Understand The Danger We Are In

[Thunk]

Lets get back on topic!

The point of this thread was to point out we are in serious danger because the vast majority of our "news" media is outright lying to us.

I used the example that there is currently no impeachment inquiry happening...even though the "news" tells us otherwise.

If there was an actual legitimate IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY happening in the house of representatives...why would the house of representatives be sending out fake subpoenas?

DEMONRATS FAKE Subpoenas

Democrats are Sending Letters NOT Subpoenas to Trump People – More Tricks from Dems Rep. Adam Schiff and the Democrat mob are NOT sending actual subpoenas to the Trump people. They are sending letters.

 

[Thunk]

Bye the way Old Lady...I have no problem with you keeping me honest! Keep it up!

 

[Thunk]

This "impeachment inquiry" is like the sandra fluke testimony.

If you recall, during the implementation of obamacare, sandra fluke testified in a congressional hearing that birth control should be free.

But she didn't!

The sprang a surprise speaker (sandra fluke) on Darrell Issa at the last minute & he said no way...

So democrats, in kahootz with the lying news media staged a committee hearing that looked real, especially with some good MSM camera angles and made it look like sandra fluke was giving official testimony in the hearing.

The MSM used their usual word-play and said she was "speaking infront of congressional members" (which was technically true) while showing the footage of the staged "hearing".

That is exactly what this "impeachment inquiry" is! .

 

[S.J.]

We have a "news" media that blatantly lies to us! Not a lie here and there about little things...but on a minute by minute basis about things of global importance!

For example, in the last week the media has been telling us that we are moving very close to the impeachment of the president of the united states. It could happen at any time now.

The truth is we are no closer to impeachment than we were a year ago...2 years ago. There has not even been a vote to formally INVESTIGATE for impeachment, or draw up articles of impeachment...nothing!

This is dangerous folks! This is the stuff of nazi germany!

^he says, while mindlessly parroting the things the right wing "media" (mostly entertainment sites) told him to say.

There is no "right wing media". Who do you think you're fooling?

My bad, they are "infotainment" sites.

Why don't you name these media giants for us? And when you start typing "Fox News" as your example, I'd like you to name a few conservatives from CNN, MSNBC, etc. who are the equivalent of Shepard Smith, Juan Williams, and Donna Brazile on Fox. If you can't, your argument fails.

 

[Thunk]

Why don't you name these media giants for us? And when you start typing "Fox News" as your example, I'd like you to name a few conservatives from CNN, MSNBC, etc. who are the equivalent of Shepard Smith, Juan Williams, and Donna Brazile on Fox. If you can't, your argument fails.

Don't forget chris wallace! That POS is insidious!

And ed henry was so combative last week they puled him off the air in the middle of fox & friends. Atleast he was off the set...they didn't actually say why.

 

[peach174]

wow Levin is spot on with everything.
They all do it.
Everyone of them give news spin rather than reporting.
They each give you info only what they want you to know not full information.
Some have become nothing but tabloids.

 

[Thunk]

Levin is great! But I have to turn the volume down when he starts yelling

 

[sparky]

Lets get back on topic!

The point of this thread was to point out we are in serious danger because the vast majority of our "news" media is outright lying to us.

any media is liable for so much as a misprinted name

and is obligated to reprint 'corrections'

this happens when complaints are made to them

so, where are they?

this should be easy to find.....

~S~

 

[Thunk]

any media is liable for so much as a misprinted name

and is obligated to reprint 'corrections'

What do you think this is 1970?

Many "news" outlets are being sued for hundreds of millions of dollars for what they all reported about nick sandman...Nick gave them the chance to retract & apologize...some did (even joy bayhar and whoopie) but most did not...and nick is going to be a billionare because of it.

 

[sparky]

any media is liable for so much as a misprinted name

and is obligated to reprint 'corrections'

What do you think this is 1970?

Many "news" outlets are being sued for hundreds of millions of dollars for what they all reported about nick sandman...Nick gave them the chance to retract & apologize...some did (even joy bayhar and whoopie) but most did not...and nick is going to be a billionare because of it.

yes, thus 'fakery' is outed>>>

The main legal recourse against fake news is a defamation lawsuit. You can sue someone for defamation if they published a false fact about you and you suffered some sort of damage as a result—such as a lost job, a decline in revenue, or a tarnished reputation.

~S~

 

[Thunk]

yes, thus 'fakery' is outed>>>

Only in the case of nick sandman because he is not a public figure.

When a public figure (trump, hannity, pelosi, madonna, etc) try to sue they will always lose because they are a "public figure".

I don't agree with it...but it's the way it is.

 

[sparky]

I don't agree with it...but it's the way it is.

so your 'take' is the media can lie all it wants to about Trump, Hillary, Obama, etc etc....as long as they are 'public figures'....?

~S~

 

[Thunk]

so your 'take' is the media can lie all it wants to about Trump, Hillary, Obama, etc etc....as long as they are 'public figures'....?

It's not "my take"...it is the way it is.

