightly more familiar with Breitbart than I am with Jones, but not by much. While Andrew Breitbart was still alive, it was very much something one could rely upon for the type of investigative reporting one should expect of all news outlets, but don't see much today...particularly by the left. However, I don't particularly follow Breitbart per se. I read links to Breitbart pieces posted by others now and then.
"And what of BBC and NPR... very reputable solid news organizations. Are they part of the 80% of media that are an "enemy of the people..."?"
Let me be clear: I'm not a regular consumer of news from any one source. I pretty much go back and forth on how various outlets are reporting..."What did this one say, and how did that one cover it?"...until I feel I've gotten to the crux of the issue. One thing I can say, you can't list handful of outlets and pretend you've proven the 80% claim wrong. It rather makes you no better than Trump is putting forth that number...which is his OPINION on just how bad things are in the media. Once again, he reflects the feelings of at least half of America...feelings that have existed since long before he ran for president.
"And as to the 80%, you appear to be glad to admit that it IS an entirely fictional number he just pulled out of his ass, is that right?"
Pretty much, yeah. But the number isn't the point. I would say that trying to pin him (or anyone) down to a number to explain his low opinion of media reliability is a symptom of the problem with the media.
"That you don't think anyone should take that claim seriously?"
What makes you think anyone should? Serious people don't. Serious people know with whom they are dealing and aren't going to pretend throw-away lines are anything more than throw-away lines. Serious people understand the point is that the media has become largely regarded as an attack dog on all things right-wing, particularly as it concerns Trump...that nothing that is said by the media should be taken as sacrosanct and requires one do one's own due diligence.
"How serious is the problem, then? is it over half the media that is complicit in being enemies of the people? 25%?"
Serious enough that half the nation has long held the media in low regard. When the media insists that Trump said some nazis are good people, when that's not what he said...when the media portrays Trump as having mocked a journalist's disability, when he clearly wasn't doing that...when the media won't give Trump his due on the many good things he's accomplished...it's pretty serious. Serious enough that the worst offenders have a very low viewership.
"It really comes down to (it appears) if YOU and TRUMP THINK that a group is not being a good enough media reporter, then they are "fake news" because they make mistakes and therefore, making mistakes and being deemed "fake news" makes one an enemy of the people... but it is entirely subjective."
And here's where you again engage in YOUR fake news. You are totally misrepresenting what I said. I never said the problem revolves around mere mistakes. That you're trying to reduce it down to that is nonsense. There are honest mistakes, and there are people who are so eager to find dirt on Trump or the right-wing that they'll do very little to investigate what merely appears to be dirt before reporting that "dirt". That's not a mistake. And it's not what journalism and the press is supposed to be for the sake of the consumer.
"You HAVE NO OBJECTIVE CRITERIA for how many mistakes or what sorts of mistakes how many times by what percentage of reporters makes one "fake news" and thus an "enemy of people..." Is that right?"
No more or less than you do for determining who is or isn't doing the job of reporting news honestly and with a dedicated search for the truth and facts. But there's certainly more evidence to question that dedication than you are honest enough to admit for fear of having to agree with Trump. You need Trump to be wrong and that's the real issue here and the reason I focused on this "enemy of the people" thing. It was to counter YOUR use of it to smear him and your use of it to smear him is the same type of dishonesty for which the media has come to be held is such low regard by so many Americans of both political persuasions.
"If so, then why should anyone treat it as anything but a false claim, made NOT based on objective data, but on self-interested opinion based on nothing but feelings?"
But it's not based on "self-interested opinion" except that one who is constantly attacked cannot help but consider those attacks in terms of "self-interest"....and thus it is not based on "nothing but feelings", but feelings provoked by the bad behavior of the media.
This Mueller thing is a great example of all that I've said in this discussion, particularly when you look at the reactions of the left-wing news sources. Their attitudes before the report was one of supreme confidence that Trump colluded. It was a done deal in their minds. The report appears to contradict that and now they have a problem with Mueller. It never stops with these people and thus, the claim that they are more interested in attacking Trump than in honestly reporting truth and facts to the consumer affirms the portrayal of them as enemies far more than any defense against the claim has made thus far.
