CNN Tries to Script Students’ Meeting with President Trump

[HappyJoy]

CNN has an agenda to push and that's the way it's gonna go. They've long since dropped any pretenses.

There you go. Looking for liberal bias when it wasn't there, because you only saw what you wanted to. Know what that's called?

Eh, I'm sure somewhere in this thread you apologized for jumping the gun and letting your own preconceived notions steer you in the wrong direction.

Apologized for what, precisely? The point of the post remains intact.
.

The point of your post using this as an example of liberal media bias? Clearly you shot your foot on this one. I guess you're just like everyone you criticize. You have your own bias and you're not afraid to lie in order to prove your own world view. Nice, hypocrite.

We all have biases, indeed. Having spent about 18 years in that business in a former life, mine is based on direct, personal experience.

Yours is based on blind, obedient, transparent partisan ideology.

Yeah, I'm comfy with that.
.

Yeah, except you're the one in this thread claiming CNN was being biased when it turns out they weren't. Why can't you just say CNN was not biased regarding this father and son? Say it.

 

[Mac1958]

CNN has an agenda to push and that's the way it's gonna go. They've long since dropped any pretenses.

There you go. Looking for liberal bias when it wasn't there, because you only saw what you wanted to. Know what that's called?

Eh, I'm sure somewhere in this thread you apologized for jumping the gun and letting your own preconceived notions steer you in the wrong direction.

Apologized for what, precisely? The point of the post remains intact.
.

The point of your post using this as an example of liberal media bias? Clearly you shot your foot on this one. I guess you're just like everyone you criticize. You have your own bias and you're not afraid to lie in order to prove your own world view. Nice, hypocrite.

We all have biases, indeed. Having spent about 18 years in that business in a former life, mine is based on direct, personal experience.

Yours is based on blind, obedient, transparent partisan ideology.

Yeah, I'm comfy with that.
.

Yeah, except you're the one in this thread claiming CNN was being biased when it turns out they weren't. Why can't you just say CNN was not biased regarding this father and son? Say it.

Sure! CNN was not biased regarding this father and son.

And my post remains accurate and intact. You'll notice, or maybe you won't, that I didn't need to get specific.

The two can exist in the same universe. True story!
.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

CNN has an agenda to push and that's the way it's gonna go. They've long since dropped any pretenses.

There you go. Looking for liberal bias when it wasn't there, because you only saw what you wanted to. Know what that's called?

Eh, I'm sure somewhere in this thread you apologized for jumping the gun and letting your own preconceived notions steer you in the wrong direction.

Apologized for what, precisely? The point of the post remains intact.
.

The point of your post using this as an example of liberal media bias? Clearly you shot your foot on this one. I guess you're just like everyone you criticize. You have your own bias and you're not afraid to lie in order to prove your own world view. Nice, hypocrite.

We all have biases, indeed. Having spent about 18 years in that business in a former life, mine is based on direct, personal experience.

Yours is based on blind, obedient, transparent partisan ideology.

Yeah, I'm comfy with that.
.

Seems to me that about 90% of these sorts of discussions end up with extreme partisans of low IQ projecting all their traits upon intelligent people who are neither partisan nor extreme.

 

[rightwinger]

There you go. Looking for liberal bias when it wasn't there, because you only saw what you wanted to. Know what that's called?

Eh, I'm sure somewhere in this thread you apologized for jumping the gun and letting your own preconceived notions steer you in the wrong direction.

Apologized for what, precisely? The point of the post remains intact.
.

The point of your post using this as an example of liberal media bias? Clearly you shot your foot on this one. I guess you're just like everyone you criticize. You have your own bias and you're not afraid to lie in order to prove your own world view. Nice, hypocrite.

We all have biases, indeed. Having spent about 18 years in that business in a former life, mine is based on direct, personal experience.

Yours is based on blind, obedient, transparent partisan ideology.

Yeah, I'm comfy with that.
.

Yeah, except you're the one in this thread claiming CNN was being biased when it turns out they weren't. Why can't you just say CNN was not biased regarding this father and son? Say it.

Sure! CNN was not biased regarding this father and son.

And my post remains accurate and intact. You'll notice, or maybe you won't, that I didn't need to get specific.

The two can exist in the same universe. True story!
.