Don't you see with your own eyes they lie about Trump every day & get away with it?

Trump isn't afraid to sue somebody. He doesn't bother because he can't win! It would be a waste of time.

 

[sparky]

It's not "my take"...it is the way it is

No . it's 'your take' Mr Thunk

further, you seem to insist your opinion 'fact'

which is the entire jist of the 'Media fake news' contingent

~S~

 

[Thunk]

No . it's 'your take' Mr Thunk

further, you seem to insist your opinion 'fact'

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see!

 

[sparky]

and there are none so foolish as those who choose to be blind

~S~

 

[Thunk]

and there are none so foolish as those who choose to be blind

I couldn't have said it better!

Would you like me to provide documentation that the grass is green? Or can you see that with your own eyes?

 

[OldLady]

These are the rules of the House of Representatives. I skimmed Rules X and XI and didn't see anything that says that. If you can find the "rule" you're saying has been violated, I'll give you a big gold star for the day. Honest.

That is a dry read that I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy!

Lets find the answer in the 10 questions congressman Kevin McCarthy sent in a letter to Pelosi...

• Do you intend to hold a vote of the full House authorizing our impeachment inquiry?
• Do you intend to involve the full House in each critical step of this inquiry, including defining its scope and establishing its rules and procedures?
• Do you intend to grant co-equal subpoena power to both the Chair and Ranking Member at the committee level?
• Do you intend to require that all subpoenas be subject to a vote of the full committee at the request of either the Chair or Ranking Member?
• Do you intend to provide the President’s counsel the right to attend all hearings and depositions?
• Do you intend to provide the president’s counsel the right to present evidence?
• Do you intend to provide the president’s counsel the right to object to the admittance of evidence?
• Do you intend to provide the president’s counsel the right to cross-examine witnesses?
• Do you intend to provide the president’s counsel the right to recommend a witness list?
• Do you intend to refer all findings on impeachment to Chairman Nadler and the Judiciary Committee, as prescribed by Rule X of the Rules of the House, or is Chairman Schiff in charge of leading the inquiry as reported in the press?

McCarthy makes it sound like the investigation itself is like a full blown trial! I thought the Senate did that? Why do they need two trials with evidentiary rules, subpeona powers for all, etc.?

My only point in providing you with the Rules was that you should be careful saying that Pelosi is breaking the rules, when in fact she is apparently not. McCarthy referred to procedures laid out for an investigation but that are not apparently required for an investigation. If she played along, it would turn it into a full blown circus that the Republicans would do their best to derail and delay. However, to get any cooperation from the White House, she might have to.
We'll see what happens.

 

[OldLady]

These are the rules of the House of Representatives. I skimmed Rules X and XI and didn't see anything that says that. If you can find the "rule" you're saying has been violated, I'll give you a big gold star for the day. Honest.

That is a dry read that I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy!

Lets find the answer in the 10 questions congressman Kevin McCarthy sent in a letter to Pelosi...

• Do you intend to hold a vote of the full House authorizing our impeachment inquiry?
• Do you intend to involve the full House in each critical step of this inquiry, including defining its scope and establishing its rules and procedures?
• Do you intend to grant co-equal subpoena power to both the Chair and Ranking Member at the committee level?
• Do you intend to require that all subpoenas be subject to a vote of the full committee at the request of either the Chair or Ranking Member?
• Do you intend to provide the President’s counsel the right to attend all hearings and depositions?
• Do you intend to provide the president’s counsel the right to present evidence?
• Do you intend to provide the president’s counsel the right to object to the admittance of evidence?
• Do you intend to provide the president’s counsel the right to cross-examine witnesses?
• Do you intend to provide the president’s counsel the right to recommend a witness list?
• Do you intend to refer all findings on impeachment to Chairman Nadler and the Judiciary Committee, as prescribed by Rule X of the Rules of the House, or is Chairman Schiff in charge of leading the inquiry as reported in the press?

McCarthy makes it sound like the investigation itself is like a full blown trial! I thought the Senate did that? Why do they need two trials with evidentiary rules, subpeona powers for all, etc.?

My only point in providing you with the Rules was that you should be careful saying that Pelosi is breaking the rules, when in fact she is apparently not. McCarthy referred to procedures laid out for an investigation but that are not apparently required for an investigation. If she played along, it would turn it into a full blown circus that the Republicans would do their best to derail and delay. However, to get any cooperation from the White House, she might have to.
We'll see what happens.

Sorry I got off topic.

 

[Thunk]

My only point in providing you with the Rules was that you should be careful saying that Pelosi is breaking the rules,

I appreciate that...when I had the time I went back, copied the entire document into a different format so I could search it.

The word "impeach" wasn't anywhere to be found in the house rules...nor was "impeachment".

Does that mean the house has no power to impeach?

We have 2 presidents that were impeached and impeachment proceedings had begun when nixon resigned...so there are precedents and procedures to follow...why is pelosi not following them?

Why does she think she can just make it up as she goes along?