Posted on 08/26/2020 11:06:15 PM PDT by knighthawk
MSNBC on Wednesday attempted to do a "reality check" on South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem's remarks at the Republican National Convention about the ongoing violence in certain cities.
Noem kicked off the evening of speakers and took aim at "Democrat-run cities" that have been hit with violence following the death of George Floyd.
"From Seatle and Portland to Washington and New York, Democrat-run cities across this country are being overun by violent mobs," Noem said. "The violence is rampant. There's looting, chaos, destruction, and murder. People who can afford to flee have fled but the people that can't, good hard-working Americans, are left to fend for themselves."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
A couple of days later she let me know that she had called the group who made the poster and they assured her that the Pope was indeed a homosexual so the poster would remain. So MSNBC-style fact checking is nothing new.
Rather difficult to reject the thesis of peaceful cities when you consider the evidence provided by two unbiased experts in the field, Rachel Maddow and Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sexually_active_popes#Relationships_with_men
historical records of well known figures go back centuries, including apparetly even popes. homosexuality does seem to exist.
>> Noem kicked off the evening
Should be the everyday rule!
l8r
The mayor of Seattle, Jenny Anne Durkan, is an out of the closet homosexual and, sadly, a Notre Dame alumna, Class of 1980. Shame on her.
What facts are they trying to check? Like the WaPo that tried to fact check this same thing? They listed all the major violent cities and per capita ALL were dem ran and controlled for DECADES.
Unfortunately the gospel of Wikipedia didn’t exist at the time so HR would have had to do a bit of research on their own. Instead they went back to the people who put out the poster and asked them, kind of like Rachel Maddow asking the mayor of Seattle if she thought that Democrat-run cities were devolving into chaos, expecting anything other than a negative answer then repeating that answer as if it just came out of a burning bush. But I must admit that your ability to come up with instant research is exceeded only by your ability to miss the point. Rachel would be proud of you.
That article could have come from Babylon Bee or Genisius Times.
But apparently MSNBC really did that.
im no wiki fan at all but why would wiki misstate ancient history?
i met a lady last week and had some time to chat. she was in her early 40s grew up in the midwest. i mentioned a marlon brando movie as an example of something thinking she would recognize it. she didnt so i mentioned another brando movie, much wider known. she still did not recognize it so i mentioned the godfather which she claimed not to recognize. the point is that most people nowadays have little cognizance of anything more than about 40 years old, not to mention the 15th century in the vatican. i would be happy to defend the honor of the church if the seemed to be some conspiracy to re-interpret 15th century papal historical record. i’m open either way. did you do a deep dive on it yourself?
ya, going back to the poster printing source would not be a great independent collaboration. if it were me and i really cared, i would have hit a library and given the people some citation reason to be concerned.
My concern is that a lot of the historical people and ideas referenced in the convention mean nothing to a growing segment of the voting population. If this was 1980, then appealing to white suburban mothers would be a home run - but I don’t remember whites having as low a birthrate as they have today. There is a wide variety of people featured, which is good; I don’t know if the themes are hitting home to the people who will vote in November.
MSNBC fact checking: ‘Make something up and then lie if someone call you on it.’
Saying your enemy was a homosexual was a well-known slander tactic. You can’t believe everything people say about their enemies. All of your Wikipedia examples are hearsay, innuendo, and supposition — and they say so.
In an environment of ignorance one hopes to expose and educate with encouragement not condemnation. In this way the ignorant is not insulted but is challenged to learn.
Many on the left may be unreachable and immovable in their deceived state. The violent, rioting mobs are incorrigible and force is the only answer they understand. But other young leftists are open. One may not prevail in an argument, but info they've never heard or discounted may register enough to get them to pursue the truth.
This is why the left's censorship is so pernicious. It insulates their error.
You don’t need to “do a deep dive” to know that especially medieval and Renaissance popes were sexually active. Homosexuality was widely practiced but kept mostly on the down low. So no doubt at least somewhere along the line there was a pope who swung from both sides. The point is, yes its ancient history, so who really cares?
bkmk
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.