The_Capt Posted October 11 Share Posted October 11 1 hour ago, billbindc said: I suspect it won't be that easy in a big peer war. Massed precision will then be up against mass ECM and denial reaching up into space. Autonomous will come into play quickly but countermeasures will iterate very quickly from the simple (i.e. profile alteration) to the complicated (artillery delivered mass dummy targets). If I had to guess, I think things get far more complicated (i.e. attacks on civilian populations with hunter/killer autonomous drones) before offensive solutions become visible. Hell of a world we have coming. And on that note...I'm going to have a drink. Mass precision superiority beats everything…less punchy but more accurate. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted October 11 Share Posted October 11 7 minutes ago, The_Capt said: Strange sexual angle you are taking here. Making it weird. says the guy constantly carrying around hot hot images of pooty-on-priggy-on-trumpy action in his head. Quote Of course if you want to have a real combined arms discussion, just let me know. Yeah, we tried that about a month ago and you promptly went all monogamous on it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paxromana Posted October 11 Share Posted October 11 7 hours ago, dan/california said: I think you are underplaying how bad the education system is. My kids literally come home at least once a week and rant at me that most of their middle school doesn't know who Hitler was. And while that is awful, it is also mostly laziness and incompetence. Ponder how screwed up in Russia, China, and a great many other places where the the schools are pushing a government line that has no bearing on reality I get there are places where it is MUCH better than that, but they are not exactly a critical mass. I mean that is what we are trying to do here isn't it? But it works because the board is run by a benevolent dictator who tries to keep it on the rails with the minimum necessary enforcement. How you get to an equivalent in broader communities is one of the hardest questions of this century. Retired (10 years nbw) Teacher who worked in NSW High Schools (Australia has statewide education systems which still teach the majority of kids, plus Private Schools ... all of which teach the same curriculum. There are NO local School Boards as in the US and Canada) ... and a History Teacher to boot. There have been considerable changes in the NSW History Curriculum over the 37 years I taught. When I started the Junior curriculum (Years 7-10) was wide ranging and covered a lot of UK/Australian History (including Medieval and Early Modern) with a good chunk of World History and Australia's role in it (even WW2) ... but the gradual move has been to put more emphasis on Australian only history (especially colonisation and indigenous), which leaves less time for the rest, but it is still there. Senior (11-12) History splits into two streams (and becomes an optional subject, whereas it was compulsory in 7-10), Ancient and Modern, and I taught both from time to time. There are core modules in each and *many* additional modules which can be chosen from. Modern Core was WW1, so students had a good grounding in world history as related to that. For the modules the most popular ones where I taught were the Great Depression era and the Cold War era ... but one cycle I taught WW2 Europe ... Other States, especially Victoria, seem to have been more wisht-washy as to their History curricula. But, overall, Australian students seem to be bettrer grounded in History than I understand from colleagues who have taught in US schools ... and about the same as English schools. So it isn't necessarily all that much a problem worldwide. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Capt Posted October 11 Share Posted October 11 1 minute ago, JonS said: says the guy constantly carrying around hot hot images of pooty-on-priggy-on-trumpy action in his head. Yeah, we tried that about a month ago and you promptly went all monogamous on it. Hey man, the story writes itself…I just see it. No we didn’t. My position has always been (well definitely a month ago) that we are looking at a redefinition of what constitutes “combined arms”. The future appears to be “fires, unmanned systems and lighter infantry” as the core. The observations from this war support it. We will have to see if it holds. If all you heard was “unmanned will rule all”…well that is more on you than me. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Capt Posted October 11 Share Posted October 11 13 minutes ago, JonS said: So, ok. Aside from the point that we all presumably know that materiel output alone isn't sufficient to determine the outcome of a war (see: pretty much any war, ever) the above begs the question of how it was the Germans were exhausted and knew it in 1917? Perhaps, and bear with me here, it may have had more to do with all those 'pointless' and 'wasteful' and 'ineffective' British and French offensives than it had to do with the Germans simply being such good sports and throwing in the towel? Ah yes, a brilliant military strategy. Hemorrhage out a generation of young men, go billions into debt to the US and then have empires fall apart under their feet. But hey they won the war through all those brilliant repeated head smashing attacks. Germany did go the “good sport way”. We know exactly what “bad sport” looks like…Germany 1945. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paxromana Posted October 11 Share Posted October 11 6 hours ago, Battlefront.com said: I'd be shocked to find that the senior levels of any of the major militaries involved advised their respective governments that the war was going to be a disaster for their nation. I read a comment some years ago to the effect that in any given conflict the Generals on one sude are always 100% wrong in their assessments of how well they are able to achieve victory while those on the other side are ... less wrong (with the addendum that on the winning side the Generals in charge at the end are overwhelmingly not those who made the pre-war estmates). 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted October 12 Share Posted October 12 1 hour ago, JonS said: says the guy constantly carrying around hot hot images of pooty-on-priggy-on-trumpy action in his head. hey it is a "romance novel". He's hoping to be the next Danielle Steele. Word of warning to him in advance. All the telco guys I know refused to sign her NDA to come out and fix the dang phone system in her house. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Capt Posted October 12 Share Posted October 12 35 minutes ago, sburke said: hey it is a "romance novel". He's hoping to be the next Danielle Steele. Word of warning to him in advance. All the telco guys I know refused to sign her NDA to come out and fix the dang phone system in her house. At least my sexual fiction involves human beings (well sort of). He got all Cyberpunk porny there, sex with machines etc. Makes me wonder what old gunners do after retirement. Danielle Steele is a hack…a ludicrously rich and popular hack. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted October 12 Share Posted October 12 Combined arms orgies, baby. All. The. Way. You're welcome. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimbosbread Posted October 12 Share Posted October 12 4 hours ago, NamEndedAllen said: This is for me personally among the greatest tragedies of my life which has been pledged to upholding our piece of the Constitution’s machinery dedicated to ensuring that each generation of Americans is willing and capable of self governance, via Constitution’s core process. In a hasty nutshell: - Free public education, - The ‘free flow of information’ - via free ‘press’, public libraries, the Postal Service, free speech providing the grist for applying critical thinking earned with that free education… In case you haven’t (or have, but it doesn’t really matter) been paying attention, in some of the more liberal areas of the US (like where I live) public education has decided to become performative woke theater, for lack of a better term. And then it’s surprised pikachu face when any parents with motivation and/or means leave for private schools. However that masks the deeper problem where we have a generation of kids who haven’t been told no, kids who are unable to work from first principles and… ChatGPT (which is starting to be an endemic problem across pretty much everything, from school to academic papers). 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NamEndedAllen Posted October 12 Share Posted October 12 6 minutes ago, kimbosbread said: In case you haven’t (or have, but it doesn’t really matter) been paying attention, in some of the more liberal areas of the US (like where I live) Let’s not go down this jagged path for the sake of both those not in the USA, and for the thread’s topic of the invasion and war in Ukraine in general. But happy to discuss in pm mode and understand your perspective better. There are indeed many challenges facing USA teachers and willing students in the classrooms . 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sross112 Posted October 12 Share Posted October 12 7 hours ago, danfrodo said: So sometimes they aren't outright lying means a good source for info? Normally I am aghast at even the concept of disagreeing with SBurke, but I must take exception with this. A big part of the 'good' part of fox news is not reporting important news, or under reporting it, when they are not outright lying. Let's not applaud a fish for swimming. And let's not applaud a business built on lying for only lying part of the time. Fox news viewers tend to be much less informed, or misinformed, than non-fox watchers. @Billy Ringo and @sburke have very valid points. To say that CNN doesn't lie but Fox does is just ignoring the facts. They all lie to push their agendas. Nick Sandmann lawsuit ring a bell? How about that video of the Apache shooting up the poor farmer hiding under the tractor in Iraq? They just cut out the parts of the story that don't fit their narrative, you know, the facts part, so that their audience gets the "truth". Each one is pushing an agenda and the best way to glean the actual information is to watch them all because you will get the pieces from both sides and be able to put together what actually happened. All you really need to do is to be part of an actual incident to know how much each side slants. A great example of this was the coverage of the DAPL pipeline in ND a few years ago. The liberal news media portrayed it as a calm and serene Native American protest with all the attendant chanting, singing, and way of life speeches. They conveniently left out the destruction of public and private property, all the associated crime in the camps, and the violence against the officers present that included shooting at them. Not even Jan 6th got to that level, but it was mysteriously absent from the reporting. The other side like Fox showed all this, but failed to acknowledge that there were a significant amount of peaceful protestors. It all depended on where you were that day. Calm and peaceful in town and a riot at the work site. Real similar to how Jan 6th is portrayed because it really depended on where you were. One side of the capitol was all peaceful and no problems, the other side a ****show. Fox plays the serenity scene and CNN plays the riot scene. Neither is telling the whole story. Both are lying. Whether it is lying outright or lying by omission, it is still lying. Both have paid substantial lawsuits for doing so. Mark Twain said it best with "If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read it you are misinformed." Same is very true today whether it is social media or main stream media. Viewers from each side pointing at each other and saying how the other is stupid for listening to the false narrative is kind of funny but mainly just sad. It's like a white supremacist and a black supremacist arguing about who is right when they are both wrong. Oh, and before you label me you should know that I wish there was a third box on the ballot in November that was for "Please shuffle the deck and try again, both candidates suck." 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted October 12 Share Posted October 12 (edited) People who say the Earth is flat are wrong. People who say the Earth is a sphere are also wrong. Therefore you would be justified in saying that both groups are wrong. However, one of them is wrong in a way that doesn't really matter for most practical purposes, while the other ... oy vey. Not reporting peaceful scenes in Washington DC on Jan 6 is similar to failing to report that water remains wet, or failing to report on all the airliners which didn't crash and all the schools which didn't have mass shootings today. That's the way it should be, it is not news, especially when there is a literal riot going on at the Capitol! Edited Sunday at 02:36 AM by JonS 16 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NamEndedAllen Posted October 12 Share Posted October 12 FYI From the USA site of worldwide source yougov Which news sources do Americans trust in 2024?https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/49552-trust-in-media-2024-which-news-outlets-americans-trust The American news landscape is fractured and polarized, with no outlet singularly gaining the public's attention or trust. Party identification, and to some extent age, divide American media consumption. Most adults say that at least half their news consumption is politics-related, and most major news sources are perceived by Americans as either left- or right-leaning. Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to trust the news in general, as well as to trust most specific outlets. Republicans — and Americans in general — are more likely to classify news sources as liberal than as conservative, though there are exceptions. Democrats and Republicans find some common ground when it comes to sources for financial news, but hold vastly different opinions on other news sources, including the two used most often: CNN and Fox News. In our latest poll, we ask Americans about each of 52 news sources, including their use of each in the past month, its trustworthiness, and its ideological lean. In doing so, we revisit questions asked on a similar survey conducted roughly a year ago, in April 2023, with a handful of additions and removals. The results reflect American views on the media and specific news sources — including opinions of many people who haven't recently gotten news from the outlets. Some news organizations are used more heavily or elicit opinions from more Americans, and these outlets tend to sit at the top and bottom of these charts. The most and least trusted news sources Like in last year's survey, we asked Americans in 2024 whether they find each of more than 50 outlets very trustworthy, trustworthy, untrustworthy, very untrustworthy, or neither trustworthy nor untrustworthy. Using these results, we calculate each outlet's net trust score — that is, how much more likely Americans are to say the source is trustworthy or very trustworthy than untrustworthy or very untrustworthy. By this measure, The Weather Channel persists as the most trusted news source, as it was in 2022 and 2023: Americans are 43 percentage points more likely to call The Weather Channel trustworthy as they are to call it untrustworthy. The Weather Channel is followed by two public broadcasters: the BBC (+25) and PBS (+22). The Wall Street Journal (+22) ties with PBS for third place, and is the only organization that publishes a newspaper to rank within the top 10 most trusted outlets. By far, the least-trusted outlet included in the poll is the National Enquirer (-44). The outlets trusted least besides the Enquirer are Infowars (-18) and Breitbart News (-13). How trustworthy is news from the following? (Displaying the net trust score among U.S. adult citizens: the percentage point difference between the percentages of U.S. adult citizens who say each source is trustworthy or very trustworthy and the percentage who say it is untrustworthy or very untrustworthy) ← LESS TRUST ------ MORE TRUST → The Weather Channel +43 BBC +25 PBS +22 The Wall Street Journal +22 Forbes +19 ABC +16 Reuters +16 The Associated Press +16 CBS +15 TIME Magazine +15 ESPN +15 C-SPAN +14 NBC +14 The New York Times +13 The Washington Post +12 USA Today +12 NPR +11 The Financial Times +11 The Economist +10 Business Insider +10 Newsweek +10 The Guardian +8 The Atlantic +7 Bloomberg +7 The New Yorker +5 The Los Angeles Times +4 Politico +3 Yahoo News +3 CNBC +2 New York Post +2 CNN +2 The Hill +2 ProPublica +1 Axios ±0 MSNBC ±0 National Review −1 Fox Business Channel −2 The Daily Beast −3 Daily Kos −3 Newsmax −4 HuffPost −5 The Washington Examiner −5 The Federalist −6 OAN −7 The Daily Caller −7 People −9 Fox News −10 Al Jazeera −11 Comedy Central −12 Breitbart News −13 Infowars −18 National Enquirer −44 Note: The names of some sources have been abbreviated. People who say the source is neither trustworthy nor untrustworthy, or that they don't know, are not included in the calculation 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe982 Posted October 12 Share Posted October 12 Talking about news, I come here to be updated on Ukraine. May I please have an update. Thank you. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holien Posted October 12 Share Posted October 12 7 minutes ago, Joe982 said: May I please have an update. Thank you. The war is ongoing and entering a possible stalemate until either side can break that. The last few pages are examining history to see how that might occur. Personally I would be interested in seeing Ukraines plan for victory but rightly that is being kept secret and being discussed by world leaders of which I am not. It's a pity Ukraine has only just gained the capability to destroy ammunition dumps inside Russia as this would have helped in its offensives. My guess is as the weather closes in the lines will stay static. Russia might be getting fresh meat from NK to try and break Ukraine. A bit like American troops turning up in WW1? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yet Posted Saturday at 10:26 AM Share Posted Saturday at 10:26 AM 3 hours ago, NamEndedAllen said: FYI From the USA site of worldwide source yougov Which news sources do Americans trust in 2024?https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/49552-trust-in-media-2024-which-news-outlets-americans-trust The American news landscape is fractured and polarized, with no outlet singularly gaining the public's attention or trust. Party identification, and to some extent age, divide American media consumption. Most adults say that at least half their news consumption is politics-related, and most major news sources are perceived by Americans as either left- or right-leaning. Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to trust the news in general, as well as to trust most specific outlets. Republicans — and Americans in general — are more likely to classify news sources as liberal than as conservative, though there are exceptions. Democrats and Republicans find some common ground when it comes to sources for financial news, but hold vastly different opinions on other news sources, including the two used most often: CNN and Fox News. In our latest poll, we ask Americans about each of 52 news sources, including their use of each in the past month, its trustworthiness, and its ideological lean. In doing so, we revisit questions asked on a similar survey conducted roughly a year ago, in April 2023, with a handful of additions and removals. The results reflect American views on the media and specific news sources — including opinions of many people who haven't recently gotten news from the outlets. Some news organizations are used more heavily or elicit opinions from more Americans, and these outlets tend to sit at the top and bottom of these charts. The most and least trusted news sources Like in last year's survey, we asked Americans in 2024 whether they find each of more than 50 outlets very trustworthy, trustworthy, untrustworthy, very untrustworthy, or neither trustworthy nor untrustworthy. Using these results, we calculate each outlet's net trust score — that is, how much more likely Americans are to say the source is trustworthy or very trustworthy than untrustworthy or very untrustworthy. By this measure, The Weather Channel persists as the most trusted news source, as it was in 2022 and 2023: Americans are 43 percentage points more likely to call The Weather Channel trustworthy as they are to call it untrustworthy. The Weather Channel is followed by two public broadcasters: the BBC (+25) and PBS (+22). The Wall Street Journal (+22) ties with PBS for third place, and is the only organization that publishes a newspaper to rank within the top 10 most trusted outlets. By far, the least-trusted outlet included in the poll is the National Enquirer (-44). The outlets trusted least besides the Enquirer are Infowars (-18) and Breitbart News (-13). How trustworthy is news from the following? (Displaying the net trust score among U.S. adult citizens: the percentage point difference between the percentages of U.S. adult citizens who say each source is trustworthy or very trustworthy and the percentage who say it is untrustworthy or very untrustworthy) ← LESS TRUST ------ MORE TRUST → The Weather Channel +43 BBC +25 PBS +22 The Wall Street Journal +22 Forbes +19 ABC +16 Reuters +16 The Associated Press +16 CBS +15 TIME Magazine +15 ESPN +15 C-SPAN +14 NBC +14 The New York Times +13 The Washington Post +12 USA Today +12 NPR +11 The Financial Times +11 The Economist +10 Business Insider +10 Newsweek +10 The Guardian +8 The Atlantic +7 Bloomberg +7 The New Yorker +5 The Los Angeles Times +4 Politico +3 Yahoo News +3 CNBC +2 New York Post +2 CNN +2 The Hill +2 ProPublica +1 Axios ±0 MSNBC ±0 National Review −1 Fox Business Channel −2 The Daily Beast −3 Daily Kos −3 Newsmax −4 HuffPost −5 The Washington Examiner −5 The Federalist −6 OAN −7 The Daily Caller −7 People −9 Fox News −10 Al Jazeera −11 Comedy Central −12 Breitbart News −13 Infowars −18 National Enquirer −44 Note: The names of some sources have been abbreviated. People who say the source is neither trustworthy nor untrustworthy, or that they don't know, are not included in the calculation Good to know that fox news is right there with comedy central. btw. i assume that if this enquiry was done in NL that the weather forecast would dangle down below any serious news channel. though i dunno if that sais more about our news channels, the predictability of our weather, the quality of the forecasts, or the way we are commonly cultural wired. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmouredTopHat Posted Saturday at 11:21 AM Share Posted Saturday at 11:21 AM Interesting perspective, and a reminder that we the public do not know everything that is going on behind the scenes. To hear optimism of this sort is a good thing. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmouredTopHat Posted Saturday at 11:23 AM Share Posted Saturday at 11:23 AM https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/1g1w6q2/a_ukrainian_fpv_pilot_attacks_a_russian_zala_z16/ Interesting modification to this Zala, seems the Russians are scrambling for ways to stop FPV drones smacking their long range ISR capabilities. The continued Ukrainian hits on their UAVs is hopefully causing a lot of problems now. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmouredTopHat Posted Saturday at 11:25 AM Share Posted Saturday at 11:25 AM (edited) Fighter bomber reports another Su-34 loss. Another post suggests F-16 (Probably cope but its humorous all the same) Edited Saturday at 11:26 AM by ArmouredTopHat 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billbindc Posted Saturday at 02:51 PM Share Posted Saturday at 02:51 PM 9 hours ago, sross112 said: One side of the capitol was all peaceful and no problems, the other side a ****show. Fox plays the serenity scene and CNN plays the riot scene. Neither is telling the whole story. Both are lying. Whether it is lying outright or lying by omission, it is still lying. Both have paid substantial lawsuits for doing so. No. Sorry. Ridiculous. I was here for 1/6 and the riots (for example, December 12th) that preceded it. The whole story is that it was a highly violent and organized attempt to stop the turnover of power. I have friends who defended the Capitol that day and it's quite offensive to both sides it. 13 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danfrodo Posted Saturday at 02:57 PM Share Posted Saturday at 02:57 PM 9 hours ago, sross112 said: @Billy Ringo and @sburke have very valid points. To say that CNN doesn't lie but Fox does is just ignoring the facts. They all lie to push their agendas. Nick Sandmann lawsuit ring a bell? How about that video of the Apache shooting up the poor farmer hiding under the tractor in Iraq? They just cut out the parts of the story that don't fit their narrative, you know, the facts part, so that their audience gets the "truth". Each one is pushing an agenda and the best way to glean the actual information is to watch them all because you will get the pieces from both sides and be able to put together what actually happened. All you really need to do is to be part of an actual incident to know how much each side slants. A great example of this was the coverage of the DAPL pipeline in ND a few years ago. The liberal news media portrayed it as a calm and serene Native American protest with all the attendant chanting, singing, and way of life speeches. They conveniently left out the destruction of public and private property, all the associated crime in the camps, and the violence against the officers present that included shooting at them. Not even Jan 6th got to that level, but it was mysteriously absent from the reporting. The other side like Fox showed all this, but failed to acknowledge that there were a significant amount of peaceful protestors. It all depended on where you were that day. Calm and peaceful in town and a riot at the work site. Real similar to how Jan 6th is portrayed because it really depended on where you were. One side of the capitol was all peaceful and no problems, the other side a ****show. Fox plays the serenity scene and CNN plays the riot scene. Neither is telling the whole story. Both are lying. Whether it is lying outright or lying by omission, it is still lying. Both have paid substantial lawsuits for doing so. Mark Twain said it best with "If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read it you are misinformed." Same is very true today whether it is social media or main stream media. Viewers from each side pointing at each other and saying how the other is stupid for listening to the false narrative is kind of funny but mainly just sad. It's like a white supremacist and a black supremacist arguing about who is right when they are both wrong. Oh, and before you label me you should know that I wish there was a third box on the ballot in November that was for "Please shuffle the deck and try again, both candidates suck." First, I don't watch CNN, or any other tv news other than an occasional bit on youtube, almost never from CNN. TV news is for idiots, overall. Again the false equivalence. And in november you have a choice between a fascist lunatic and kamala harris. But you are so torn between your bad choices, what's a an informed, conscientious fellow to do? Uhhhh, One might vote against the fascist? In doing so you might get back something that would resemble a party that you like. Instead you do the small-minded 'pox on both sides' game, which is like a child wanting a rainbow unicorn pony. Democracy is often a lesser of two evils choice, so grow up and protect american democracy. Jan 6 'both sides'? You've really revealed yourself with that one. Fox calls the insurrectionists 'hostages' and 'heroes'. Trump et al called for people to converge on Jan 6 to stop the peaceful transfer of power, called for "trail by combat" and worked the mob up with speeches, then sent them to the capital. It was an attempt to overthrow the US government. Have you no idea what actually happened that day? Has fox news sold you that this was all innocent? What other side? there is no other side on Jan 6? -- oh, wait there is the other side-- the one that was following our laws and norms. What you said above about Jan 6 is shamefully ignorant, but you think you are some kind of informed moderate. You are most certainly not. I will label you as just another reality-optional what-aboutist who tries to whitewash the horrific by making other examples that simply aren't even relevant. You want to continue to live in your bubble, you are part of the problem. "well, sure my news channel lies incessantly and I am terribly misinformed, but I have these other examples of bad reporting that make it ok for me to keep watching the same lying news channel". "well, gosh, yes, a mob attacked the nation's capital under trump's persuasion, but there were some libs there doing something, somewhere. I think some of the libs were gay, or woke, or something. So there's two sides to it!" Gen Milley, head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under trump, just say Trump is "fascist to the core" and "the most dangerous person" in america. But you still can't figure out who to vote for. ~100 members of trump admin have gone on record opposing his re-election, with his defense secretary calling him a danger to national security. but you still can't figure out who to vote for. I'll get a vacation now, but feels worth it. So f--ing sick of this kind of garbage. 17 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted Saturday at 03:35 PM Share Posted Saturday at 03:35 PM 9 hours ago, sross112 said: @Billy Ringo and @sburke have very valid points. Just to be clear I am not a "both sides" guy. Americans love their news in sound bites they can easily digest which leads to reporting that is almost as bad as click bait internet crap. That being said the conservative media promotes far more outright stupid nonsense. Fox news may have gotten slightly better after getting sued for close to a billion, but Fox media is still spewing some of the most outrageous conspiracy-oriented crap out there. Only Tucker and some of the other unapologetic white nationalist media is worse. Fact checking is an important part of what the media should be doing, when I hear someone object to that fact checking I can be pretty certain it is because they want to lie without consequence. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danfrodo Posted Saturday at 03:40 PM Share Posted Saturday at 03:40 PM Certainly wasn't aimed at you, SBurke. Was aimed at the Jan 6 semi-denier who thinks he's informed because he can falsely what-about both-sider any subject, despite the mountains of evidence against such a take. As in senate investigation and the 165 page evidence dump that just occurred. And 1000+ convictions (and counting) of the the traitors who attacked our capital because they are in the world's dumbest cult. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted Saturday at 03:44 PM Share Posted Saturday at 03:44 PM 4 minutes ago, danfrodo said: Certainly wasn't aimed at you, SBurke. I know, just clarifying. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.