• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Politics & The CIC/Prez

Forums New posts
This is more about the story that Fox News doesn't want you to know, about how they lie to their viewers to keep ratings high and ad dollars even higher:

deadline.com

Fox News-Dominion Trial Explained: Rupert Murdoch, Tucker Carlson, What’s At Stake & Who Could Win

After a one-day delay and amidst whispers of settlement talks, Dominion Voting Systems’ $1.6 billion defamation trial against Fox News is set to begin Tuesday in Wilmington, DE. So, with fina…
deadline.com deadline.com

Again, the judge has already ruled that Fox knowingly lied in its coverage of alleged election fraud. The questions to be resolved are largely about malice and related issues where a loss could cost the network tons of $$$.
 
About Trump's claims he would donate his salary as President to charity and what he really made during his four years in that position:


Charitable? Yeah, right.
 
Gene Steinberg said:
And, as of Tuesday afternoon on April 18th, Arizona time, Dominion and Fox News have settled the lawsuit.
Click to expand...

Virtually all media delivers propaganda and misinformation, so I don't trash a story based on the media outlet or the personality of the reporter. Instead, I cross reference the content with other reports and dig for the original sources. That's how I fact check controversial claims, including those of the fact checkers. Besides — If losing lawsuits matters that much to you, see how much Pfizer has had to pay out in lost court cases.

On the other hand, you simply deny info that doesn't fit your paradigm, and when you can't defend it, you censor it. Your last excuse was because in your mind, it had "the potential to cause harm" — which ironically involved censoring information about a product that is causing harm. Not to mention that using the guise of safety to censor information, causes its own harm — That's what the CCP does. It's pathetic.

In the meantime, here's a candidate you'll love to attack with more pejoratives and expletives — because there's not much else you seem to be able to do with him. But if you can dig up some kind of dirt and defend it without censoring counterpoint — I'd be happy to review it. That would of course mean getting into the down and dirty on environmental, pharmaceutical, and military issues involving big corporations.

RFK Jr. For President
Quick Gene — Censor censor censor because that's your version of democracy
How are you going to justify censoring info about a Presidential
candidate in a thread dedicated to politics and the CIC?

 
Last edited:
I'm glad you have such a high opinion of yourself, posting material from largely fringe sites with fake news and fear mongering, and dare to tell me "they all do it" when it comes to traditional media. At least they try and are not, like Fox News, engaged in deliberate lies.

I notice you won't report on the January 6th report I linked you to.

Or provide details why you don't believe the traditional fact-checking sites.

Yes, I know about RFK Jr. and his fringe beliefs, unsupported by most members of his family, who support Biden. Did you know that, or that his uncle Ted mentored Biden when he first entered Congress?
 
Gene Steinberg said:
I'm glad you have such a high opinion of yourself, posting material from largely fringe sites with fake news and fear mongering, and dare to tell me "they all do it" when it comes to traditional media. At least they try and are not, like Fox News, engaged in deliberate lies.

I notice you won't report on the January 6th report I linked you to.

Or provide details why you don't believe the traditional fact-checking sites.

Yes, I know about RFK Jr. and his fringe beliefs, unsupported by most members of his family, who support Biden. Did you know that, or that his uncle Ted mentored Biden when he first entered Congress?
Click to expand...
I give you credit where credit is due. You don't reciprocate. I've posted my counterpoint to the great "insurrection" and I've pointed to info about the problems with fact checkers. You just don't acknowledge it. I even posted documentaries and video evidence — still not good enough for you. No worries though. The USA prides itself for its freedom of expression and opinion — so the last thing I'd want to do is tell you that you can't have yours. That would make me a complete hypocrite.

In Court, Facebook Fact-Checkers ADMIT They are NOT Facts But Only OPINION​

[Link violates TOS.]
 
I won't acknowledge what you haven't done. Other than the false claim that the major ones are partisan, I've not seen examples of where they've screwed up, and it's inevitable, even with the best of intentions, to make mistakes.
 
Gene Steinberg said:
I won't acknowledge what you haven't done. Other than the false claim that the major ones are partisan, I've not seen examples of where they've screwed up, and it's inevitable, even with the best of intentions, to make mistakes.
Click to expand...
You haven't seen where the fact checkers mislead because you refuse to acknowledge that they are doing it — It's a circular argument. When I do post info that refutes the fact checkers, you hand wave it or censor it because in your mind "it has the potential to cause harm" — very convenient, as well as intellectually dishonest.

Fact Checkers - Fake Checkers - Fact Deniers​

[Link violates TOS.]
 
Back
Top