Times, WaPo and NBC Forced to Retract False Claims on Giuliani

[BoyzNdaHood]

30 minutes ago, DaveTV1 said:

So what's been brought to light ?  He's not in jail, and not even close to.  If he's such a con as you claim then he would be there.  Out of court settlements are not an admission of guilt.

As for Giuliani, they searched his computer and his files, and found a big bag of nothing.  The F.B.I. and politicians may not say that it was ordered from Biden or someone in the Government, but common sense would say so.  Someone has to cry foul play for them to do an investigation.  Now they have mud on their face.  

 

Name a politician who's got caught doing illegal stuff and put in prison

[Monte1076]

1 hour ago, Old49er60 said:

Hey how did that postman and election fraud thing turn out? They guy got over 200k and all they got was egg on their face. Then we have the Wapo thing. Let’s not pretend they are some squeaky clean organization. Actual more like Borat. 

What postman and election fraud thing? Details, and I might be able to provide you a link. I don't know.

All I know is they've gotten numerous newspapers to print corrections and retractions as it pertains to them and accusations against them.

[DAWG91]

33 minutes ago, DaveTV1 said:

He looks more like Mr. Davis, but Trudeau looks like a young Fidel Castro.  Only a DNA test would prove who the true father is for both.  

Is there some controversy as to who Trudeau's father is?  If so,  I've not heard about it.   Bottom line is this:  were this just any old fella 99.9% of people would come to the conclusion that FMD is the father.  Oh,  and there ain't no way in hell Obama's gonna do a dna test to prove he's not lol. Folks can tell my kids are mine and my wife's,  they share our physical traits.  Is this always the case?  No,  but usually is.  Look at the photo,  Frank Jr's a chip off the old block.  Using common sense,  the real conspiracy theorist actually believes the guy in the top left corner of the photo is the father of the guy in the bottom right.  Hahaha.  It is what it is.

[DaveTV1]

29 minutes ago, DAWG91 said:

Is there some controversy as to who Trudeau's father is?  If so,  I've not heard about it.   Bottom line is this:  were this just any old fella 99.9% of people would come to the conclusion that FMD is the father.  Oh,  and there ain't no way in hell Obama's gonna do a dna test to prove he's not lol. Folks can tell my kids are mine and my wife's,  they share our physical traits.  Is this always the case?  No,  but usually is.  Look at the photo,  Frank Jr's a chip off the old block.  Using common sense,  the real conspiracy theorist actually believes the guy in the top left corner of the photo is the father of the guy in the bottom right.  Hahaha.  It is what it is.

https://medium.com/@leibowitt/of-course-fidel-castro-is-justin-trudeaus-dad-nobody-has-debunked-anything-4db6fc8a9042 .  

Then again Troy Aikman and Jay Z are allegedly separated brothers :  https://www.elitedaily.com/sports/side-side-photo-proves-troy-aikman-jay-z-long-lost-doppelgangers/1762480

 

[DaveTV1]

45 minutes ago, JETT said:

Name a politician who's got caught doing illegal stuff and put in prison

Trump pardoned one of them, and he was a Democrat :  https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/18/us/politics/trump-pardon-blagojevich-debartolo.html .  

There are a lot :  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_federal_politicians_convicted_of_crimes

[DAWG91]

1 hour ago, DaveTV1 said:

https://medium.com/@leibowitt/of-course-fidel-castro-is-justin-trudeaus-dad-nobody-has-debunked-anything-4db6fc8a9042 .  

Then again Troy Aikman and Jay Z are allegedly separated brothers :  https://www.elitedaily.com/sports/side-side-photo-proves-troy-aikman-jay-z-long-lost-doppelgangers/1762480

 

Cool.  Maybe Trudeau is Fidel's son.  Maybe his isn't.  Maybe Obama is FMD's son,  maybe he isn't.  If my life were on the line with regard to who Obama belonged to,  I know which one I'd pick.  The one that makes the most sense,  and it sure isn't the dude in the top left corner that bears absolutely no resemblance.

[Monte1076]

8 hours ago, Old49er60 said:

The postman Project V helped do an affidavit on election fraud. And yes they have done what you said, no arguing that but they have also done some very underhanded things and do a lot of magic with editing. 

I'm unaware of the postman thing. I'll have to see if I can find anything on it. As far as the "magic with editing",  O'Keefe usually challenges those who say he (i.e. Project Veritas) "deceptively edits" videos, and none can ever tell him where, when challenged. Or how. Of course, according to his site.

[Monte1076]

9 minutes ago, Old49er60 said:

Actually they have and more than once. You can start with Minnesota on that. 
the Wapo thing was just pathetic and when it was discovered and failed they pretend it did not happen. They did make the postman a lot of money though and he was able to retire. 
since you approve of this you must be a huge borat fan

Never actually seen any of the Borat movies. As far as the videos go, he's not putting words into people's mouths. They're being filmed (yes, covertly), but they're just talking. If they say something that reveals the inner workings of their organization (i.e. they revealed that they were purposefully showing Biden jogging, while downplaying his gaffes and mental lapses, while playing up Trump's stumble walking down a ramp), well, that's on them, not Project Veritas.

And one of their videos did help with the arrest of a lady right here in Texas who was breaking election laws.

Are you basing this information on other organizations who actually have an incentive to make PV look bad?

[Monte1076]

45 minutes ago, Old49er60 said:

Actually they have and more than once. You can start with Minnesota on that. 

What, specifically, did they do in Minnesota?

[Monte1076]

2 minutes ago, Old49er60 said:

I am basing it on facts. They have been caught multiple times. 

Cite examples, please. Actual, real examples.

[Monte1076]

27 minutes ago, Old49er60 said:

REAL ACTUAL.

Minnesota. Tried to make it look like there ballot fraud. After an investigation none was found. They faked it and paid the central guy in it 10K to make the claims

WAPO attempted to get newspaper to print assault allegations that were in fact a lie and made up by the group. Instead of the group saying WAPO did a good job with verifying they ran.

Postman Michigan, got him to do affidavit making claims of voter fraud. He then changed his story after investigators spoke with him. He did get over 200K from a go fund me. 

While they have got retractions they have also paid out a number of times to settle lawsuits. Even several of his own employees who said he was going to far.

Dont forget they lost the lawsuit with ACORN

 

Only lawsuit I'm aware of him having to pay out on was a misdemeanor invasion of privacy suit. $100K.

As far as the Minnesota thing, that's not quite right. Which guy was the "central guy" in it? And why did newspapers lie about not knowing who the guy was, when they'd used him several times before as a source?

[Monte1076]

5 minutes ago, Old49er60 said:

They have had to pay off several of their own people. They have lost several suits 
so on Minn you making the claim there was voter fraud? He was paid 10k by PV. 
 

Got a link to any of that?

[Monte1076]

11 hours ago, Old49er60 said:

There are plenty but you started attacking sources before they were even posted. What you want to know is has WND, Gateway, Breitbart posted any of it.

Do you believe that because you want to believe it, or do you believe it because you believe it to be true because it was in a media source? Oh, and you constantly attack sources as well. I'm sure we all do.

And what if these reportedly true accusations turn out to be false?

But let me ask you this: Do you believe everything in even the news sources you trust? Because even I don't. I'm a bit of a cynic that way, and data backs me up.

Gallup story/poll: https://news.gallup.com/poll/321116/americans-remain-distrustful-mass-media.aspx

Knight Foundation: https://knightfoundation.org/reports/american-views-2020-trust-media-and-democracy/

Morning Consult: https://morningconsult.com/2020/04/22/media-credibility-cable-news-poll/

Let me further ask you this: Do you believe all Conservative media lies, and that no Liberal media does? Do you believe "your sources" always tell the full, unvarnished truth?

I have a phrase that I like to use sometimes, and you'll like this: "Something's not true just because you say it is."

So something's not necessarily true just because a news organization says it is.

The converse is true as well. "Something isn't untrue just because you say it is."

If a news agency says something is untrue, does that automatically make it untrue? Especially since news agencies will quote each other.

[Monte1076]

18 minutes ago, Old49er60 said:

What you want is to only see things that you agree with and all other items, even facts, are false to you.

Yeah? Prove it. Try not to use circular reasoning. For what it's worth, I actually ignore most media sources. There are very, very few (if any) I actually trust.

You "knew where this was going"? Sure you did.

Let me ask you this: what media sources do YOU consider reliable, and why? Since you're obviously infallible and are never wrong about anything.

And while we're on the topic of trustworthy media, do you think Georgia's voting laws are racist and "suppress the vote"? The mass media is lying about that, and letting people get away with telling that lie. Granted, as I've said, I don't pay attention to a lot of media, but my understanding is that no one in the media has called out anyone about how restrictive other states voting laws are, and Democrats and the media don't complain about them.

[Monte1076]

24 minutes ago, Old49er60 said:

As for infallible media sources I have said before all make mistakes. ALL some purposely try to mislead though. 

And yet you've not answered which sources you trust. And do you believe those sources ever purposely try to mislead?

[Monte1076]

21 minutes ago, Old49er60 said:

Look all this has become is you attacking sources and deflecting because you didn’t like what was said about PV. And I already answered you on misleading. I look at AP, Reuters, NPR while comparing ALL. So what are yours.

Funny, you dismiss stories out of hand, based on source, and if they don't fit your "opinion". Yes, I've done that.

And you seem to think that PV is either always wrong, or always lying. That's what I get from your statements about them.

As to my sources, I generally look at ALL sources, even those I read daily, with a grain of salt (yes, that includes the AP and Reuters). There are many (generally liberal/left leaning) I don't trust at all. But in general, I think all news agencies have agendas besides just reporting the truth factually and without agenda.

[Monte1076]

7 minutes ago, Old49er60 said:

Actually I do not dismiss, I research it and if found to be accurate I  note it, but I do that with all sources. 

Where did I say PV is wrong or always lying? You wont find that. You seem to think they are infalliable, that's what I am getting from your statements about them. 

You did not post anything that refutes what I posted. Notice on the 10k payment they did not take the guy to court nor deny it. 

Ok, so then what is your overall opinion of Project Veritas? Sure, I'm sure they make mistakes and get things wrong as well. What do you think about all the retractions that news agencies (including the Washington Post) have had to make regarding stories about PV?

I think they're probably more accurate than most news agencies. Can I be wrong about that? Sure. But I have the ability to admit I can be wrong.

[Monte1076]

7 minutes ago, Old49er60 said:

I think they have exposed some things but they also do a ton of underhanded stuff. 

Like a lot of the mainstream media?

And yeah, it would probably be good if they did give credit to agencies that don't get caught, but that's like the old Chris Rock thing where he talks about people wanting credit for things they're supposed to do. "I take care of my kids!", "You're supposed to!"

Do you believe the media should be able to use "anonymous sources"?

[Monte1076]

6 minutes ago, Old49er60 said:

Yes I do believe they should be able to use anonymous sources. Hence the Pentagon Papers. 

And if PV was real media they would be praising those that did the right thing. You seem to only attack the media that disagrees with your ideas. I believe Breitbart produces some good well thought out material. I believe Fox does as well and so do CNN, WAPO, etc. You discount the name right off the bat without looking at the material. Remind me of Qdawg who once told me he didnt believe the source when they quoted a person.

I still look at those sources with a skeptical eye. Even sources I agree with. What is wrong with that?

I'm actually surprised to see you say Breitbart. I figured that would be one of the sources you'd heavily criticize. It's funny you criticize sources as well without looking at the material. As soon as you see a WND article you automatically criticize it without reading it (sometimes they link to other stories).

What do you think of The Hill? The Washington Times? Slate?

And you know "anonymous sources" can be made up, right? Ever heard of Stephen Glass?

[Monte1076]

Just now, Old49er60 said:

Yes I do know they can. And as I have already said in this thread I research what I see to find out its validity. How many times do I have to say it for you to understand? 

How do you research the validity of an "anonymous source"?

Here's a great example: It was reported by "anonymous sources" that Trump made some comment or another (I forget the exact context and comment) during some event at a military cemetery. Other identified sources said they were there, and that the comments never happened. Which do you think the media emphasized? Did he really say it? Well, it depends on your perspective and whether or not you like Trump.

If I say "Thing A Happened", and you say "No, it didn't. Thing B Happened.", one of us is either lying, or misinformed. Who's telling the truth?

[Monte1076]

15 minutes ago, Old49er60 said:

First who is reporting it how many others are also reporting it. Is it something that both media sides are reporting. 

As for your example, that was taken with a grain of salt. CNN was sure he said said it, Fox was sure he didnt. You seem to think talk shows are news. Don Lemon and Tucker Carlson make tons of claims, they are not news they are entertainment. 

I understand that Don Lemon and Tucker Carlson (neither of whom I generally pay any attention to, by the way) are opinion and talk shows. But IIRC, this was reported as actual news, not on a talking head show. And there are a number of Democrats who believe that the folks you mention are actual news. They're wrong as well.

So which do you believe? Did he say it, or did he not? Personally, I don't know. I could see it either way. But since perspective and perception are reality, that's probably the answer.

[Monte1076]

5 minutes ago, Old49er60 said:

I have no idea if he said it.

Neither did the media. And they ran with it anyway.

And to my knowledge, no one really called them out on it.

[Monte1076]

28 minutes ago, Old49er60 said:

And yet you will call them out on something but only one side. Why is that? 

We do know what trump said on McCain and no matter the political differences it was embarrassing. Did you call trump out on it? 

You really don't know me well at all. Not afraid to call out any politician of any stripe if I think they say or do something stupid. It's also why I've pointed out numerous times just how consistently low Congress' approval rating has been.

As far as Trump's comments about McCain. I don't recall if I called him out on this forum, but I have commented about how the comments were inappropriate and unjustified. How about you?