But, you  believe who you want.  You still don't believe the Russia Collusion hoax was a lie, even in light of Durham's findings ... SO FAR!

Complete mischaracterization, I never took any solid stance on that issue.

I don't "want" to believe anything, I want to know the truth no matter who or how much it helps.

Complete mischaracterization, I never took any solid stance on that issue.

I don't "want" to believe anything, I want to know the truth no matter who or how much it helps.

Anyone refusing to see the truth of the Great Lie perpetrated on this nation and Trump by all the various players is in denial.  The forrest is there, even if there are a few trees yet to be revealed.

It's not a matter of IF it's true.  It's a matter of whether or not you have the common sense to know the truth when you see it ... without needing the same people who lied to you for years (media, gov't) telling you they lied.

Anyone refusing to see the truth of the Great Lie perpetrated on this nation and Trump by all the various players is in denial.  The forrest is there, even if there are a few trees yet to be revealed.

It's not a matter of IF it's true.  It's a matter of whether or not you have the common sense to know the truth when you see it ... without needing the same people who lied to you for years (media, gov't) telling you they lied.

I rely on facts. Common sense can be misleading, especially when combined with bias.

I rely on facts. Common sense can be misleading, especially when combined with bias.

All the facts in the world are meaningless if the powers that be cover them up and lie about them.

Where are you going to get your facts? Are you traveling 3 months out of the year to do research, interview active players, and read tons of documents ON YOUR OWN?

If not, then you will get the facts the media decides to feed you.  If you believe the facts as presented, even when they make zero sense, you're never going to get the right conclusions.

All the facts in the world are meaningless if the powers that be cover them up and lie about them.

Where are you going to get your facts? Are you traveling 3 months out of the year to do research, interview active players, and read tons of documents ON YOUR OWN?

If not, then you will get the facts the media decides to feed you.  If you believe the facts as presented, even when they make zero sense, you're never going to get the right conclusions.

It is very possible that I may be mislead by what facts the media chooses to present but what I will not do is then assume what the real facts are and go by that. I also wont rush to give more weight to media sources that tell me "facts" I would like to hear.

It is very possible that I may be mislead by what facts the media chooses to present but what I will not do is then assume what the real facts are and go by that. I also wont rush to give more weight to media sources that tell me "facts" I would like to hear.

Cool story.

You're admitting you are dependent on the media for the facts, because you aren't gathering those facts on your own.  You aren't interviewing the people involved, nor are you personally involved.

Suggesting you can't accurately judge which reports are factual and which are not tells me you trust government and the media way more than I do, even though there is a mountain of evidence telling us they can't be trusted.

How many times do you have to be lied to before you question their integrity? 

Imagine this is your wife/GF/BF (no judgement  ).    How many times must she lie to you before you stop trusting her? 

"We're just friends." even though you found emails that say something more is going on.

"I was home all night," even though you know a friend saw her at a bar.

"I can't have lunch with you.  I have a meeting at noon," even though you later saw her at noon eating with another guy you never met.

"I was at work until 1AM working on a presentation for this morning," even though you stopped at her office to see if she needed you to bring her dinner, and found out she left at 6:00.

Where, exactly, is that threshold between "trust" and "distrust?"

Integrity is something only the owner can give away.  Once it's lost, it's nearly impossible to regain it.  So far, I've seen no evidence the media cares about regaining their integrity. They have other priorities.

Cool story.

You're admitting you are dependent on the media for the facts, because you aren't gathering those facts on your own.  You aren't interviewing the people involved, nor are you personally involved.

Suggesting you can't accurately judge which reports are factual and which are not tells me you trust government and the media way more than I do, even though there is a mountain of evidence telling us they can't be trusted.

How many times do you have to be lied to before you question their integrity? 

Imagine this is your wife/GF/BF (no judgement  ).    How many times must she lie to you before you stop trusting her? 

"We're just friends." even though you found emails that say something more is going on.

"I was home all night," even though you know a friend saw her at a bar.

"I can't have lunch with you.  I have a meeting at noon," even though you later saw her at noon eating with another guy you never met.

"I was at work until 1AM working on a presentation for this morning," even though you stopped at her office to see if she needed you to bring her dinner, and found out she left at 6:00.

Where, exactly, is that threshold between "trust" and "distrust?"

Integrity is something only the owner can give away.  Once it's lost, it's nearly impossible to regain it.  So far, I've seen no evidence the media cares about regaining their integrity. They have other priorities.

Damn man, u went there and brought flash backs b4 i met my trustworthy wife. Till today, ive never had to check her phone.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

The government and the media are liars. Only the Fox propaganda machine reports the truth.  Kind of like the Russian media today.

It's sad when you go off your meds.   

Nothing you said makes any sense.  Just flailing and gnashing of teeth.

Cool story.

