Just because they both got a mention in his tweet doesn't mean he conflated the two events. The two year anniversary of the Floyd murder happened to coincide with the aftermath of the school shooting. The dates are the only connection and Obama didn't suggest otherwise. You were just looking for things to be critical of Obama about.I was disappointed but not surprised by Obama that he referred to Floyd and the massacre in Texas in the same tweet.
he didn't need to conflate the two events.
I didn't think I would ever say this but I have more respect for Sleepy Joe than I do for the president from Hawaii.
No problem.I meant Alabama :)
he could have tweeted separately and should have and not been so insensitive to a situation that occurred not 24 hours earlier and no doubt he drew a connection which had political overtones to it and the common thread other than needless death was the subtle snide at police and race politics.Just because they both got a mention in his tweet doesn't mean he conflated the two events. The two year anniversary of the Floyd murder happened to coincide with the aftermath of the school shooting. The dates are the only connection and Obama didn't suggest otherwise. You were just looking for things to be critical of Obama about.
I can't, because if I called you what I want, I'd get banned, and I don't wanna be.You can call anyone all the names you want. Your perogative. Won't change the price of cotton in Timbuktu.
He did tweet separately, 5 times, on the day it happened.he could have tweeted separately and should have and not been so insensitive to a situation that occurred not 24 hours earlier and no doubt he drew a connection which had political overtones to it and the common thread other than needless death was the subtle snide at police and race politics.
Do you really think that the families who has senselessly and needlessly lost their loved ones who might read that at some point or if its pointed out to them want to be reminded of Floyd and his death at that time.
No one else other than this fake politician only interested in platitudes throughout his tenure and did little both on the home front in 8 years and was a complete disaster in foreign policy other than give lip service to issues like climate warming while saying it was a great moral issue of his time would come up with a tweet like that in response to a massacre.
I didn't hear him spouting for changes in gun laws when Floyd was murdered and you have to ask yourself why is these type of massacres on the increase and significantly so in the past two years.
Like I said I have more respect for sleepy Joe than Obama and you don't have to look far to identify many issues to be justifiably critical of Obama.
Exactly so why conflate the two incidents.He did tweet separately, 5 times, on the day it happened.
The following day, the anniversary of the Floyd murder, he tweeted about Floyd whilst briefly mentioning the school shooting.
Why would he spout about gun laws in relation to Floyd’s murder when the murder weapon was a policeman’s knee?
He didn’t. There was nothing in that tweet that drew any parallels between the two events other than the date. You should read it.Exactly so why conflate the two incidents.
Yeah right! Lol.I can't, because if I called you what I want, I'd get banned, and I don't wanna be.
Still doesn't affect the price of rice in Sokoto. But you already knew that. :)However, I will point out that many fucking idiots don't know how to spell the word prerogative.
Opinion pieces aired by mainstream media are labeled as such (I think). Fox used to label it's opinion pieces as opinion - I'm not sure that they still do - though they might.You too often mistake people correcting your misgivings for 'defending' something else.
If you are wrong about a point, me telling you you are wrong isn't defending that point. It's simply telling you you are wrong.
Even worse, You say statement X about Y, me asking where is your evidence of X? In no way is a defense Y. Rather it's simply requiring you to make good faith claims, rather than partisan conclusory statements..
This by the way is a consistent problem on this thread and it's predecessor thread during the Trump years..
Again, What Mancity1 is pointing out to you is simple enough... All news channels that run opinion pieces i.e Fox, CNN, MSNBC, PBS etc are all biased and slanted on the account that they give you the news in the form of an opinion.
That you can't see that is disappointing :(
Why always them...
Can't speak for Dax but in my case you are wrong on all fronts and that typifies your willingness to label and presume and inability to move on from your bias so again you just don't get it to use one of your lines.Opinion pieces aired by mainstream media are labeled as such (I think). Fox used to label it's opinion pieces as opinion - I'm not sure that they still do - though they might.
And to - hopefully - head off you misguided attempts at labeling my thoughts as purely left-leaning, not respecting the right - the following is anything but. It's simply a call for factual reporting. And fact-based opinions.
===
That said, my observations remain.
Fox is simply a demagogue channel - on steroids. They air shows expressing views that are simultaneously anti-fact, anti-science and dangerous.
COVID is a real danger, albeit currently much less so. Yet even when COVID strains were much more virulent, Fox was busy pooh-poohing the impact. Ditto about the efficacy and wisdom of wearing masks.