CNN was ready to put the kid on TV with a question the KID wrote

It was the father who created an incident

 

[Mac1958]

CNN has an agenda to push and that's the way it's gonna go. They've long since dropped any pretenses.

There you go. Looking for liberal bias when it wasn't there, because you only saw what you wanted to. Know what that's called?

Eh, I'm sure somewhere in this thread you apologized for jumping the gun and letting your own preconceived notions steer you in the wrong direction.

Apologized for what, precisely? The point of the post remains intact.
.

The point of your post using this as an example of liberal media bias? Clearly you shot your foot on this one. I guess you're just like everyone you criticize. You have your own bias and you're not afraid to lie in order to prove your own world view. Nice, hypocrite.

We all have biases, indeed. Having spent about 18 years in that business in a former life, mine is based on direct, personal experience.

Yours is based on blind, obedient, transparent partisan ideology.

Yeah, I'm comfy with that.
.

Seems to me that about 90% of these sorts of discussions end up with extreme partisans of low IQ projecting all their traits upon intelligent people who are neither partisan nor extreme.

Honestly, I never know what to take seriously at this point.

But this consistent lack of self awareness is one of the many traits that fascinate me about partisan ideologues.
.

 

[HappyJoy]

There you go. Looking for liberal bias when it wasn't there, because you only saw what you wanted to. Know what that's called?

Eh, I'm sure somewhere in this thread you apologized for jumping the gun and letting your own preconceived notions steer you in the wrong direction.

Apologized for what, precisely? The point of the post remains intact.
.

The point of your post using this as an example of liberal media bias? Clearly you shot your foot on this one. I guess you're just like everyone you criticize. You have your own bias and you're not afraid to lie in order to prove your own world view. Nice, hypocrite.

We all have biases, indeed. Having spent about 18 years in that business in a former life, mine is based on direct, personal experience.

Yours is based on blind, obedient, transparent partisan ideology.

Yeah, I'm comfy with that.
.

Yeah, except you're the one in this thread claiming CNN was being biased when it turns out they weren't. Why can't you just say CNN was not biased regarding this father and son? Say it.

Sure! CNN was not biased regarding this father and son.

And my post remains accurate and intact. You'll notice, or maybe you won't, that I didn't need to get specific.

The two can exist in the same universe. True story!
.

No, I never claimed you cared about specifics at all. What I saw in this thread is someone who whines on a daily basis about personal biases rather than depending on facts. Then I see that same person rush to judgement, facts be damned.

You're no better than what you claim others to be.

 

[HappyJoy]

There you go. Looking for liberal bias when it wasn't there, because you only saw what you wanted to. Know what that's called?

Eh, I'm sure somewhere in this thread you apologized for jumping the gun and letting your own preconceived notions steer you in the wrong direction.

Apologized for what, precisely? The point of the post remains intact.
.

The point of your post using this as an example of liberal media bias? Clearly you shot your foot on this one. I guess you're just like everyone you criticize. You have your own bias and you're not afraid to lie in order to prove your own world view. Nice, hypocrite.

We all have biases, indeed. Having spent about 18 years in that business in a former life, mine is based on direct, personal experience.

Yours is based on blind, obedient, transparent partisan ideology.

Yeah, I'm comfy with that.
.

Seems to me that about 90% of these sorts of discussions end up with extreme partisans of low IQ projecting all their traits upon intelligent people who are neither partisan nor extreme.

Honestly, I never know what to take seriously at this point.

But this consistent lack of self awareness is one of the many traits that fascinate me about partisan ideologues.
.

^Speaking about a lack of self awareness.

 

[Mac1958]

Apologized for what, precisely? The point of the post remains intact.
.

The point of your post using this as an example of liberal media bias? Clearly you shot your foot on this one. I guess you're just like everyone you criticize. You have your own bias and you're not afraid to lie in order to prove your own world view. Nice, hypocrite.

We all have biases, indeed. Having spent about 18 years in that business in a former life, mine is based on direct, personal experience.

Yours is based on blind, obedient, transparent partisan ideology.

Yeah, I'm comfy with that.
.

Yeah, except you're the one in this thread claiming CNN was being biased when it turns out they weren't. Why can't you just say CNN was not biased regarding this father and son? Say it.

Sure! CNN was not biased regarding this father and son.

And my post remains accurate and intact. You'll notice, or maybe you won't, that I didn't need to get specific.

The two can exist in the same universe. True story!
.

