That's a fair point. I can't think of any legitimate reason why the media would ever elevate a localized racial hate crime, even a blatant, admitted and horrific murder like this, to a story of national impact or importance. My observation above appears to have been a superfluous one.
Do national media outlets usually cover "localized racial hate crimes?"
I was agreeing with you, Cardozo. Why are you asking me a rhetorical question that you effectively answer yourself two post further down?
I was agreeing with you, Cardozo. Why are you asking me a rhetorical question that you effectively answer yourself two post further down?
My non-rhetorical question was answered by another poster.
Be that as it may be, I'm still wondering why you asked me a rhetorical question that you effectively answered yourself two post down from it. And in contradiction of your rhetorical question, I should have added. That's the part that puzzles me.
My non-rhetorical question was answered by another poster.
Be that as it may be, I'm still wondering why you asked me a rhetorical question that you effectively answered yourself two post down from it. And in contradiction of your rhetorical question, I should have added. That's the part that puzzles me.
I’m puzzled too. I don’t think you can contradict a question. Do you think you’re killing it on this one because I don’t (rhetorical)
Be that as it may be, I'm still wondering why you asked me a rhetorical question that you effectively answered yourself two post down from it. And in contradiction of your rhetorical question, I should have added. That's the part that puzzles me.
I’m puzzled too. I don’t think you can contradict a question. Do you think you’re killing it on this one because I don’t (rhetorical)
You can certainly contradict your own a rhetorical question. That's what you did. You asked me a rhetorical question with the argumentative answer of NO. Then, two posts down from it, you essentially admitted the answer was YES, and suggested there was justification for the YES. So you contradicted your own rhetorical question, and I'm puzzled by it. Why would someone do that? I'm guessing haste, impulsiveness, and internal confusion as to one's opinion are factors. Acid could be a factor too.
The wheels of American justice are slowing all the time but looks like this might be the last slowdown. August indictment for Trump in GA.
Then we start waiting on federal charges for the mar-a-lago documents case.
NYT:
The Georgia prosecutor leading an investigation into former President Donald J. Trump and his allies has taken the unusual step of announcing remote work days for most of her staff during the first three weeks of August, asking judges in a downtown Atlanta courthouse not to schedule trials for part of that time as she prepares to bring charges in the inquiry.
The moves suggest that Fani T. Willis, the Fulton County district attorney, is expecting a grand jury to unseal indictments during that time period. Ms. Willis outlined the remote work plan and made the request to judges in a letter sent on Thursday to 21 Fulton County officials, including the chief county judge, Ural Glanville, and the sheriff, Pat Labat.
I’m puzzled too. I don’t think you can contradict a question. Do you think you’re killing it on this one because I don’t (rhetorical)
You can certainly contradict your own a rhetorical question. That's what you did. You asked me a rhetorical question with the argumentative answer of NO. Then, two posts down from it, you essentially admitted the answer was YES, and suggested there was justification for the YES. So you contradicted your own rhetorical question, and I'm puzzled by it. Why would someone do that? I'm guessing haste, impulsiveness, and internal confusion as to one's opinion are factors. Acid could be a factor too.
How does one determine that a question has an “argumentative answer of no?” That sounds made up. It’s easy to catch someone contradicting themselves if you construct a position for them that they didn’t type.
not even the lyin' insurrectionin' m'agas are talking about the laptop anymore.
huh. Maybe it was BS like all the rest?
Ever realize how utterly wrong American right wingers are about just about everything? Remember that next time they try to tell you something in a breathless angry shout. Ben flippin' Shapiro tells them something, Sean Hannity repeats it and it drives up m'aga blood pressure so much they can't keep it inside.
They shout and scream and then shrug when proven wrong. Again.
But right wing media collects the checks so the cycle repeats.
This post was edited 9 minutes after it was posted.
not even the lyin' insurrectionin' m'agas are talking about the laptop anymore.
huh. Maybe it was BS like all the rest?
Ever realize how utterly wrong American right wingers are about just about everything? Remember that next time they try to tell you something in a breathless angry shout. Ben flippin' Shapiro tells them something, Sean Hannity repeats it and it drives up m'aga blood pressure so much they can't keep it inside.
They shout and scream and then shrug when proven wrong. Again.
But right wing media collects the checks so the cycle repeats.
not even the lyin' insurrectionin' m'agas are talking about the laptop anymore.
huh. Maybe it was BS like all the rest?
Ever realize how utterly wrong American right wingers are about just about everything? Remember that next time they try to tell you something in a breathless angry shout. Ben flippin' Shapiro tells them something, Sean Hannity repeats it and it drives up m'aga blood pressure so much they can't keep it inside.
They shout and scream and then shrug when proven wrong. Again.
But right wing media collects the checks so the cycle repeats.
Hey remember when Joe Biden knowingly lied that the laptop was Russian disinformation and his secretary got a bunch of intelligence officials to repeat this lie for him?
Why the f**k should we listen to you about anything?
WASHINGTON, D.C. – New testimony by Michael Morell, a former Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and one of the 51 signatories of the “Public Statement on the Hunter Biden Emails,” revealed that U.S.
Was the letter signed by 51 former U.S. intelligence officials describing the New York Post article about Hunter Biden’s laptop as “Russian disinformation” an operation organized by the Biden campaign in some sort of strange...
I think you are confused. May I suggest you spend some time on Wikipedia to sort out the facts of the case? I don’t think you know much more than Ben and Sean have told you.
You can certainly contradict your own a rhetorical question. That's what you did. You asked me a rhetorical question with the argumentative answer of NO. Then, two posts down from it, you essentially admitted the answer was YES, and suggested there was justification for the YES. So you contradicted your own rhetorical question, and I'm puzzled by it. Why would someone do that? I'm guessing haste, impulsiveness, and internal confusion as to one's opinion are factors. Acid could be a factor too.
How does one determine that a question has an “argumentative answer of no?”
By using common reading comprehension skills and appreciating the context in which posts were made.
This really isn't difficult. They whole exchange is in a few sentences set forth in 3-4 posts over 2 pages, including this one. I'm just wondering why you asked this rhetorical question -- "Do national media outlets usually cover "localized racial hate crimes?"" which is saying that national media outlets do not cover, as I suggested they do, local racial hate crimes. "Why would they?" I believe you also posted. Those are rhetorical questions - affirmative statements framed as inquiries.
But two posts down from that you were admitting, in response to another post, that national media outlets DO cover racial hate crimes in certain instances, but the national media's "double standards" (your words) was justified for unexpressed reasons that you suggested I and "Academic Discussion" weren't bright enough to understand. "I'm hoping some day one of you stumbles into understanding why the double standards exist in the first place" is what I believe you typed.
So I was just wondering why you contradicted yourself within the space of two posts. That's all.
I think you are confused. May I suggest you spend some time on Wikipedia to sort out the facts of the case? I don’t think you know much more than Ben and Sean have told you.
Respectfully,
a six-legged Italian pooch.
That's a long-assed article.
Maybe you can just tell me why Joe Biden was justified in lying about how it was Russian disinfomration?
My non-rhetorical question was answered by another poster.
Be that as it may be, I'm still wondering why you asked me a rhetorical question that you effectively answered yourself two post down from it. And in contradiction of your rhetorical question, I should have added. That's the part that puzzles me.
ER, you puzzle people every day (every post?). Stop complaining about being puzzled.
The wheels of American justice are slowing all the time but looks like this might be the last slowdown. August indictment for Trump in GA.
Then we start waiting on federal charges for the mar-a-lago documents case.
NYT:
The Georgia prosecutor leading an investigation into former President Donald J. Trump and his allies has taken the unusual step of announcing remote work days for most of her staff during the first three weeks of August, asking judges in a downtown Atlanta courthouse not to schedule trials for part of that time as she prepares to bring charges in the inquiry.
The moves suggest that Fani T. Willis, the Fulton County district attorney, is expecting a grand jury to unseal indictments during that time period. Ms. Willis outlined the remote work plan and made the request to judges in a letter sent on Thursday to 21 Fulton County officials, including the chief county judge, Ural Glanville, and the sheriff, Pat Labat.
Agip, there is no truth to be found. Whatever you learn of those cases - up to and including authenticated video of Trump walking (now SUPER orange) to his prison cell - will just chalked up to your lib sources. Duh.
America in 2023: Probably about 1/3 of America- and about one-half of the posters on this board - COMPLY with Trump suggestion that they should just listen to what he (and his enablers) tell them.
I think you are confused. May I suggest you spend some time on Wikipedia to sort out the facts of the case? I don’t think you know much more than Ben and Sean have told you.
Respectfully,
a six-legged Italian pooch.
That's a long-assed article.
Maybe you can just tell me why Joe Biden was justified in lying about how it was Russian disinfomration?
yes, yes, right wing media is just so much more fun that actually learning the facts of the case. That's a secret weapon of the American Right and why so many of its leaders are TV and talk show guys. Trump, Pence, Fox, etc...all TV and radio guys who know how to put on a show for the rubes.
Anyway, of course there is a whole lot more you choose not to know, but here's a point that could serve as your starting mark. Go!
On October 19, 2020, a group of 51 former senior intelligence officials, who had served in the Trump administration and those of the three previous presidents, released an open letter stating that the release of the alleged emails "has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation", adding: We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement – just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case.[72][73][74]
On October 19, 2020, a group of 51 former senior intelligence officials, who had served in the Trump administration and those of the three previous presidents, released an open letter stating that the release of the alleged emails "has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation", adding: We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement – just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case.[72][73][74]
We already know about that. You know that letter was
1) Now proven incorrect regardless of who wrote it, and
2) The Biden and Blinken campaign literally pressured these people to write the letter,
right? You didn't know this? You didn't keep up on this story?
WASHINGTON, D.C. – New testimony by Michael Morell, a former Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and one of the 51 signatories of the “Public Statement on the Hunter Biden Emails,” revealed that U.S.
A D.C. police lieutenant was arrested Friday after he was accused of telling the leader of the far-right Proud Boys that he would be arrested for his actions after a December 2020 pro-Trump rally in Washington, obstructing the investigation ahead of the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack and lying to federal investigators afterward.
On October 19, 2020, a group of 51 former senior intelligence officials, who had served in the Trump administration and those of the three previous presidents, released an open letter stating that the release of the alleged emails "has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation", adding: We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement – just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case.[72][73][74]
We already know about that. You know that letter was
1) Now proven incorrect regardless of who wrote it, and
2) The Biden and Blinken campaign literally pressured these people to write the letter,
right? You didn't know this? You didn't keep up on this story?
It's truly amazing. You're still repeating the 2.5 year old lie thinking we didn't know about it? You hadn't kept up on any of the developments on the story since then?
