Youtube Being Censored, We Can't Question the Government on Youtube

[SassyIrishLass]

“Youtube Being Censored”

By whom?

YouTube refusing to host rightwing lies and hate isn’t ‘censorship.’

“We Can't Question the Government on Youtube”

It’s neither the role nor responsibility of YouTube to accommodate those who wish to question government – that’s done through the political process and in the courts; the right of the people to question government exists solely between the government and those governed, having nothing to do with private hosting sites.

Now, if government were to enact a law making it illegal for YouTube to host rightwing lies and hate, then you would have a case of actual censorship, and a valid thread topic.

If YouTube removes content it's censorship you befuddled moron. I swear you jump in threads with absolutely no idea what you're babbling about

 

[del]

^
more irony than the mesabi range

 

[Pogo]

That's a dangerously low bar since the NYTimes, the WashPo, CNN and the networks are doing MOST of the lying and the lying by omission....

Link?


Yeah --- guess not.

LIST: 24 Pieces of MSM Fake News in 5 Days

Oh, there's more..

Journalists Who Were Caught Lying

35 things the media reported as FACTS that were later found to be total lies

---- and the comparison table is where again?

Oh yeah --- MIA.

Dumbass.

 

[Pogo]

The last time I bothered replying to your economically illiterate ass was in a thread regarding FDR. You did not believe that his Socialist policies created and extended the Great Depression, in fact you seemed to support the vast majority of the policies he put in place. The only thing I recall you disagreeing with was his imprisonment of Japanese people based on their race. Supporting FDR's policies not only makes you a Socialist, but makes you economically illiterate

FDR gave us the endless Great Depression every bit as much as Obama turned a 6 month recession into the 8 year Great Recession.

Quite the technology geek, that FDR. Whereas O'bama only time-traveled back four months before he took office to dump the economy thereby ensuring a win, FDR went back four years with his time machine to trash the whole Hoover presidency.

Linear time is now "fake news".

I swear ta god, this board is a competition for top Moron.

 

[Pogo]

So you have no such data. Exactly.

See, this is what I just pointed out with what's called a rhetorical question. One for which you have no answer.

I gave you an EXTENSIVE LIST of examples of fake news and useless conspiracies. They are all MORE then adequately documented. Even here on USMB. Stop trolling me...

I just checked- you have posted 16 times in this thread- I saw no post with an 'extensive list of fake news and useless conspiracies'

Like I said before- I would be glad to compare the accuracy of the NY Times to Trump's tweets.

The greatest purveyor of fake news within the United States is our President.

Your loss -- it's there. Search for WashPo with my name on the post... Fake news? Thy name is WashPo/CNN/NYTimes... AND their ******* "fact checkers"...

It's NOT SOMEBODY ELSE'S CLAIM, Sparkles. It's YOUR claim. Ain't OUR job to go do YOUR homework. Burden of proof, etc.

Once again --- you made an ass-sertion that you can't back up. Therefore it's dismissed as empty.

What's NOT funny is you dismissing my claim that the Russian Hookers Peeing on Trumps bed story as "fake news"... Or you insisting the "intel report" that contained it and was MARKETED AND PROMOTED by the Hillary/DNC/FBI/CIA/DIA cabal as NOT "fake news".. Shows you're credibility for honesty and alertness to fraud is in the damn crapper....

This is why finding HONEST brokers to DETECT fake news is ******* difficult. And GOOGLE shouldn't be in the biz of being that honest broker..

And ---- you're trying to avoid those realities by personally attacking me for your gullibility and lack of candor..

Actually I didn't focus on ANY of your stories-about-stories. I'm still focused on your comparison. The one you can't prove.

Why can't you just admit you posted a claim that is beyond the reach of evidence?

THAT is what this is about. The idea that you can just make up your own facts and expect them to be accepted unchallenged. So yeah, you're in a great-ass position to speak of "lack of candor". Poster please.

The Steele dossier is a story-about-a-story. It's telling us that a dossier exists with tales of Russian hookers lending a new meaning to the term "White House plumbers" in Moscow. Nobody ever claimed the bed-peeing actually happened, they told us that a dossier exists claiming it happened. Do you not understand the difference?

For example --
Just above, post 181 fantasizes a world where Franklin Roosevelt, from the Governor's office in New York, somehow time traveled into the past and "brought us" the Great Depression (of 1929) ---- four years before he was inaugurated.

Now what that paragraph above is, is me reporting that some clown made that claim. What it is NOT is me claiming FDR had a time machine.

 

[Pogo]

If people use Twitter, at least use gab.ai also.

