(February 14, 2024 at 12:06 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: A quick google search will find numerous examples of people who have the same impression of biden from interacting with him...most notably, from the magats themselves.  That they walk into the office with whatever batshit ask they're currently masturbating to online and he steamrolls them - and yet they still seem compelled to mention that he's better prepared and funny and...well....likeable.

That's probably what pisses them off the most.  Joes got a honey dick, even they fall for it, and america just hates them.

It constantly amazes me that - in practically the same breath - the MAGAts are able to dismiss Biden as a doddering, senile old fool who is unfit to be President and at the same time claim he’s an evil genius who is able to mastermind everything from Trump’s prosecutions to the Super Bowl outcome as part of his nefarious plan to achieve Democratic world dominance.

Pick a fucking lane, people.

Boru

(February 14, 2024 at 12:04 pm)arewethereyet Wrote: He also only accepts as truth anything said that is anti-American.  And feels like he has the right to assess bias in other people.

He is as anti-American as it gets as well as hating on most of us here...watch for the snarky remarks about the people on the forum.

He moved to Japan, is an art snob, and therefore better than any of us.

Oh, I know. I may have been on his ignore list, but I never ignored him.

(February 13, 2024 at 1:53 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(February 13, 2024 at 12:59 pm)Angrboda Wrote: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/12/opini...erica.html

The New York Times is mostly a government mouthpiece. 

That is all I need to read from belacqua to know they're not worth the bother. Pure BS.

(February 14, 2024 at 10:12 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(February 14, 2024 at 10:05 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: Sure, Biden has some problems, so Republicans could put someone better, but instead they put a guy who is worse.

i

I suspect those lapses were tactical as much as mnemonic.

I’ve watched a lot of truce crime and I can tell you that, in situations like this (the sort of situations where getting caught in a lie can get you in worse trouble), it’s often safer to claim you don’t remember something than to outright deny it.

(February 14, 2024 at 2:44 pm)Nanny Wrote:

(February 13, 2024 at 1:53 pm)Belacqua Wrote: The New York Times is mostly a government mouthpiece. 

That is all I need to read from belacqua to know they're not worth the bother. Pure BS.

I think most people who were paying attention lost confidence in the NYTimes in the run-up to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. The Times was a major cheerleader for both wars, echoing and amplifying the arguments made by government people, and ignoring well-informed voices who argued against. 

The Times' own chief foreign correspondent warned that the US was in no imminent danger, that there were no WMDs, and that the military was not properly prepared for the complexity of what they were getting themselves into. He was fired for saying so, though he turned out to be correct in every way. The people who said it would be a cakewalk still have their (highly-paid) jobs, and continue to advocate for every possible war that comes along. 

There is a trick that Rumsfeld and those guys used. They would give a story to the Times and ask that it be reported without their names attached. The Times would print the story as true or likely to be true, with very sketchy attribution. Then Rumsfeld or Rice or whoever would go on TV, say that the Times is reporting a story that must be acted on, and use that as justification. Since some people still think the Times is a reliable source, it would give them a way to seem credible. 

It's not just the Times, of course, though as the "paper of record" they hold a lot of responsibility. Most of the corporate media played along. I remember the New Republic magazine, which once upon a time was considered left-wing, just going crazy for war. And of course they have never apologized. It's still happening. 

Beyond the specific dishonest cases, however, there is a deeper issue. Anyone whom the Times will hire is certain to be ideologically on the side of the establishment. Reporting need not be dishonest to carry a spin that's in favor of the corporations and the military/industrial complex. 

Recently several media outlets carried a story quoting a politician who said that the US was sending its old stock of weapons to Ukraine so that they could use them up, and this allowed America to buy all new ones. This was reported as a GOOD THING. It was pointed out on more left-wing, anti-war sites that the only people who really benefit from this are the arms manufacturers.

(February 14, 2024 at 10:30 pm)Belacqua Wrote: I think most people who were paying attention lost confidence in the NYTimes

Actually, if you have been paying attention you would have noticed that the NYT was/ is very favorable towards Trump lately, like a headline that suggests Biden's age is worse than Trump’s threat to NATO, and a story about Trump threatening to abandon NATO allies and encourage Russia to “do whatever the hell they want” was the 4th story on the New York Times website, under 2 stories about Biden being old.

So much for the Times being Biden's mouthpiece.

Dumbass up there thinks that any paper is a government mouthpiece rather than a money mouthpiece. I guess, so long as the money thinks the admin is in it's corner, that works. The only examples we have are when the admin is reich wing, though. Ultimately, Bel is an example of horseshoe theory. A leftwing™ magat.

(February 14, 2024 at 10:51 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote:

(February 14, 2024 at 10:30 pm)Belacqua Wrote: I think most people who were paying attention lost confidence in the NYTimes

Actually, if you have been paying attention you would have noticed that the NYT was/ is very favorable towards Trump lately, like a headline that suggests Biden's age is worse than Trump’s threat to NATO, and a story about Trump threatening to abandon NATO allies and encourage Russia to “do whatever the hell they want” was the 4th story on the New York Times website, under 2 stories about Biden being old.

So much for the Times being Biden's mouthpiece.

Right, when I said that the Times was the mouthpiece of the government, I guess I gave the impression that I was referring to whoever is sitting in the White House. 

In fact I should have said that they are the mouthpiece of the people who actually run the country. If these people think that Trump will be better for their bottom line, they will of course write favorably of Trump. 

My mistake.

done with that nonsense.

(February 14, 2024 at 10:30 pm)Belacqua Wrote: Recently several media outlets carried a story quoting a politician who said that the US was sending its old stock of weapons to Ukraine so that they could use them up, and this allowed America to buy all new ones. This was reported as a GOOD THING. It was pointed out on more left-wing, anti-war sites that the only people who really benefit from this are the arms manufacturers.

I guess they, and you, forget about the millions of Ukrainians who are protected from Russian depredation. The oversight is not surprising from either them or you.