We need a Reality Czar!

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Catfish

Again, i can't believe this! They are "both wrong"?!! You try to pin them to the same evel, no, they are not "both wrong". The level of "wrongness" is a bit different between the two, don't you think so?

Well no I don't. As I said I don't think I ever tried to compare them. Someone else started talking about the shaman. It wasn't me. The only point I was trying to make right from the start is that Ms Ocasio-Cortez who is a member of Congress plays fast and loose with the truth. She has done this ever since her career in Washington began. If you think that is ok so be it.

Also I have not heard or read of Miss Cortez to promote violence. Maybe she is "wrong", but she is not insanely dangerous.

I have not heard of any other member of Congress promoting violence either. Have you? On the other hand she did accused Sen. Ted Cruz of trying to have her murdered. Perhaps you don't remember what happened to Sen. Rand Paul. Or Rep. Steve Scalisie. Words are dangerous and she is way out of line to say things like that which by the way is another lie by AOC. Is that not a standard that elected officials should live up to?

So Cortez was scared when someone banged again her door, which regardless who it was (she even said yes it had been an officer, but she could not have known in the moment before), some other colleagues told her to run and hide, and she hid in a bathroom, does this put something in perspective?

But this doesn't line up with what we have learned. The building she was in was never stormed by the protesters. The right thing to do would be to admit that she was wrong and maybe apologize for sensationalizing her experience. She wasn't the only one in danger.

I somehow doubt you are as dumb as you want to appear here?

Oh my.

You really want to compare Cortez and Greene?

I never said that. You are putting words in my mouth. I said they should be held to the same standard. There is a big difference. What you seem to be suggesting is that because you think Greene is crazy then we should excuse dishonesty by Ms Ocasio-Cortez. Say it ain't so.

[Sonicfire1981]

Originally Posted by u crank

Well no I don't. As I said I don't think I ever tried to compare them. Someone else started talking about the shaman. It wasn't me. The only point I was trying to make right from the start is that Ms Ocasio-Cortez who is a member of Congress plays fast and loose with the truth. She has done this ever since her career in Washington began. If you think that is ok so be it.

You may well be right about a politician and the truth. Of course I want some facts, if you have them handy.

I have not heard of any other member of Congress promoting violence either. Have you?

Meh... Yeah, I have. Just about anything Ms. Greene said. And the warrior-rethoric of the president reject & his minions surely did not help.

On the other hand she did accused Sen. Ted Cruz of trying to have her murdered. Perhaps you don't remember what happened to Sen. Rand Paul. Or Rep. Steve Scalisie. Words are dangerous and she is way out of line to say things like that which by the way is another lie by AOC. Is that not a standard that elected officials should live up to?

Absolutely. AOC never "handled" a gullible and violent mob, thou. If you leave a gun with a two-year-old (a frenzied crowd is not smarter than that) and something happens - you don't blame the Kid. I am not aware of the argument Ms. Cortez makes, but I think she's smarter than to just throw allegations around.

But this doesn't line up with what we have learned. The building she was in was never stormed by the protesters. The right thing to do would be to admit that she was wrong and maybe apologize for sensationalizing her experience.

again: she had no birds eye view nor a minimap. the building across the street was overrun by a frenzied mob. All of them supporters of that man that made you one of the worst enemies of the state the last four years. A splinter group could well have thought to cross the street and come look where she was.

She wasn't the only one in danger.

I thought she was never in danger?

What you seem to be suggesting is that because you think Greene is crazy then we should excuse dishonesty by Ms Ocasio-Cortez. Say it ain't so.

You should. Your house is on fire and you're sorting your socks, because they're in disarray. To be less figurative: Such "whataboutisms" are just used to distract from the real issue this country is facing. And that's unhealthy. Think of all the refugees that will pour into canada. EDIT: it wont be the rich landowners.

[Von Due]

Catfish: My post was about matters of principles. That was all my tired brain aimed at. Without going into matters I haven't paid much attention to (the two people in question), the principle that both a murderer and an apple stealer are both wrong was my point. Sorry about not making it clear. I need sleep

Onto truth in general:
Uncompromising Truth is a cyanide pill for any politician, anywhere at any point in time. Stick with the truth and you are politically dead. Your friends will abandon you, your financial supporters will run away at warp speed.

Reporters' job is to make headlines and sell papers/advertising space, and write what their employer wants them to write, in other word their job is to have a job to go to, like for most other. Truth or falsehood is irrelevant. If a best seller is true, then the truth is what they'll scribble down. If BS sells, then BS is what we get. A news outlet is a soup of truth and BS. Even RT or Tehran Today will tell you the truth, occationally. Even Fox News will, on occations, tell the truth. BBC, CNN, same thing. They will also tell BS when that pays better.

When news outlets use facebook posts as sources for their story (has happened) then we have reached the end. No further discussion neccessary. The truth gehalt is utterly irrelevant.

When we turn to social media for news, then we have no real reason to complain that the official news outlets are full of **** sometimes.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Sonicfire1981

I am not aware of the argument Ms. Cortez makes, but I think she's smarter than to just throw allegations around.

Think again.

"I am happy to work with Republicans on this issue where there's common ground, but you almost had me murdered 3 weeks ago so you can sit this one out," the New York congresswoman wrote in a tweet directed at the Texas senator Thursday. "Happy to work w/ almost any other GOP that aren't trying to get me killed. In the meantime if you want to help, you can resign."

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/28/polit...ack/index.html

again: she had no birds eye view nor a minimap. the building across the street was overrun by a frenzied mob. All of them supporters of that man that made you one of the worst enemies of the state the last four years. A splinter group could well have thought to cross the street and come look where she was.

Possibly but now after the fact when we know what actually happened why is she still telling this fabulous tale? An intellegent person would review the facts and make those facts part of her story. She is not doing that. She is playing the victim card to the hilt.

I thought she was never in danger?

Apparently not.

You should. Your house is on fire and you're sorting your socks, because they're in disarray. To be less figurative: Such "whataboutisms" are just used to distract from the real issue this country is facing.

The logic here is difficult to understand. To excuse dishonesty in one person because someone else is crazy does not do anything to dispell the accusation of dishonesty.

[Sonicfire1981]

Originally Posted by u crank

Think again.

You're still dodging the key point, I wonder why this is. This commentary is so meaningless, you could have done without. I repeat: please give me a bit more to go on; in facts.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/28/polit...ack/index.html

she blames him for inciting the riots of which she could easily been one of (if not "the") key victim. the *bad, bad* media talks about murder allegations. that is incorrect: "You [..] had me murdered" -> incitement to murder, which I find acurate. courts should decide on that. Wonder why Mr. Cruz did not file anything yet.

Possibly but now after the fact when we know what actually happened why is she still telling this fabulous tale? An intellegent person would review the facts and make those facts part of her story. She is not doing that. She is playing the victim card to the hilt.

She was talking about her feelings. Is it sexist to point out that she's a women and that's not uncommon, as well as perfectly covered by the first ammendment?

Apparently not.

Without the quotes it got lost how you contradicted yourself. I took the liberty to put it back in.

The logic here is difficult to understand. To excuse dishonesty in one person because someone else is crazy does not do anything to dispell the accusation of dishonesty.

You could at least try. I even painted you a pretty word picture; deal with the immediate threat to democracy first, do it without distraction ("whataboutX") and deal with the parking tickets once the crisis is averted.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Sonicfire1981

You're still dodging the key point, I wonder why this is. This commentary is so meaningless, you could have done without. I repeat: please give me a bit more to go on; in facts.

Sorry but I thought that it what you were looking for in regards to "I am not aware of the argument Ms. Cortez makes, but I think she's smarter than to just throw allegations around." She made the allegation right? You read that part didn't you. So what exactly are you looking for?

she blames him for inciting the riots of which she could easily been one of (if not "the") key victim. the *bad, bad* media talks about murder allegations. that is incorrect: "You [..] had me murdered" -> incitement to murder, which I find acurate. courts should decide on that. Wonder why Mr. Cruz did not file anything yet.

Sounds like you are saying that it is Mr. Cruz's fault that AOC said that he tried to have her killed. I understand beyond a doubt that AOC has accused Sen. Cruz of 'trying to have me killed.'

She was talking about her feelings.

I'm touched.

You could at least try. I even painted you a pretty word picture; deal with the immediate threat to democracy first, do it without distraction ("whataboutX") and deal with the parking tickets once the crisis is averted.

I believe I made a pretty good attempt. You have disregarded it. 'The immediate threat to democracy first' is a good tactic though. Because you think the sky is falling is not an excuse to overlook something as important as a Congresswoman's honesty or her slanderous accusations.

[Sonicfire1981]

Sounds like you are saying that it is Mr. Cruz's fault that AOC said that he tried to have her killed. I understand beyond a doubt that AOC has accused Sen. Cruz of 'trying to have me killed.'

Yes. yes indeed. this will be interesting for the courts no doubt.

.

I'm touched.

You should be. you should get in touch with your feminine side.
No, wait, that was b_stank. got you mixed up because your names rhyme.
But it's a healthy thing for you to try, too.

I believe I made a pretty good attempt.

I believe you can do better than this

You have disregarded it. 'The immediate threat to democracy first' is a good tactic though.

Rightfully so. but thank you.

Because you think the sky is falling is not an excuse to overlook something as important as a Congresswoman's honesty or her slanderous accusations.

When your toddler reaches into the cookie-jar and someone tries to shoot your toddler - your not going after the toddler first.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Sonicfire1981

I believe you can do better than this

That is all you are getting.

When your toddler reaches into the cookie-jar and someone tries to shoot your toddler - your not going after the toddler first.

Now you're repeating yourself.