Re: " pretend throw away lines..."
That's the point I'm making, Marshall. It was a stupidly false claim. Something you appear to agree with now, while not wanting to agree with. If it's a stupid throwaway line then yes it is a stupid false claim. There is no data to support the claim that the media are the enemy of the people. That is a damn false claim.
Do you now agree with that point?
I was referring to your statement about the 80% figure. THAT was the throw-away line to which I referred, which your own "ivestigating" would have confirmed. It's the very same laziness that leads the Trump-hating segment of the media to make "mistakes".
The "enemy of the people" position is not at all a "damn false claim". It's an opinion based on the reality. More specifically, it's a rhetorical floirish, very much the same as the lefty favorite "war on women", with the most notable distinction that the leftist media has their own selves to blame that at least half the nation holds them in such low regard. The thing on which you should focus your attention is on that.
So, to answer: No. I don't agree it's a necessarily false claim, as much as a careless word choice given how those like yourself are apt to use it in such a false manner.
Marshall...
There are honest mistakes, and there are people who are so eager to find dirt on Trump or the right-wing that they'll do very little to investigate what merely appears to be dirt before reporting that "dirt". That's not a mistake.
Prove it. Or admit that this is ONLY a wild-assed guess by idiots with an axe to grind against "the media..." That, or gullible enough to believe a man who makes such false charges with no support.
Do this. You MUST prove it or admit you can't. I'm tired of trying to get you to engage in adult level reasonable conversation.
I don't agree it's a necessarily false claim, as much as a careless word choice given how those like yourself are apt to use it in such a false manner.
It is very literally a false claim. YOU HOLD A HUNCH that it is a false claim that arises from Trump using a careless word choice, but that is YOUR guess about what is literally a false claim. I don't pretend to know what is in the skull of a narcissistic boy-man who talks like a dim-witted bullying third grader and don't care to. I'm dealing with what his word choices actually say.
He's made this stupidly false claim dozens if not hundreds if not thousands of times. He could have, at any time, clarified that he's just using a careless word choice and didn't mean what he literally said. He continues to repeat the literal false claim. That's on him and his useful idiots who defend this perverted liar.
Regarding the first of your two.most recent responses, I'm sure I've proved the point in some of the deleted comments of mine, but as I'm at work and using my phone, and time is limited during the days when I work (at least 14 hrs per day devoted to the job, including prep and commute), you'll have to make due with but a taste. I have more links ready to go, but as I'm using the phone for this at present....
Julie Hirschfield Davis (NYT), Andrea Mitchell (NBC) and Scott Neuman (NPR) all falsely reported Trump referred to all or some immigrants as "animals". This was not only blatantly untrue, but it was easy as pie to check had they not been so eager to attack Trump. How could that not be the case with all these "journalists" have at their disposal for checking their facts?
This is but one example. I have more that are like this, so there's nothing "wild-assed" about the charge at all.
BTW, Trump doesn't even need to exist for this charge to be true, so believing HIM or not is irrelevant to the point. Once again, it's not that Trump trashes the press that results in the people trashing the press as well. The people have been trashing the press before he even announced his candidacy.
Marshall,
1. These stories you mentioned would be examples of three isolated incidents in stories by three isolated reporters, NOT an indictment on "the media" or even "the majority of the media" or even "something like 10-29% of the media" or WHATEVER YOUR CLAIM is. We don't KNOW because neither you nor Trump will say, EXCEPT that Trump offered up 80% of the media as a guess. But it is ALL JUST NUMBERS PULLED FROM THE COLLECTIVE ASSES OF A BUNCH OF COLLECTIVE NUMBSKULLS.
There is no data in your three stories, nor in Trump's "80%." It's completely vapid.