Same with climate change.
And so on and so on.
You, Dax, and ManCity1 are conservatives. I get that. But you don't at all seem to be conservatives in the mould I respect. Namely conservatives willing to actually recognize fact - and from there, argue politics.
You two seem to be mired in the defense of irresponsible, non-factual broadcasts from Fox and other outlets.
Let's just say - for a minute - that Fox clearly labels these broadcasts as opinion only - and not as fact. And perhaps they do.
And under the label of opinion, anti-factual, dangerous non-scientific opinion pieces are aired - and most certainly they are in fact aired.
OK - you say - what's the harm? This should be legal.
To which, I counter, no it should not be.
Why? Because the broadcast of such ideas lends a false sense of correctness to the opinion. The Fox viewer is all too likely to conclude: Look, Tucker, and The Five, and, well, every single one of my favorite Fox personalities all say that COVID is a hoax, that vaccines are dangerous, that the wearing masks doesn't work, that climate change is a joke... just as I thought! So I'm not going to vaccinate, or wear masks, and I will most certainly oppose any and all climate change legislation by electing officials that will block such initiatives.
The problem with such "opinion" pieces is that they're extremely influential. Many will consume such pieces and act accordingly - that is to say, irrationally - and to the detriment and danger to society.
Disinformation, even if labeled as opinion, is extremely influential. And this - IMO - is the biggest threat to society at present, bar none other. Because people armed with misinformation are going to make bad decisions.
So carry on you two in your defense of Fox Opinion and other such nonsense - I for one have fucking had more than Goddamn enough.
I disagree.He didn’t. There was nothing in that tweet that drew any parallels between the two events other than the date. You should read it.
Your respect isn't required. Your honesty is.You, Dax, and ManCity1 are conservatives. I get that. But you don't at all seem to be conservatives in the mould I respect. Namely conservatives willing to actually recognize fact - and from there, argue politics.
Can you highlight an example of this defense?You two seem to be mired in the defense of irresponsible, non-factual broadcasts from Fox and other outlets.
This is all in your head. You have made up a straw man for you to argue against.Let's just say - for a minute - that Fox clearly labels these broadcasts as opinion only - and not as fact. And perhaps they do.
And under the label of opinion, anti-factual, dangerous non-scientific opinion pieces are aired - and most certainly they are in fact aired.
OK - you say - what's the harm? This should be legal.
To which, I counter, no it should not be./
Why? Because the broadcast of such ideas lends a false sense of correctness to the opinion. The Fox viewer is all too likely to conclude: Look, Tucker, and The Five, and, well, every single one of my favorite Fox personalities all say that COVID is a hoax, that vaccines are dangerous, that the wearing masks doesn't work, that climate change is a joke... just as I ,thought! So I'm not going to vaccinate, or wear masks, and I will most certainly oppose any and all climate change legislation by electing officials that will block such initiatives.
The problem with such "opinion" pieces is that they're extremely influential. Many will consume such pieces and act accordingly - that is to say, irrationally - and to the detriment and danger to society.
Disinformation, even if labeled as opinion, is extremely influential. And this - IMO - is the biggest threat to society at present, bar none other. Because people armed with misinformation are going to make bad decisions.
This is just wierd. I just described this bad faith style of yours and in your response you repeat that bad faith. Yikes!So carry on you two in your defense of Fox Opinion and other such nonsense - I for one have fucking had more than Goddamn enough.
Your problem blue and in fact created in part by you , do something about stop whinging its wasted energy and not good for the climate either.Opinion pieces aired by mainstream media are labeled as such (I think). Fox used to label it's opinion pieces as opinion - I'm not sure that they still do - though they might.
And to - hopefully - head off you misguided attempts at labeling my thoughts as purely left-leaning, not respecting the right - the following is anything but. It's simply a call for factual reporting. And fact-based opinions.
===
That said, my observations remain.
Fox is simply a demagogue channel - on steroids. They air shows expressing views that are simultaneously anti-fact, anti-science and dangerous.
COVID is a real danger, albeit currently much less so. Yet even when COVID strains were much more virulent, Fox was busy pooh-poohing the impact. Ditto about the efficacy and wisdom of wearing masks.
Same with climate change.
And so on and so on.
You, Dax, and ManCity1 are conservatives. I get that. But you don't at all seem to be conservatives in the mould I respect. Namely conservatives willing to actually recognize fact - and from there, argue politics.
