And so it has begun

[Teenwolf]

I think a guy who keeps posting factual errors on RJ might not get too high on his horse, as in 133, but as you say - you do you.

Can you go sniff your own farts somewhere else already?

The only news sources I support are independent. As opposed to the office pundits who aren't willing to get dirty, I've supported organizations like Status Coup (unintentionally ironic in this instance... giving the status of the coup)...

Both of the folks who run Status Coup have gotten Covid from covering MAGA events, including capturing the footage of the police officer screaming as he was crushed between doors. They do actual journalism, risking their lives while the mainstream media largely surrendered their cameras and equipment to the mob and watched it get destroyed.

You want to mock others sources, and others who don't pay for mainstream media thats owned by the world's richest human? Thats fucking embarrassing.

I'm glad you pay for the WP so I don't have to.

[Judge Jude]

What's factually incorrect about post 133?

I didn't say you post factual errors in every.single.post.

occasionally, it almost seems like that - but no.

things that you "know" (meaning, claim here without evidence) don't always pan out too well, if you haven't noticed.

............

"The only news sources I support are independent."

some of them are excellent.

a lot of them exist solely to pander to an audience that insists on only reading one-sided stories - to the point that if they ever post any facts contrary to what their audience desires, they risk going out of business.

that's just reality.

now that you know - how many of those outlets do you think remain "independent" for long?

again, there are exceptions.

but in 2021 America, ever posting anything contrary to their audience's desires could be fatal.

have you noticed that it's a little bit curious that you don't read a single story that doesn't reinforce your desired narrative?

you already know this about the MAGA crowd, and you are correct.

but....

also, if you think that the major news outlets' reporters were "office pundits who weren't willing to get dirty" - then you are a fool.

Criticism of Bezos is fair game. but the DC-based reporters, I assure you, were as much in the trenches as your favored outlets.

[revo]

it's also free if you have Amazon Prime.

Wait, what? It is?

EDIT — ok, it’s really not. 6 month “free” trial and then automatic monthly billing.

[chancellor]

Wait, what? It is?

I didn’t know that either

[Judge Jude]

Wait, what? It is?

EDIT — ok, it’s really not. 6 month “free” trial and then automatic monthly billing.

sounds like it's free for 6 months - not "free."

but for those who find $2 a week too much to pay to support quality journalism - well, then you don't really care about reading quality journalism, absent extreme financial circumstances that already have eliminated Starbucks etc from your weekly options.

admittedly, it IS annoying to many that not all of the stories will completely adhere to the reader's set-in-concrete narrative.

but for a year, maybe $1 a week might be worth a shot?

[GwynnInTheHall]

I didn't say you post factual errors in every.single.post.

occasionally, it almost seems like that - but no.

things that you "know" (meaning, claim here without evidence) don't always pan out too well, if you haven't noticed.

............

"The only news sources I support are independent."

some of them are excellent.

a lot of them exist solely to pander to an audience that insists on only reading one-sided stories - to the point that if they ever post any facts contrary to what their audience desires, they risk going out of business.

that's just reality.

now that you know - how many of those outlets do you think remain "independent" for long?

again, there are exceptions.

but in 2021 America, ever posting anything contrary to their audience's desires could be fatal.

have you noticed that it's a little bit curious that you don't read a single story that doesn't reinforce your desired narrative?

you already know this about the MAGA crowd, and you are correct.

but....

also, if you think that the major news outlets' reporters were "office pundits who weren't willing to get dirty" - then you are a fool.

Criticism of Bezos is fair game. but the DC-based reporters, I assure you, were as much in the trenches as your favored outlets.

I know you're not too keen on backing up your bullshit with actual research and facts (and I'm saying that specifically about your posts here, what you infer and right now--about MY posts. I'm actually mostly right--not always but like in national Treasure 2 when Cage is told--when you guess and happen to be right (paraphrasing) you get lucky--he responds--I get lucky a lot.

I get lucky a lot. What have I been wring about--the Nashville Bomber? I said Qanon conspiracy nut, if I recall and yeah I said it reads like 5g, makes the most sense and it did--I'm sorry I missed that it was about the Alien Lizard overlords.

How about this, You say I've been factually incorrect, you stated Keeps posts which implies at least twice and probably more. And the tense you use applies to past posts so...I'll ask again--Specifically--post the last 2 (at minimum) things I've posted that have been factually incorrect in which I did not use a qualifier. I'd say I'll wait, but you won't (see what I'm doing here--giving you the chance to prove me factually incorrect)

Hey you might be slightly biased in you views regarding all this but know I'll always appreciate your suggestions for dining in AC (even though you might have been actually incorrect about the locations of one or two of those joints )--That was a joke--really it was--or maybe it isn't and I'm just always factually incorrect.....

