• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Dr. Fauci, brace yourself, here they come

cytg111

cytg111

Lifer
This popped up on a social media platform. If they are hitting me, they are targeting broad.



*accountability*
*audit of what Fauci learned when*

The good doctor is being set up as Trumps scapegoat.
I am almost laughing. Then remember that Fauci looks and sounds like a stand up decent and smart guy.

Fauci is about to learn what so many has learned before him.

ps. Fitton and Dobbs sound like they should take their act to Alex Jones... its crazy.
 
cytg111 said:
I dont see/read a lot of RT, but I think even they are more subtle than that (or just smarter?)
Click to expand...

RT is an odd News organization. Seems rather rag tag with various fringe voices that were once popular but have moved past their prime. Chris Hedges, Jesse Ventura, and even Larry King are there for example.

It seems not as blatant as Fox in Political Message, but also has a very different feel/attitude. It's certainly not a Political Partisan like Fox. Instead it's more of a constant Critic of the US in its' slant. I watched Chris Hedges for awhile and tried a few of their other shows, but they always seemed a little odd and off. As did Chris Hedges, which fits well with the feel of RT, but seems to stem from his lifetime of being an eyewitness to some of the worst atrocities of the last 30+ years.
 
sandorski said:
RT is an odd News organization. Seems rather rag tag with various fringe voices that were once popular but have moved past their prime. Chris Hedges, Jesse Ventura, and even Larry King are there for example.

It seems not as blatant as Fox in Political Message, but also has a very different feel/attitude. It's certainly not a Political Partisan like Fox. Instead it's more of a constant Critic of the US in its' slant. I watched Chris Hedges for awhile and tried a few of their other shows, but they always seemed a little odd and off. As did Chris Hedges, which fits well with the feel of RT, but seems to stem from his lifetime of being an eyewitness to some of the worst atrocities of the last 30+ years.
Click to expand...
The only role of RT is to cause disagreement in the US and undermine faith in American institutions. The Russians don’t care what political point of view meets those goals.
 
brycejones said:
The only role of RT is to cause disagreement in the US and undermine faith in American institutions. The Russians don’t care what political point of view meets those goals.
Click to expand...

I would agree that's the goal. However, that doesn't mean that everything on it is tainted or unworthy of watching. They give voice to many that the mainstream media don't want to hear from, at least on a regular basis. There are times when they want those voices like after a specific tragedy or something. Like Chris Hedges for eg.
 
sandorski said:
I would agree that's the goal. However, that doesn't mean that everything on it is tainted or unworthy of watching. They give voice to many that the mainstream media don't want to hear from, at least on a regular basis. There are times when they want those voices like after a specific tragedy or something. Like Chris Hedges for eg.
Click to expand...
Why would the mainstream media not want to hear from someone credible?
 
sandorski said:
Someone credible or credible Story?
Click to expand...
Did I stutter? Credible new information. Fuck opinions. Form your own opinions, don't rely on others to tell you what to think. If the mainstream media doesn't want to hear from a specific person, it is probably because their credibility is so low as to not be worth wasting resources on them, especially if there is a risk of dragging their own credibility down.
 
Typical FOX viewer: "I knew it! Damn, I just knew Fauci was a Democrat socialist plant who only wants to make Trump look bad."
 
dank69 said:
Did I stutter? Credible new information. Fuck opinions. Form your own opinions, don't rely on others to tell you what to think. If the mainstream media doesn't want to hear from a specific person, it is probably because their credibility is so low as to not be worth wasting resources on them, especially if there is a risk of dragging their own credibility down.
Click to expand...

Calm down dude. I disagree with your assessment as to why. Chris Hedges or Noam Chomsky are both credible, they just don't resonate well if the Mainstream viewpoints and thus don't get much attention. That is especially true of Noam Chomsky who was at one time quite popular among the Press. His views during the Vietnam War became very controversial though and the Media just stopped seeking his opinions. "Credibility" has little to do with it.
 
sandorski said:
Calm down dude. I disagree with your assessment as to why. Chris Hedges or Noam Chomsky are both credible, they just don't resonate well if the Mainstream viewpoints and thus don't get much attention. That is especially true of Noam Chomsky who was at one time quite popular among the Press. His views during the Vietnam War became very controversial though and the Media just stopped seeking his opinions. "Credibility" has little to do with it.
Click to expand...
I am trying to get you to understand the implications of your accusation that the mainstream media gives a shit about mainstream viewpoints. So do us a favor and finish your theory. Walk us through an example of a non-mainstream viewpoint that deserves more attention and that the mainstream media is ignoring, and then detail their reasons for ignoring it and how they manage to get all the mainstream outlets to ignore it. Most importantly, please define who "they" are.
 
dank69 said:
I am trying to get you to understand the implications of your accusation that the mainstream media gives a shit about mainstream viewpoints. So do us a favor and finish your theory. Walk us through an example of a non-mainstream viewpoint that deserves more attention and that the mainstream media is ignoring, and then detail their reasons for ignoring it and how they manage to get all the mainstream outlets to ignore it. Most importantly, please define who "they" are.
Click to expand...

For fucks sakes dude. No, I'm not answering your questions. I gave a review of RT, said some things, and that's that. I don't feel like getting into a scrap because you feel offended on some aspect of what I said.
 
dank69 said:
I am trying to get you to understand the implications of your accusation that the mainstream media gives a shit about mainstream viewpoints. So do us a favor and finish your theory. Walk us through an example of a non-mainstream viewpoint that deserves more attention and that the mainstream media is ignoring, and then detail their reasons for ignoring it and how they manage to get all the mainstream outlets to ignore it. Most importantly, please define who "they" are.
Click to expand...
This really isn't that hard. If you look at Trump's policy actions, and the ones that are going to have the biggest impacts, probably the most devastating policy actions revolve around climate change. And yet these policies receive far less press coverage than Trump's daily tweets. But people prefer to be entertained, and Trump's tweets are much more entertaining than the fact that Trump is trying to build a sea wall around his golf course in Ireland to protect it against rising sea levels, so what spends more time in the papers? Now did the mainstream media cover this? Yes, but it wasn't plastered all over.

Note that I'm not saying the viewpoints are there at all. I'm not calling these organizations fake news, or trying to demonize the mainstream media as an enemy to the people. However, if you want to get an accurate picture of what is happening in the world, you can't just use a single source, and definitely not just an American source. You need to read Al Jazeera, the Guardian, the Times of India, etc in addition to the New York Times if you want an accurate picture. And you definitely won't get it watching cable news.
 
mect said:
This really isn't that hard. If you look at Trump's policy actions, and the ones that are going to have the biggest impacts, probably the most devastating policy actions revolve around climate change. And yet these policies receive far less press coverage than Trump's daily tweets. But people prefer to be entertained, and Trump's tweets are much more entertaining than the fact that Trump is trying to build a sea wall around his golf course in Ireland to protect it against rising sea levels, so what spends more time in the papers? Now did the mainstream media cover this? Yes, but it wasn't plastered all over.

Note that I'm not saying the viewpoints are there at all. I'm not calling these organizations fake news, or trying to demonize the mainstream media as an enemy to the people. However, if you want to get an accurate picture of what is happening in the world, you can't just use a single source, and definitely not just an American source. You need to read Al Jazeera, the Guardian, the Times of India, etc in addition to the New York Times if you want an accurate picture. And you definitely won't get it watching cable news.
Click to expand...
There certainly is zero need to fill any gaps with RT.
 
sandorski said:
For fucks sakes dude. No, I'm not answering your questions. I gave a review of RT, said some things, and that's that. I don't feel like getting into a scrap because you feel offended on some aspect of what I said.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry you don't like being asked to defend your viewpoints.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top