You're admitting you are dependent on the media for the facts, because you aren't gathering those facts on your own.  You aren't interviewing the people involved, nor are you personally involved.

Suggesting you can't accurately judge which reports are factual and which are not tells me you trust government and the media way more than I do, even though there is a mountain of evidence telling us they can't be trusted.

How many times do you have to be lied to before you question their integrity? 

Imagine this is your wife/GF/BF (no judgement  ).    How many times must she lie to you before you stop trusting her? 

"We're just friends." even though you found emails that say something more is going on.

"I was home all night," even though you know a friend saw her at a bar.

"I can't have lunch with you.  I have a meeting at noon," even though you later saw her at noon eating with another guy you never met.

"I was at work until 1AM working on a presentation for this morning," even though you stopped at her office to see if she needed you to bring her dinner, and found out she left at 6:00.

Where, exactly, is that threshold between "trust" and "distrust?"

Integrity is something only the owner can give away.  Once it's lost, it's nearly impossible to regain it.  So far, I've seen no evidence the media cares about regaining their integrity. They have other priorities.

So what is you point? We can trust no media ever again? (Yet somehow we can trust Turmp and fight leaning media?)

You have to find the balance. Trust but verify. Be skeptical, look for signs of dishonesty or bias. Find sources that you have reason to believe you can trust.

So what is you point? We can trust no media ever again? (Yet somehow we can trust Turmp and fight leaning media?)

You have to find the balance. Trust but verify. Be skeptical, look for signs of dishonesty or bias. Find sources that you have reason to believe you can trust.

You got it backwards. Verify then trust.

You got it backwards. Verify then trust.

Thats often not a realistic option. Someone is running away from the beach and yelling tsunami are you going to stop and ask him why you should trust him or wait for your phone to load up reports of incoming tsunamis?

Thats often not a realistic option. Someone is running away from the beach and yelling tsunami are you going to stop and ask him why you should trust him or wait for your phone to load up reports of incoming tsunamis?

Poor example. Ive seen and heard crackheads doing this in waikiki over the years.



Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Thats often not a realistic option. Someone is running away from the beach and yelling tsunami are you going to stop and ask him why you should trust him or wait for your phone to load up reports of incoming tsunamis?

False equivalence.

You think the urgency of a Tsunami warning is equivalent to a political scandal that's been investigated for more than 6 years?

Wow! 


Just .... WOW!   

We can trust no media ever again?

Not an entirely unreasonable response seeing as how they bear significant responsibility for the deaths of millions and are currently pushing us towards a nuclear holocaust.

Not an entirely unreasonable response seeing as how they bear significant responsibility for the deaths of millions and are currently pushing us towards a nuclear holocaust.

Profits Over Public Good
They should all have that as their slogans...

Thats often not a realistic option. Someone is running away from the beach and yelling tsunami are you going to stop and ask him why you should trust him or wait for your phone to load up reports of incoming tsunamis?

I've heard the State of Hawaii warn us about an incoming missile a few years ago....and I heard about a guy who can do some work on 1911s; but from what I heard he only knew how to make certain parts of a 1911. I want a slide to frame fit, new Bomar sights and a new Kart barrel. Would you send it to him?
but back to the topic of journalism

Poor example. Ive seen and heard crackheads doing this in waikiki over the years.



Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Perhaps I did not really give enough context. What I was hinting at was a survival mechanism. If you were a deer in a crowd of deer and everyone starts running your chances of survival are higher if you start running rather than stand around trying to find what everyone else is running from. So in the tsunami example, being extra skeptical can help you see through lies but if a tsunami was really coming it might cost your life.

Not an entirely unreasonable response seeing as how they bear significant responsibility for the deaths of millions and are currently pushing us towards a nuclear holocaust.

Responsibility for deaths of millions?

Perhaps I did not really give enough context. What I was hinting at was a survival mechanism. If you were a deer in a crowd of deer and everyone starts running your chances of survival are higher if you start running rather than stand around trying to find what everyone else is running from. So in the tsunami example, being extra skeptical can help you see through lies but if a tsunami was really coming it might cost your life.

So if in the hood at a known drug corner, a  bunch of black guys  all run because they see the popo coming, no problem right? "Why did you run?" "IDK, I saw everyone else running". No extra charges right?

But your tsunami example still sucks because besides the 1 crackhead yelling TSUNAMI, there would be social media warnings, the sirens going off, life guards shouting, etc...

So if in the hood at a known drug corner, a  bunch of black guys  all run because they see the popo coming, no problem right? "Why did you run?" "IDK, I saw everyone else running". No extra charges right?

Yes, basically.

But your tsunami example still sucks because besides the 1 crackhead yelling TSUNAMI, there would be social media warnings, the sirens going off, life guards shouting, etc...

You are overthinking my example too much