There are YouTube alternatives, but honestly, they aren't as good. Still, get used to and use the alternatives.

I routinely use Bing now, and prefer it for several reasons.

By giving conservative friendly sites your business, you help them grow while doing your part to reign these monopolies in.

Bing huh?

Is that where you got "FDR brought us the Great Depression" then?

 

[Marion Morrison]

That's a dangerously low bar since the NYTimes, the WashPo, CNN and the networks are doing MOST of the lying and the lying by omission....

Link?


Yeah --- guess not.

LIST: 24 Pieces of MSM Fake News in 5 Days

Oh, there's more..

Journalists Who Were Caught Lying

35 things the media reported as FACTS that were later found to be total lies

---- and the comparison table is where again?

Oh yeah --- MIA.

Dumbass.

PergDerp sez "muh proof"

Here's one fer ya:

"2. (Huffington Post, New York Times, FiveThirtyEight, et al.) Hillary Has a 98% Chance of Winning The Election"

Some links are dead, any you have in question, just consult me, and I'll straighten ya right out, k? My Google-Fu is strong, grasshoppa!

25 Fake News Stories From The Mainstream Media - IVN.us

 

[Pogo]

That's a dangerously low bar since the NYTimes, the WashPo, CNN and the networks are doing MOST of the lying and the lying by omission....

Link?


Yeah --- guess not.

LIST: 24 Pieces of MSM Fake News in 5 Days

Oh, there's more..

Journalists Who Were Caught Lying

35 things the media reported as FACTS that were later found to be total lies

---- and the comparison table is where again?

Oh yeah --- MIA.

Dumbass.

PergDerp sez "muh proof"

Here's one fer ya:

"2. (Huffington Post, New York Times, FiveThirtyEight, et al.) Hillary Has a 98% Chance of Winning The Election"

25 Fake News Stories From The Mainstream Media - IVN.us

Once AGAIN --- where's the comparator? *STILL* MIA, that's where.

Besides all of which, your citation is not "fake news" anyway. If somebody analyzed a 98% shot for Clinton, then that's what they analyzed. Dumb shit.

 

[flacaltenn]

In reality, my exposure to Google is much larger than most. Because my electronic product design biz has suffered thru a NUMBER of Android developments for our customers. Experience with Google micromanaging their development tools and developers convinced me to tell everyone here we're not doing Android ANYTHING ever again. They'd change the rules and tools MONTHLY.. Not giving a damn about developers on their platforms.

THEN -- there's the matter of website advertising. Reason for a LOT of USMB "free speech" restraint is because of Google MONITORING the "quality" of this site and all others that Google serves ads to... They have 80% of the web by the "short and curlies"...

While THEY index porn, violence, and all KINDS of offensive material -- they DENY the rights of ad clients...

you and usmb are free to not do business with them, just as they are free to index whatever the **** they want.

if you don't like the terms and conditions, don't do business with them- not exactly rocket surgery

or, you could whine about it and bewail the denial of nonexistent *rights* by a private business

your choice, snowflake

Not really.. NEW WRINKLE... Because the OWN the most popular browser, NOW Google just announced that it will put in their own AD BLOCKERS into Chrome. Which MEANS -- THEY can go to war with OTHER ad providers and make certain that THEIR services never GET THRU Chrome..

I know you don't take much seriously. But this is a hell of lot more complicated and serious than you make it out to be..

Google Chrome's Ad Blocker: Friend or Foe of Online Advertising?

Pretty soon, they WILL be the landlord of the internets.

i take the first pretty seriously and this has nothing to do with it.

it's a business decision- no more, no less

i see you've decided to whine about how unfair it all is

*shrug

At least I'm not the one who's known for having his head in the sand. You're an ostrich right??

A GREAT business decision is based EXACTLY on the type of NEW info I just educated you with. It's NOT "whining". It's intelligent analysis for MAKING that kind of decision of how to select any possible alternatives to services that Google is RAPIDLY making non-competitive..

no, i'm a human. my avatar is an emu.

wrong twice in one sentence, well done

you didn't educate me with anything, and yes, saying that youtube is censoring its videos against rw sources, as you claimed earlier, is whining.

I did educate you as to WHY commercial sites can't simply switch to alternate ad services. If you aware of this -- you wouldn't have referred to it as merely whining.. So NOW -- you're off calling the premise of this thread "whining". Seems like projection to me...

I don't have enough time left in the day to educate you on ALL of this.. So START HERE ----

YouTube "Economically Censors" Ron Paul, Labels Videos "Not Suitable" For All Advertisers

Like I said --- show me the examples of hindering speech from left political individuals and groups and I'll STFU.. I got a dozen more examples like the one above.

