Vaccination

[Chef]

Perhaps, but I would wager that FOX  is WAY more accurate in the long term. Hey, maybe ill start a thread on that lol!!

It’s funny you say that because there are shows on fox that legally can’t be called news


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jeremy K]

53 minutes ago, Chef said:

Is it censorship or are you just reading bullshit that doesn’t show up on any place that actually gives a crap about what it’s users read?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly what cnn wants you to think, there videos of these people being interviewed . See for yourself or wait for cnn to air them.

[Buckmaster7600]

Lol so we are resulting to insulting people about their weight like a kindergartner… and I don’t smoke but nice try.


It’s ok at least next week one of us will still be employed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It’s not insulting if you chose to do it, it’s called facts.

I won’t be unemployed, I own my own side business. I’ll end up making more money. I’ll just have to work a lot harder for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jeremy K]

6 minutes ago, Chef said:

It’s funny you say that because there are shows on fox that legally can’t be called news


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CNN was just bought and the new owners exact words were they need to hire actual journalist .

[virgil]

27 minutes ago, Splitear said:

I think to a certain point, anyone watching cable news (regardless of the network) is doing so to be entertained rather than informed. After spending a week and a half with my father in the house (who flips back and forth between CNN and Fox) they blather on about the same things all day long, and are 99% opinion with very little useful "news". I've got much better things to do with my time. 

Isn't that the famous quote from Roger Ailes in the early days of Fox 'News'- 'people don't want to be informed, they want to be entertained'.  Cable 'news' is not news, it's agenda-driven opinion and propaganda.  People who consume it and think they're being fed straight news are rubes, whatever their political point of view.

[Northcountryman]

1 hour ago, Chef said:

It’s funny you say that because there are shows on fox that legally can’t be called news


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It would be interesting to do  a comparison of all major news events within the past few years between FOX and CNN/MSDNC narratives and, in retrospect, see who was more accurate, if not completely correct about what they were saying/reporting at the time.  I would bet money that FOX would win- hands down.  

[Splitear]

13 minutes ago, Northcountryman said:

It would be interesting to do  a comparison of all major news events within the past few years between FOX and CNN/MSDNC narratives and, in retrospect, see who was more accurate, if not completely correct about what they were saying/reporting at the time.  I would bet money that FOX would win- hands down.  

If I've learned one thing in the past few years, it's that the "truth" is subjective. Regardless of how much "proof" someone has to back up their side, someone will find and equal amount of "proof" to negate it. I don't even know how to define accurate anymore. 

"And never the twain shall meet..."

Edited December 7, 2021 by Splitear

[diplomat019]

I highly suggest anyone who doesnt trust the lamestream media to go to infowars.com.  It is a great source of independent information not beholden to leftist propoganda. It is straight facts with an unbiased opinion.  
 

infowars.com.  
 

GO NOW!

[Northcountryman]

5 minutes ago, Splitear said:

If I've learned one thing in the past few years, it's that the "truth" is subjective. Regardless of how much "proof" someone has to back up their side, someone will find and equal amount of "proof" to negate it. I don't even know how to define accurate anymore. 

You do make a great point here , my friend and I agree- at least, to a certain extent.  But there is definitely a significant amount of objectivity involved in these issues here, as well, to be sure.  As an example, we both could adopt opposing points of view about Trumps and Obamas Presidencies and offer evidence to back up our positions; the difference, , however, would lie in the validity of said  "evidence".   Clearly, some "truth" is subjective and some not- example being  the Russian Collusion Hoax perpetuated by both networks which was clearly not true. I'm sure you could also find some inaccuracies in FOX narratives/positions as well but I'd bet dollars to donuts youd find FAR  more with the other teo than you would them- that, however, is just my opninion and not a fact (I'm clarifying that so as not be like Chef lol).

[ApexerER]

I am stealing this from someone else that posted in this forum and i have used it a lot. IMO it was a fantastic analogy. There are two ways to report the news and still be accurate. 

Donald Trump runs into a burning orphanage and saves two kids, and makes it out just as the build erupts into flames and he is forced to watch as he was unable to get to the remaining two kids. 

