Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fauci redefines gain of function research

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Fauci redefines gain of function research

    Watch through, he admits it as Rand Paul has done his homework.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Shellback88 View Post
    Watch through, he admits it as Rand Paul has done his homework.
    He's so all over the place and contradicts himself so much. And his politicking and the hero worship of him makes me sick

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Atwater27 View Post

      He's so all over the place and contradicts himself so much. And his politicking and the hero worship of him makes me sick
      Rand Paul destroyed him. Exposed.

      Comment


      • #4
        You guys are funny. Your minds were SO OBVIOUSLY made up before they even spoke.

        I would like to hear from a Snopes-like website as to whether the definition was changed as Rand Paul said. That'd go a long way to determining who's right and who's the asshole.

        Comment


        • #5
          WE HAVE A LEADER IN THE A§§HOLE RACE!

          That video is titled and captioned on YouTube as follows:

          'DR FAUCI WILL BE INDICTED AND JAILED FOR LIFE'
          Rand Paul Just Ended Fauci's Career



          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by BroncoBuff View Post
            You guys are funny. Your minds were SO OBVIOUSLY made up before they even spoke.

            I would like to hear from a Snopes-like website as to whether the definition was changed as Rand Paul said. That'd go a long way to determining who's right and who's the asshole.
            Lol, snopes. So, would these be like the FB fact checkers that explained they just give opinions?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by BroncoBuff View Post
              WE HAVE A LEADER IN THE A§§HOLE RACE!

              That video is titled and captioned on YouTube as follows:

              'DR FAUCI WILL BE INDICTED AND JAILED FOR LIFE'
              Rand Paul Just Ended Fauci's Career



              From the justice I’ve seen lately highly unlikely. I trust those matters to Jesus.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Shellback88 View Post
                Lol, snopes. So, would these be like the FB fact checkers that explained they just give opinions?
                So ..... you're actually on board with this nonsense?
                .
                'DR FAUCI WILL BE INDICTED AND JAILED FOR LIFE'
                Rand Paul Just Ended Fauci's Career
                .
                Please say no...?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Shellback88 View Post

                  Lol, snopes. So, would these be like the FB fact checkers that explained they just give opinions?
                  If you have dirt on Snopes, I'd love to see it.

                  I'm not pro- or anti- ... Snopes just sprang to mind there.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by BroncoBuff View Post

                    If you have dirt on Snopes, I'd love to see it.

                    I'm not pro- or anti- ... Snopes just sprang to mind there.
                    Just use logic, anyone or any organization that gets to have the final say on truth would have a powerful position. Absolute truth can only come from the Creator. People just have opinions.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by BroncoBuff View Post

                      So ..... you're actually on board with this nonsense?
                      .
                      'DR FAUCI WILL BE INDICTED AND JAILED FOR LIFE'
                      Rand Paul Just Ended Fauci's Career
                      .


                      Please say no...?
                      I’m not really following it. I think the problems go far beyond Fauci. They (whoever that is) are redefining things.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by BroncoBuff View Post

                        If you have dirt on Snopes, I'd love to see it.

                        I'm not pro- or anti- ... Snopes just sprang to mind there.
                        There general fact checking is good. For a while, their political fact checking was five by one far left progressive blogger and it was horrendous. After the backlash from that, I think they've tried to clean up their act on the political front.

                        Comment


                        • BroncoBuff
                          BroncoBuff commented
                          Editing a comment
                          Did you used to be 'tnedator?'

                      • #13
                        Originally posted by Tned View Post
                        There general fact checking is good. For a while, their political fact checking was five by one far left progressive blogger and it was horrendous. After the backlash from that, I think they've tried to clean up their act on the political front.
                        Thanks for that, Snopes is so easy to use. But if an issue is complicated, I go to this clearinghouse site: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ It's a huge site and kinda complicated, but if you got the time you'll find the answer. Too bad so few guys here will accept those answers ...

                        Comment


                        • #14
                          Originally posted by BroncoBuff View Post

                          Thanks for that, Snopes is so easy to use. But if an issue is complicated, I go to this clearinghouse site: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ It's a huge site and kinda complicated, but if you got the time you'll find the answer. Too bad so few guys here will accept those answers ...
                          Wow, BB. Just looked up that site's founder and their methodology. Thanks for the link.

                          Comment


                          • #15
                            Originally posted by orangeatheist View Post
                            Wow, BB. Just looked up that site's founder and their methodology. Thanks for the link.
                            Yeah, they're solid gold when it comes to providing and evaluating mass numbers of sources.

                            But it's a bit of a jungle, too ... I sometimes get frustrated trying to find exactly what I'm looking for. But then again I sometimes get frustrated searching through Netflix and Prime Video too, so there you go.