 

[Moonglow]

you and usmb are free to not do business with them, just as they are free to index whatever the **** they want.

if you don't like the terms and conditions, don't do business with them- not exactly rocket surgery

or, you could whine about it and bewail the denial of nonexistent *rights* by a private business

your choice, snowflake

Not really.. NEW WRINKLE... Because the OWN the most popular browser, NOW Google just announced that it will put in their own AD BLOCKERS into Chrome. Which MEANS -- THEY can go to war with OTHER ad providers and make certain that THEIR services never GET THRU Chrome..

I know you don't take much seriously. But this is a hell of lot more complicated and serious than you make it out to be..

Google Chrome's Ad Blocker: Friend or Foe of Online Advertising?

Pretty soon, they WILL be the landlord of the internets.

i take the first pretty seriously and this has nothing to do with it.

it's a business decision- no more, no less

i see you've decided to whine about how unfair it all is

*shrug

At least I'm not the one who's known for having his head in the sand. You're an ostrich right??

A GREAT business decision is based EXACTLY on the type of NEW info I just educated you with. It's NOT "whining". It's intelligent analysis for MAKING that kind of decision of how to select any possible alternatives to services that Google is RAPIDLY making non-competitive..

no, i'm a human. my avatar is an emu.

wrong twice in one sentence, well done

you didn't educate me with anything, and yes, saying that youtube is censoring its videos against rw sources, as you claimed earlier, is whining.

I did educate you as to WHY commercial sites can't simply switch to alternate ad services. If you aware of this -- you wouldn't have referred to it as merely whining.. So NOW -- you're off calling the premise of this thread "whining". Seems like projection to me...

I don't have enough time left in the day to educate you on ALL of this.. So START HERE ----

YouTube "Economically Censors" Ron Paul, Labels Videos "Not Suitable" For All Advertisers

Like I said --- show me the examples of hindering speech from left political individuals and groups and I'll STFU.. I got a dozen more examples like the one above.

I did show you proof but you blew it off..That's the problem we can't get you to shut up...Where is Sonny when you need a gag man?

 

[flacaltenn]

The Steele dossier is a story-about-a-story. It's telling us that a dossier exists with tales of Russian hookers lending a new meaning to the term "White House plumbers" in Moscow. Nobody ever claimed the bed-peeing actually happened, they told us that a dossier exists claiming it happened. Do you not understand the difference?

It's YOU that doesn't understand the FUNDAMENTAL THREAT to this country, when your CIA director, your DNI and the FBI MARKETS and USES that POS fiction out of the heads of Russian Intel experts to LABEL it and sell it to a complicit left-wing media as an "Intel Doc".. OF COURSE if "16 Intel Agencies" SIGN OFF on such a travesty --- IT MUST HAVE HAPPENED.. RIGHT? except that never happened. Wasn't THAT the fake news that CNN/WashPo/HuffPost/NYTimes pushed for weeks and months when it happened? You're in denial and bordering on criminal intentional deflection -- if you even attempt to deny this happened anymore..

And Hillary/DNC PAID for all of that slime circus.. Doing Putin's work for him and COLLUDING with Russians. All of those agencies I mentioned AND the Fake News consortium. Be VERY CAREFUL about who YOU call "fake news"... Trump would LOVE to do the same to your team.. If he was as weak, inept and in trouble as the DNC was last election..

 

[Pogo]

The Steele dossier is a story-about-a-story. It's telling us that a dossier exists with tales of Russian hookers lending a new meaning to the term "White House plumbers" in Moscow. Nobody ever claimed the bed-peeing actually happened, they told us that a dossier exists claiming it happened. Do you not understand the difference?

It's YOU that doesn't understand the FUNDAMENTAL THREAT to this country, when your CIA director, your DNI and the FBI MARKETS and USES that POS fiction out of the heads of Russian Intel experts to LABEL it and sell it to a complicit left-wing media as an "Intel Doc".. OF COURSE if "16 Intel Agencies" SIGN OFF on such a travesty --- IT MUST HAVE HAPPENED.. RIGHT? except that never happened. Wasn't THAT the fake news that CNN/WashPo/HuffPost/NYTimes pushed for weeks and months when it happened? You're in denial and bordering on criminal intentional deflection -- if you even attempt to deny this happened anymore..

And Hillary/DNC PAID for all slime circus.. Doing Putin's work for him and COLLUDING with Russians. All of them...

aaaaand STILL no answer.