 

Donald Trump watches orphanage burn as two kids perish.

 

Both are accurate as far as reporting but paint two different pictures.....

[Splitear]

31 minutes ago, Northcountryman said:

You do make a great point here , my friend and I agree- at least, to a certain extent.  But there is definitely a significant amount of objectivity involved in these issues here, as well, to be sure.  As an example, we both could adopt opposing points of view about Trumps and Obamas Presidencies and offer evidence to back up our positions; the difference, , however, would lie in the validity of said  "evidence".   Clearly, some "truth" is subjective and some not- example being  the Russian Collusion Hoax perpetuated by both networks which was clearly not true. I'm sure you could also find some inaccuracies in FOX narratives/positions as well but I'd bet dollars to donuts youd find FAR  more with the other teo than you would them- that, however, is just my opninion and not a fact (I'm clarifying that so as not be like Chef lol).

I think some issue is that sometimes we mistake opinions for facts (I know I do this a lot). Just because someone has facts that support their opinion, it does not therefore make their opinion a "fact". This is why I hammer on that we should respect differences in perspective. People are going to view "facts" in different ways based on their own experiences, bias, etc, and develop their own opinion based on their perspective. Facts should impact opinion, but opinions shouldn't affect the facts. So to use your Russian Collusion example, the fact there was that "They are investigating the Trump Administration for Russian Collusion". That was the fact, they were investigating. From my perspective (experience, bias, etc), I was like "sure, maybe they're on to something". From your perspective (all things the same), you're like "no way, it's a witch hunt". We're building our opinions from the same "fact", but neither of our opinions are fact. Neither one of us is wrong, our perspectives disagree. Now, with that said, since more "facts" have been out there, I've come around that there probably wasn't much if anything to the collusion thing. Again, that's my opinion based on "facts". I'm sure others would disagree.

Another example is the Rittenhouse deal. When it happened, based on the reporting, I thought this kid was guilty of murder, and that he never should have been there in the first place. Now that I have more "facts" to work with, I don't feel the same way. I still don't think he should have been there (again, my opinion), but I do think he acted in self-defense. I do my best to adjust when I have more information (though I'm sure I fail at this as well sometimes). The problem is when people refuse to see that their way of looking at things isn't the only way to interpret things. We see that on here a bunch when the names start flying and "opinions" are being shouted as "fact" and shoved down throats. I really don't want any part of that.  

I think we're on the same page here @Northcountryman, and as always, I appreciate the respectful discussion.

Edited December 7, 2021 by Splitear

[ApexerER]

11 minutes ago, Splitear said:

I think some issue is that sometimes we mistake opinions for facts (I know I do this a lot). Just because someone has facts that support their opinion, it does not therefore make their opinion a "fact". This is why I hammer on that we should respect differences in perspective. People are going to view "facts" in different ways based on their own experiences, bias, etc, and develop their own opinion based on their perspective. Facts should impact opinion, but opinions shouldn't affect the facts. So to use your Russian Collusion example, the fact there was that "They are investigating the Trump Administration for Russian Collusion". That was the fact, they were investigating. From my perspective (experience, bias, etc), I was like "sure, maybe their on to something". From your perspective (all things the same), you're like "no way, it's a witch hunt". We're building our opinions from the same "fact", but neither of our opinions are fact. Neither one of us is wrong, our perspectives disagree. Now, with that said, since more "facts" have been out there, I've come around that there probably wasn't much if anything to the collusion thing. Again, that's my opinion based on "facts". I'm sure others would disagree.

Another example is the Rittenhouse deal. When it happened, based on the reporting, I thought this kid was guilty of murder, and that he never should have been there in the first place. Now that I have more "facts" to work with, I don't feel the same way. I still don't think he should have been there (again, my opinion), but I do think he acted in self-defense. I do my best to adjust when I have more information (though I'm sure I fail at this as well sometimes). The problem is when people refuse to see that their way of looking at things isn't the only way to interpret things. We see that on here a bunch when the names start flying and "opinions" are being shouted as "fact" and shoved down throats. I really don't want any part of that.  

