Jump to content

There Must Be A Course They Take In "Fake News"!


Reagan

Recommended Posts

Its funny that you all would use fake news to complain about fake news! You all do realize that pic is from Bridge City Texas after Hurricane Ike, right. I mean if you really are against fake news why post the lying articles of infowars, breitbart, and other bs sites? Or does the truth not matter anymore? Smdh @ this foolery

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Yeoj said:

Its funny that you all would use fake news to complain about fake news! You all do realize that pic is from Bridge City Texas after Hurricane Ike, right. I mean if you really are against fake news why post the lying articles of infowars, breitbart, and other bs sites? Or does the truth not matter anymore? Smdh @ this foolery

Start posting links to show all the lies from Breitbart...I'll wait.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Yeoj said:

Its funny that you all would use fake news to complain about fake news! You all do realize that pic is from Bridge City Texas after Hurricane Ike, right. I mean if you really are against fake news why post the lying articles of infowars, breitbart, and other bs sites? Or does the truth not matter anymore? Smdh @ this foolery

So the fact that this was from 8 years ago, means he wasn’t standing in the ditch?  It’s no longer #FakeNews I guess 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Start posting links to show all the lies from Breitbart...I'll wait.

 

Dude if you think Breitbart is a credible news source then you might as well stop using the terms "fake news" and "media bias". Like seriously, if you believe that, you'll believe anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Yeoj said:

 

Dude if you think Breitbart is a credible news source then you might as well stop using the terms "fake news" and "media bias". Like seriously, if you believe that, you'll believe anything.

I'm not going to comment on Breitbart, considering I have no clue. I don't think I've ever been on that site. But I have been on Huffington Post, Mother Jones, Politico/Politifact, Southern Law Poverty Center, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, New York Times, Washington Post, Bloomberg, Google News, and many others that are blatantly biased. Do you frequent any of those sites? If so, do you also consider yourself as "believing anything"? And if you are a good source of unbiased analyzation, how would you rate Breitbart compared to any of the listed nutwing Liberal rags mentioned? Is Breitbart more Right than they are Left, about the same, or more moderate? I would love to hear the breakdown from such an unbiased source. (Man it is hard to type while laughing.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎9‎/‎18‎/‎2018 at 4:29 PM, Yeoj said:

 

Dude if you think Breitbart is a credible news source then you might as well stop using the terms "fake news" and "media bias". Like seriously, if you believe that, you'll believe anything.

Yeoj- do you think the Mr. Kavanaughs accuser is credible  and telling the truth?   Do you think she decided, without outside influence, to bring this matter to national attention now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/18/2018 at 4:29 PM, Yeoj said:

 

Dude if you think Breitbart is a credible news source then you might as well stop using the terms "fake news" and "media bias". Like seriously, if you believe that, you'll believe anything.

Yes, this lady is REAL credible!  She can't remember where, when or how it happened.  But I'm sure you believes this.  Right, Dude!?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, stevenash said:

Yeoj- do you think the Mr. Kavanaughs accuser is credible  and telling the truth?   Do you think she decided, without outside influence, to bring this matter to national attention now?

I don't know the lady and I haven't really paid enough attention to her story to make a decision. I also think its BS to sit on her information and leak it out against her will like the Dems did. Congress makes everything political now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Yeoj said:

I don't know the lady and I haven't really paid enough attention to her story to make a decision. I also think its BS to sit on her information and leak it out against her will like the Dems did. Congress makes everything political now. 

Just think of how bad society has gotten. Someone can accuse you of something, while admittedly not recalling the where, when, or with who it happened. The lady says she doesn't even know what year, don't know where, it is crazy. It is a shame how political our world is nowadays. Republican, Democrat, don't matter, it's sickening.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,937
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    jacobmartin
    Newest Member
    jacobmartin
    Joined


  • Posts

    • There is a difference, but I wouldn't at all put it past Trump to do so if he had the infrastructure in place to get away with it like the Dems currently do.  With the amount of effort he's invested in ruining those republicans who've opposed him, it wouldn't surprise me one bit.
    • I think it will be an interesting case and could potentially come up for appeal on a different constitutional point.  The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that the government doesn’t have to take possession of property in order to take it under the meaning of the Fifth Amendment.  If they take away the enjoyment or use of the property, it is no different than physically seizing it to build a highway for example. In a lawsuit as opposed to a criminal trial, a person/plaintiff doesn’t have to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt but rather by a preponderance of evidence or “more likely” to have happened. Maybe it could be described as more likely yes than no or 51%-49%.  ”IF” it can be shown at a trial by a preponderance of evidence that Texas more likely yes than no caused the flooding with its engineering of the project, the people suing might have a case. But…. Does that alone win the case under the Fifth Amendment taking clause? I am not so sure. In US v Causby the Supreme Court ruled that the US government took a man’s property by flying airplanes over it. It was a public airport lawfully leased by the US in WWII and used to fly heavy bombers from it. Causby had an egg farm and the extremely loud noise of some airplanes under full power and sometimes at night with a landing lights being so close, it bothered and scared the family and damaged his egg farm production. Some chickens died and some quit laying eggs due to the extreme disturbances and lights at night. The Supreme Court ruled in Causby’s favor saying that the US had taken away the enjoyment and use of his land even though they didn’t physically seize it. The use of the land was hampered and that was enough for the taking clause under the Fifth Amendment. So in the IH-10 case, did Texas take away the use or enjoyment of the property?  A point of Causby was that the military bombers at a public airport was certainly for “public use”. The planes were public/taxpayers’ and the airport and lease were taxpayers’ property so the “public” definitely used it   My question in this lawsuit against Texas, even in they can prove the damage, was the damage (like in Causby) for “public use”? If not would it then not be a Fifth Amendment case but rather a state law case?  If Texas law denies such a lawsuit under state sovereignty and the families can’t prove a Fifth Amendment case of “public use”, could they prove the damages but still lose the case under state law? I haven’t read that anywhere and just thinking out loud. I could be way off base. But I think it could be interesting…..
    • Both sides...that is, everyone tries to get their people elected. Trump has not weaponized the government to bankrupt and imprison his political opponents. Night and day difference for me.
    • Surely you're aware of the great lengths Trump has gone to disrupt the elections and destroy the careers of republican politicians who haven't supported some of his most outlandish claims, or dared to question him or disagree with him about January 6.  You and I actually agree on this issue, although it must only go one way for you, because Trump's actions against republicans who didn't fall into lockstep with him is one of my biggest concerns about reelecting him.  The fact that he took action to affect literally hundreds of republican primaries from national elections down to municipal levels across the country, is concerning. It would've been one thing had he done it in an effort to help republicans win. Instead his purpose was to push out his perceived detractors and install MAGA politicians at every level of government in as many places as possible, and has resulted in a fractured republican party.
    • Lmao. No doubt. With a name like that, he would've gotten made fun of even if he was home-schooled.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...