No, I never claimed you cared about specifics at all. What I saw in this thread is someone who whines on a daily basis about personal biases rather than depending on facts. Then I see that same person rush to judgement, facts be damned.

You're no better than what you claim others to be.

I whine about personal biases on a daily basis? Nope, I sure don't. Your perceptions and thought processes are so distorted by your partisan ideology that you may actually believe that's all it is.

My problem is with people who are dishonest. On both ends.

Hint, hint.
.

 

[Mac1958]

 

[HappyJoy]

The point of your post using this as an example of liberal media bias? Clearly you shot your foot on this one. I guess you're just like everyone you criticize. You have your own bias and you're not afraid to lie in order to prove your own world view. Nice, hypocrite.

We all have biases, indeed. Having spent about 18 years in that business in a former life, mine is based on direct, personal experience.

Yours is based on blind, obedient, transparent partisan ideology.

Yeah, I'm comfy with that.
.

Yeah, except you're the one in this thread claiming CNN was being biased when it turns out they weren't. Why can't you just say CNN was not biased regarding this father and son? Say it.

Sure! CNN was not biased regarding this father and son.

And my post remains accurate and intact. You'll notice, or maybe you won't, that I didn't need to get specific.

The two can exist in the same universe. True story!
.

No, I never claimed you cared about specifics at all. What I saw in this thread is someone who whines on a daily basis about personal biases rather than depending on facts. Then I see that same person rush to judgement, facts be damned.

You're no better than what you claim others to be.

I whine about personal biases on a daily basis? Nope, I sure don't. Your perceptions and thought processes are so distorted by your partisan ideology that you may actually believe that's all it is.

My problem is with people who are dishonest. On both ends.

Hint, hint.
.

What does partisan ideology have to do with it? You come on this board all the time and complain about people and their political bias. But you're just as biased and you jumped on a thread about CNN without knowing all the facts. That is dishonest.

 

[Mac1958]

We all have biases, indeed. Having spent about 18 years in that business in a former life, mine is based on direct, personal experience.

Yours is based on blind, obedient, transparent partisan ideology.

Yeah, I'm comfy with that.
.

Yeah, except you're the one in this thread claiming CNN was being biased when it turns out they weren't. Why can't you just say CNN was not biased regarding this father and son? Say it.

Sure! CNN was not biased regarding this father and son.

And my post remains accurate and intact. You'll notice, or maybe you won't, that I didn't need to get specific.

The two can exist in the same universe. True story!
.

No, I never claimed you cared about specifics at all. What I saw in this thread is someone who whines on a daily basis about personal biases rather than depending on facts. Then I see that same person rush to judgement, facts be damned.

You're no better than what you claim others to be.

I whine about personal biases on a daily basis? Nope, I sure don't. Your perceptions and thought processes are so distorted by your partisan ideology that you may actually believe that's all it is.

My problem is with people who are dishonest. On both ends.

Hint, hint.
.

What does partisan ideology have to do with it? You come on this board all the time and complain about people and their political bias. But you're just as biased and you jumped on a thread about CNN without knowing all the facts. That is dishonest.

I made a general point that remains.

Since it triggered you like this, looks like a nailed it. Again.

How long do you plan on humping my leg?
.

 

[Mac1958]

Nobody triggers the Regressives like ol' Mac triggers the Regressives.


.

 

[HappyJoy]

Yeah, except you're the one in this thread claiming CNN was being biased when it turns out they weren't. Why can't you just say CNN was not biased regarding this father and son? Say it.

Sure! CNN was not biased regarding this father and son.

And my post remains accurate and intact. You'll notice, or maybe you won't, that I didn't need to get specific.

The two can exist in the same universe. True story!
.

No, I never claimed you cared about specifics at all. What I saw in this thread is someone who whines on a daily basis about personal biases rather than depending on facts. Then I see that same person rush to judgement, facts be damned.

You're no better than what you claim others to be.

I whine about personal biases on a daily basis? Nope, I sure don't. Your perceptions and thought processes are so distorted by your partisan ideology that you may actually believe that's all it is.

My problem is with people who are dishonest. On both ends.

Hint, hint.
.

What does partisan ideology have to do with it? You come on this board all the time and complain about people and their political bias. But you're just as biased and you jumped on a thread about CNN without knowing all the facts. That is dishonest.

I made a general point that remains.

