Quote from: p1tchblack on April 19, 2021, 11:46:24 AM
I don't know exactly what you're referring to.  I assume it was a video of an interview where they edited in a pause to imply that the people being asked the question couldn't quickly answer.

Whatever it is you're referring to, dishonest video editing isn't the only way to be bias and not present the entire truth.

There are others:

You Literally Can't Believe The Facts Tucker Carlson Tells You. So Say Fox's Lawyers

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye

You are using NPR to attack fox news? wow

Quote from: T Hunt on April 20, 2021, 04:57:03 AM
You are using NPR to attack fox news? wow

Like using Hitler as a character witness.

Quote from: p1tchblack on April 19, 2021, 01:58:54 PM
Yes, Fox is right leaning. 

No its not. They used to be moderate centrists, now they are left wing, but in the RINO style as opposed to the commie style of the rest of the MSM.

QuoteFox News dominates weekly ratings to overtake CNN among 2021 total day viewers
https://www.foxnews.com/media/fox-news-dominates-weekly-ratings-cnn-2021

Editing videos isn't the only way to be dishonest.  Fox 100% caters it's broadcast to it's customers.  All channels do it, but it's a problem when stations claim to be news and do it.

It used to cater to the truth, at least the public truth, but they have fallen far from that. Now they are owned by the left and spew left wing lies.

QuoteI agree but, as I keep asking, what is the basis for believing that this whole charade is just a politically driven stunt.  LOTS of spouses lie for their spouse.

That was covered in a previous post.

QuoteNo, it's not. I actually watch both stations and they both do it.  They will give minimal coverage to an event that doesn't fit their agenda and will give extra attention to something that fits their agenda.  Or, if they cover an event that doesn't fit their agenda, they'll find an angle to focus on that does.

Bullshit. Fox has never been as bad as the left. But then, being more right wing, they are naturally more in tune with reality. Remember, reality has a right wing bias.
Indeed, the conservative philosophy doesnt allow for propaganda, only the truth. While the left encourages brainwashing and double speak as tools of political war. 1984 was written about the left, not the right or the center.

QuoteWell, as of now, threats, slander, yelling fire in a crowded theatre, etc ARE illegal.

Not if there is an ACTUAL FIRE.

Quote from: p1tchblack on April 19, 2021, 02:59:07 PM
I didn't say slander was criminal.  I said it was illegal, which it is.

If we had an absolute right to free speech, it would be unconstitutional to have a law against yelling fire in a crowded room or slandering someone.  We don't have an absolute right to free speech and you're not making any sense. Are you saying that an adult should be permitted to threaten children?

You are the one not making any sense. None of those examples in any way hinders free speech, and if it does then it is indeed against the constitution as we do indeed have an absolute right to free speech. You are acting like an absolute right to speech is extreme, it is not. Just as absolute freedom does not equal anarchy, so absolute freedom of speech doesnt equal everything that comes out of your mouth.

Quote from: p1tchblack on April 19, 2021, 04:51:09 PM
Do you understand that wording of the NY Times article, and your opinion of the NY Times article title  has nothing to do with the realities of the case?   You can hate the NY Times, disagree with the wording of the title and the officer may have threatened someone and/or punched someone and should be arrested?

Can you accept that fake news will always be fake?

Quote from: p1tchblack on April 20, 2021, 01:28:21 AM
Do you believe she should be arrested if she threatened the kid?

Absolutely not. I can threaten you here all I want. Im going to kill your entire family. And if you are under age then I just threatened a minor, oh no! Perish the thought! When will the big bad FBI come knocking on my door? Are they hiding under my bed at night?

(caveat: if she threatened anyone in her official capacity as a law enforcement officer as opposed to a civilian then it is an entirely different story, child or not.)

Quote from: Solar on April 20, 2021, 04:39:44 AM
Define threaten. In my day, if us kids talked back to adults, out dads made sure it was the very last time we pulled that shit.

You seem to be one on going question, have you not developed a life set of rules on your ownyet?

Taking this situation, the media, me, etc out of it, do you believe that there is a basis, in our legal system, for arresting someone for verbalizing a threat.

Quote from: p1tchblack on April 20, 2021, 06:23:13 AM
Taking this situation, the media, me, etc out of it, do you believe that there is a basis, in our legal system, for arresting someone for verbalizing a threat.

Your goalposts have wheels. 

Quote from: Possum on April 20, 2021, 06:40:16 AM
Your goalposts have wheels. 

Well, there's clearly something I'm missing here.  I get that the NY Times article is likely clickbait and race baiting at the same time.  What I don't understand is the apparent belief that the NY Times article can somehow change reality.  If the NY Times completely misrepresented the situation, it's still possible that she broke two laws by threatening the kid and punching her husband.

Quote from: p1tchblack on April 20, 2021, 06:23:13 AM
Taking this situation, the media, me, etc out of it, do you believe that there is a basis, in our legal system, for arresting someone for verbalizing a threat.

"I will set you afire after we die, and pee on you for eternity trying to put it out".
That's an actual threat! So sue me.

Quote from: Possum on April 20, 2021, 06:40:16 AM
Your goalposts have wheels. 

Quote from: p1tchblack on April 20, 2021, 07:13:59 AM
Well, there's clearly something I'm missing here.  I get that the NY Times article is likely clickbait and race baiting at the same time.  What I don't understand is the apparent belief that the NY Times article can somehow change reality.  If the NY Times completely misrepresented the situation, it's still possible that she broke two laws by threatening the kid and punching her husband.

You really don't know what leftist media is, do you?
They along with all the other CCP outlets are setting a narrative, that not all speech is free, once they accomplish this, no one will ever speak out again.

Now to you get political Correctness?

The discussion should have ended after the fact that this happened in a private residence.  That woman had the right to say what ever she wanted to to anyone within hearing range.  She would have been right to threaten to kill the kid if he didn't leave the house, just for being stupid.  It's not a crime to tell anyone in your home any insulting thing you want.  And yes, you can yell fire in a theater, that case was settled in 1964 I believe.  Yelling fire in a theater does not meet the legal definition of inciting a riot.

Since when is telling some kid in your house that he's listening to bullshit a crime?  This whole thing is bullshit from start to finish.  If the husband said he wasn't hit, that's the end of it.

My guess is the officer stepped on someone's toes higher up and this is payback. 

As to the NY Slime, we tried using some of it to line the bottom of Petey's bird cage, but he chose to back his ass up to the edge of the cage and shit on the floor instead.

Quote from: p1tchblack on April 20, 2021, 06:23:13 AM
Taking this situation, the media, me, etc out of it, do you believe that there is a basis, in our legal system, for arresting someone for verbalizing a threat.

No there never is. Thats just asinine to claim.

To say otherwise isnt very conservative. You are a conservative, right???

Quote from: p1tchblack on April 20, 2021, 07:13:59 AM
Well, there's clearly something I'm missing here.  I get that the NY Times article is likely clickbait and race baiting at the same time.  What I don't understand is the apparent belief that the NY Times article can somehow change reality.  If the NY Times completely misrepresented the situation, it's still possible that she broke two laws by threatening the kid and punching her husband.

I notice that you never responded to my points since you had nothing to respond with. If you go back I clearly explain how we logically know that whatever the media says, the opposite is true. Thats a guarantee.

No you cannot break the law by threatening or hitting your own kid, only if you are abusing them. You sound like the nancies who try to claim that spanking and corporal punishment are in any way a bad thing. They are not.

And so what if she punched her husband? He can punch her back, no need for the gvt to get involved. But your libtarded reliance on Big Brother is noted...