Posted on 12/09/2016 2:49:00 PM PST by Beautiful_Gracious_Skies
Agreed. It is fraud.
Sorry to say, I’d follow ‘News Clucking Chicken’ as a ‘trusted news source’ (your phrase) before I would trust CNN, CBS, NYT, MSNBC and all the rest of that lot. Every other word they print is a twist, a lie, an exaggeration, and nothing but a highly overpaid columnist’s biased leftist opinion.
So sad, but true.
Just because one source gives you crap sandwiches is no reason to embrace the roadkill from a different source.
My God have mercy on your soul.
what, exactly, is the median age of these alleged adolescents ?
All liars should be deported (or imprisoned). No exceptions.
It did happen with the thousands of unaccompanied minors Obama let in. The people who were processing these illegals were told not to question their age.
Exactly who are the ‘trusted news sources?’ ... perhaps they are bums on the bench writing the truth rather than a libelous NYT story.
Many foreign news organizations are not allowed to print the truth. Our news organizations ARE allowed free press, but they refuse to report non-PC news. Their agenda supersedes and overrides the truth.
Unless bloggers and bystanders catch it live, it never happened. Case in point: Hillary collapsing on 9/11 and then being tossed headfirst into her limo-ambulance. If you had relied on your trusted news sources- it never happened. She’s just fine!
A passer-by happens to scoop the moment. Where were Hillary’s love-struck team of trusted news reporters? Your ‘trusteds’ were busy hiding truth..I bet they have filmed similar collapsing episodes and failed to report the events. They are untrustworthy and often will report news ONLY after they have been forced.
Let’s start ASAP Jan 21!
Rev up the xray machines!
Divorced DREAMers who shave twice a day and MS-13 felon gangsters run out of El Salvador.
But dreaming is for the children, donchaknow?
Even children are being taught how to lie in order to get political asylum.
Obama’s `rat treachery aided by GOP-e cuckservatives.
I’d be very interested to see you point out where I indicated which sources are “trusted”.
Surely I must have done, since you use the term in three out of four paragraphs.
Thanks in advance.
You implied whom was not to be trusted with this comment - “the need to trust homeless bums on library computers.” That comment insinuated the source was not necessarily credible.
Since the traditional news sources are increasingly untrustworthy and are guilty of suppressing news, it makes very little difference.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3503339/posts
No, I asked for you to show me which source I said is trusted.
You have made an assumption, I’d like you to show me what it is based upon.
In post #12, your comment mocked the integrity of the source. You made an assumption based on the silly name. That’s fine, but I did claim the author was ‘NOT Brian Williams.’
If you are to assume this source is not necessarily trustworthy, then you must have some basis of comparison to other news sources which are supposedly deemed trustworthy.
You assumed, ... then I assumed. It works both ways.
How about the BBC- from today’s headline?
“The BBC conceded it was false to describe the Church as being ‘silent’ in the face of Nazism. The BBCs internal watchdog has found that a programme wrongly accused the Catholic Church of silence about the Holocaust.”
How about it?
In post #12, your comment mocked the integrity of the source.
Indeed. I would gladly mock it again.
I recall to your attention post #23:
Just because one source gives you crap sandwiches is no reason to embrace the roadkill from a different source.
The fact that the MSM is distrusted does NOT mean that anything which isn't the MSM is automatically trustworthy.
Especially News Chickens.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.