Welcome to Thunderdome

Leisher wrote: CNN has a headline opinion piece claiming Fox News's treatment of Trump is the closest we've ever come to state run media.

As one of my favorite podcasters says... "That bait ain't going to click itself!"

Kentucky kid who wore the MAGA hat and who was dragged through the mud by erroneous reports is suing CNN for $275M.

Tucker Carlson loses advertisers.

His sins:

But more than 30 advertisers have pulled their ads since December, when Carlson said that “an endless chain of migrant caravans” was making “our own country poorer, and dirtier, and more divided.” Media Matters has called on people to boycott businesses that advertise on the show.

and

Media Matters culled the audio from appearances Carlson made on shock jock Bubba the Love Sponge’s radio show between 2006 and 2011. Carlson defended Utah polygamist Warren Jeffs, a cult leader who is serving a life sentence for child rape, calling the charges against him “bulls–t.”

Carlson went on to argue that “arranging a marriage between a 16-year-old and a 27-year-old is not the same as pulling a stranger off the street and raping her.”

Carlson also used the c-word, called Iraqis “semiliterate primitive monkeys” who don’t use toilet paper or forks, and used homophobic slurs.

Carlson refuses to apologize and actually has a good response:

Carlson has declined to apologize.

“Media Matters caught me saying something naughty on a radio show more than a decade ago,” he said. “Rather than express the usual ritual contrition, how about this: I’m on television every weeknight live for an hour. If you want to know what I think, you can watch. Anyone who disagrees with my views is welcome to come on and explain why.”

Fox News' response is also legit good because it's accurate:

“We cannot and will not allow voices like Tucker Carlson to be censored by agenda-driven intimidation efforts from the likes of Moveon.org, Media Matters and Sleeping Giants. Attempts were made last month to bully and terrorize Tucker and his family at their home,” Fox News said. “He is now once again being threatened via Twitter by far left activist groups with deeply political motives. While we do not advocate boycotts, these same groups never target other broadcasters and operate under a grossly hypocritical double standard given their intolerance to all opposing points of view.”

If you go after one, you need to go after all or you're the bigot.

Does the left really want to target people based on crap they said on a shock jock's show? Can we comb through Howard Stern's shows and ensure all the people he's had on that have said gross things never work again? This is just stupid.

Disclaimer: I have no clue who the guy is or his stance on things. He could be a total nutjob, left, right, center, whatever. I do know Jim Jefferies who has a pretty good stand up act, but is very much a left wing activist.

So this Jewish Australian activist gets interviewed on the Jim Jefferies Show, which is apparently a thing. He has two conditions he knows they will break, and he also points out this happened prior to the shooting in New Zealand.

The guy sets down his cell phone to record the interview without people being aware.

Don't worry, you don't watch the whole interview, but he does show how they edit one question/answer versus what really happens. Already bad enough and makes one wonder exactly what we get fed by the MSM and whatnot. But it gets better.

He also catches Jefferies bashing Islam and drawing a cartoon of the prophet Mohammed. This is while doing an interview where he is defending Muslim immigrants.

This happens a lot. It's getting easier and easier to record these things, so we;re starting to see how this works. I remember the pro gun group that burned Katie Couric a few years ago exposing their shady edits.

Mexico... and....

GORDON wrote: Mexico... and....

East Mexico and Little Mexico, I assume?

I figured they meant Mexico, California, and Texas.

Some really sharp minds over there at FOX...

CNN has really been running with this story too, just like they did when Barrack said there were 57 states. Oh wait, they didn't do anything when Barrack said that. Weird.

In other news, the guy in that video I posted was banned by FB for it. When contacted by media outlets FB has apparently said he has previously broken their rules. When asked for examples, they provide none. Meanwhile, nobody in the MSM seems to care about an interview being exposed as fake. I guess it only merits attention when a right wing outlet does it?

A fun flub. I'm kind of shocked by the reaction from CNN since a couple of months ago their chyron identified VA Gov. Northam as a Republican, which I found much more egregious and malicious and partisan. I guess when Fox's Tucker Carlson has higher ratings than all three of your prime time shows combined, you swing at whatever flies your way.

Trump wants to reduce the government and its involvement in our lives.

CNN actually has a headline piece about why that's bad.

Have your opinion, but presenting it as a headline on one of the world's foremost news sites is really disturbing. There's a reason editorials were never run on the front pages of newspapers.

Guy who bet $85,000 on Tiger has a criminal past.

Uh, who gives a fuck? Do we now need to do full background checks on anyone that does anything remotely interesting, and then praise or condemn them based upon which way the social winds are blowing?

Maybe this will be a chance for him to turn it around?

Also, 39? Dude looks 49

Props to CNN for running a piece a few days ago, that I just remembered I wanted to post, but now can't find, that actually talked about how The Mueller Report actually makes the Obama administration look really bad. Russian tampering was going on under their watch, there were apparently signs, and they didn't do shit.

My question now is: Could that be why Dem party leaders want to move on from the report and are willing to let Trump serve his, probably, last two years in office? Without being able to prove collusion it becomes a "who knew what, when" sort of thing, and the Obama administration would clearly be the people in charge during the time frame in question. This isn't suggestion Obama-Russian collusion, just a dropping of the ball on national security.

That's all purely speculation, but it is interesting enough to consider.

Leisher wrote: Props to CNN for running a piece a few days ago, that I just remembered I wanted to post, but now can't find, that actually talked about how The Mueller Report actually makes the Obama administration look really bad. Russian tampering was going on under their watch, there were apparently signs, and they didn't do shit.

I saw that, too.

Leisher wrote: just a dropping of the ball on national security.

Yes, yes it was. And, is.

CNN opinion piece (and headline) that links Marvel superheroes to white supremacy and capitalist oppression.

Let's ignore the fact that this piece pretends Iron Man was invented during the Obama administration. This whole piece is bigoted propaganda.

Fuck CNN for posting divisive garbage like this.

As.if it wasn't their primary mission to get as many clicks as.possible.

American Indian refuses FOX invitation and slams the network as "hate for profit".

Here's the thing, like them or not, FOX is considered one of the "legit" news sources. They also happen to be the only real right leaning credible news source. That makes Dem candidates refusing to work with them and bashing them all the time all the more curious. What does it mean when a political party wants you to ignore the one news source that's critical of it, unfairly or otherwise? Remember, these are the same folks who criticize Trump's criticism of the left leaning MSM.

I cringe when I hear people say things like "FAUX News" or whatever dumb things my uncles say about CNN, MSNBC, etc. These people have been brainwashed to ignore dissenting opinions and views.

Obama's White House manipulated, used, and had zero respect for the MSM.

That's analysis of this piece from the NY Times.

The analysis piece isn't wrong.

Here's how the MSM was viewed by Obama's White House:

“The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns,” Rhodes says. “They literally know nothing.”

Then there are others his assistant Ned Price refers to as “force multipliers,” more senior reporters and pundits who parrot what they’re told.

If these people have any self-awareness, this has to sting.

That article is 3 years old.

That first one is a little less damning in context

“All these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus,” he said. “Now they don’t. They call us to explain to them what’s happening in Moscow and Cairo. Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.”

But still...