• 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

Free episodes:

I don't pay Boston Globe for its links. My suggestion is that you empty cookies if you run into problems with that site. Besides, the information is widely available elsewhere if you just search for it. But it's too easy for you to spread disinformation it appears.
 
Then again, I find it boring to have to correct the same lies and misinformation over and over again, and see that not a single link I've provided is ever responded to:

 
Gene Steinberg said:
Then again, I find it boring to have to correct the same lies and misinformation over and over again, and see that not a single link I've provided is ever responded to:

Click to expand...
People who rioted, vandalized property or attacked the police need to be charged, tried and put in jail.

Hapless folks who wandered into the Capitol after the doors were opened for them by the police need to be set free. There is video of that too. Oddly, no one asked those officers to testify as to why they did that. Care to answer?
 
Officers did testify. Those who violated the law, beat over 140 officers and announced their intention to "Hang Mike Pence" have been charged, and most were convicted where trials were held. Your ignorance of what really happened is troubling.
 
I know what happened. You failed to show how Trump orchestrated the whole thing.

The officers that opened the doors didn't testify. Trump was not in command of the Capitol police. Steven Sund was. He resigned.

Have all the violent rioters been tried yet? There's tons, hundreds, of cases yet to go before a judge. Why are there still people in jail nearly two years later who did not riot? Does the concept of due process mean anything in your worldview?

Did you know that some of the protesters were acquitted because of video evidence showing they were let in? You didn't did you?
 
It has been demonstrated over and over and over again. Pay attention. You can find it in 30 seconds with a Google search.

As to Trump's actions, he did nothing — nothing — for over three hours when his people asked him over and over again to do something. When he finally told his supporters to go home, he did so but repeated the lies about a stolen election. He was the one trying to steal the election.

As to those charged: How many are still in prison for minor offenses? Links please.

Trump's supporters tried to overthrow the government of the United States. Yet you are in perfect ignorance of facts that have been documented thousands of times.

I suggest you give up on your fake news sites and learn what happened. Then you can ask meaningful questions.
 
Fox News and MSNBC both fail to uphold basic journalistic standards.

[Link no longer works.}

All my references are Newsguard certified. Yours are not.
 
I have my problems with Newsguard. MSNBC isn't perfect, but the claims of liberal bias aren't entirely correct. Only the evening commentary shows are liberal oriented. Look at the schedule and check for yourself.
 
I have my problems with your fact checkers and the news sources you cite. So does Randall. With good reason.

At an impass we are hmm? (Insert Yoda emoticon here)
 
You have no good reason, for if you did, you'd cite them. Randall had no reason either.

All right, since you raised the issue, document what you say or your posts will be treated same way as his.
 
Gene Steinberg said:
You have no good reason, for if you did, you'd cite them. Randall had no reason either.

All right, since you raised the issue, document what you say or your posts will be treated same way as his.
Click to expand...
You have no good reason to have problems with Newsguard. If you did, you would cite them. Or maybe you wouldn't. It doesn't matter. Since the power balance in this situation is unequal do whatever you like.

tnc.news

Reuters stumbles in attempt to “fact check” Pfizer Covid transmission scandal

A viral video with over 2 million views posted by True North featuring a Pfizer executive admitting that the vaccine manufacturer never tested their covid vaccine on stopping transmission of the virus is among several posts that were recently “fact-checked” by Reuters and marked as “misleading”.
tnc.news tnc.news

Breaks down the nasty games fact checking sites play with a meticulously cited epic example.
 
No, one example of a possible mistake by one site.

And in this case, it's partly a matter of a confusing parsing of words.

In the real world -- and we're not getting into the COVID-19 stuff again — a vaccine will reduce the possibility of transmission of a virus, or reduce the impact once you are infected, but it is not by any means perfect.
 
How many citations are needed before one can have legitimate misgivings about certain media/fact checking sites? Two, five, ten a hundred?

This was one example. The particular topic isn't what was important. The methods used are what was important. They can be applied and are applied across many topics. I picked this one because it was so thoroughly documented. It outlined the difference between "what is required" and "what is claimed". This is a tactic that is effective when the target does not exercise critical thinking and basic logic. There are other methods as well.

In the end, the truth has the quality of a superfluid. It escapes all attempts to contain it. Maybe you can contain it here?
 
stphrz said:
How many citations are needed before one can have legitimate misgivings about certain media/fact checking sites? Two, five, ten a hundred?
Click to expand...

I'll respond to this one. One debatable fact check from one site doesn't constitute proof that all such sites aren't reliable. How does this relate to PolitiFact, Snopes, etc?

Any of them might make a mistake, or reach conclusions some don't agree with. But none of that makes them unreliable.

In other words, you gave the wrong answer!
 
Gene Steinberg said:
And more facts about January 6th you apparently can't face:

Click to expand...
I don't think you understand what my position is. You really don't. I'm not obligated to defend someone I disagree with simply because they oppose someone else I disagree with. Violence is bad m'kay?

If the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an individual or individuals are guilty of specific charges, so be it.

Courts have rules of evidence. Defendants can defend themselves, cross examine witnesses and provide expert testimony to dispute evidence. Or they should at least.

It's how Jussie Smollet got convicted. It's how Kyle Rittenhouse got acquitted.

It's also how Derek Chauvin is going to be in prison for the next 20 years. It's a shame though, how many innocent others had to die or have their lives destroyed in the brutal violence that followed. "Mostly peaceful", right.

I can accept a court verdict as well as the result of any appeals. How I personally feel about it is a right I reserve for myself though. A right everyone has.
 
Gene Steinberg said:
I'll respond to this one. One debatable fact check from one site doesn't constitute proof that all such sites aren't reliable. How does this relate to PolitiFact, Snopes, etc?

Any of them might make a mistake, or reach conclusions some don't agree with. But none of that makes them unreliable.

In other words, you gave the wrong answer!
Click to expand...
Snopes fact checks satire. I ain't kidding you. If a self appointed truth arbiter feels compelled to respond to memes and comedic commentary, there's something wrong with them. If they feel compelled to respond to the satire of mostly one side of the narrative I'd say that's also pretty sus.

Also, the fact check in question was more than just debatable. They didn't just screw up. It went beyond a misquote or misattribution or parsing of words. It was a conscious deliberate effort of evasion. It was designed to give the adherents of a certain narrative emotional comfort and cover. Permission to continue believing a lie. That's more than enough to come to the conclusion that any entity invokes the phrase "fact check" should be scrutinized.
 
Back
Top