 

[flacaltenn]

Not really.. NEW WRINKLE... Because the OWN the most popular browser, NOW Google just announced that it will put in their own AD BLOCKERS into Chrome. Which MEANS -- THEY can go to war with OTHER ad providers and make certain that THEIR services never GET THRU Chrome..

I know you don't take much seriously. But this is a hell of lot more complicated and serious than you make it out to be..

Google Chrome's Ad Blocker: Friend or Foe of Online Advertising?

Pretty soon, they WILL be the landlord of the internets.

i take the first pretty seriously and this has nothing to do with it.

it's a business decision- no more, no less

i see you've decided to whine about how unfair it all is

*shrug

At least I'm not the one who's known for having his head in the sand. You're an ostrich right??

A GREAT business decision is based EXACTLY on the type of NEW info I just educated you with. It's NOT "whining". It's intelligent analysis for MAKING that kind of decision of how to select any possible alternatives to services that Google is RAPIDLY making non-competitive..

no, i'm a human. my avatar is an emu.

wrong twice in one sentence, well done

you didn't educate me with anything, and yes, saying that youtube is censoring its videos against rw sources, as you claimed earlier, is whining.

I did educate you as to WHY commercial sites can't simply switch to alternate ad services. If you aware of this -- you wouldn't have referred to it as merely whining.. So NOW -- you're off calling the premise of this thread "whining". Seems like projection to me...

I don't have enough time left in the day to educate you on ALL of this.. So START HERE ----

YouTube "Economically Censors" Ron Paul, Labels Videos "Not Suitable" For All Advertisers

Like I said --- show me the examples of hindering speech from left political individuals and groups and I'll STFU.. I got a dozen more examples like the one above.

I did show you proof but you blew it off..That's the problem we can't get you to shut up...Where is Sonny when you need a gag man?

Missed it.. Got a post #?

 

[Marion Morrison]

That's a dangerously low bar since the NYTimes, the WashPo, CNN and the networks are doing MOST of the lying and the lying by omission....

Link?


Yeah --- guess not.

LIST: 24 Pieces of MSM Fake News in 5 Days

Oh, there's more..

Journalists Who Were Caught Lying

35 things the media reported as FACTS that were later found to be total lies

---- and the comparison table is where again?

Oh yeah --- MIA.

Dumbass.

PergDerp sez "muh proof"

Here's one fer ya:

"2. (Huffington Post, New York Times, FiveThirtyEight, et al.) Hillary Has a 98% Chance of Winning The Election"

25 Fake News Stories From The Mainstream Media - IVN.us

Once AGAIN --- where's the comparator? *STILL* MIA, that's where.

Besides all of which, your citation is not "fake news" anyway. If somebody analyzed a 98% shot for Clinton, then that's what they analyzed. Dumb shit.

The comparators are imbedded into the entire page, I ran down a few and everything is credible.

The only thing that can explain you not seeing them is that you're colorblind.

If you're not colorblind, you're an idiot.

 

[flacaltenn]

The Steele dossier is a story-about-a-story. It's telling us that a dossier exists with tales of Russian hookers lending a new meaning to the term "White House plumbers" in Moscow. Nobody ever claimed the bed-peeing actually happened, they told us that a dossier exists claiming it happened. Do you not understand the difference?

It's YOU that doesn't understand the FUNDAMENTAL THREAT to this country, when your CIA director, your DNI and the FBI MARKETS and USES that POS fiction out of the heads of Russian Intel experts to LABEL it and sell it to a complicit left-wing media as an "Intel Doc".. OF COURSE if "16 Intel Agencies" SIGN OFF on such a travesty --- IT MUST HAVE HAPPENED.. RIGHT? except that never happened. Wasn't THAT the fake news that CNN/WashPo/HuffPost/NYTimes pushed for weeks and months when it happened? You're in denial and bordering on criminal intentional deflection -- if you even attempt to deny this happened anymore..

And Hillary/DNC PAID for all slime circus.. Doing Putin's work for him and COLLUDING with Russians. All of them...

aaaaand STILL no answer.

It's YOU that doesn't understand the FUNDAMENTAL THREAT to this country, when your CIA director, your DNI and the FBI MARKETS and USES that POS fiction out of the heads of Russian Intel experts to LABEL it and sell it to a complicit left-wing media as an "Intel Doc".. OF COURSE if "16 Intel Agencies" SIGN OFF on such a travesty --- IT MUST HAVE HAPPENED.. RIGHT? except that never happened. Wasn't THAT the fake news that CNN/WashPo/HuffPost/NYTimes pushed for weeks and months when it happened? You're in denial and bordering on criminal intentional deflection -- if you even attempt to deny this happened anymore..