[GwynnInTheHall]

sounds like it's free for 6 months - not "free."

but for those who find $2 a week too much to pay to support quality journalism - well, then you don't really care about reading quality journalism, absent extreme financial circumstances that already have eliminated Starbucks etc from your weekly options.

admittedly, it IS annoying to many that not all of the stories will completely adhere to the reader's set-in-concrete narrative.

but for a year, maybe $1 a week might be worth a shot?

Was THIS post 133?

[revo]

sounds like it's free for 6 months - not "free."

but for those who find $2 a week too much to pay to support quality journalism - well, then you don't really care about reading quality journalism, absent extreme financial circumstances that already have eliminated Starbucks etc from your weekly options.

admittedly, it IS annoying to many that not all of the stories will completely adhere to the reader's set-in-concrete narrative.

but for a year, maybe $1 a week might be worth a shot?

Nah. But thanks!

[Judge Jude]

I know you're not too keen on backing up your bullshit with actual research and facts (and I'm saying that specifically about your posts here, what you infer and right now--about MY posts. I'm actually mostly right--not always but like in national Treasure 2 when Cage is told--when you guess and happen to be right (paraphrasing) you get lucky--he responds--I get lucky a lot.

I get lucky a lot. What have I been wring about--the Nashville Bomber? I said Qanon conspiracy nut, if I recall and yeah I said it reads like 5g, makes the most sense and it did--I'm sorry I missed that it was about the Alien Lizard overlords.

How about this, You say I've been factually incorrect, you stated Keeps posts which implies at least twice and probably more. And the tense you use applies to past posts so...I'll ask again--Specifically--post the last 2 (at minimum) things I've posted that have been factually incorrect in which I did not use a qualifier.

I only have a few minutes, so this will have to do for starters.

#fishinabarrel

from yesterday:

"Finding out Off duty Cops from out of town and Military Vets were part of the group which stormed the Building. Even sitting congress people in at least one case."

please turn over your info about this "sitting congress person" to the proper authorities.
and if you want to claim "but that WV delegate!" - that would be like claiming that "a Yankees infielder has been charged with rape" and then later it turns out to be some 19-year-old kid in A ball with the franchise. yeah, not the same thing.

...............

this is you from Wednesday, didn't age well either:

"They're extremely lucky it was a bunch of unorganized trumpets, If it had been anyone with any real agenda besides disruption, it could have been a huge tragedy."

.................

also from Wednesday:

"State Chambers starting to be attacked as well. KA and GA so far "

from PolitiFact.com:

https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...-kansas-capit/

"No, protesters didn’t storm the Georgia and Kansas capitol buildings "

"Georgia and Kansas Capitol buildings have been stormed by protesters," one Facebook post read.

It was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed."

[Teenwolf]

sounds like it's free for 6 months - not "free."

but for those who find $2 a week too much to pay to support quality journalism - well, then you don't really care about reading quality journalism, absent extreme financial circumstances that already have eliminated Starbucks etc from your weekly options.

admittedly, it IS annoying to many that not all of the stories will completely adhere to the reader's set-in-concrete narrative.

but for a year, maybe $1 a week might be worth a shot?

CBC News is free, paid for by my taxes. I read CBC News daily. I do believe in some degree that there should be an unbiased national media agency people can trust as a neutral platform for news, but that can never happen in the US. Socialism fear mongering on both sides would prevent it.

You want to put your hard earned dollars in Jeff Bezos quarter-trillion dollar lined pocket? I won't stop you. But its delusional to think that you're supporting a "free press" just because you pay to subscribe. Bezos can afford to run it at a loss for another 1000 years before it even showed up as a rounding error.

In terms of what media exists in the current landscape, Status Coup has a behind the scenes live chat for subscribers only once a month and supporters have a say in coverage, which protests or rallies or interviews to pursue, etc. They even have sway on budgetary issues, which trips are worth the money or not. Its a truly co-operative news organization. This and others like it are my preferred sources of news. I only read the mainstream articles in passing or to quote here.

[Judge Jude]

"Status Coup has a behind the scenes live chat for subscribers only once a month and supporters have a say in coverage, which protests or rallies or interviews to pursue, etc. They even have sway on budgetary issues, which trips are worth the money or not. Its a truly co-operative news organization."

this is very common in the U.S. now, and it's fantastic - in the abstract.

a news organization (of any size) can get down to the grass roots and find out what their audience really cares about.

let's say your community has the highest property tax rate in the region, and some old-style editor had no idea that this is the main topic of conversation - everyone wants to know why it is so. that's wonderful that this story gets assigned.

15 years ago, this would have worked because no matter what the true answer was, many subscribers would just be appreciative that the reporter and editor got down to the bottom of it.

but now? right-wingers are already "know" it's because of illegals or something. and left-wingers already "know" that it must be due to nepotism or something.

then, after the reporting, let's say it turns out that the real issue is due to a decades-old municipal bond problem that had every administration, left and right, kicking the balanced-budget can down the road - and now the balloon payments are due, and thus the high property taxes.

in 2021, even if that's exactly what happened - nobody wants to read that.

honestly, if that was the conclusion drawn by your local media after they correctly identified a core issue in the community - would you be satisfied with that answer?

I don't know, of course, in your case. but this is the dilemma that even independent-minded news outlets are facing. the walls of echo chambers are almost impenetrable these days.

it's worth being aware of - if you trust those reporters, and it seems like you do, let them report out a story even if the ultimate facts aren't what you wanted to read.

[Bene Futuis]

Wait, what? It is?

EDIT — ok, it’s really not. 6 month “free” trial and then automatic monthly billing.

God, I would roundly mock the shit out of someone who made that kind of false claim without verifying! I mean, how utterly embarrassing would that be?

[Judge Jude]

Bene,
you just keep digging yourself a deeper hole (granted, you have company here).

is it free? yes. so is it false? no. is it free forever? no. did I say it was free forever? no.

you didn't verify, at the time of your post, if FDNY members were on the scene at the Capitol. you cited it as fact, when at that point all there was, was some inquiries.

[GwynnInTheHall]

I only have a few minutes, so this will have to do for starters.

#fishinabarrel

from yesterday:

"Finding out Off duty Cops from out of town and Military Vets were part of the group which stormed the Building. Even sitting congress people in at least one case."

please turn over your info about this "sitting congress person" to the proper authorities.
and if you want to claim "but that WV delegate!" - that would be like claiming that "a Yankees infielder has been charged with rape" and then later it turns out to be some 19-year-old kid in A ball with the franchise. yeah, not the same thing.

...............

this is you from Wednesday, didn't age well either:

"They're extremely lucky it was a bunch of unorganized trumpets, If it had been anyone with any real agenda besides disruption, it could have been a huge tragedy."

.................

also from Wednesday:

"State Chambers starting to be attacked as well. KA and GA so far "

from PolitiFact.com:

https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...-kansas-capit/

"No, protesters didn’t storm the Georgia and Kansas capitol buildings "

"Georgia and Kansas Capitol buildings have been stormed by protesters," one Facebook post read.

It was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed."

1.

Cops:

https://spdblotter.seattle.gov/2021/01/08/spd-officers-in-d-c-referred-to-opa/

Vets:

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/us-elections-government/ny-capitol-shooting-victim-ashli-babbitt-20210107-vxrltazl2ff4rlbkmnjouedc7e-story.html

https://nypost.com/2021/01/09/air-force-vet-identified-as-rioter-with-zip-ties/

Congress people:
https://www.rawstory.com/lauren-boebert-twitter/ (aided and abetted the Insurgents.)

https://abcnews.go.com/US/west-virginia-lawmaker-charged-filming-pro-trump-siege/story?id=75139030

2. Why didn't it? They were dumb enough to be lead away from senate chambers by one Capitol cop--and right into a group of Capitol LE Pretty dumb. They had no plan as of what to do after they got in. zip ties, pipe bombs and Molotov cocktails plus lots of guns, knives and ammo all could have been used to make it worse, but they never got to? Why? Change of heart? No Opportunity? Not likely--MOST likely because they're idiots. They follow Trump--Not a stretch they're not too bright.

0 for 2 there so far (how that My Pillow feel)

I'll give you partial credit for 3 based on semantics.

There WERE protestors IN the KA and GA Capitosl--from your own link----In Kansas, a CBS News affiliate reported that a group of pro-Trump demonstrators moved from outside the state’s capitol to inside the building, but they had a permit, went through security screenings and followed protocols. AND: Stephen Fowler, a reporter for Georgia Public Broadcasting, tweeted that Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and his staff were removed from the Capitol as a precaution and that a "smaller group of protestors tried to get to his office and deliver ‘grievances.’"

That work for ya?

Now post some links to you defending BLM and ANTIFA members from scorn or unsubstantiated attacks or do you only defend white Trumpers in this manner?

[GwynnInTheHall]

Bene,
you just keep digging yourself a deeper hole (granted, you have company here).

is it free? yes. so is it false? no. is it free forever? no. did I say it was free forever? no.

you didn't verify, at the time of your post, if FDNY members were on the scene at the Capitol. you cited it as fact, when at that point all there was, was some inquiries.

You may not like it--but he's right JJ. You're the one on your tiptoes.