I don’t know. How do you know it’s intentional? Missed my point which was agreeing with you that healthy skepticism is always warranted.
I don’t believe I stated a misrepresentation was intentional. I asked how does one know what transpired to yield a misrepresentation by a news source. Even if a news source asserts a misrepresentation was unintentional….. how can anyone rely on such a representation as being accurate. What we’ve all experienced over the past years is …. sources of news can and will be biased and misleading.
You asked the question in response to me saying that sometimes it’s simply a mistake. It’s a self-evident truth that unintended mistakes are made. That’s as far as I was taking it, not evaluating intentional vs unintentional because it’s immaterial to my point that a healthy level of skepticism is always warranted.
Don't get me wrong. It's weird. But I don't get what the FBI is supposedly investigating. They are defensive and they aren't regulated. No laws were broken.
I guess the theory would be that they’re in a conspiracy with the rioters to defy the police and NG by gearing them up. I think that would be a tough crime to prove.
How do we even let organizations like this exist in our country... they are a clear and present danger to our Constitutional Republic.
I do not think it is about arresting them. I think it is about figuring out who the organizations are that are doing this and where they are getting their funding from. If it is from some sort of labor union or one of their non-profits, then some administrative actions can be taken.
I heard discussion on the radio this morning that an investigation into who is funding the rioters (if anyone) could lead to RICO charges, that would result in the executives of any organization involved being sentenced.
Yup, that would be the theory. Arresting and charging is easy, conviction is a different story. I don’t think they could get a conviction for someone dropping off water bottles and food. These masks as Channing noted are purely defensive from projectiles, etc. and can be used for peaceful protesting (vs some of the violence we have seen).
Now if you would all agree to move towards the center on the sources, illuminating the blatantly biased and factually challenged sources (from both sides) I think you all will have landed on a decent compromise. Right now, your list is basically just "major media sources" regardless of how biased or factually accurate they are. Not sure what the purpose of that is.
lol This was brought way back when it was first proposed to have a list of “qualified” sources or “approved” sources. Who decides what is worthy? What isn’t? I get why we have it and don’t care all that much either way.. but once you start limiting the sources that can be used it will eventually get shortened, and the. Shortened and never will both sides agree. If someone uses junk sources so what? Are you smart enough to realize it? The. Ignore it. If not well that seems to be a personal problem. Just my 2 cents and worth less than that.
why cant you just start a thread with just some general comment and then respond to the thread with a link to whatever site you want? Is there a rule preventing that since the rule in question seems to be about links when you start a thread
If you are asking me? I think you can. It’s fine. I’m just commenting that this was the slippery slope mentioned way back when. We limit what you can use to start a thread… well some of those are clearly to far fringe.. we should cut them out! Well a few years later we will need to ape it down. And never never will the list appease everyone… or likely anyone. Just use whatever you like and be ready to be ignored, ridiculed or deleted. That’s my vote but I do t care that much
Between this and having a mod give me the magical, not available to the public kissy lips rating on a post, I think I accomplished a lot on this board.
I don't understand the need to police the source linked in the opening post .... when absolutely maniacal hyper-partisan tripe from far lefties (are there any far righties on Too Woke) is allowed on a discussion.
Cmon man. I’m very conservative and I don’t hide it but to ask if there are any far righties on here? Seriously. Both sides (cue Jo’s rant about both sides) have ridiculous apostles on the far fringes. Viruses don’t exist. Trump’s murder attempt was setup by Trump for ratings bump. Many in here can’t see past their party lines no matter what.
If you defend everything Trump says or does then you're a far righty (not you in particular) and there's quite a few people here who fall into that category. Conservatives may even outnumber liberals on this board but those conservatives who don't defend everything Trump does tend to get lumped into the liberal category.