                            Comment


                            • #16
                              Originally posted by BroncoBuff View Post

                              Thanks for that, Snopes is so easy to use. But if an issue is complicated, I go to this clearinghouse site: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ It's a huge site and kinda complicated, but if you got the time you'll find the answer. Too bad so few guys here will accept those answers ...
                              I'm familiar with it and saw it shortly after it launched and have checked it out now and then.

                              Reality is, that if people aren't able to recognize the directional bias of each "news" organization, then they both lack self awareness and are too deep in their respective bubble.

                              Comment


                              • #17
                                Originally posted by Tned View Post

                                I'm familiar with it and saw it shortly after it launched and have checked it out now and then.

                                Reality is, that if people aren't able to recognize the directional bias of each "news" organization, then they both lack self awareness and are too deep in their respective bubble.
                                As I was remarking to Shellback, sometimes the bias can be quickly discerned simply by the photo accompanying the article. If the picture is unflattering -- say, the person is shouting or grumpy-looking, then that article is probably going to be as unflattering as the picture the writer and/or publisher chose. If one's paying attention to the signals, it's rare to get beyond the first sentence of any article that has much bias without going "wow, this isn't very objective".

                                Comment


                                • #18
                                  Originally posted by Tned View Post
                                  I'm familiar with it and saw it shortly after it launched and have checked it out now and then.

                                  Reality is, that if people aren't able to recognize the directional bias of each "news" organization, then they both lack self awareness and are too deep in their respective bubble.
                                  Agreed. I'm guilty of watching MSNBC quite a lot, but now they're losing two of my favorites - Brian Williams is gone, and Rachel Maddow is ready to go.

                                  But I don't consider MSNBC a "news outlet" per se, but rather an outlet for outrage. Fox is the same - Chris Wallace just left there, the scuttlebut is he was fed up with the nonsense. I DVR Tucker Carlson, and believe me - that's where the nonsense is. He has devolved into an anger- spewing insult machine.

                                  Comment


                                  • #19
                                    Originally posted by Blueflame View Post

                                    As I was remarking to Shellback, sometimes the bias can be quickly discerned simply by the photo accompanying the article. If the picture is unflattering -- say, the person is shouting or grumpy-looking, then that article is probably going to be as unflattering as the picture the writer and/or publisher chose. If one's paying attention to the signals, it's rare to get beyond the first sentence of any article that has much bias without going "wow, this isn't very objective".
                                    Take coverage of Trump. Some outlets liked to use words like "lied," which no real news organization would do. I legitimate news organization might say, "Trump said ______, but the actual event he referred to was ____ and ___, blah, blah." A biased news organization like WaPo or NYT would say, "in talking about the _____ event, Trump lied when he stated _____."

                                    Obviously, right biased "news" organizations do the same thing when describing what Biden does or the right's favorite target, Fauci.

                                    Most just like to point out the bias of "news" organizations that aren't politically aligned with them, and ignore the equal bias in the organizations that align with them politically.

                                    Comment


                                    • #20
                                      Originally posted by BroncoBuff View Post

                                      Agreed. I'm guilty of watching MSNBC quite a lot, but now they're losing two of my favorites - Brian Williams is gone, and Rachel Maddow is ready to go.

                                      But I don't consider MSNBC a "news outlet" per se, but rather an outlet for outrage. Fox is the same - Chris Wallace just left there, the scuttlebut is he was fed up with the nonsense. I DVR Tucker Carlson, and believe me - that's where the nonsense is. He has devolved into an anger- spewing insult machine.
                                      I think with Wallace, it was probably mutual. I know he lost a lot of Fox fans when he went from being the very epitome of a professional journalist and turned into a Trump bashing commentator. That was sad to see, because Wallace used to be the perfect newsman, before he got a touch of TDS --- which I would never have expected to see on air from him, regardless of how he personally felt about Trump.

                                      Other than election night, or some major news event, I rarely turn on Fox. I've never watched a full Tucker, and doubt I have watched much more than 60 minutes in the whole time, since he got the prime time spot. The few times I've tried, he's either lost me with his opening comments, or his ridiculous way of questioning, pretending to be confused by answers, as a means to commentate during an interview.

                                      The only people on Fox I feel are pretty good (of the ones that were on when I was watching), is Bill Hemmer, Dana Petrino, Bret Bair and Shannon Breem. All of them attempt to minimize their bias.

                                      I have no patience for people that criticize people for posting a link to Foxnews or the like, but then post CNN links as if they are centrist news, or NYT or WaPo for that matter. There are VERY few unbiased news sources these days.

