Telling the truth is not the journalist's job. Reporting the news is his primary duty.

We must have a very different understanding of what "telling the truth" means.

I explained why the CNN ####-up, which relies on unnamed sources, was more egregious.

Call me old fashioned, but deliberate falsehood by a news agency is a little worse than relying on sources that turned out to be wrong.

But of course, Juanaboutism.

Call me old fashioned, but deliberate falsehood

And you know it's deliberate because... reasons. Yes, we get it.

We must have a very different understanding of what "telling the truth" means.

Most of us, like the noted historical (mythical) figure that epitomes the dictum, don't know what truth is--especially in specific cases and situations where interests conflict. Reporters/newsmen need to follow the precept, "stay within yourself." For that matter, so should we.

And you know it's deliberate because... reasons. Yes, we get it.

And you know that the sources on the CNN story deliberately misled CNN.

Fox has a track record.

I explained why the CNN ####-up, which relies on unnamed sources, was more egregious.

It was just an email header saying "Sept 14" which got misread as "Sept 4", no? That's the simplest of mistakes to make.

The problem was the dots that got improperly connected due to assuming the wrong date was on top of the email.

It was the Washington Post which corrected CNN. This is why we have more than one media outlet. No one wants to make or defend a big mistake but I think the system worked here.

And you know that the sources on the CNN story deliberately mislead CNN.

I know that CNN hasn't been forthcoming about what happened.

Newsflash: They *all* have track records and this isn't the first time CNN has #### the bed WRT Trump.

Man, all this time, all Obama needed to do was move the embassy to Jerusalem. That's really all it took for you to jump into bed with Trump.

Fox has a track record.

You don’t say.

Fox has a track record.

ABC did the interview with Beverly Young Nelson. All Fox did was watch the interview on Good Morning America and post what they saw. Anyone who watched the ABC interview and said 'FORGERY!' is trying to trick and spin their readers.

Regarding the bigger picture, nobody in the media is happy with Allred. She sidesteps the vetting process when she calls a press conference and has her client tearfully read a script. A decent reporter would have have noticed the change in handwriting at the bottom of the yearbook inscription and asked Nelson for a clarification that could be included in the initial report. Instead, Allred hands this gift to conservative media and while simultaneously casting doubt on *all* of the other allegations which came from reports that were better sourced and vetted.

It was the Washington Post which corrected CNN. This is why we have more than one media outlet. No one wants to make or defend a big mistake but I think the system worked here.

When one publication calls out a second publication, that's *not* an example of some system working.

Also, it's worth noting that CBS and MSNBC also screwed up this story using their sources, which further suggests that the sources deliberately deceived the reporters.

Man, all this time, all Obama needed to do was move the embassy to Jerusalem. That's really all it took for you to jump into bed with Trump.

That's all you've got left? Sad!

ABC did the interview with Beverly Young Nelson. All Fox did was watch the interview on Good Morning America and post what they saw. Anyone who watched the ABC interview and said 'FORGERY!' is trying to trick and spin their readers.

Re-read what you wrote. Why would a major cable news network deliberately botch something *that* obvious, knowing they'd have to issue a correction moments later?

Re-read what you wrote. Why would a major cable news network deliberately botch something *that* obvious, knowing they'd have to issue a correction moments later?

We were talking about why Fox doesn't have credibility. Are you answering your own question? They over-did the spin? It happens.

Breitbart also said 'forgery', but they doubled down when called out on it.

Re-read what you wrote. Why would a major cable news network deliberately botch something *that* obvious, knowing they'd have to issue a correction moments later?

It's the clientele. The goobers don't care. They've got something to hang their dementia on. They'll conveniently forget everything but that they heard it on FOX.

Man, all this time, all Obama needed to do was move the embassy to Jerusalem. That's really all it took for you to jump into bed with Trump.

Trump didn't move the embassy to Jerusalem! I don't know why liberals are trying to give him credit for something he didn't do.

Dancing Monkey wonders why network of Dancing Monkeys would dance. Priceless.

@KFILE:

NEW: In 2011 radio interviews, Roy Moore said...

Removing every amendment after 10th would eliminate many problems

Told 9/11 truthers he supports more hearings into what really happened on 9/11.

Questioned Obama's birth certificate.