I think we're on the same page here @Northcountryman, and as always, I appreciate the respectful discussion.

Would you have had different opinions if the news wasn't reporting the Russian collusion as facts when there wasn't any evidence or would you have thought differently about Kyle Rittenhouse if the news didn't make him guilty before any of the facts were laid out?  I agree with you that he probably shouldn't have been there. 

The real news that wasn't hardly reported at all was that Clinton came up with a fake dossier and our corrupt FBI went along with it knowing it was fake and took a sitting president on a witch hunt. 

IMO, the news in this country has become just as dangerous as anything else. They are splitting us based on how they report.  

Look at how the news reported on Jessie Smollett.  The second those reports came out i said to myself that the whole thing seems fishy. But the news fell in love with it because it fit their narrative. 

No matter what news i am watching, i always ask myself if it makes sense.  That is why i am so hesitant on the vaccine. It doesn't make sense to me why they are pushing it so hard when to 99% of us, it would just be a cold. I got covid a month and a half ago along with my daughter. I felt like crap for a day and a half.  I did have a dry cough that lingered for a lot longer than i would have liked. Especially when trying to hunt. My daughter who is 16. Basically had nothing but a cough. Only reason I took her to the Dr. was cause i thought she had brohnchitis. 

[The_Real_TCIII]

Im almost ashamed to say it out loud but I thinkni like veggie lasagna better then the red kind . I just hope this isnt a slippery slope into becoming some kind of liberal. I'm gonna go outside and rev the engine on my car and hang some sheet rock in the garage just to maintain my street cred.

Maybe take a break from the computer for a little while...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[The_Real_TCIII]

It’s funny you say that because there are shows on fox that legally can’t be called news


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Shows, sure. But I trust their news. And say what you want but they have always welcomed liberals on their shows, the same cant be said for CNN and certainly not MSNBC. When John King was frantically trying to come up with scenarios for Hillary to win on his silly map all notion of "fair reporting" was long gone. He literally said "Heres how WE can still win this thing" about 150 times. Fox clearly leans right, all the other major networks are rabidly left


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[The_Real_TCIII]

I am stealing this from someone else that posted in this forum and i have used it a lot. IMO it was a fantastic analogy. There are two ways to report the news and still be accurate. 
Donald Trump runs into a burning orphanage and saves two kids, and makes it out just as the build erupts into flames and he is forced to watch as he was unable to get to the remaining two kids. 
 
Donald Trump watches orphanage burn as two kids perish.
 
Both are accurate as far as reporting but paint two different pictures.....

"Vehicle runs into parade" vs "Radical drives vehicle into Christmas parade"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Splitear]

26 minutes ago, ApexerER said:

Would you have had different opinions if the news wasn't reporting the Russian collusion as facts when there wasn't any evidence or would you have thought differently about Kyle Rittenhouse if the news didn't make him guilty before any of the facts were laid out?  I agree with you that he probably shouldn't have been there. 

The real news that wasn't hardly reported at all was that Clinton came up with a fake dossier and our corrupt FBI went along with it knowing it was fake and took a sitting president on a witch hunt. 

IMO, the news in this country has become just as dangerous as anything else. They are splitting us based on how they report.  

Look at how the news reported on Jessie Smollett.  The second those reports came out i said to myself that the whole thing seems fishy. But the news fell in love with it because it fit their narrative. 

No matter what news i am watching, i always ask myself if it makes sense.  That is why i am so hesitant on the vaccine. It doesn't make sense to me why they are pushing it so hard when to 99% of us, it would just be a cold. I got covid a month and a half ago along with my daughter. I felt like crap for a day and a half.  I did have a dry cough that lingered for a lot longer than i would have liked. Especially when trying to hunt. My daughter who is 16. Basically had nothing but a cough. Only reason I took her to the Dr. was cause i thought she had brohnchitis. 

