Posted on 12/04/2022 8:31:12 PM PST by SeekAndFind
RE: You say it’s for discussion - but do you discuss it? No, you just throw it out there without any commentary - you are no different than CNN.
The same question you ask can be asked of you. Do you discuss? I read your entire post and see nothing in it that addresses the so called fact-check. Post your rebuttal first, then let’s discuss.
“I read your entire post and see nothing in it that addresses the so called fact-check.”
Your apt use of the term “so called” tells me you are aware that the article is not a real fact-check, but rather, it is just another fake news hit piece, full of Democrat impeachment lies.
So, since we both acknowledge it is fake news, I won’t waste my time debunking each lie.
I’m just saying I wish you’d called it the “so-called fact check” in the first place, and provided some context for why you think it’s relevant now, given Elon Musk’s recent data dump.
You debunk it and we can have a discussion. Otherwise, I’ll continue doing what I’m doing and have always done.
I’ll try moving the discussion forward instead of focusing the thread on you and me personally. I’d like to read your response to Post #6 above.
In the end, I’ll concede the article was worth posting and stimulated some great discussion relevant to the release of internal Twitter communications.
Also, even though you posted it without a comment at first, you did follow up with your own comments and responses rather than just the anti-Trump “drive-by” posting so many here do.
So, I’d like to apologize for pegging you wrong.
In my defense, there are hundreds of anti-Trump fake news headlines posted on FR every day. Nearly 100% of the time, I’ve already heard the same narrative from a fake news sources a thousand times, so I have to decide what I’m going to read.
The way I do it is I read comment number 1 (from the FReeper posting the article) to get an idea what they found interesting, or what in particular they want to discuss, or why it’s relevant.
That first comment helps separate the wheat from the chaff.
If that first comment is blank - it’s usually not a good sign - just saying.
RE: So, I’d like to apologize for pegging you wrong.
Apology accepted. I suggest that you participate in the discussion and present your opinion on the content of the article posted instead of focusing on the poster him/herself.
Very often, a poster is posting it to elicit rebuttals.
I just don’t have time to re-read every anti-Trump fake news hit piece article posted on FR - there are hundreds a day - ChicagoConservative27 alone posts 10 or 20 a day. What bristle said about Trump,- what Faucii said - what Jenn Psaki said - there’s nothing new - just the same pack of lies.
The. A bunch of comments I’ve already heard about the fact that they are lies, or maybe some trolls throwing Trump under the bus. It’s a waste of time unless there’s some interesting angle or some reason why it’s relevant.
But if the poster can’t even be bothered to sell it by making an initial editorial comment, I’ll likely have to take a pass.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.