Ukraine War and Politics

[cycleguy2300]

How predictable of you to resort to personal attacks when you argument gets shut down. You make comments like this toward basically everyone that doesn’t share your misguided view of the topic. Your opinion is worthless.

If you think I am misguided, then please explain what is the job of a journalist should be.

I await the "your mind is made up and I'm not wasting time" or the "they should just quote exactly what some says without correction, clarification or adding context" reply.

I think the problem is that so many on the left in media take a speaker's statements out of context to present a mistruth, a lie, whether it is Trump's "fine people" or FJB's many gaffs and lies which were taken out of their contextual element so the were not damning or as much so. Take for example the statement "ALL THE TREES ARE BLUE". Is our speaker right or wrong? JUST presenting the words as spoken isn't a journalists job. As my example goes, it is an interview with a person looking at a painting where the trees are rather cold and blue looking.

"All the trees are blue" said the man when asked why the painting made him feel dreary. That is putting the statement into context.

What the media on our left do (and what some have attempted here be suggesting I am somehow in favor of shutting down speach) is to provide the quote "ALL THE TREES ARE BLUE" from our speaker, who happens to be a politician running for office, next to a photo of green trees, taking the words out of the context of a specific painting where all the trees ARE blue and intentionally trying to misinform others, which is called lying.

Tucker failed at his journalistic endeavor with regards to putin, because Tucker didn't put putin's words in the context of reality. However, I do not hold Tucker's presumed failure (he may have secret motivations for spreading putins lies willingly and intentionally) at journalism to be as evil as trying to shut down a conversation by claiming the opposite view is somehow trying to shut down free speech, for all the foolish inability to use logic and argue, I find that sort of alligation trollish.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[Gordo]

<>
Remember that Hitler was Time’s 1938 “Man of the Year” ? see: https://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,760539,00.html
<>

So was Berry Soetoro right after he, and his husband Michael, entered the white house...

 

[benenglish]

Neutral corners, please.

When you come back out, leave the purely personal insults behind.

 

[Havok1]

If you think I am misguided, then please explain what is the job of a journalist should be.

I await the "your mind is made up and I'm not wasting time" or the "they should just quote exactly what some says without correction, clarification or adding context" reply.

I think the problem is that so many on the left in media take a speaker's statements out of context to present a mistruth, a lie, whether it is Trump's "fine people" or FJB's many gaffs and lies which were taken out of their contextual element so the were not damning or as much so. Take for example the statement "ALL THE TREES ARE BLUE". Is our speaker right or wrong? JUST presenting the words as spoken isn't a journalists job. As my example goes, it is an interview with a person looking at a painting where the trees are rather cold and blue looking.

"All the trees are blue" said the man when asked why the painting made him feel dreary. That is putting the statement into context.

What the media on our left do (and what some have attempted here be suggesting I am somehow in favor of shutting down speach) is to provide the quote "ALL THE TREES ARE BLUE" from our speaker, who happens to be a politician running for office, next to a photo of green trees, taking the words out of the context of a specific painting where all the trees ARE blue and intentionally trying to misinform others, which is called lying.

Tucker failed at his journalistic endeavor with regards to putin, because Tucker didn't put putin's words in the context of reality. However, I do not hold Tucker's presumed failure (he may have secret motivations for spreading putins lies willingly and intentionally) at journalism to be as evil as trying to shut down a conversation by claiming the opposite view is somehow trying to shut down free speech, for all the foolish inability to use logic and argue, I find that sort of alligation trollish.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

So if we know that the media takes things out of context, why would anyone want them to decide what context you hear the information in? If it were zelensky being interviewed, my bet is you’d have no problem with Tucker or whoever just letting him talk.

 

[leVieux]

If you think I am misguided, then please explain what is the job of a journalist should be.

I await the "your mind is made up and I'm not wasting time" or the "they should just quote exactly what some says without correction, clarification or adding context" reply.

I think the problem is that so many on the left in media take a speaker's statements out of context to present a mistruth, a lie, whether it is Trump's "fine people" or FJB's many gaffs and lies which were taken out of their contextual element so the were not damning or as much so. Take for example the statement "ALL THE TREES ARE BLUE". Is our speaker right or wrong? JUST presenting the words as spoken isn't a journalists job. As my example goes, it is an interview with a person looking at a painting where the trees are rather cold and blue looking.