NOW, the NEXT COMMENT YOU MAKE MUST defend WITH DATA the notion that "the media" is an enemy of the people. IF YOUR ARGUMENT is that "most" of the media (or define your own argument with SOMETHING) are deliberately telling lies, THEN YOU MUST DEFEND THAT STATEMENT. Provide the data that "most" (or 25% or whatever the hell number you think) of the media is deliberately telling lies, deliberately seeking to undermine a president for no reason at all.
The point is PROVIDE DATA, proof, numbers. Not wild-assed stupidly claimed brain farts.
2. The stories you mentioned about Trump calling immigrants "animals" DID happen. Trump used the term in talking about immigrants. Later he tried to clarify that he only meant a subset of immigrants, but that doesn't change that he used the term in a message that was directed towards immigrants as a group. The point is, THAT IS NOT A STORY about "the media" lying. It is a story about Trump's problems with words and claims.
Look, the man is the leader of the free world. If he can't communicate in a manner that is not relying upon false charges and fear-mongering and idiotic claims, you can't blame the media for talking about his inane words and word choices.
So, Marshall, before you EVER COMMENT HERE EVER AGAIN, you MUST PROVIDE DATA and proof that SOME PERCENTAGE (you can give your number) of the media is deliberately lying or twisting Trump's words (not merely reporting on the words he used and then Trump later saying that isn't what he meant) and provide proof for that percentage. Back up your idiotic false claim (and you can't, you idiot, because it IS A STUPIDLY FALSE CLAIM) or admit that it's not a real data-based claim. It is, instead, an appeal to the fears of idiots who can be manipulated by an idiot.
No more, ever, Marshall. Not until you support or retract your claim and apologize for going down this road for so long and wasting my time (and the time of anyone else who may be reading your idiotic words).
Other people protested the values of the press.
“Your name, please?
Clayton Townley. Local businessman.
Are you, sir, a spokesman for the White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan?
I told you. I'm a businessman. I'm also a Mississippian. And an American. And I am sick and tired of the way many of us Mississippians are havin' our views distorted by your newspapers and on TV. So let's get this straight. We do not accept Jews because they reject Christ. Their control of the international banking cartels are at the root of communism. We do not accept Papists because they bow to a Roman dictator. We do not accept Turks, Mongols, Tartars, Orientals nor Negroes because we're here to protect Anglo-Saxon democracy and the American way.
Here’s Marshall spreading fake news himself:
“Yet now, Andrew Cuomo has cut spending on it in his state, while raising pay of politicians...specifically him and his Lt. Governor. One report said they cut all the funding ($200,000 per year), but then raised it to $150,000. More recently, it seems Cuomo backed off the cuts entirely and NY will again fund Special Olympics the same amount as before ($200K). I haven't seen if he's still going to give himself a raise, though.”
And here are the facts:
The state of NY funds two streams of support for Special Olympics. 1.1 million - untouched - for the state’s Special Olympics group. And 200,000 to support a particular effort at the school level. The new budget cut 50,000 of that but it was restored. That amounted to a reversed 3.8% cut overall for Special Olympics. But, New York budgets $8.7 million total “for programs and services that assist individuals with developmental disabilities.
“One day after the state Legislature approved the 2019-20 budget that cut funding for Special Olympics New York, Gov. Andrew Cuomo's office announced that the aid will be restored.
In a statement, Cuomo's office said the $50,000 cut will be restored "using state resources." The budget contains $8.7 million for programs and services that assist individuals with developmental disabilities.
The state budget reduced funding for Special Olympics New York's Unified Champion Schools program. The initiative encourages schools to provide athletic and leadership opportunities that are inclusive. Past budgets have included $200,000 in aid for Unified Champion Schools. The new state budget provided $150,000 for the program.
The state also provides $1.1 million to support Special Olympics New York. That's separate from the funding for the Unified Champion Schools program.”
https://auburnpub.com/blogs/eye_on_ny/cuomo-special-olympics-funding-cut-in-ny-budget-will-be/article_900a3726-f12e-5e0f-b7a6-78af0fb2f56a.html
Will Marshall put up a retraction or does he not recognize misinformation?