And Hillary/DNC PAID for all of that slime circus.. Doing Putin's work for him and COLLUDING with Russians. All of those agencies I mentioned AND the Fake News consortium. Be VERY CAREFUL about who YOU call "fake news"... Trump would LOVE to do the same to your team.. If he was as weak, inept and in trouble as the DNC was last election..

Criminal intentional deflection bunky. What it is that I said that wrong? SPECIFICALLY !!! It was ALL FAKE NEWS and potentially treasonous for the Govt colluders... And everyone I mentioned was in on the collusion..

If you're not gonna CORRECT any of this -- you're embarrassing yourself and you've given up on the truth..

 

[Pogo]

Link?


Yeah --- guess not.

LIST: 24 Pieces of MSM Fake News in 5 Days

Oh, there's more..

Journalists Who Were Caught Lying

35 things the media reported as FACTS that were later found to be total lies

---- and the comparison table is where again?

Oh yeah --- MIA.

Dumbass.

PergDerp sez "muh proof"

Here's one fer ya:

"2. (Huffington Post, New York Times, FiveThirtyEight, et al.) Hillary Has a 98% Chance of Winning The Election"

25 Fake News Stories From The Mainstream Media - IVN.us

Once AGAIN --- where's the comparator? *STILL* MIA, that's where.

Besides all of which, your citation is not "fake news" anyway. If somebody analyzed a 98% shot for Clinton, then that's what they analyzed. Dumb shit.

The comparators are imbedded into the entire page, I ran down a few and everything is credible.

The only thing that can explain you not seeing them is that you're colorblind.

If you're not colorblind, you're an idiot.

Since Maid Marian flummoxed himself by diving into a question about a claim that wasn't even his in the first place, maybe it's time to review and reiterate exactly what it is that flacaltenn continues to run away from, shall we?

Here's where we have to reverse-engineer intellectuality for those who insist on using the internets to play Stupid.

Roll tape.

No, it’s getting more difficult for conspiracy theory liars to post their lies and distortions on YouTube.

High time that those engaging in political discussion got called for their lies.

That's a dangerously low bar since the NYTimes, the WashPo, CNN and the networks are doing MOST of the fake news, lying and the lying by omission....

Definition of "MOST":

determiner & pronoun
determiner: most; pronoun: most

1. 1.
   superlative of many, much.
2. 2.
   greatest in amount or degree.
   "they've had the most success"
   • the majority of; nearly all of.
     "most oranges are sweeter than these"
     synonyms: nearly all, almost all, the greatest part/number, the majority, the bulk, the preponderance
     "most of the guests brought gifts"
     antonyms: little, few

adverb
adverb: most

1. 1.
   superlative of much.
2. 2.
   to the greatest extent.
   "the things he most enjoyed"

Still with us class? Today we learned that the word "most" means a superlative degree. It means "more than any other in the classifiction". Another way of saying this is that no other entity in that same group is represented as much as the "MOST" is represented.

This is what we call a comparator. It compares the degree of one entity (in this case the entity is the group of "the NYTimes, the WashPo, CNN and the networks") with all other entities in that classification, i.e. purveyors of news.

For instance take a random number like, say, 1929. Is that number greater or lesser than, say, 1933?

Take all the time you need to figure that one out.
____________

Now unless your name is Death Angel you should have concluded that "1933" is greater than "1929" Mathematically we can say "1933 > 1929". And if they were actual calendar years we would have to conclude 1933 is also "later" than 1929.

Still with us? I know, it's deep stuff.

Now then back to the question. flacaltenn claims, and cannot prove, that the aggregate output of "the NYTimes, the WashPo, CNN and the networks" contains a greater (remember that word?) amount of fake news than the aggregate of all other sources combined -- the fake abc.co site claiming three million Amish mobilized to vote for Rump, the wacko story posted here on USMB about Hillary Clinton not showing up at a rally and replaced by a hologram, all the various Nosebook and Tweeter fake newses about "Parkinsons" and "crossed eyes" and "dementia" and "cancer" and Vince Fosters and Bill Clinton's secret black son, the virtual entire output of Jim Hoft and Alex John Brinkley Jones and "CNS News" and their ilk, and of course, as originally cited here, everything on YouTube that is also bullshit.

All of THAT, combined, he says, does not measure up to the amount of fake news on ""the NYTimes, the WashPo, CNN and the networks". That's his claim. He needs numbers to prove that, and he doesn't have any. Therefore and until he can come up with them, his claim is dismissed as yet more fake news.

The bottom line, again, and no pun intended on "bottom", is that you can't just pull claims out of your ass and expect them to be real without any evidence thereof.

 

[Marion Morrison]

LIST: 24 Pieces of MSM Fake News in 5 Days

Oh, there's more..

Journalists Who Were Caught Lying

35 things the media reported as FACTS that were later found to be total lies

---- and the comparison table is where again?

Oh yeah --- MIA.

Dumbass.

PergDerp sez "muh proof"

Here's one fer ya:

"2. (Huffington Post, New York Times, FiveThirtyEight, et al.) Hillary Has a 98% Chance of Winning The Election"

25 Fake News Stories From The Mainstream Media - IVN.us

Once AGAIN --- where's the comparator? *STILL* MIA, that's where.

Besides all of which, your citation is not "fake news" anyway. If somebody analyzed a 98% shot for Clinton, then that's what they analyzed. Dumb shit.

The comparators are imbedded into the entire page, I ran down a few and everything is credible.

The only thing that can explain you not seeing them is that you're colorblind.

If you're not colorblind, you're an idiot.

Since Maid Marian flummoxed himself by diving into a question about a claim that wasn't even his in the first place, maybe it's time to review and reiterate exactly what it is that flacaltenn continues to run away from, shall we?

Here's where we have to reverse-engineer intellectuality for those who insist on using the internets to play Stupid.

Roll tape.

No, it’s getting more difficult for conspiracy theory liars to post their lies and distortions on YouTube.

High time that those engaging in political discussion got called for their lies.

That's a dangerously low bar since the NYTimes, the WashPo, CNN and the networks are doing MOST of the fake news, lying and the lying by omission....

Definition of "MOST":

determiner & pronoun
determiner: most; pronoun: most

1. 1.
   superlative of many, much.
2. 2.
   greatest in amount or degree.
   "they've had the most success"
   • the majority of; nearly all of.
     "most oranges are sweeter than these"
     synonyms: nearly all, almost all, the greatest part/number, the majority, the bulk, the preponderance
     "most of the guests brought gifts"
     antonyms: little, few

adverb
adverb: most

1. 1.
   superlative of much.
2. 2.
   to the greatest extent.
   "the things he most enjoyed"

Still with us class? Today we learned that the word "most" means a superlative degree. It means "more than any other in the classifiction". Another way of saying this is that no other entity in that same group is represented as much as the "MOST" is represented.

This is what we call a comparator. It compares the degree of one entity (in this case the entity is the group of "the NYTimes, the WashPo, CNN and the networks") with all other entities in that classification, i.e. purveyors of news.

For instance take a random number like, say, 1929. Is that number greater or lesser than, say, 1933?

Take all the time you need to figure that one out.
____________

Now unless your name is Death Angel you should have concluded that "1933" is greater than "1929" Mathematically we can say "1933 > 1929". And if they were actual calendar years we would have to conclude 1933 is also "later" than 1929.

Still with us? I know, it's deep stuff.

Now then back to the question. flacaltenn claims, and cannot prove, that the aggregate output of "the NYTimes, the WashPo, CNN and the networks" contains a greater (remember that word?) amount of fake news than the aggregate of all other sources combined -- the fake abc.co site claiming three million Amish mobilized to vote for Rump, the wacko story posted here on USMB about Hillary Clinton not showing up at a rally and being a hologram, all the various Nosebook and Tweeter fake newses about Parkinsons and crossed eyes and Vince Fosters and Bill Clinton's secret black son and of course, as originally cited here, everything on YouTube that is also bullshit.

All of THAT, combined, he says, does not measure up to the amount of fake news on ""the NYTimes, the WashPo, CNN and the networks". That's his claim. He needs numbers to prove that, and he doesn't have any. Therefore and until he can come up with them, his claim is dismissed as yet more fake news.

The bottom line, again, and no pun intended on "bottom", is that you can't just pull claims out of your ass and expect them to be real without any evidence thereof.

So are you colorblind, or an idiot? I'm leaning towards colorblind, but ya never know..

 

[Pogo]

---- and the comparison table is where again?

Oh yeah --- MIA.

Dumbass.

PergDerp sez "muh proof"

Here's one fer ya:

"2. (Huffington Post, New York Times, FiveThirtyEight, et al.) Hillary Has a 98% Chance of Winning The Election"

25 Fake News Stories From The Mainstream Media - IVN.us

Once AGAIN --- where's the comparator? *STILL* MIA, that's where.

Besides all of which, your citation is not "fake news" anyway. If somebody analyzed a 98% shot for Clinton, then that's what they analyzed. Dumb shit.

The comparators are imbedded into the entire page, I ran down a few and everything is credible.

The only thing that can explain you not seeing them is that you're colorblind.

If you're not colorblind, you're an idiot.

Since Maid Marian flummoxed himself by diving into a question about a claim that wasn't even his in the first place, maybe it's time to review and reiterate exactly what it is that flacaltenn continues to run away from, shall we?

Here's where we have to reverse-engineer intellectuality for those who insist on using the internets to play Stupid.

Roll tape.

No, it’s getting more difficult for conspiracy theory liars to post their lies and distortions on YouTube.

High time that those engaging in political discussion got called for their lies.

That's a dangerously low bar since the NYTimes, the WashPo, CNN and the networks are doing MOST of the fake news, lying and the lying by omission....

Definition of "MOST":

determiner & pronoun
determiner: most; pronoun: most

1. 1.
   superlative of many, much.
2. 2.
   greatest in amount or degree.
   "they've had the most success"
   • the majority of; nearly all of.
     "most oranges are sweeter than these"
     synonyms: nearly all, almost all, the greatest part/number, the majority, the bulk, the preponderance
     "most of the guests brought gifts"
     antonyms: little, few

adverb
adverb: most

1. 1.
   superlative of much.
2. 2.
   to the greatest extent.
   "the things he most enjoyed"

Still with us class? Today we learned that the word "most" means a superlative degree. It means "more than any other in the classifiction". Another way of saying this is that no other entity in that same group is represented as much as the "MOST" is represented.

This is what we call a comparator. It compares the degree of one entity (in this case the entity is the group of "the NYTimes, the WashPo, CNN and the networks") with all other entities in that classification, i.e. purveyors of news.

For instance take a random number like, say, 1929. Is that number greater or lesser than, say, 1933?

Take all the time you need to figure that one out.
____________

Now unless your name is Death Angel you should have concluded that "1933" is greater than "1929" Mathematically we can say "1933 > 1929". And if they were actual calendar years we would have to conclude 1933 is also "later" than 1929.

Still with us? I know, it's deep stuff.

Now then back to the question. flacaltenn claims, and cannot prove, that the aggregate output of "the NYTimes, the WashPo, CNN and the networks" contains a greater (remember that word?) amount of fake news than the aggregate of all other sources combined -- the fake abc.co site claiming three million Amish mobilized to vote for Rump, the wacko story posted here on USMB about Hillary Clinton not showing up at a rally and being a hologram, all the various Nosebook and Tweeter fake newses about Parkinsons and crossed eyes and Vince Fosters and Bill Clinton's secret black son and of course, as originally cited here, everything on YouTube that is also bullshit.

All of THAT, combined, he says, does not measure up to the amount of fake news on ""the NYTimes, the WashPo, CNN and the networks". That's his claim. He needs numbers to prove that, and he doesn't have any. Therefore and until he can come up with them, his claim is dismissed as yet more fake news.

The bottom line, again, and no pun intended on "bottom", is that you can't just pull claims out of your ass and expect them to be real without any evidence thereof.

So are you colorblind, or an idiot? I'm leaning towards colorblind, but ya never know..

So are you the Illiterati, or do you just play one on the internets?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

The last time I bothered replying to your economically illiterate ass was in a thread regarding FDR. You did not believe that his Socialist policies created and extended the Great Depression, in fact you seemed to support the vast majority of the policies he put in place. The only thing I recall you disagreeing with was his imprisonment of Japanese people based on their race. Supporting FDR's policies not only makes you a Socialist, but makes you economically illiterate

FDR gave us the endless Great Depression every bit as much as Obama turned a 6 month recession into the 8 year Great Recession.

Quite the technology geek, that FDR. Whereas O'bama only time-traveled back four months before he took office to dump the economy thereby ensuring a win, FDR went back four years with his time machine to trash the whole Hoover presidency.

Linear time is now "fake news".

I swear ta god, this board is a competition for top Moron.

Before FDR took office, what we had was a minor recession, FDR took over and turned it into a Great Depression, then prevented the US from recovering from it for seven years. Had he done literally nothing, actually sat on his hands and signed no bills, implemented no policies, etc, the Great Depression would have ended during his first term.

Policy Report: How to Turn a Recession into a Depression
This link explains it decently.(You probably won't read it, but I love you anyway<3)

FDR also basically totaled the economy through his government takeover of businesses, forcing them to lock prices high and forcing them to continue hiring employees despite the lower sales, while also dictating how much they paid said employees. These policies not only crippled businesses, but also promoted monopolies due to lack of competition.

 

[flacaltenn]

LIST: 24 Pieces of MSM Fake News in 5 Days

Oh, there's more..

Journalists Who Were Caught Lying

35 things the media reported as FACTS that were later found to be total lies

---- and the comparison table is where again?

Oh yeah --- MIA.

Dumbass.

PergDerp sez "muh proof"

Here's one fer ya:

"2. (Huffington Post, New York Times, FiveThirtyEight, et al.) Hillary Has a 98% Chance of Winning The Election"

25 Fake News Stories From The Mainstream Media - IVN.us

Once AGAIN --- where's the comparator? *STILL* MIA, that's where.

Besides all of which, your citation is not "fake news" anyway. If somebody analyzed a 98% shot for Clinton, then that's what they analyzed. Dumb shit.

The comparators are imbedded into the entire page, I ran down a few and everything is credible.

The only thing that can explain you not seeing them is that you're colorblind.

If you're not colorblind, you're an idiot.

Since Maid Marian flummoxed himself by diving into a question about a claim that wasn't even his in the first place, maybe it's time to review and reiterate exactly what it is that flacaltenn continues to run away from, shall we?

Here's where we have to reverse-engineer intellectuality for those who insist on using the internets to play Stupid.

Roll tape.

Youtube's Terms of Service have been changed so that nobody can discuss anything that they have decided is a "Hoax". Youtube is getting more and more strict with people it doesn't agree with.

No, it’s getting more difficult for conspiracy theory liars to post their lies and distortions on YouTube.

High time that those engaging in political discussion got called for their lies.

That's a dangerously low bar since the NYTimes, the WashPo, CNN and the networks are doing MOST of the fake news, lying and the lying by omission....

Definition of "MOST":

determiner & pronoun
determiner: most; pronoun: most

1. 1.
   superlative of many, much.
2. 2.
   greatest in amount or degree.
   "they've had the most success"
   • the majority of; nearly all of.
     "most oranges are sweeter than these"
     synonyms: nearly all, almost all, the greatest part/number, the majority, the bulk, the preponderance
     "most of the guests brought gifts"
     antonyms: little, few

adverb
adverb: most

1. 1.
   superlative of much.
2. 2.
   to the greatest extent.
   "the things he most enjoyed"

Still with us class? Today we learned that the word "most" means a superlative degree. It means "more than any other in the classifiction". Another way of saying this is that no other entity in that same group is represented as much as the "MOST" is represented.

This is what we call a comparator. It compares the degree of one entity (in this case the entity is the group of "the NYTimes, the WashPo, CNN and the networks") with all other entities in that classification, i.e. purveyors of news.

For instance take a random number like, say, 1929. Is that number greater or lesser than, say, 1933?

Take all the time you need to figure that one out.
____________

Now unless your name is Death Angel you should have concluded that "1933" is greater than "1929" Mathematically we can say "1933 > 1929". And if they were actual calendar years we would have to conclude 1933 is also "later" than 1929.

Still with us? I know, it's deep stuff.

Now then back to the question. flacaltenn claims, and cannot prove, that the aggregate output of "the NYTimes, the WashPo, CNN and the networks" contains a greater (remember that word?) amount of fake news than the aggregate of all other sources combined -- the fake abc.co site claiming three million Amish mobilized to vote for Rump, the wacko story posted here on USMB about Hillary Clinton not showing up at a rally and being a hologram, all the various Nosebook and Tweeter fake newses about Parkinsons and crossed eyes and Vince Fosters and Bill Clinton's secret black son and of course, as originally cited here, everything on YouTube that is also bullshit.

All of THAT, combined, he says, does not measure up to the amount of fake news on ""the NYTimes, the WashPo, CNN and the networks". That's his claim. He needs numbers to prove that, and he doesn't have any. Therefore and until he can come up with them, his claim is dismissed as yet more fake news.

The bottom line, again, and no pun intended on "bottom", is that you can't just pull claims out of your ass and expect them to be real without any evidence thereof.

Oh gee.. Now you're lecturing us about the word "most"??| Is THAT your problem bunky?? Pay attention class....


MOST = (CNN/WashPo/NYTimes (et al) X IMPACT) + 4(Fed Agencies in collusion) > 4(Russian trolls) + $30,000 (to the power of "facebook ads")



IOWs --- THIS FAKE NEWS impact is orders of MAGNITUDE ABOVE the fake news from crappy advertising of indicted Russian trolls by MORE than 100000%... Putin has checked my math and gives this equation a 9,9 on the truth-o-meter..



That's engineering dude..