Sure, like I said, I try to adjust as more information is presented. Still, my interpretation of facts is going to be shaped by my perspective, but I always hope that I come to the right conclusion in the end. These cable news networks make their money by creating outrage and stoking tempers. No one has all of the facts in the beginning, if ever, so a lot of the information we consume is tainted by those presenting it. Add to that the fact that we're all viewing it through our own lens, and I would be amazed if anyone would ever agree with someone else 100%.

Sorry, that was kind of a ramble on what you asked. Basically it boils down to, whatever facts I came across when the collusion story came out were certainly passed through my filter of being disappointed in Trump winning and believing that there might be something fishy. The same can be said for the "2020 Election Fraud", I'm sure that whatever "facts" there are are processed differently between you and I, and that's okay, we're 2 totally different people who can disagree (sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth, I hope you know that's not my intention). Same is that I respect you perspective on the vaccine. I don't agree with it, but I can see why you feel the way you do. 

In the end, we might disagree on some things, but I won't forget who was the first person to call me when I needed help dragging out a deer. That's way more important to me than anything Anderson Cooper or Tucker Carlson have to say.

[ApexerER]

40 minutes ago, Splitear said:

Sure, like I said, I try to adjust as more information is presented. Still, my interpretation of facts is going to be shaped by my perspective, but I always hope that I come to the right conclusion in the end. These cable news networks make their money by creating outrage and stoking tempers. No one has all of the facts in the beginning, if ever, so a lot of the information we consume is tainted by those presenting it. Add to that the fact that we're all viewing it through our own lens, and I would be amazed if anyone would ever agree with someone else 100%.

Sorry, that was kind of a ramble on what you asked. Basically it boils down to, whatever facts I came across when the collusion story came out were certainly passed through my filter of being disappointed in Trump winning and believing that there might be something fishy. The same can be said for the "2020 Election Fraud", I'm sure that whatever "facts" there are are processed differently between you and I, and that's okay, we're 2 totally different people who can disagree (sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth, I hope you know that's not my intention). Same is that I respect you perspective on the vaccine. I don't agree with it, but I can see why you feel the way you do. 

In the end, we might disagree on some things, but I won't forget who was the first person to call me when I needed help dragging out a deer. That's way more important to me than anything Anderson Cooper or Tucker Carlson have to say.

On the election fraud. Like i said. I go with things that make sense to me....This doesn't even make you go hmm?  I mean if the election was reversed and Trump one this way....You would think these results make sense? Now, it doesn't prove there was fraud, but what are the chances this really happened?

Edited December 7, 2021 by ApexerER

[Splitear]

23 minutes ago, ApexerER said:

On the election fraud. Like i said. I go with things that make sense to me....This doesn't even make you go hmm?  I mean if the election was reversed and Trump one this way....You would think these results make sense? Now, it doesn't prove there was fraud, but what are the chances this really happened?

Not looking to prove anything here Chris, but being ignorant of the bellwether counties until you posted this, I did a quick search. According to the first thing that came up, it showed that more "bellwether" counties were wrong in 2016 than in 2020, mainly due to changing demographics. Not touting this as gospel, but it's an interesting  rationale. 
https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethirtyeight.com/features/where-did-all-the-bellwether-counties-go/amp/

As far as the number of votes, it seems reasonable to think that because people had more opportunity to vote in 2020, they did. It could be argued that they had more opportunity to cheat, which is also reasonable, though it's not proven. 

Really though, I'm wading into a discussion that I don't want to have, so I'm bowing out. 

Edited December 7, 2021 by Splitear

[ApexerER]

8 minutes ago, Splitear said:

Not looking to prove anything here Chris, but being ignorant of the bellwether counties until you posted this, I did a quick search. According to the first thing that came up, it showed that more "bellwether" counties were wrong in 2016 than in 2020, mainly due to changing demographics. Not touting this as gospel, but it's an interesting  rationale. 
https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethirtyeight.com/features/where-did-all-the-bellwether-counties-go/amp/

As far as the number of votes, it seems reasonable to think that because people had more opportunity to vote in 2020, they did. It could be argued that they had more opportunity to cheat, which is also reasonable, though it's not proven. 