Heck of a political party you guys got there, Juan and The Yankee Clapper.

We were talking about why Fox doesn't have credibility. Are you answering your own question? They over-did the spin? It happens.

Breitbart also said 'forgery', but they doubled down when called out on it.

Well, at least JE's not quite as over-the-top as Trump. Trump says CNN is Fake News while Fox is trustworthy, whereas JE says that they're equally mendacious. This is how you can tell he's a genuine #NeverTrump moderate.

Six days before last year's election, Fox News' Bret Baier reported that Hillary Clinton was about to be indicted for the "pay to play" story promulgated by "Clinton Cash." Baier said he had two FBI sources. He didn't, and she wasn't.

On the same day, Baier also reported that the FBI had determined that five different foreign intelligence agencies had all hacked Clinton's email server. They hadn't.

Baier claimed he'd gotten both of the stories from two different sources. He subsequently admitted he had one source.

DM #3 earlier today says Hannity should only be suspended for his Seth Rich nonsense. Not fired.

That's the kind of effort that maintains the gap between you and DM #4!

Obama didnt even make it a campaign promise. Bush did. Clinton did. Not Obummer.

Edit...moving the embassy to Jerusalem.

Heck of a political party you guys got there, Juan and The Yankee Clapper.

Did he say anything about the third amendment? Because I think minorities, women, and people over the age of 18 should be able to vote, and equal protection and no more slavery are good and all, but I would gladly trade all of them to maintain the right to refuse to quarter soldiers in peacetime. Some rights are just too valuable to screw around with.

Fox News' Laura Ingraham wonders:
“Is the #MeToo movement becoming a spoiler for this season’s Christmas parties? I can see this year it might be [pause] a little less festive, let’s say that. No alcohol and no fun, and no lampshades, and, I don’t know, maybe that’s better. Is this just killing all the fun of Christmas?”

Good think piece by Ingraham. But the level of agreement for her sentiments within Fox News is slightly less in 2017 than for Christmases past, because Bill O'Reilly has transitioned into an internet superstar and Roger Ailes is being eaten by bugs.

So another front has opened up in the war on Christmas?

Truly, sexual harassment is the most sacred part of Christmas.

Obama didnt even make it a campaign promise. Bush did. Clinton did. Not Obummer.

Edit...moving the embassy to Jerusalem.

Crediting Obama with Clintonesque parsing there? Normal people might consider this a campaign promise:

The morning after claiming the Democratic nomination, Senator Barack Obama spoke to skeptical members of a pro-Israel lobby and made a pledge that some of them found pleasantly surprising: “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.”

Perhaps he had his fingers crossed?

Let's see how those amendments stack up against current R objectives:

11th - Sovereign Immunity. No clue.
12th - Apparently they're fans of Aaron Burr now.
13th - Slavery. Duh. Hell yeah they want it out.
14th - Citizenship stuff. No idea, they probably hate it.
15th - Blacks voting. Hell yeah it goes.
16th - Income tax. It goes.
17th - Senators by popular vote instead of state legislature. This one probably hurts guys like Moore.
18th, 21st - Cancel each other out anyway.
19th - Women vote. Not as important as 13th-15th, but why not get rid of it.
20th - Date president takes office. Inconsequential.
22nd - Presidents can only be elected twice. Who knew they liked FDR?
23rd - DC gets electoral votes. Want it out.
24th - No poll taxes. Now that's a tax they want.
25th - Presidential succession. Means that Carl Albert would've succeeded Nixon. We'll call that one a minus for the R side.
26th - 18 year old vote. Any vote that's not an old white rich guy is bad. Out it goes.
27th - Limits when congressional pay raises take place. A passing fad. Sure none of the current congress would be caught dead doing that. Get rid of it.

So on balance, I agree that from Moore's perspective, and many of those in his party, getting rid of all of those amendments would be a big positive.

14th - Citizenship stuff. No idea, they probably hate it.

If you get rid of the 14th Amendment, then voter suppression, among other things, become easier. States might be able to ban Muslim officeholders too. Sections 3 and 4 were pretty clearly targeting old Confederates and the CSA, so there's some symbolic value in their repeal.

