Hillary Clinton lies...

[huskerfan2000]

 

right, deflect from the message, this way you can ignore it while drawing attention away.

How am I deflecting? She's a lying dirt ball. We agree on that. I didn't think there was much to discuss.

 

I'm just making a comment about some people's perspective of CNN.

 

 

The media outlet really doesn't matter in this case, but you are right, CNN running with this is a bit surprising.

[ZRod]

 

No, because you implied that he also wasn't a standard to hold one's self to.

 

We/I don't know enough about him to hold him as any standard! Do you think what you see on TV is exactly who a person is? No! Do you know enough about him to call him someone you can look up to? Well, some might, but I need to know more.

 

I don't just pick someone in the government, or in the public eye, and just assume what I see is exactly who that person is. Like Hillary Clinton for example!

I don't make those assumptions either, but I generally believe that someone who has great respect on both sides of the isle, and has served his country in multiple roles without scandal is someone who can be thought of as a role model in governmental affairs.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

 

right, deflect from the message, this way you can ignore it while drawing attention away.

How am I deflecting? She's a lying dirt ball. We agree on that. I didn't think there was much to discuss.

 

I'm just making a comment about some people's perspective of CNN.

The media outlet really doesn't matter in this case, but you are right, CNN running with this is a bit surprising.

Actually no. They have reported fairly heavily on the email problems.

[HuskerNation1]

One of my all time favorite Hillary lies was when she pulled a Brian Williams and claimed she was under sniper fire in Bosnia.

 

 

And here is my 2nd favorite:

 

[Danny Bateman]

Study: Trump boosted, Clinton hurt by primary media coverage

 

 

Media Analysis: Hillary Clinton Received Most Negative Stories, Least Positive Stories Of All Presidential Candidates

The Hillary Clinton email story is out of control

I do tire of the misnomer implicating "the liberal media" in "protecting Clinton." That's just not true. If anything they've propped up Trump for the ratings. Here's a statistic attributing over $3 billion in free media for him due to coverage... from May.

The third story I linked is just as accurate. I'm not going to re-litigate the email thing... I've expressed my feelings on this board multiple times for those who care to listen. But the WaPo editorial board put out that story because the ubiquity with which this email story has invaded everyday life is... stupid.

The fact that Matt Lauer spent half her time of the commander-in-chief forum asking her about emails... and then asked her to "be brief" and "hurry up" on later, important questions? That's silly.

The question that Kaep, like lots of other folks, casually tosses around "anyone else would be in jail" explains just how little people understand how the legal system actually works. I don't know if they mean that literally or if they're just being cynical, but if it's the former, they're just wrong. And there's a lifelong Republican heading the FBI that said everything I'm saying.

[huskerfan2000]

Politico = liberal

Media Matters = liberal

Washington Post = liberal

 

Even the Washington Post considers themselves to be on the liberal side.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/10/21/lets-rank-the-media-from-liberal-to-conservative-based-on-their-audiences/

[ZRod]

Politico = liberal

Media Matters = liberal

Washington Post = liberal

 

Even the Washington Post considers themselves to be on the liberal side.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/10/21/lets-rank-the-media-from-liberal-to-conservative-based-on-their-audiences/

Does that invalidate what they wrote in anyway?

[huskerfan2000]

 

Politico = liberal

Media Matters = liberal

Washington Post = liberal

 

Even the Washington Post considers themselves to be on the liberal side.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/10/21/lets-rank-the-media-from-liberal-to-conservative-based-on-their-audiences/

Does that invalidate what they wrote in anyway?

 

 

 

Oh, so you guys can invalidate something that comes from Fox News, but when the same thing is done to your link then it's, "Does that invalidate".

 

lol, I knew that was coming.

 

if you look at that link from the Washington Post, Fox is to the right like most of those media outlets presented above are to the left.

 

Thanks by the way, now we know you will never try to discredit Fox when they are used because they are too conservative again.

[ZRod]

 

 

Politico = liberal

Media Matters = liberal

Washington Post = liberal

 

Even the Washington Post considers themselves to be on the liberal side.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/10/21/lets-rank-the-media-from-liberal-to-conservative-based-on-their-audiences/

 

Does that invalidate what they wrote in anyway?

 

Oh, so you guys can invalidate something that comes from Fox News, but when the same thing is done to your link then it's, "Does that invalidate".

 

lol, I knew that was coming.

 

if you look at that link from the Washington Post, Fox is to the right like most of those media outlets presented above are to the left.

 

Thanks by the way, now we know you will never try to discredit Fox when they are used because they are too conservative again.

Show me where I've ever discredited a Fox News article and not provided an alternative source of information (I'm not talking about opinion pieces or their TV garbage). In general I don't have a problem with Fox articles that are not opinion pieces. Most of them are actually pretty reasonable. But you go on thinking what you want to.

[huskerfan2000]

 

 

 

Politico = liberal

Media Matters = liberal

Washington Post = liberal

 

Even the Washington Post considers themselves to be on the liberal side.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/10/21/lets-rank-the-media-from-liberal-to-conservative-based-on-their-audiences/

Does that invalidate what they wrote in anyway?

 

Oh, so you guys can invalidate something that comes from Fox News, but when the same thing is done to your link then it's, "Does that invalidate".

 

lol, I knew that was coming.

 

if you look at that link from the Washington Post, Fox is to the right like most of those media outlets presented above are to the left.

 

Thanks by the way, now we know you will never try to discredit Fox when they are used because they are too conservative again.

Show me where I've ever discredited a Fox News article and not provided an alternative source of information (I'm not talking about opinion pieces or their TV garbage). In general I don't have a problem with Fox articles that are not opinion pieces. Most of them are actually pretty reasonable. But you go on thinking what you want to.

 

 

, you guys (meaning liberal leaning posters) are constantly discrediting a site because it is too conservative (Fox seems to be a favorite to discredit by some, maybe not so much you), sorry you are not happy when it comes back to bite you.

[ZRod]

No, I think you'll find sites that are blatantly biased to the far right, or bought and paid for are what is discredited (typically with facts). I could be wrong on that, but that's what I've seen.

[huskerfan2000]

No, I think you'll find sites that are blatantly biased to the far right, or bought and paid for are what is discredited (typically with facts). I could be wrong on that, but that's what I've seen.

 

That is so blatantly wrong it isn't even funny! Of course the "facts" used are from a liberal site.. while trying to discredit conservative facts from a conservative site. Knap even tried to discredit a video, just recently, because it was from fox news!

[Danny Bateman]

There's a massive gulf between posting articles from Fox News and say... Breitbart.

One of them is going to get you laughed at. I'll let you figure out which one.

[ZRod]

 

No, I think you'll find sites that are blatantly biased to the far right, or bought and paid for are what is discredited (typically with facts). I could be wrong on that, but that's what I've seen.

 

That is so blatantly wrong it isn't even funny! Of course the "facts" used are from a liberal site.. while trying to discredit conservative facts from a conservative site. Knap even tried to discredit a video, just recently, because it was from fox news!

I didn't watch the video and the link is now dead, so I can't comment on its content. However, almost anything on TV from Fox is garbage. And before you drag MSNBC into this I'll say that I wouldn't know much about them. I have watched maybe 2 hours of that channel in my entire life. I can't fathom a site you wouldn't consider too liberal when you are linking to the heritage foundation.

 

The question still stands, no matter how hard your try to deflect it. Are those articles wrong?

[huskerfan2000]

 

 

No, I think you'll find sites that are blatantly biased to the far right, or bought and paid for are what is discredited (typically with facts). I could be wrong on that, but that's what I've seen.

That is so blatantly wrong it isn't even funny! Of course the "facts" used are from a liberal site.. while trying to discredit conservative facts from a conservative site. Knap even tried to discredit a video, just recently, because it was from fox news!

I didn't watch the video and the link is now dead, so I can't comment on its content. However, almost anything on TV from Fox is garbage. And before you drag MSNBC into this I'll say that I wouldn't know much about them. I have watched maybe 2 hours of that channel in my entire life. I can't fathom a site you wouldn't consider too liberal when you are linking to the heritage foundation.

 

The question still stands, no matter how hard your try to deflect it. Are those articles wrong?

 

 

 

From my perspective, yes, they are wrong. Based on what I see and here in the media Trump is constantly labeled negatively by the media, Hillary isn't. Yes, they talk about the email scandal, but it is in a "no big deal" sort of way.

 

I guess you can say even though the media is trying to take him down, that it is having a reverse affect. So, in that way, I guess you can say they are correct.

 

Oh, and the email scandal is not out of control. It shows she is far from qualified to be president, and it should, and rightly so, disqualify her due to a total lack of understanding, or caring about national security.