It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Project Veritas: American Pravda: CNN Part 2

page: 10
65
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 07:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sublimecraft

originally posted by: oddnutz
a reply to: Sublimecraft


I can give one, only one but then I do not watch fox news.
' After the story broke that Comey had reopened the investigation into Hillary because of the Huma/wiener laptop, a story was circulated and pushed by Fox that Hillary's indictment was imminent, a few days later fox retracted the story and it quietly went away.

I only remember because it was this story that encouraged me to bet $500 on a Trump election win


There we go - I also recall this. Amazing what folks can remember when they don't have their blinders on.

Cheers.


Blinders?

Just because I try not to deal with logical fallacies does not mean I'm blind.

But in the end. I'm ok with your comment. I'd rather be called blind than prove I am a hypocrite.




posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Sublimecraft

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Sublimecraft

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Sublimecraft



I will corroborate anything you post against existing documentation - i'm simply asking for an example that you remember yourself, not one that jogged your memory after you 'googled it'.


So you will try to prove the anecdotal evidence wrong after you have a chance to google it.

Ya, who didn't see that coming?



So, no example then? Figured as much - you're all hot air, that's why I can't take you seriously.


Why would I care if you take me seriously or not. Look at the crap you just posted.

You ask for anecdotal evidence, without suing google, but will be sure to refute those logical fallacies after you use google.



A comedian could not write such comedy and irony.


EG:

If you said 'remember last week on tucker carlson when he was interviewing xyz and he said abc and it was later proven to be qrst.....'

Something like that - got anything? anything at all?

Because so far, you have nothing, except an opinion of me - LOL.


I know nothing about you. I'm talking about what you have said and it is completely illogical and hilarious.

"remember a few minutes ago where Sublimecraft asked for anecdotal evidence, without using google, yet then said he would refute them with sources...which would require using google".

C'mon dude. You have to admit that was some funny #. Completely hypocritical, yet comedic.


Believe it or not, I totally understand what you are saying about my anecdotal hypocritical request - asking for a non-sourced example so I can check it against online source.

It's unfortunately that you don't know me, otherwise you'd know that I have a photographic memory and I don't need google to determine if what you're saying is correct or complete made-up.

I put my money where my mouth is - if I speak BS, there is a whole army on ATS ready to point out my wrongness - that's why I love this place.

Now - gimme an example.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: introvert


So you are still unwilling to back up your claims, huh?


Did you really just type that after your recent exchange with Sublimecraft?

(plays 80's sitcom laugh track)


Grambler or Sublimecraft.

You seem to be confused.



Hey man for once I going back and forth with you. Leave me out of it!



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 07:49 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical



They both make logical and cogent points quite often.


Sure. As we all do. We all also make asses of ourselves from time to time and only one of those has had the balls to admit it, recently.

And Grambler isn't here at this time. Wonder if you can guess who I am referring to with the lack of testicular fortitude to admit they said something...stupid.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 07:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: introvert


So you are still unwilling to back up your claims, huh?


Did you really just type that after your recent exchange with Sublimecraft?

(plays 80's sitcom laugh track)


Grambler or Sublimecraft.

You seem to be confused.



Hey man for once I going back and forth with you. Leave me out of it!


At first the member in question posted your name and then edited it.

No offense to you. Just pointing out their meaningless mistake.
edit on 28-6-2017 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 07:53 PM
link   
So, if I understand correctly, this O'Keefe character wants us to think he's exposed some big conspiracy at CNN by 1) a video of a medical producer at CNN stating that they're reporting on Russia for ratings (shocker!!) and 2) Van Jones has an opinion on something that might go against his network's narrative (another shocker!!) (and ignoring the fact that we don't really have much context on his comment, since they were interrupted). Tell me how this matters in the grand scheme of things? Trump, his administration and his campaign are still under investigation. I know that's old news, so you might be sick of hearing it, but it's true. There is no proof yet of collusion, but there certainly isn't any proof of the absence of collusion. The Russia *fact* of hacking and an attempt to alter our election (again with no proof that they successfully altered it, or that they didn't - imho, they did) is already one of the biggest stories of this century - any sort of collusion would make it one of the biggest of the millennium. Why would that story *not* get a majority of a network's coverage? I hope the investigations finish up quickly so that Trump has a chance to focus on doing good things for the country - he obviously gets too easily distracted with all this going on (see his Twitter account). It may be obvious, but I'm far from convinced he has the capacity to do those good things.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Wow. One poster in the thread screaming at me to back up an anecdotal statement and one screaming at me to make an anecdotal statement. Some people just want to hold up endless hoops for people to jump through.

No. You jump.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74
Don't let them get to you, they are just trying to sidetrack you so they don't have to look the truth in the eyes.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 07:55 PM
link   
Come oooonnnn...

Is there really a debate going on about whether Fox News lies?

You're all pulling my leg, surely.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 07:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Skorpy
a reply to: carewemust

They work out a contract with these channels. I had Dish network and they took off Fox news because Fox news did not want to pay the amount Dish wanted.


OK...so it's a symbiotic relationship. Thanks!



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 07:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Wow. One poster in the thread screaming at me to back up an anecdotal statement and one screaming at me to make an anecdotal statement. Some people just want to hold up endless hoops for people to jump through.

No. You jump.


Understood, since I'm only getting MSM propaganda points as to why Fox is 1 million times more fake than CNN - lets just get back on topic that CNN admits the whole Russia narrative is BS. We'll leave Fox's propaganda examples for an appropriate thread.

(unless between now and then you remember something)



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft



I put my money where my mouth is - if I speak BS, there is a whole army on ATS ready to point out my wrongness - that's why I love this place.


I disagree. You have an army on ATS ready to pat you on the back for your wrongness. Notice how your silly request and logical fallacies, which you admit to, are well-received?

It appears that I am the only one at the present time pointing-out your "wrongness".



Now - gimme an example.


Na. I'm not a dog that does requests. You're just going to refute them by finding a source, any source, on google.

Therefore it seems contradictory to your original premise.

What would be cool is if you could think of an example in which PV or Okeefe were correct in their assertions, as they are the focus of the OP. So far, it appears they keep getting sued for their fabrications.

You can come up with something off the top of your head if you like. Or you can google it. Doesn't matter. The results will be the same.
edit on 28-6-2017 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 07:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: TimBuk2
a reply to: Kali74
Don't let them get to you, they are just trying to sidetrack you so they don't have to look the truth in the eyes.


Go back through the thread to determine who bought Fox news into this thread - you're not gonna like it.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 08:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

All MSM has bad reporting, just this one guy got set up by Veritas.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

CNN said no such thing... you seem to have lost the plot lately. Are you okay? I'm not, if it helps.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 08:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft


...if I speak BS, there is a whole army on ATS ready to point out my wrongness...



CNN admits the whole Russia narrative is BS...


That army should be along any minute now, right?



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 08:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Sublimecraft

CNN said no such thing... you seem to have lost the plot lately. Are you okay? I'm not, if it helps.


You are correct - Van Jones of CNN said the whole Russian thing is a big nothing burger, same with some medical guru from CNN too.

The owner of CNN has not yet admitted it's all BS - that is yet to come.

Explain to me how I have lost the plot lately?



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 08:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert


You are only attacking the source.


Priceless.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 08:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: redtic
So, if I understand correctly, this O'Keefe character wants us to think he's exposed some big conspiracy at CNN by 1) a video of a medical producer at CNN stating that they're reporting on Russia for ratings (shocker!!) and 2) Van Jones has an opinion on something that might go against his network's narrative (another shocker!!) (and ignoring the fact that we don't really have much context on his comment, since they were interrupted). Tell me how this matters in the grand scheme of things? Trump, his administration and his campaign are still under investigation. I know that's old news, so you might be sick of hearing it, but it's true. There is no proof yet of collusion, but there certainly isn't any proof of the absence of collusion. The Russia *fact* of hacking and an attempt to alter our election (again with no proof that they successfully altered it, or that they didn't - imho, they did) is already one of the biggest stories of this century - any sort of collusion would make it one of the biggest of the millennium. Why would that story *not* get a majority of a network's coverage? I hope the investigations finish up quickly so that Trump has a chance to focus on doing good things for the country - he obviously gets too easily distracted with all this going on (see his Twitter account). It may be obvious, but I'm far from convinced he has the capacity to do those good things.


I doubt you do, but it'd be humorous to see you have the capacity to read what you typed from a perspective other than your own.

I laughed when I read it.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Because I have no life, I will take up your challenge on politifacts specific claims against fox.

I am not going to paste all of the stuff because it would take too much room. But I encourage people that are interested to go to this link and see the full quotes.

www.politifact.com...

1. Newt says Seth rich assassinated and was the leaker. = Pants on fire.

Well no definitive proof, so I see where they are coming from. However, new reports by some independent investigators didnt, mention emails, but does suggest he may have been targeted.

This one is tough because everyone has opinions, so I am not getting into it.

We will just say that they are ok calling this a lie.

2. Jesse waters says podesta password was password = false

This is dumb. Watters was quoting Assange. Secondly, the mixup was that it was actually Podestas windows login that was p@ssword, not his email.

My vote = Politifact is being dumb.

3. Eric Bollinger claims Obamas ARRA was supposed to fix infrastructure and we have nothing to show for it. = mostly false

There reasons seem to be 1. I wasn't just an infrastructire bill and 2. Technically, we do have some stuff to show for it.

My vote= politifact stupid.

4. Hannity says Benghazi had a stand down order and changed clothes 4 times = mostly false.

Reason being that yes, soldiers in Spain did change uniform 4 times while waiting to respond, and there were soldiers ordered to hold a mile away.

But they claim Hannity mashed those two events together, and technically there was no stand down order, troops just held and couldn't make contact.

My verdict= Politicfact dumb.

I could go on, but these are the blockbuster lies politicfact is showing here. Its seems dumb to me.

It includes other hard hitting sections as saying John voight is mostly wrong saying the word progresssive was created as substitute for communist.

Its really dumb.



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join