You two seem to be mired in the defense of irresponsible, non-factual broadcasts from Fox and other outlets.
Let's just say - for a minute - that Fox clearly labels these broadcasts as opinion only - and not as fact. And perhaps they do.
And under the label of opinion, anti-factual, dangerous non-scientific opinion pieces are aired - and most certainly they are in fact aired.
OK - you say - what's the harm? This should be legal.
To which, I counter, no it should not be.
Why? Because the broadcast of such ideas lends a false sense of correctness to the opinion. The Fox viewer is all too likely to conclude: Look, Tucker, and The Five, and, well, every single one of my favorite Fox personalities all say that COVID is a hoax, that vaccines are dangerous, that the wearing masks doesn't work, that climate change is a joke... just as I thought! So I'm not going to vaccinate, or wear masks, and I will most certainly oppose any and all climate change legislation by electing officials that will block such initiatives.
The problem with such "opinion" pieces is that they're extremely influential. Many will consume such pieces and act accordingly - that is to say, irrationally - and to the detriment and danger to society.
Disinformation, even if labeled as opinion, is extremely influential. And this - IMO - is the biggest threat to society at present, bar none other. Because people armed with misinformation are going to make bad decisions.
So carry on you two in your defense of Fox Opinion and other such nonsense - I for one have fucking had more than Goddamn enough.
Let's begin again.Your respect isn't required. Your honesty is.
Can you highlight an example of this defense?
This is all in your head. You have made up a straw man for you to argue against.
This is just wierd. I just described this bad faith style of yours and in your response you repeat that bad faith. Yikes!
......
You: Fox news is disinformation.
Me: it's not just Fox news, it the opinion as news model that affects all opinion based News channels. They all misinform with their framing or outright lying.
You: I can't believe you think Fox news misinformation is okay. Your continued defense if Fox News is sick
Me: SMH"
The above is you r MO. I don't know how else to help you see how dishonest it is.
From the way you argue, I can tell you don't fully grasp how disinformation works... Will discuss that more later.Let's begin again.
I oppose disinformation, even when labeled as "opinion." I think that Fox and indeed every public outlet needs to be regulated and should not be allowed to broadcast disinformation even when labeled as opinion.
These are just talking points. I can tell you don't watch much Fox. Rather you watch what others say about Fox. If you want to partake in a honest conversation, you'd produce clips of Fox actual disinformation claims and I can agree or disagree on those claims.In sum, I think that the spread of disinformation is the largest threat to mankind bar none. Misinformed people cannot possibly make rational decisions - and the decisions that are in front of society right now will have a massive impact on society and the wellbeing of mankind for decades to come.
What's your opinion on this? Are you 100% A-OK with Fox claiming that vaccines are dangerous, that wearing of masks doesn't work, that climate change is a hoax,
Fantastic!!!! Unlike you, I can't wait to be asked this question :)And I'm opposed, of course, to disinformation spread by the Left - though I'm quite honestly unaware of continued, uncorrected, purposeful factual misstatements knowingly made by Left-leaning mainstream media in the USA even when labeled as opinion - feel free to provide examples of such.
From the way you argue, I can tell you don't fully grasp how disinformation works... Will discuss that more later.
These are just talking points. I can tell you don't watch much Fox. Rather you watch what others say about Fox. If you want to partake in a honest conversation, you'd produce clips of Fox actual disinformation claims and I can agree or disagree on those claims.
You making generalized leftist claims about what Fox said, isn't evidence of what they've said. And I can't agree with your conclusions about them because you said so.
But as a general rule, I am annoyed by disinformation and often watch multiple sources to reduce the amount of disinformation I believe.
As it relates to regulations, you seem to be quite naive as to how complex of an issue this is...
You can literally make factual statements that invariably misleads a majority of the viewers. How do you regulate that?
Fantastic!!!! Unlike you, I can't wait to be asked this question :)
Here is a 2 minute clip of MSNBC'S Nicole Wallace misinforming the public time and time again.
By the way, this video was put together by left leaning journalist Glenn Greenwald:
There are loads of these type videos on YouTube. You should Google them.
Don't Walk, Run is a conservative YouTube channel that dedicates his time to debunking Leftist claims that are false or misleading, by actually digging into the claims and the sources for those claims. Feel free to watch a few of his videos. You might even find a few things you believe that he debunks with evidence.