Really though, I'm wading into a discussion that I don't want to have, so I'm bowing out. 

Interesting article. I'm sorry i always drag you in. I do it because you are always respectful with your answers and respect your views. You always have articulate answers and it puts your opinions in perspective for me. If everyone could comment the way you do, we could all learn a little something. Not that i have to agree with it, but i can and will respect it....

[Splitear]

4 minutes ago, ApexerER said:

Interesting article. I'm sorry i always drag you in. I do it because you are always respectful with your answers and respect your views. You always have articulate answers and it puts your opinions in perspective for me. If everyone could comment the way you do, we could all learn a little something. Not that i have to agree with it, but i can and will respect it....

No worries, thanks man, and I'm glad you respect  my point of view, the same from my end. 

Edited December 7, 2021 by Splitear

[Chef]

It would be interesting to do  a comparison of all major news events within the past few years between FOX and CNN/MSDNC narratives and, in retrospect, see who was more accurate, if not completely correct about what they were saying/reporting at the time.  I would bet money that FOX would win- hands down.  

That’s a joke just take a look at what’s happened since the election, Trump lost dominion didn’t do anything wrong yeah fox seems to think otherwise


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jeremy K]

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/1-u-judge-blocks-covid-180427218.html

 

 

[Northcountryman]

1 hour ago, Chef said:

That’s a joke just take a look at what’s happened since the election, Trump lost dominion didn’t do anything wrong yeah fox seems to think otherwise


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I stand by what I said : FOX is WAY more accurate in terms of representing the truth.  Would you like to do a comparison analysis? Ill take that bet !!

[Northcountryman]

4 hours ago, Splitear said:

"They are investigating the Trump Administration for Russian Collusion". That was the fact, they were investigating. From my perspective (experience, bias, etc), I was like "sure, maybe they're on to something". From your perspective (all things the same), you're like "no way, it's a witch hunt".

Yes, but you are being far too generous towards the Left , my friend. Reason i say this is, they didnt just report "They are investigating the Trump administration for Russian collusion";rather, they went so far as to support the narrative for YEARS -all of them (CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC) and REFUSED to recant even though the investigation concluisons showed otherwise!! they kept perpetuating.  I think that is far more than just a difference of opnion- no, it is distorting facts to fit a false narrative. This is objective and is not opinion based. As I've said before, I'm not saying that FOX and conservatives are never guilty of this because I'm sure you could find examples if you looked hard enough. But one need not look hard at all to find the false narratives, distortions of truth and outright boldface lies told by the media that has blatantly been in the tank for the Democrat party for at least the past 20 years (and far longer if you count the time they kept it hidden better: remember Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather?). Its a shame, really. 

 

4 hours ago, Splitear said:

Another example is the Rittenhouse deal. When it happened, based on the reporting, I thought this kid was guilty of murder, and that he never should have been there in the first place. Now that I have more "facts" to work with, I don't feel the same way. I still don't think he should have been there (again, my opinion), but I do think he acted in self-defense. I do my best to adjust when I have more information (though I'm sure I fail at this as well sometimes). The problem is when people refuse to see that their way of looking at things isn't the only way to interpret things. We see that on here a bunch when the names start flying and "opinions" are being shouted as "fact" and shoved down throats. I really don't want any part of that. 

Good for you, because that is , indeed the truth!! Like you, I consider my positions to be malleable and am always open to altering them based on new facts and information, even if that means an outright rejection of my original stances on certain issues.  

 

4 hours ago, Splitear said:

I think we're on the same page here @Northcountryman, and as always, I appreciate the respectful discussion.

I couldnt agree more and always look forward to robust debate with you and other members that are respectful of others points of view and opinions, even if they disagree with them.  Unfortunately, there are several on here that do not-based on the tone and tenor of their posts, it is quite obvious who these individuals are of which i speak lol.

[The_Real_TCIII]

That’s a joke just take a look at what’s happened since the election, Trump lost dominion didn’t do anything wrong yeah fox seems to think otherwise


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

On Tucker or Hannity, sure. But their news? No


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro