Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

John Kerry Has Some Explaining To Do!

Page 2 of 2 [ 29 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Previous topic | Next topic

Mr Reynholm
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Feb 2019
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,363
Location: Tulsa, OK

28 Apr 2021, 4:16 pm

Fnord wrote:
I never take seriously anything Mr. Reynholm posts anyway.

:heart:



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,952
Location:      

28 Apr 2021, 4:17 pm

AP, Reuters, and UPI are more reliable than CNN, Fox, or (especially) Newsmax.  Where the major corporate networks (ABC, BBC, CBS, NBC, et cetera) agree on the essential facts (not their commentaries) is where the truth is found, but I always fact-check with AP, Reuters, and UPI (among others).


_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.


GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

28 Apr 2021, 4:22 pm

VegetableMan wrote:
roronoa79 wrote:
Fnord wrote:
I never take seriously anything Mr. Reynholm posts anyway.

I really try to take it seriously but it gets very hard when someone leads with a link to Newsmax.


Just out of curiosity, what would you consider a viable news source?

Don't get me wrong. I don't agree with Reynholm on most things. But considering that most corporate news, like CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, etc, are garbage, where do we go for news that doesn't have a bias that is favorable toward the political establishment?

One ought to check multiple sources from opposing perspectives rather than rely on a single news source - especially if it is a politically contentious subject.



VegetableMan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,208
Location: Illinois

28 Apr 2021, 4:43 pm

Fnord wrote:
AP, Reuters, and UPI are more reliable than CNN, Fox, or (especially) Newsmax.  Where the major corporate networks (ABC, BBC, CBS, NBC, et cetera) agree on the essential facts (not their commentaries) is where the truth is found, but I always fact-check with AP, Reuters, and UPI (among others).


None of the news sources you list are reliable because they are owned by corporations that are invested in maintaining the status quo.


_________________
What do you call a hot dog in a gangster suit?

Oscar Meyer Lansky


cberg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,183
Location: A swiftly tilting planet

28 Apr 2021, 5:53 pm

Mr Reynholm wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Mr Reynholm wrote:
... No. It’s true. And the Clintons made millions!
What are you going to do about it?

Public Servants should be held accountable no matter how old the news is.


This is awfully ironic coming from the supporter of a public servant who claims total impunity.


_________________
"Standing on a well-chilled cinder, we see the fading of the suns, and try to recall the vanished brilliance of the origin of the worlds."
-Georges Lemaitre
"I fly through hyperspace, in my green computer interface"
-Gem Tos :mrgreen:


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,952
Location:      

28 Apr 2021, 6:03 pm

VegetableMan wrote:
Fnord wrote:
AP, Reuters, and UPI are more reliable than CNN, Fox, or (especially) Newsmax.  Where the major corporate networks (ABC, BBC, CBS, NBC, et cetera) agree on the essential facts (not their commentaries) is where the truth is found, but I always fact-check with AP, Reuters, and UPI (among others).
None of the news sources you list are reliable because they are owned by corporations that are invested in maintaining the status quo.
Better these than to believe an independent individual to be a reliable source of news when that individual has no reporters on staff and no journalistic skills of his own; whose only sources for information are similarly-limited individuals on YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook; and whose only claim to fame is an anonymous account on a social website used by social misfits and right-wing trolls.


_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

28 Apr 2021, 6:33 pm

Fnord wrote:
I never take seriously anything Mr. Reynholm posts anyway.


Quote:
Ironic



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

28 Apr 2021, 6:34 pm

VegetableMan wrote:

Just out of curiosity, what would you consider a viable news source?

Don't get me wrong. I don't agree with Reynholm on most things. But considering that most corporate news, like CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, etc, are garbage, where do we go for news that doesn't have a bias that is favorable toward the political establishment?


:thumright:



VegetableMan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,208
Location: Illinois

28 Apr 2021, 7:49 pm

Fnord wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
Fnord wrote:
AP, Reuters, and UPI are more reliable than CNN, Fox, or (especially) Newsmax.  Where the major corporate networks (ABC, BBC, CBS, NBC, et cetera) agree on the essential facts (not their commentaries) is where the truth is found, but I always fact-check with AP, Reuters, and UPI (among others).
None of the news sources you list are reliable because they are owned by corporations that are invested in maintaining the status quo.
Better these than to believe an independent individual to be a reliable source of news when that individual has no reporters on staff and no journalistic skills of his own; whose only sources for information are similarly-limited individuals on YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook; and whose only claim to fame is an anonymous account on a social website used by social misfits and right-wing trolls.


You can't tar and feather all voices on social media platforms just because there are crackpots that occupy these spaces.

What you don't seem to comprehend is that all the media sources you listed are run by the same corporate interests that run the government. How would you expect to get the truth from them?


_________________
What do you call a hot dog in a gangster suit?

Oscar Meyer Lansky


cberg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,183
Location: A swiftly tilting planet

28 Apr 2021, 10:46 pm

Quote:
You can't tar and feather all voices on social media platforms just because there are crackpots that occupy these spaces.


Sure I can, it's a free country & you'd have to be nuts to sign all your data away to silicon valley without reading the fine print.


_________________
"Standing on a well-chilled cinder, we see the fading of the suns, and try to recall the vanished brilliance of the origin of the worlds."
-Georges Lemaitre
"I fly through hyperspace, in my green computer interface"
-Gem Tos :mrgreen:


VegetableMan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,208
Location: Illinois

29 Apr 2021, 8:21 am

Fnord wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
Fnord wrote:
AP, Reuters, and UPI are more reliable than CNN, Fox, or (especially) Newsmax.  Where the major corporate networks (ABC, BBC, CBS, NBC, et cetera) agree on the essential facts (not their commentaries) is where the truth is found, but I always fact-check with AP, Reuters, and UPI (among others).
None of the news sources you list are reliable because they are owned by corporations that are invested in maintaining the status quo.
Better these than to believe an independent individual to be a reliable source of news when that individual has no reporters on staff and no journalistic skills of his own; whose only sources for information are similarly-limited individuals on YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook; and whose only claim to fame is an anonymous account on a social website used by social misfits and right-wing trolls.


I'm talking about independent journalists like Chris Hedges, who has won a Pulitzer Prize for his his content. Of course, he is demonized by corporate journalists because he is bringing a message the Oligarchs don't approve of.


_________________
What do you call a hot dog in a gangster suit?

Oscar Meyer Lansky


VegetableMan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,208
Location: Illinois

29 Apr 2021, 8:22 am

cberg wrote:
Quote:
You can't tar and feather all voices on social media platforms just because there are crackpots that occupy these spaces.


Sure I can, it's a free country & you'd have to be nuts to sign all your data away to silicon valley without reading the fine print.


You have no idea what I'm talking about, do you?


_________________
What do you call a hot dog in a gangster suit?

Oscar Meyer Lansky


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

29 Apr 2021, 7:25 pm

Mr Reynholm wrote:
How come the FBI hasn't raided Kerry's offices yet?
We all know why.


Because there's nothing to it?


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer