Michael Stuart Kelly Posted May 19, 2018 Author Share Posted May 19, 2018 It gets to the point where there's nothing you can say to add to it. What dorks the fake news media has in it. LOL... pic.twitter.com/jlFMw5Rj6E— Dan Bongino (@dbongino) May 19, 2018 Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted May 19, 2018 Author Share Posted May 19, 2018 And here's another, but a happier outcome. During the election I abandoned Glenn Beck because he not only was against Donald Trump, he slanted everything he said about Trump negative to the point of dishonesty. Glenn Beck became part of the fake news media. It looks like he's had enough reality rubbed in his nose. From Breitbart: Glenn Beck Endorses Donald Trump, Puts on MAGA Hat You have to see this to believe it: .@glennbeck has heard ENOUGH from the mainstream media.It's time to acknowledge everything @realDonaldTrump has done for America. pic.twitter.com/eZZVH1URcL— TheBlaze (@theblaze) May 18, 2018 And you have to hear this to believe it: He sounds like a goddam died-in-the-wool Trump supporter. Hell, he almost sounds more like a Trump supporter than I do. (Almost, but not quite... ) Glenn Beck was an enormous deception for me. Hell, when he went to the dark side, I had set up a corner for him here on OL. Bah... That may not mean anything to him and his crew, but it does to me. So hearing Beck's about-face on Trump comes off to me like a spouse who cheated on her husband with an entire football team for a year, then came and said she made a mistake and please forgive her. Would he please take her back... Not so fast... Like maybe not ever again... The deception was great. It was a goddam betrayal. But I am glad President Trump will get Glenn Beck's support for now (at least until he turns into an Old Testament prophet again and decides to commit business suicide, if that happens) because that will mean the support of his audience for the president. Beck's audience has dwindled a lot, but it is still big enough to be called a nice chunk. btw - I hear NewsMax is going to turn into a Fox News competitor. It seems like they already have Bill O'Reilly, Sean Spicer, Eric Bolling, Greta Van Susteren and others in talks and/or lined up. They're even courting Hannity. I wonder if Glenn Beck might want a show at NewsMax and if they don't want any Trump bashers over there... I don't expect anything nobler from Beck as motivation at this stage. Most of his audience will believe the main motivation for his change of heart is principle, however (the man does know how to speak passionately), so, in practical terms at voting time, that's not so bad. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted May 19, 2018 Share Posted May 19, 2018 I lump Glenn Beckk in with Jane Fondue. If cheesy Jane Fonda is in a movie, I will not watch it. I just saw her old quote about ALL AMERICANS SHOULD WORSHIP THE IDEA OF BECOMING COMMUNISTS. Any moron like Geck who loves to cry on camera is not going to be in my horses fodder. Who wants to clean that shit up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted May 19, 2018 Share Posted May 19, 2018 (edited) Rangappa, Bongino, and the FBI 'spy' business ... 11 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly, quoting Dan Bongino said: I love it when the @nytimes verifies my op-ed theory. The idea that the FBI was trying to "do in" Trump is hogwash. They were being cautious and slow (perhaps too much so, IMO) so as not to draw attention to their investigation. — Asha Rangappa (@AshaRangappa_) May 19, 2018 Edited May 19, 2018 by william.scherk Added text-to-speech version of Rangappa's Op-ed, for full context Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted May 19, 2018 Author Share Posted May 19, 2018 Where was the friggin' FBI informant in the Clinton campaign to protect her? She was proven to be in constant contact with the Russians. If any of the candidates needed the convoluted Rangappa protection syndrome, it was Hillary Clinton. Yet there was none. But there was a convoluted path through dummy entities and patsies like Perkins Coie, Fusion GPS, corrupt government officials, etc.--see here. So here's another theory. The FBI informant was covertly there in the Trump campaign to spy on Trump and set him up. Duh... No wonder the public is abandoning the mainstream press in droves. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted May 19, 2018 Share Posted May 19, 2018 (edited) [Added: Here's the voice of a trusted OL source ... complaining about a Buzzfeed story on so-called "superchats," a feature explained in the 'experimental' page-capture in the hidden section below the video.] "Buzzfeed Openly Lies About Superchats, Harrasses Independent Creators" On 5/18/2018 at 9:09 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said: What dorks the fake news media has in it. [Comments, questions, concerns ...?] Spoiler Edited May 20, 2018 by william.scherk Added comment per instruction; Corrected width error in embedded iframe; Chrome users, check out Full Page Screen Capture: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/full-page-screen-capture/fdpohaocaechififmbbbbbknoalclacl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted May 20, 2018 Author Share Posted May 20, 2018 7 hours ago, william.scherk said: Corrected width error in embedded iframe; Chrome users, check out Full Page Screen Capture... William, Do me a favor. Try to leave a comment when you copy stuff from other sites. This, after all, is a discussion forum. By simply quoting people from elsewhere and adding links and embeds of what others say, it makes it very hard to quote your post. So a person who wants to engage with you either doesn't quote anything from your post, or quotes what someone else said. That's not much of a discussion. If you don't want to opine or make your views known to the reader, you can even say something like: "Look what I found," or "I came across this." Hell, even the thing I quoted above works for the very minimum of what I mean. That way, at least a person can quote you to keep a discussion clear to the reader when other posters go in a different direction on the same thread. Thanks. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted May 20, 2018 Author Share Posted May 20, 2018 The video in the tweet below is a bash of the fake news media on purpose. That's different than the garden variety plain vanilla bovine monkey-hear-moneky-repeat fake news. This is fake news complicit in a criminal cover-up. Imagine for a moment that the media worked with the Nixon admin to cover up the Watergate break in? That's what is happening now. The media is helping Obama, Clapper, Comey, Hillary, etc. cover up their illegal spying on @realDonaldTrump.Yes, this is WAY worse than Watergate! pic.twitter.com/yBmowaSNKO— Gina Gentry Loudon (@RealDrGina) May 19, 2018 Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted May 20, 2018 Author Share Posted May 20, 2018 Here's a fake news company (NYT) talking about another. The Last Days of Time Inc.: An oral history of how the pre-eminent media organization of the 20th century ended up on the scrap heap. That's how it happens with mainstream fake news companies. I wish they would stop the fake news because I grew up with these companies as part of my cultural referents. It felt like an enormous betrayal to see what they have become, and it almost feels like an amputation to see them die off. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted May 21, 2018 Share Posted May 21, 2018 Scott Adams has a few ideas about the causes of school shootings, terrorism and fake news ... from "Scott Adams - The Causes of School Shootings, Terrorism & Fake news." I've cued up to the gist of his remarks: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted May 21, 2018 Share Posted May 21, 2018 Scott Sounds Sensible. Violent games are like a lot of gadgets or tools in every society. How can you suddenly declare video games as inspiring or causing violence and then not remove them from the hands of those who are compelled to do evil? A male, an outcast, no girl friend, bullied, parent's have a gun, plus violent video games may not equal a mass shooter in even one hundredth of one percent of the time, but the equation is moving us towards a solution. What would you do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted May 25, 2018 Author Share Posted May 25, 2018 You really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really have to be careful when you get in bed with a powerful establishment elitist. Lookee here: Hillary Clinton Wants to Be CEO of Facebook According to the headline, people may wonder what the hell Zuckerberg thinks of that. To be fair, Clinton was asked if she could be CEO of any company, which one she would choose. So, although I have no doubt Clinton would "handle" Zuckerberg in a heartbeat and sleep like a baby if she could get hold of his power and wield it, and he really does need to think about who he gets in bed with, he is not the one I'm talking about. I'm talking about the mainstream fake news media. The legacy media. And who they got in bed with. Here's a quote from the video in the above link: Quote Maura Healey: If you could be a CEO of any company right now, what would you choose? Hillary Clinton: Facebook... [laughter] I just want to add, it’s the biggest news platform in the world. We can listen to really brilliant writers like David Ignatius and try to keep up with the news, but most people in our country get their news, true or not, from Facebook. Now, Facebook is trying to take on some of the unexpected consequences of their business model, and I for one hope that they get it right, because it really is critical to our democracy that people get accurate information on which to make decisions. And so, yeah, that's the one I'd pick. What are some inferences we can make from this statement? How do I read thee? Let me count the ways... 1. Clinton thinks Facebook is a news platform just like any newspaper or broadcast news company. This is a terrible mistake, but why is another discussion beyond the scope of this post (i.e., the difference between interactive free-for-all Internet platforms versus legacy top-down one-way communication platforms). The main point here is that Clinton presents this idea clearly and her followers will swallow it whole without thinking. In other words, to her, Facebook is a competitor of legacy media. It isn't, but once again, her followers will now believe this. I wonder what the legacy fake-news media thinks of that? Hmmmm???... 2. Facebook is the number one place people turn to in order to "try to keep up with the news." Not the legacy media. I wonder what the legacy fake-news media thinks of that? Hmmmm???... 3. Due to "unexpected consequences of their business model," people are not getting from Facebook "accurate information on which to make decisions." And it is "critical to our democracy" that Facebook get this right according to what she means by that. In other words, to her, people are not getting enough accurate information on which to make decisions" from the legacy media. Whether this is because the legacy media is fake news or whether it has become irrelevant in terms of being "critical to our democracy," she didn't say. She only made it clear she didn't think the legacy media was worth mentioning in this context. I could go on, but is there any need to? Clinton, like the doofus she is, just trashed the mainstream legacy fake news media that has supported her and still supports her (after all, they got in bed with her ). How? Well, her followers take her pronouncements whole and undigested. That means the message in between the lines goes in undigested, too. And that message is: the legacy media is not very important anymore. I wonder what the legacy fake-news media thinks of that? Hmmmm???... I never knew Clinton agreed with President Trump on this point as much as she did here. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted May 29, 2018 Author Share Posted May 29, 2018 What is it about the mainstream fake news media these days that the keep dredging up Obama-era photos and information and presenting them as if they were proof of how bad President Trump is? Here's an example where NYT got caught with its pants down presenting--against President Trump--a photo of immigrant children in steel cages from the Obama era (among some other goodies): Embarrassment for New York Times as top editor falls for old photo amid weekend of misleading anti-Trump tweets Dayaamm! These fake news media folks are totally discombobulated. It seems like they ran out of made-up stuff and are now resorting to Obama stuff and trying to attach it to Trump... Don't they know this doesn't work? Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted June 3, 2018 Author Share Posted June 3, 2018 One of the great things about President Trump and the media is that he gets the fake news to expose itself over and over. He flushes the vermin out from their hiding places. I recall someone once saying that the best way to get rid of cockroaches and rats is not to kill them, but to make their environment unbearable. They will come out of hiding on their own. So look at this beauty by Maureen Dowd from the New York Times. I remember how snarky these people got when they were accused of Obama-worship. Obama — Just Too Good for Us From the article: Quote As president, Obama always found us wanting. We were constantly disappointing him. He would tell us the right thing to do and then sigh and purse his lips when his instructions were not followed. . . . We just weren’t ready for his amazing awesomeness. It is stunning to me, having been on the road with Barack Obama in the giddy, evanescent days of 2008, that he does not understand his own historic rise to power, how he defied impossible odds and gracefully leapt over obstacles. He did it by sparking hope in many Americans... Oh, there are some worms in this apple she serves up, after all, she's Maureen Dowd and that means she's a viper. Obama's tragic flaw to her is that he supported Hillary Clinton in the end, which means nothing more than the Democrats lost. Of course, if Clinton had won, Dowd would be saying this was due to Obama's awesome political instincts or something like that. But this fawning crap, even from her, is enough to make anyone want to puke. No wonder they are fake news. They never could have sold this swill--we're just not good enough for Big Brother--during election time. So they had to hide it. Fake it. And make it look like news. Bah... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted June 13, 2018 Share Posted June 13, 2018 On 2/23/2017 at 7:26 PM, KorbenDallas said: MSK, what's your definition of 'fake news'? I think it might be a list, derived from an ostensive signifier: NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, CNN, Global, CTV, CBC, City, CNN Espanol, Radio-Canada, TQS, Washington Post, New York Times, Boston Globe, St Louis Dispatch, Reuters, AP ... and then the mid-range outlets of non-legacy "new" media: Snopes, Media Matters, Vox, Axios, Buzzfeed, and so on. Which if true makes the interpreting of this Presidential tweet a challenge: America's biggest enemy is the Fake News. Seems legit, but I thought from recent histrionics here that Canadian 'freeloading' parasite elites are the enemy of America. It's got me thinking about the Fallacy of the Excluded middle. And here to demonstrate the fallacy in action, notable 'post-fact' commentator and trusted source of wisdom, Scott Adams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted June 14, 2018 Author Share Posted June 14, 2018 Look at this howler: Wolf Blitzer: ‘We Are Not the Enemy of the American People, We love the American People’ The CNN folks merely want to dupe those they apparently love... So how is that being an enemy? Dayaamm! You can't make this stuff up. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted June 14, 2018 Share Posted June 14, 2018 13 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Look at this howler: Wolf Blitzer: ‘We Are Not the Enemy of the American People, We love the American People’ The CNN folks merely want to dupe those they apparently love... So how is that being an enemy? Dayaamm! You can't make this stuff up. Michael I guess they, themselves, aren't "American people." I guess they see themselves floating over it all objectifying their observations and telling all and sundry The Truth! --Brant "The Truth" goes marching on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted June 14, 2018 Author Share Posted June 14, 2018 2 hours ago, Brant Gaede said: I guess they see themselves floating over it all objectifying their observations and telling all and sundry The Truth! Brant, This is pretty accurate. They are one of the mouthpieces for the elitists floating over and objectifying the cattle. They don't need to tell the truth to the cattle because they know what's best for the cattle. They may love the cattle, but I doubt it. CNN is one of the main vehicles that promote endless war for profit. Cattle to them are for sending to war (never their own children), and cattle are awesome for dressing and feeding them and providing them with their jollies. Cattle are for barbecuing, not loving like one of their own group. If you are objecting to my comment because they love elitists like themselves and these elitists are what they mean by "The American People," well, you may have a point. Since I'm part of a broader spectrum of "The American People" than these jerks will ever consider as equals under the law, since, to them, I'm cattle, I'm not feeling the luv... I respect their rights, even as I despise their mentality. I consider them part of the American People. But they don't think I have the same rights they do. I'm not fit to be among them as an American. It's a people and cattle thing to them. They lie about everything and they lie about who they love. So, they can go fuck themselves. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted June 14, 2018 Share Posted June 14, 2018 Comey deviated from FBI and DOJ procedures during Hillary probe, per Fox. I hope the FBI investigates itself. Eliot Ness would not allow "the bureau" to become dirty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted June 15, 2018 Author Share Posted June 15, 2018 Here's the left-wing dude I like (Jimmy Dore) talking about how crazy Democrats sound when, led by Rachel Maddow, they claim that President Trump is doing peace negotiations with North Korea in order to satisfy Putin's desires. It's pretty brutal. I don't like Jimmy's politics (how could I?), but I do like his sincerity about caring for people (meaning he's no demagogue--he seeks fairness as he understands it), his constant campaign to seek logical consistency on his own side, and especially his pissed off manner when he doesn't find it. In other words, as pertains this specific video, he is calling Maddow and MSNBC fake new, which it is. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted June 15, 2018 Author Share Posted June 15, 2018 I just came across a hilarious quip. In the IG report released yesterday, Peter Strzok, during the FBI Hillary Clinton email investigation, has been caught red-handed saying "We will stop him," meaning the election of Donald Trump. After that, he was hired by Mueller to investigate the fictional Russian collusion with the Trump campaign. On the part about the FBI trying to influence a major political election, Dinesh D'Souza and Laura Ingram were talking (and Roger Stone was in the segment) (see here), Dinesh was calling the people under discussion "criminals with badges." Laura Ingraham responded about how the mainstream media was covering it or, basically not covering it. Quote It's like you're operating in an alternative universe if you watch any of the other networks tonight. "It's no big deal. Let's move on to Stormy Daniels." LOL... That's a quip, but it's so spot on, I can't stop laughing... The fake news media is so goddam obvious and, frankly, trite, they have such a low opinion of their viewers, a porn star is about the best they've got left. :) Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted June 15, 2018 Share Posted June 15, 2018 23 hours ago, Peter said: Comey deviated from FBI and DOJ procedures during Hillary probe, per Fox. Five hundred and eleventy pages, and that's all we get? See also, for yourself: https://www.justice.gov/file/1071991/download Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted June 19, 2018 Author Share Posted June 19, 2018 Here is a perfect example of a fake news headline on Politico: Call to suspend Mueller probe was just posturing, Giuliani says The reader assumes from this headline that Giuliani didn't really mean it. That he was trying to lie to everyone. Then we get into the article: Quote “I didn’t think it would,” Giuliani told POLITICO with a laugh when asked about the Mueller inquiry’s still being very much an active investigation. “But I still think it should be.” . . . “That’s what I’m supposed to do,” Giuliani explained on Monday. “What am I supposed to say? That they should investigate him forever? Sorry, I’m not a sucker.” In other words, Giuliani expressed a sincere call to action--he really wants the Mueller investigation terminated--even though he thought the chances slim of something like the following happening: Mueller saying, "OK. I never thought of that. What a good good idea. I'll shut it down immediately." Let the fake news media keep doing this crap. The anti-Trumpers may feel the press once more did a nice maneuver, but nobody else does. And, like I keep saying, the midterms are right around the corner. At that time, Politico and other fake news media will be saying, "Trust us. Trust us. We've learned our lesson." Let's see if people will trust them. Ha.... Or better, bah... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted June 20, 2018 Author Share Posted June 20, 2018 (sigh) ABC News apologizes for false graphic saying Manafort pleaded guilty to manslaughter They only apologize after they get caught. Fake fake fake... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted June 22, 2018 Author Share Posted June 22, 2018 Now we get to fake social media. As I've mentioned before, I don't use Twitter for much personally. As an exception, I like to keep up with President Trump and I always "like" his tweets. But, I have gradually been using Twitter more often for news and events, as is evident by the links I sometimes post. As far as posting and "liking," I do very, very little of the first (posting), and a little bit more of the second ("liking"). I'll "like" a tweet here and there, but generally not more than a couple or so a day. Other than President Trump's tweets, that is. I always "like" his tweets. Now I am noticing three things. 1. President Trump's tweets do not always show up in my feed. I expected this since the owner of Twitter hates the President, but can't get rid of him. So small sabotage is his compromise. But it gets worse. 2. To make sure I "like" all of President Trump's tweets, I go to his account page and pick up what I have missed. Sometimes I have noticed that tweets he made disappear from his list of tweets for a day or so, then reappear. Sometimes tweets he made that appeared on my feed don't appear on his list of tweets until a couple of days later. More manipulation. Oh well... 3. This one is more serious. I always go down President Trump's list of tweets on his account and more recently, I am discovering tweets that I "liked" given as if I hadn't "liked" them. And it gets a bit more ridiculous. There are several I have "liked" and had to "relike" more than twice. These Twitter idiots think that if they make President Trump's tweets look like not as many people follow him and "like" his tweets as they really do, this will somehow lessen his influence. So we now have fake twits. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now