Since it triggered you like this, looks like a nailed it. Again.

How long do you plan on humping my leg?
.

You made a general point based on something that you got completely wrong because you discounted one side (CNN's). You're whole point is pointing out the preconceived opinions of others based on their own political make up, but you just did it right here.

And now we've reached the point where Mac stops debating and just pretends he won something. Go ahead, lead your own parade, you do that all the time too, see the post just above this one for a prime example.

 

[Mac1958]

Sure! CNN was not biased regarding this father and son.

And my post remains accurate and intact. You'll notice, or maybe you won't, that I didn't need to get specific.

The two can exist in the same universe. True story!
.

No, I never claimed you cared about specifics at all. What I saw in this thread is someone who whines on a daily basis about personal biases rather than depending on facts. Then I see that same person rush to judgement, facts be damned.

You're no better than what you claim others to be.

I whine about personal biases on a daily basis? Nope, I sure don't. Your perceptions and thought processes are so distorted by your partisan ideology that you may actually believe that's all it is.

My problem is with people who are dishonest. On both ends.

Hint, hint.
.

What does partisan ideology have to do with it? You come on this board all the time and complain about people and their political bias. But you're just as biased and you jumped on a thread about CNN without knowing all the facts. That is dishonest.

I made a general point that remains.

Since it triggered you like this, looks like a nailed it. Again.

How long do you plan on humping my leg?
.

You made a general point based on something that you got completely wrong because you discounted one side (CNN's). You're whole point is pointing out the preconceived opinions of others based on their own political make up, but you just did it right here.

Nope, wrong again, sorry. My whole point is not about opinions, but behaviors.

If you don't like what I have to say, tough shit. Your whining are leg-humping are tedious.
.

 

[HappyJoy]

No, I never claimed you cared about specifics at all. What I saw in this thread is someone who whines on a daily basis about personal biases rather than depending on facts. Then I see that same person rush to judgement, facts be damned.

You're no better than what you claim others to be.

I whine about personal biases on a daily basis? Nope, I sure don't. Your perceptions and thought processes are so distorted by your partisan ideology that you may actually believe that's all it is.

My problem is with people who are dishonest. On both ends.

Hint, hint.
.

What does partisan ideology have to do with it? You come on this board all the time and complain about people and their political bias. But you're just as biased and you jumped on a thread about CNN without knowing all the facts. That is dishonest.

I made a general point that remains.

Since it triggered you like this, looks like a nailed it. Again.

How long do you plan on humping my leg?
.

You made a general point based on something that you got completely wrong because you discounted one side (CNN's). You're whole point is pointing out the preconceived opinions of others based on their own political make up, but you just did it right here.

Nope, wrong again, sorry. My whole point is not about opinions, but behaviors.

If you don't like what I have to say, tough shit. Your whining are leg-humping are tedious.
.

Behaviors? You mean like assuming that CNN had a liberal media bias and then it turns out it was you who came to this thread with preconceived opinions and got it wrong?

I think it's amusing that you're doing your usually little end zone dance in a thread where you took the wrong side based on your own bias.

 

[Faun]

CNN has an agenda to push and that's the way it's gonna go. They've long since dropped any pretenses.

There you go. Looking for liberal bias when it wasn't there, because you only saw what you wanted to. Know what that's called?

Eh, I'm sure somewhere in this thread you apologized for jumping the gun and letting your own preconceived notions steer you in the wrong direction.

Apologized for what, precisely? The point of the post remains intact.
.

Wut??

The point was that CNN wanted the kid to read from a script. Now we learn that is not true, so how does the point remain intact?

 

[Ted Frazier]

CNN Tries to Script Students’ Meeting with President Trump!

Shooting Survivor: CNN Gave Me "Scripted Question" After Denying Question About Armed Guards





Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School student Colton Haab said he was approached by CNN to ask a question at Wednesday night's town hall but decided not to after the network gave him a "scripted question," quashing one he wrote himself. Haab, a member of the Junior ROTC shielded students while the school was under attack from the shooter, said he was going to ask about using veterans as armed security guards.


"CNN had originally asked me to write a speech and questions and it ended up being all scripted," Haab told WPLG-TV.

"I expected to be able to ask my questions and give my opinion on my questions," Haab said.

"Colton Haab, a member of the Junior ROTC who shielded classmates in the midst of terror says he did not get to share his experience," WPLG's Janine Stanwood explained.