Craig’s father started a business. 1. Did he get a loan? 2. What was collateral?
People of color we’re blocked by banks from loans. And still. People of color were blocked from higher end jobs and divested of savings by landlords and real estate brokers. Accruing collateral was denied to almost all people of color of Craig’s father’s age.
Craig thinks black people trust him enough to tell him the truth. As if they are so stupid 400 years of punitive lessons haven’t been learned.
“Negroes know far more about white Americans than that; it can almost be said, in fact, that they know about white Americans what parents—or, anyway, mothers—know about their children, and that they very often regard white Americans that way. And perhaps this attitude, held in spite of what they know and have endured, helps to explain why Negroes, on the whole, and until lately, have allowed themselves to feel so little hatred. The tendency has really been, insofar as this was possible, to dismiss white people as the slightly mad victims of their own brainwashing.”
Craig will lie about anything.
Craig: “I’m unaware of God commanding chattel slavery. At a minimum it contradicts His command of the Jubilee year. It also doesn’t fit with that actual practices of the Hebrews.”
God in Exodus: “These are the laws you are to set before them: When you acquire a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years; in the seventh year he shall go free, without payment. If he came single, he shall leave single; if he had a wife, his wife shall leave with him. If his master gave him a wife, and she has borne him children, the wife and her children shall belong to the master, and he shall leave alone... When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not be freed as male slaves are. If she proves to be displeasing to her master, who designated her for himself, he must let her be redeemed; he shall not have the right to sell her to outsiders, since he broke faith with her... When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod, and he dies there and then, he must be avenged. But if he survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, since he is the other’s property.”
Craig thinks chattel slavery means “perpetual.” He’s using cheap sources.
Chattel means property. There is zero presence of any connotation of time.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/dictionary.cambridge.org/us/amp/english/chattel
Craig finds slavery and a taking donkey to be equally entertaining facts when reading ancient scriptures.
Craig trades in a wrong definite of chattel slavery in order to keep his faith in an ancient document above his faith in God:
Craig: " I embrace truth."
Craig: "how many times am I going to have to tell you that chattel slavery is always wrong?"
Craig: "I’m unaware of God commanding chattel slavery. At a minimum it contradicts His command of the Jubilee year. It also doesn’t fit with that actual practices of the Hebrews."
Feodor: "Exodus 21, Craig: 'These are the laws you are to set before them: If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years... If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free... He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.... If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do....
... Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."
Feodor: Oxford Dictionary: chattel, noun: a personal possession.
Craig [after being made aware] diverts, covers up, and lies: "“A chattel slave is an enslaved person who is owned for ever and whose children and children's children are automatically enslaved. Chattel slaves are individuals treated as complete property, to be bought and sold. Chattel slavery was supported and made legal by European governments and monarchs.“
1. "for ever" Nope. In Europe as well as the US, some slaves were freed by their owners to honor a pledge, some freed to grant a reward, some freed after fulfilling a servitude agreement. Some freed themselves by "self-purchase" (the term itself revealing the base illogic of slavery). In 1839 almost half (42%) of the free blacks in Cincinnati, Ohio, had bought their freedom and were striving to create new lives while searching for and purchasing their own relatives.
2. "... and whose children are automatically enslaved." Exactly. Apparently, Craig cannot read Exodus: "God said: '... and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free..."
3. "... to be bought and sold." Exactly. Apparently Craig cannot read Exodus. God said, " If you buy a Hebrew servant... If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do..."
4. "Chattel slavery was supported and made legal by European governments and monarchs.“ Ok. And by the US and by God in the Hebrew Scriptures speaking to the Hebrews in the book of Exodus.
That's four lies plus these original three:
Craig: "I embrace truth."
Craig: "I’m unaware of God commanding chattel slavery."
Craig: "It also doesn’t fit with that actual practices of the Hebrews."
“President Trump said Thursday his unsubstantiated claim in March 2017 that former President Obama had his "wires tapped" in Trump Tower was based on "a little bit of a hunch," and suggested he was surprised it prompted such an outcry at the time.”
Just a note that I created this post entirely to give Marshall a chance to prove his enemy of the people claim about the media and answer relevant questions about the topic. Despite his assurances that he can prove it (he literally can't, as it is a stupidly false claim), it has now been over a month since he's even tried.
The silence says it all.
Just for the record, I've been allowing Feodor to respond to Craig's stupidly false claims here, even though they're off topic, because Craig won't post his comments there on his blog, where they are relevant.
I didn’t refuse, Craig. I gave the materials to you and Marshall. And you two refused to share with each other. Doubtless another dodge to spare your pride.
____
A trait you share with Marshall, whose preceding whine about how you and he are treated as merely avoidance of Trump’s admission the he lied about Obama wiretapping him.
You two, when your position is intellectually lost, whine about made up process and block overwhelming facts.
Dan has begun in recent months to block diversions, dodges, myth-making, and lies.
And you cry.
You’re a liar, Marshall. You got part of it and Craig got part of it. I did that knowing the two of you couldn’t admit to each other that you both got what you wanted if only you each could share. But, like the Christians I know you to be: you couldn’t. Because you are both corrupt.
You proved you are corrupt by your behavior toward each other... and by your lies now. You both have done exactly as I knew you would. I’m sure Dan would’ve known, too, how you both would lie, dodge, and deny that you got what you asked for.
When corruption is joined with stupidity, every one can see that your soul is twisted and you’re word is empty.
Being so sick in the head, you don’t see how you just:
1. admitted that you did get it.
2. claim that you’ve actually responded to it.
3. can’t play with an ally to get the whole plan.
4. prefer to divert attention from these contradictions toward toddler tantrums of having to make any effort at all.
Liar, denier, diverter, dodger. Corrupt standards: corrupt character.
And now Craig admits he got his part. If either of you were being genuine in your pursuit of facts and reason, you’d follow through with each other: neither having seen what the other has.
But, no. Craig prefers to argue with accounts he blocks. Fear and shame would be to obvious otherwise.
Corrupt and colluding to keep the facts and pressure of reason even from each other. And Craig claims not to be an acolyte of Trump? In all but name he is.
You required the plan. You had to do one thing to get it: work with Marshall, who also had to do one thing to get it: work with you. Neither of you could work with the other.
My requiring one step was to ensure that you two were being honest about really wanting the plan.
You lied. Saying that you’re a corrupt liar isn’t whining. It’s telling the truth, facts based on evidence. Something you never ever seem to really want.
To Marshal's post on his blog, I wrote this one thing. He didn't post my last comment there (maybe it was lost) so I'm posting it here...
?
Seriously?
You can't be so clueless as to think that nine question examples of what is, in YOUR opinion, over-the-top journalism is "proof" that the stupidly false claim that the enemy is an enemy of the people is justified?
Again, WHAT percentage of "the media" is "an enemy of the people..."? Even roughly? Trump threw out 80%... is there ANY support for that nonsense? (Of course, there isn't... as with so much that Trump does, it's just a made up number to "support" a made up claim).
And how does reporting that is, in your estimation, too biased equal "an enemy of the people..."? By any industry standard, Fox News is more biased than most if not all the normal "liberal"-leaning media?
Facts:
Being biased does not make one "an enemy of the people."
Being liberal does not make one "an enemy of the people."
Being an imperfect reporter does not make one "an enemy of the people."
Having an imperfect reporter working for your news group does not make one "an enemy of the people."
The claim that "the media" is "an enemy of the people" is a false claim and it's stupidly false because there's just NO DATA to support such nonsense and any reasonable non-delusional person can see that and not only is it a stupidly false claim, it is a stupidly false claim that is dangerous as it strikes at one of the bedrock protections of a free nation. Trump's attempts to undermine public faith in a free press is much more dangerous than ANY of the stupidly idiotic stories you cite.
Grow up. Or get some mental health.
You have allowed a dim-witted conman and a pervert to dement your mind.
Get help.
Post a Comment