Certain people here - you know who you are - like to pretend that the left side of the aisle is reasonable in contrast to the right side, which is full of crazy people who move farther to the right each year and refuse to compromise at all. So here's someone from the left making the case why she won't support Doug Jones in Alabama, because he's not leftist enough. In Alabama. And expressly denounces him for appearing to have a willingness to try to compromise. In Alabama. (Not for actually compromising on any issue, but merely for implying that he wants to compromise - the sort of platitude that 90% of politicians mouth.)

She's not arguing that people in NY or MA should elect a flaming lefty; she's arguing that people in Alabama should.

I can definitely understand this criticism. As a realist, I think she is absolutely being stupid.

What I can't do though, is reconcile this criticism coming from anybody who has ever voted libertarian. Or regularly argues that people in the US should elect libertarians.

Either voting based on your ideals and principles - regardless of how futile - is reasonable, or it is not. Either standing up for what you believe, despite certain electoral defeat, is reasonable, or it is not.

Six days before last year's election, Fox News' Bret Baier reported that Hillary Clinton was about to be indicted for the "pay to play" story promulgated by "Clinton Cash." Baier said he had two FBI sources. He didn't, and she wasn't.

On the same day, Baier also reported that the FBI had determined that five different foreign intelligence agencies had all hacked Clinton's email server. They hadn't.

Baier claimed he'd gotten both of the stories from two different sources. He subsequently admitted he had one source.

Be fair though. I am sure @nevertr...isthatthetimealready totally demanded he disclose his lying source that lied.

Bomb went off at Port Authority in NYC.

I have submitted a new thread. Watch for it.

Bomb went off at Port Authority in NYC.

To be a bit less scary, 1 pipe bomb, "not a big explosion", dude in custody, no injuries except that dude, no damages.

All Roy Moore needs to do to lock up the election tomorrow is claim responsibility.

Bomb went off at Port Authority in NYC.

I assume it was a self-hating gay. And therefore conservatives are to blame. Also, we need universal background checks for pipe bombs, and therefore conservatives are also to blame.

The only thing protecting us from a bad guy with a bomb could be a good guy with a bomb. But of course you hysterical hippies don't want to allow freedom-loving Americans the right to make and transport explosives do you?

I just hope the suspect wasn't from the Bronx, for obvious reasons.

I just hope the suspect wasn't from the Bronx, for obvious reasons.

Yankees fans don't need any more bad publicity, I suppose.

Word is the guy was from Brooklyn, originally from Bangladesh. Bronx is in the clear.

I just hope the suspect wasn't from the Bronx, for obvious reasons.

27-year old Bangladesh-national living in Brooklyn and inspired by ISIS reports the NY Post.

-- coke to steve

I assume it was a self-hating gay. And therefore conservatives are to blame. Also, we need universal background checks for pipe bombs, and therefore conservatives are also to blame.

What are you, home sick? This effort was barely worth signing in for.

27-year old Bangladesh-national

Obviously he's angry at the insulting depiction of Apu in "The Simpsons" after having been radicalized by this documentary.

Obviously he's angry at the insulting depiction of Apu in "The Simpsons" after having been radicalized by this documentary.

It could have been worse. He could have watched a documentary on how to make a pipe bomb.

New Thread

What I can't do though, is reconcile this criticism coming from anybody who has ever voted libertarian. Or regularly argues that people in the US should elect libertarians.

We're not insisting on pure libertarian candidates in elections that would be otherwise winnable for the libertarian candidate, because that condition rarely happens. And when a small-l libertarian gets close enough, we usually put up with them not being pure. See Rand Paul for example, who has some libertarian *leanings* but is hardly a straight-line libertarian. Can you cite any example of libertarians undermining an actual libertarianish candidate by demanding a pure libertarian in an actually winnable election?

In this case, it's a Democrat trying to undermine a Democrat in Alabama for not being liberal enough. That's fine if Moore was 70 points ahead in the polls, but this race is actually winnable.

Can you cite any example of libertarians undermining an actual libertarianish candidate by demanding a pure libertarian in an actually winnable election?

Can you cite an example of an actual libertarianish candidate being in an actually winnable election?

Either ideology and principles matter, or results are everything. If it is the later, you should never vote libertarian, and always vote for the candidate that has a chance to win, who is more libertarian than his/her opponent(s).

.