"Colton wrote questions about school safety, suggested using veterans as armed school security guards but claims CNN wanted him to ask a scripted question instead so he decided not to go," Stanwood reported.

"CNN had originally asked me to write a speech and questions and it ended up being all scripted," Haab said. "I don't think that it's going get anything accomplished. It's not gonna ask the true questions that all the parents and teachers and students have."

Shooting Survivor: CNN Gave Me "Scripted Question" After Denying Question About Armed Guards


Another Donna Brazil moment? Or is it just status quo with CNN? They control both sides of an interview or the guest doesn’t get on! Now why is CNN called fake news? Let me think…


Proud of those kids who refused to be sheep.

This thread is an example of how conservatives flood threads (even hoaxes) with "winner" ratings in this board.

 

[HappyJoy]

CNN Tries to Script Students’ Meeting with President Trump!

Shooting Survivor: CNN Gave Me "Scripted Question" After Denying Question About Armed Guards





Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School student Colton Haab said he was approached by CNN to ask a question at Wednesday night's town hall but decided not to after the network gave him a "scripted question," quashing one he wrote himself. Haab, a member of the Junior ROTC shielded students while the school was under attack from the shooter, said he was going to ask about using veterans as armed security guards.


"CNN had originally asked me to write a speech and questions and it ended up being all scripted," Haab told WPLG-TV.

"I expected to be able to ask my questions and give my opinion on my questions," Haab said.

"Colton Haab, a member of the Junior ROTC who shielded classmates in the midst of terror says he did not get to share his experience," WPLG's Janine Stanwood explained.

"Colton wrote questions about school safety, suggested using veterans as armed school security guards but claims CNN wanted him to ask a scripted question instead so he decided not to go," Stanwood reported.

"CNN had originally asked me to write a speech and questions and it ended up being all scripted," Haab said. "I don't think that it's going get anything accomplished. It's not gonna ask the true questions that all the parents and teachers and students have."

Shooting Survivor: CNN Gave Me "Scripted Question" After Denying Question About Armed Guards


Another Donna Brazil moment? Or is it just status quo with CNN? They control both sides of an interview or the guest doesn’t get on! Now why is CNN called fake news? Let me think…


Proud of those kids who refused to be sheep.

This thread is an example of how conservatives flood threads (even hoaxes) with "winner" ratings in this board.

I've noticed they do that a lot.

 

[Mac1958]

I whine about personal biases on a daily basis? Nope, I sure don't. Your perceptions and thought processes are so distorted by your partisan ideology that you may actually believe that's all it is.

My problem is with people who are dishonest. On both ends.

Hint, hint.
.

What does partisan ideology have to do with it? You come on this board all the time and complain about people and their political bias. But you're just as biased and you jumped on a thread about CNN without knowing all the facts. That is dishonest.

I made a general point that remains.

Since it triggered you like this, looks like a nailed it. Again.

How long do you plan on humping my leg?
.

You made a general point based on something that you got completely wrong because you discounted one side (CNN's). You're whole point is pointing out the preconceived opinions of others based on their own political make up, but you just did it right here.

Nope, wrong again, sorry. My whole point is not about opinions, but behaviors.

If you don't like what I have to say, tough shit. Your whining are leg-humping are tedious.
.

Behaviors? You mean like assuming that CNN had a liberal media bias and then it turns out it was you who came to this thread with preconceived opinions and got it wrong?

I think it's amusing that you're doing your usually little end zone dance in a thread where you took the wrong side based on your own bias.

Of course CNN has a liberal media bias.

Whether it was displayed on this story or not.

You're really confused here.

I guess I'll just have to find way to proceed without your approval.

Gosh.
.

 

[Mac1958]

CNN has an agenda to push and that's the way it's gonna go. They've long since dropped any pretenses.

There you go. Looking for liberal bias when it wasn't there, because you only saw what you wanted to. Know what that's called?

Eh, I'm sure somewhere in this thread you apologized for jumping the gun and letting your own preconceived notions steer you in the wrong direction.

Apologized for what, precisely? The point of the post remains intact.
.

Wut??

The point was that CNN wanted the kid to read from a script. Now we learn that is not true, so how does the point remain intact?

Because it was a general statement that applies whether this particular story existed or not.

Holy crap, is this really THAT complicated?
.