"All the trees are blue" said the man when asked why the painting made him feel dreary. That is putting the statement into context.

What the media on our left do (and what some have attempted here be suggesting I am somehow in favor of shutting down speach) is to provide the quote "ALL THE TREES ARE BLUE" from our speaker, who happens to be a politician running for office, next to a photo of green trees, taking the words out of the context of a specific painting where all the trees ARE blue and intentionally trying to misinform others, which is called lying.

Tucker failed at his journalistic endeavor with regards to putin, because Tucker didn't put putin's words in the context of reality. However, I do not hold Tucker's presumed failure (he may have secret motivations for spreading putins lies willingly and intentionally) at journalism to be as evil as trying to shut down a conversation by claiming the opposite view is somehow trying to shut down free speech, for all the foolish inability to use logic and argue, I find that sort of alligation trollish.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

<>

Gee, I watched much of it, and Putin spoke for himself, didn’t he ?

I seem to recall hearing a sort of ‘’History Lesson”.

<>

 

[Dakar34]

Ukraine is never going to win and every $100M we borrow to help them is wasted. That's just a fact. Meanwhile, our national debt is going up $1T every 100 days. How does that end well?

 

[Johnny Diamond]

Really can't.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

 

[cycleguy2300]

So if we know that the media takes things out of context, why would anyone want them to decide what context you hear the information in? If it were zelensky being interviewed, my bet is you’d have no problem with Tucker or whoever just letting him talk.

A journalists job is to put people's statements in context with truth/reality it doesn't matter if the statements come from FJB, Trump, putin, Zelensky, or Jesus.



Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[Havok1]

A journalists job is to put people's statements in context with truth/reality it doesn't matter if the statements come from FJB, Trump, putin, Zelensky, or Jesus.



Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

when Tucker states facts you call him a liar like you do everyone else. You were going to criticize him no matter what because he wasn’t going to push the pro war propaganda that you want.

 

[cycleguy2300]

when Tucker states facts you call him a liar like you do everyone else. You were going to criticize him no matter what because he wasn’t going to push the pro war propaganda that you want.

I dont call everyone a liar (Rather ironic you would misrepresent that, its almost as if youre a... oh never mind).

Tucker rarely presents facts about Ukraine. He talks about Ukraine and sometimes includes a fact here and there, but he doesn't use facts to put events or information about Ukraine into context of truth or reality.

If you have a specific example where Tucker DOES use facts to put events in or around Ukraine into contex of reality, I'd love to see it because up until now the things I've seen him do nothing more than parrot russian misinformation (aka proaganda) which frequently used a factual event that is misportrayed (aka a lie) as showing something that would dissuade support for Ukraine by the American right (hence the frequent reach back to the era when those in American government where trying and did receive corrupt money from some in the Ukrainian government).

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[Havok1]

Conservatives in America are not supportive of the proxy war regardless of what Tucker says. Your disapproval of him is strictly based on the fact that he doesn’t say what you want him to say.

 

[Vaquero]

Gentlemen.
Go to your corners and take a break.

 

[studenygreg]

Personally, I don't want context or spin from anyone. I just want facts. I can decide the rest for myself.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[studenygreg]

Ukraine is never going to win and every $100M we borrow to help them is wasted. That's just a fact. Meanwhile, our national debt is going up $1T every 100 days. How does that end well?

I would love to see a chart of what we have wasted on Ukraine vs what we could have spent it on here. If anyone has one, shoot it my way.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[BigRed]

Money laundering scam is still running just fine.

 

[Johnny Diamond]

Not necessary, just did a quick search...$113 billion. What could we have done?

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

 

[glenbo]

Money laundering scam is still running just fine.

Can I get in on that?

 

[BigRed]

Can I get in on that?

You already are....you're paying for it.

 

[Havok1]

Can I get in on that?

I suppose we could lever up on the defense industry and Blackrock, but we’ll never get the kickbacks that the politicians(both elected and in uniform) will receive unless we run for office and support their agenda.

 

[kbaxter60]

A journalist's job is to compare and contrast to extend the logic to it's conclusion, to demonstrate the error or truth of the subject's statements, not to become nothing more than a mouthpiece for spreading a dictator's lies.

Heh. That's a very old job description. At least in this free country.

I think it would be very interesting to drop in to a "journalism school" and sit in on Journalism 101 to see when, exactly, they depart for agenda-led reporting...
Day two?