The fall of CNN fake news

[buckshot24]

you guys are so cute.

when's the wedding? ....er, how can alts get married, though?

More wild conspiracy theories from leftist whackos. Once and for all, we landed on the moon, ok?

 

[Commodus]

CNN news division is more biased than Fox's news division, not even close.

Fox takes its marching orders from the Republican party. CNN may not be a bastion of perfect impartiality, but it doesn't do that with either party. You're wrong.

 

[Bowfinger]

CNN news division is more biased than Fox's news division, not even close.

I'll take Alternative Facts for $1,000, Alex.

 

[buckshot24]

I'll take Alternative Facts for $1,000, Alex.

Hey, if we're just throwing assertions around, why not?

Did you find those citations yet?

 

[buckshot24]

Fox takes its marching orders from the Republican party. CNN doesn't do that with either party. You're wrong.

What? Not Putin? And you're talking out of your rear end.

 

[Bowfinger]

Did you find those citations yet?

ibid

 

[buckshot24]

ibid

You lied and know it.

 

[emperus]

i dont understand this as a counterargument.

i said the investigation was about russias alleged involvement in the election, not specific russia-trump-connections, and that there was no hard evidence at all made public.

now correct me if im wrong here, but it appears that your position is that the very existence of an investigation refutes my argument somehow. is that true?

The FBI is specifically looking into "the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government, and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts. "

Again, read Comey's statements. I'm not sure what distinction you are trying to make, but the FBI is SPECIFICALLY looking into Trump(campaign) and it's Russia ties. And because it is an active investigation, there will be no evidence made public unless they decide to proceed with charges. So, the lack of public evidence in an open investigation (something that never happens) is not proof of no evidence. I hope you understand how that works. Again, what point are you trying to make that there is no hard evidence in an ACTIVE investigation. And worse of all you say all this while decrying leaks and calling all anonymous source reports FAKE NEWS.

 

[Bowfinger]

You lied and know it.

You're projecting, and everyone knows it.

 

[buckshot24]

The FBI is specifically looking into "the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government, and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts. "

Again, read Comey's statements. I'm not sure what distinction you are trying to make, but the FBI is SPECIFICALLY looking into Trump(campaign) and it's Russia ties. And because it is an active investigation, there will be no evidence made public unless they decide to proceed with charges. So, the lack of public evidence in an open investigation (something that never happens) is not proof of no evidence. I hope you understand how that works. Again, what point are you trying to make that there is no hard evidence in an ACTIVE investigation. And worse of all you say all this while decrying leaks and calling all anonymous source reports FAKE NEWS.

Well so much for your integrity.

 

[buckshot24]

You're projecting, and everyone knows it.

Please find those citations as soon as you can, thanks.

 

[Bowfinger]

Please find those citations as soon as you can, thanks.

ibid

 

[buckshot24]

ibid

You searched and couldn't find it so you play this game, didn't you?

 

[buckshot24]

The FBI is specifically looking into "the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government, and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts. "

Again, read Comey's statements. I'm not sure what distinction you are trying to make, but the FBI is SPECIFICALLY looking into Trump(campaign) and it's Russia ties. And because it is an active investigation, there will be no evidence made public unless they decide to proceed with charges. So, the lack of public evidence in an open investigation (something that never happens) is not proof of no evidence. I hope you understand how that works. Again, what point are you trying to make that there is no hard evidence in an ACTIVE investigation. And worse of all you say all this while decrying leaks and calling all anonymous source reports FAKE NEWS.

Replace "specifically" with exclusively and it might make more sense to you. Lots of things that shouldn't have been leaked has leaked, the fact that no evidence or indication that Trump colluded with Russia has been leaked isn't proof that there isn't something there just highly indicative that there isn't anything there.

 

[Commodus]

What? Not Putin? And you're talking out of your rear end.

Fox says what the Republicans want it to; if they're mean or kind to Putin, it doesn't matter.

Also, are you serious? Fox News is legendary for deep throating the Republican party over the past couple of decades. In 2010 alone it donated $1 million to the Republican Governors Association. Its leadership is known to issue memos that order hosts to highlight Republican views and attack Democratic views. It was a cheerleader for the Bush administration's false premise for entering the Iraq War; it denies the scientific realities of climate change; it 'conveniently' gets access to Republicans for interviews who won't speak elsewhere (because, of course, they know Fox will never question their ideas).

 

[buckshot24]

Fox says what the Republicans want it to; if they're mean or kind to Putin, it doesn't matter.

Also, are you serious? Fox News is legendary for deep throating the Republican party over the past couple of decades. In 2010 alone it donated $1 million to the Republican Governors Association. Its leadership is known to issue memos that order hosts to highlight Republican views and attack Democratic views. It was a cheerleader for the Bush administration's false premise for entering the Iraq War; it denies the scientific realities of climate change; it 'conveniently' gets access to Republicans for interviews who won't speak elsewhere (because, of course, they know Fox will never question their ideas).

What your liberal friends tell you on FB isn't actual evidence.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

What your liberal friends tell you on FB isn't actual evidence.

This has to be where you work.

 

[Commodus]

What your liberal friends tell you on FB isn't actual evidence.

These aren't anecdotal Facebook remarks, you cowardly asshole.

It's an absolute fact that Fox donated to the RGA. It's an absolute fact that the company issues those memos. And of course, you just have to watch Fox to see how it spins issues. It was completely gung-ho in supporting the Iraq War. It regularly courts climate change deniers. And as I mentioned earlier, it deliberately omitted the scale of the CBO's estimates for the AHCA's damage because it wants the bill passed.

You're still wrong.

 

[emperus]

Replace "specifically" with exclusively and it might make more sense to you. Lots of things that shouldn't have been leaked has leaked, the fact that no evidence or indication that Trump colluded with Russia has been leaked isn't proof that there isn't something there just highly indicative that there isn't anything there.

Or maybe you can type out in English what you think replacing Specifically with Exclusively means. I'm really at a loss to understand the distinction that you or snarfbot are trying to make. There is an investigation into Russia meddling into the election and part of the investigation is focused in on the Trump's teams ties to Russia and whether they colluded with Russia. This is per the FBI director. So again, how does whether it is specifically or exclusively matter?

And please don't toss out the word integrity. From the conversations I've had with you on this forum, I'm sure you don't have an idea what it means.

 

[zinfamous]

More wild conspiracy theories from leftist whackos. Once and for all, we landed on the moon, ok?

bullshit! I filmed that in my basement with Alky and Ironwing.

 

[zinfamous]

What your liberal friends tell you on FB isn't actual evidence.

amazing how this obviously doesn't apply to you and your conservative friends...oh, and your Sunday school teacher.

 

[buckshot24]

These aren't anecdotal Facebook remarks, you cowardly asshole.

An internet tough guy throwing out insults across the interwebs and calling me a coward is funny.

 

[buckshot24]

Or maybe you can type out in English what you think replacing Specifically with Exclusively means. I'm really at a loss to understand the distinction that you or snarfbot are trying to make. There is an investigation into Russia meddling into the election and part of the investigation is focused in on the Trump's teams ties to Russia and whether they colluded with Russia. This is per the FBI director. So again, how does whether it is specifically or exclusively matter?

And please don't toss out the word integrity. From the conversations I've had with you on this forum, I'm sure you don't have an idea what it means.

He wasn't saying they weren't looking into those ties, your blue goggles made you see something that wasn't there. Have some integrity and take back your baseless complaint. It is clear as day.

 

[buckshot24]

Only in this sewer do we have a producer for CNN explicitly saying that the Russia thing is being covered for ratings and cash does Fox News get dragged through the mud.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

bullshit! I filmed that in my basement with Alky and Ironwing.

and my invite was......??