                                      Personally, I prefer to read/follow "news" outfits outside my bubble. I routinely read NBC, WaPo/NYT (free articles, won't pay for that biased trash), CNN, etc. If I'm having a political debate, I will almost always post supporting material from your bubble, not mine.

                                      Something that you lefties can't grasp is how us conservatives are marginalized, minimalized, and attacked on a regular basis. For instance, it's impossible to watch network TV, whether scripted evening comedy/dramas or late night TV, without having progressive agendas shoved down your throat, or storylines that attack/mock conservative views.

                                      So, while we both have our biased "news" organizations, only the left has Hollywood and tech/social media companies, and at this point those a far more powerful anti-conservative machines than any news organization in existence today.
                                      Last edited by Tned; 12-25-2021, 11:26 PM.

                                      Comment


                                      • #21
                                        Originally posted by Tned View Post

                                        Take coverage of Trump. Some outlets liked to use words like "lied," which no real news organization would do. I legitimate news organization might say, "Trump said ______, but the actual event he referred to was ____ and ___, blah, blah." A biased news organization like WaPo or NYT would say, "in talking about the _____ event, Trump lied when he stated _____."

                                        Obviously, right biased "news" organizations do the same thing when describing what Biden does or the right's favorite target, Fauci.

                                        Most just like to point out the bias of "news" organizations that aren't politically aligned with them, and ignore the equal bias in the organizations that align with them politically.
                                        My point is illustrated more concisely with a celebrity who isn't an American politician. Let's use Queen Elizabeth as an example. An article using the picture on the left will be a positive one. The one on the right isn't necessarily unflattering, but she's somber and not smiling. That article is less certain to be favorable of the Queen and the difference in the photos does give a clue as to the content of the article as well.

                                        Comment


                                        • #22
                                          Originally posted by Blueflame View Post

                                          My point is illustrated more concisely with a celebrity who isn't an American politician. Let's use Queen Elizabeth as an example. An article using the picture on the left will be a positive one. The one on the right isn't necessarily unflattering, but she's somber and not smiling. That article is less certain to be favorable of the Queen and the difference in the photos does give a clue as to the content of the article as well.
                                          Sorry, wasn't discounting that. No question that the lefties liked to lead with the worst Trump photos and the right the same with Hillary and Biden photos. Just one of the many subtle, or not so subtle, forms of bias that almost all "news" organizations are guilty of.

                                          Comment


                                          • #23
                                            Originally posted by Tned View Post

                                            Sorry, wasn't discounting that. No question that the lefties liked to lead with the worst Trump photos and the right the same with Hillary and Biden photos. Just one of the many subtle, or not so subtle, forms of bias that almost all "news" organizations are guilty of.
                                            Most definitely -- if one's paying attention, it's possible to discern bias just from the photo. Of course there are tons of other signals of intentions as well, but the picture is one that not everyone thinks about and it's a fairly decent indicator. Anytime you see a picture of a politician yelling or looking infuriated, you don't really need to read the article to know it's a "hit piece".

                                            Comment


                                            • #24
                                              Originally posted by Tned View Post
                                              I think with Wallace, it was probably mutual. I know he lost a lot of Fox fans when he went from being the very epitome of a professional journalist and turned into a Trump bashing commentator. That was sad to see, because Wallace used to be the perfect newsman, before he got a touch of TDS --- which I would never have expected to see on air from him, regardless of how he personally felt about Trump.
                                              Wow ... we're never going to see exactly eye-to-eye.

                                              See, I believe "Trump bashing," (or criticizing or denouncing) is the duty of every clear-eyed American. YOU'RE FREE TO HOLD YOUR VIEWS OF COURSE, but I believe Trump is narrow-minded, self-centered, naive, narcissistic, and a clear and present danger to the United State. Even worse (from your perspective), I think all of this is easily visible, even with casual observation.




                                              BTW - Wallace is joining the new CNN streaming news ... along with that irrepressible cutie Kasie Hunt, an MSNBC refugee.

                                              Comment


                                              • #25
                                                Originally posted by BroncoBuff View Post
                                                Wow ... we're never going to see exactly eye-to-eye.

                                                See, I believe "Trump bashing," (or criticizing or denouncing) is the duty of every clear-eyed American.
                                                We won't then, because I KNOW a journalist is supposed to be a disinterested observer, not let his personal feelings be part of the story, which is what commentators do. Wallace promoted himself as an unbiased, professional journalist.

                                                YOU'RE FREE TO HOLD YOUR VIEWS OF COURSE, but I believe Trump is narrow-minded, self-centered, naive, narcissistic
                                                I agree.

                                                , and a clear and present danger to the United State. Even worse (from your perspective), I think all of this is easily visible, even with casual observation
                                                This is due to the TDS your bubble has brainwashed you with.




                                                Comment

                                                Working...
                                                X