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: 9
65
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 07:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Konduit
a reply to: FamCore

The irony is that CNN and WaPo started the Fake News narrative the day after the election as a way to attack Infowars and Breitbart. They literally sowed the seeds of their undoing.


Way to rewrite history to support your agenda bub.

Fake news was stated to describe made up BS being passed as news on sites like facebook. Trump co-opted it to use an as attack on anyone that ran stories that were critical of him. All of this happened well before the election.




posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Not going to waste my time!

How about the news outlets reporting factually to
start with, now there is a novel idea!



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 07:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Politifact FOX's file



My God Kali - did you really just post that dribble?

Did you read the reasons they are calling things false and fake?

Did you read the Podesta email password falsity?

"Podesta did reveal his password, but the password may not have been 'password' as Jesse insinuated THEREFORE Fox is a liar"

LOL - what a #in joke Kali - a joke.

Are you expecting me to take this list seriously as a comparison to MSNBC and CNN?

Are you able to post any examples that you yourself have retained knowledge on where you are not relying on websites to provide the info for you? I can go all the way back to the 1st gulf war just with crap off the top of my head.

Give me a 'Kali' example (same with you @introvert) from the last 18 months - a clear lie where Fox itself has been embarrassed into an eventual retraction?



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships



Not going to waste my time!


You already did.



How about the news outlets reporting factually to start with, now there is a novel idea!


I agree. It appears Fox has some ground to gain on CNN.

How said is that?



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft



Give me a 'Kali' example (same with you @introvert) from the last 18 months - a clear lie where Fox itself has been embarrassed into an eventual retraction?


You are asking for anecdotal evidence rather than a source to corroborate?

Well, I guess that's a new kind of argument.

"Prove it to me with logical fallacies"...



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

This is not about Fox as much as you want
it to be. This story is about CNN pushing a fake
narrative, inconvenient facts for three "resigned"
journalists that should teach them all a lesson.

edit on 28-6-2017 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 07:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Sublimecraft



Give me a 'Kali' example (same with you @introvert) from the last 18 months - a clear lie where Fox itself has been embarrassed into an eventual retraction?


You are asking for anecdotal evidence rather than a source to corroborate?

Well, I guess that's a new kind of argument.

"Prove it to me with logical fallacies"...


have no fear grasshopper - 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'.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 07:27 PM
link   
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?




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

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.



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

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: introvert

This is not about Fox as much as you want
it to be. This story is about CNN pushing a fake
narrative, inconvenient facts for three "resigned"
journalists that should teach them all a lesson.


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

Good thing you are not a journalist. You could work for CNN and Fox.

Gotta love opportunities.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Politi fact is biased just like all news outlets.

www.usnews.com...

thefederalist.com...

There is the back up.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 07:32 PM
link   

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 using google, but will be sure to refute those logical fallacies after you use google.



A comedian could not write such comedy and irony.
edit on 28-6-2017 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 07:34 PM
link   
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



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 07:34 PM
link   
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)
edit on 28-6-2017 by jadedANDcynical because: Wrong ATS member



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 07:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: introvert

Politi fact is biased just like all news outlets.

www.usnews.com...

thefederalist.com...

There is the back up.


You have not refuted the specific quotes and claims. You are only attacking the source.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 07:36 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 07:36 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 07:38 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 07:41 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

They both make logical and cogent points quite often.

Regardless of my error (to which I owned up in the edit field), my amusement stands.

Pretty sure you got a chuckle from my faux pas, so it's a wash.

To the point. I don't trust any news, haven't for a long time.

Jaded and cynical, it's more than a screen name...



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join