SSDD

I must have glazed over some "brown britches" thing earlier and considering your apparent unwillingness to have a reasoned and logical discussion, I fail to see a reason to bother with looking back to see what the whole "brown britches" thing is supposed to mean. Most likely some immature comment with no real substantial meaning. I am sure I am not going to miss anything of value by not going back in this conversation nor going forward either.


Good day to you.

Fortunate American

I’ll take that as progress, you didn’t call me subhuman. Thanks!

RandyBrian Loc: Texas

You answered in five paragraphs. I will take them in order.
First one: nothing to comment on.
Second and Third. As usual, you present very logical and reasonable arguments.....which support factually wrong conclusions. Figure it any way you want, the demonstrable fact IS that children are being photographed, molested, and even raped by people who either ARE or who are CLAIMING to be transgender.
Fourth paragraph. Yes, girls have wanted to be on boys teams going back for generations. That iis different. I was specifically talking about biogirls transgendering to male, and trying to compete in men's sports. They may be doing so, but I have not heard of any. That possibly may (or may not) add a little evidence to the possibility that bioboys are faking transgenderism to win trophies and scholarships by competing unfairly. Just a thought, not a conclusion.
And the fifth paragraph: You are again jumping to nonfactual conclusions. I do not limit myself to RW media. I watch as much of the LW media as I can stand, considering their now open and blatant bias, their obscuring pertinent information, and their outright lies. I treat ALL media the same. I look for news facts that can be verified, then strive to do so. I do not make it a habit to listen to opinions on either side, though I occasionally do so if a topic catches my attention. My opinions are my own, hard earned and tempered by 50 years of paying attention. to facts.

SSDD

I would be interested in, not SEEING these so called pictures, but evidence that they truly exist. I will have to extensively scour the internet for this evidence, again, not the actual pictures of course.

As for those born male "pretending" to identify as female to gain unfair advantage in women's sports The article I found Lia Thomas' women's 100 freestyle times from, you do realize that Lia lost that meet with a time of 52.84, Hardly the unfair advantage everyone is crying about when the best women's 100 freestyle time is 51.71, set by Sarah Sjostrom, a biological female... That is 1.13 BETTER than the time achieved by Lia in the meet Lia lost. The best time in Olympic women's 100 freestyle is 52.70, .14 better than Lia's time... Yeah, maybe not so much to worry about there, but I don't know, I COULD BE wrong though.

All that I am saying is this, perhaps these "boogeymen" that the RW is parading out there to frighten their base may just be nothing more than a smokescreen while they try to determine what platform they can run on that will stoke the base sufficiently well to put them back in power and RW media is quick to pile onto the latest "boogeyman" bandwagon and get the fear mongering into full swing to aid in the distraction. At least research these "boogeymen" before hyping them.

As for "LW media", I do not for a moment argue that there isn't media that may APPEAR to have a "LW bent", perhaps they DO have somewhat of a "LW bent", what I may argue is that they are putting forth articles/stories with KNOWN untruths, that do not at least appear to be factual and honest, even if left leaning, at least among MSM outlets. Same goes for SOME RW media, whether considered a MSM outlet or not. Other RW media, Fox, NewsMax and OANN included, they step so far out of line with the truth that they can ONLY be considered propagandists. Prime example, how about the latest scandal to rock those outlets? The John Durham report. All three of the aforementioned RW media outlets were screaming for all to hear how the left were spying on the Trump administration while Trump was in office... That simply wasn't true by any stretch of the imagination and even John Durham himself has come out debunking those lies. IF it were an honest mistake, where are the retractions?

People can say what they like and even I do not put complete faith in ANY media networks, even those under the banner of MSM, LW, RW, center... None, and ESPECIALLY fringe. The plain and simple truth is that for the most part, MSM tells the fewest fibs and even if they may be reticent to do so, they DO print/broadcast retractions if what they print/broadcast turns out to be false. Of course I do not consider Fox to be under the banner of MSM, they are far too fringe to be considered "Mainstream". Research Fox's history through ANY legitimate source and you will undoubtedly find that they have a well documented history of telling falsehoods. They are in fact embroiled currently in more than one lawsuit that they are destined to lose for defamation, and rightly so.




Note: While I disagree entirely with what RandyBrian is posting, I notice that in the body of my "arguments", I don't appear to be saying that he is wrong directly, at least not for the most part but I have taken notice to his comments in HIS posts such as, "Second and Third. As usual, you present very logical and reasonable arguments.....which support factually wrong conclusions." and "And the fifth paragraph: You are again jumping to nonfactual conclusions. I do not limit myself to RW media.", which both can be construed as personal attacks.

I will admit that in my previous post to him, there is ONE LINE, that MAY have been viewed as a personal attack on him or his beliefs, "You are likely to find that RW media has led you quite astray.". That line is likely what resulted in the former of his two personal attacks on me, admittedly. When you look at what his beliefs are, they appear straight out of RW media. They fall entirely in line with the RW media's favored narratives where transgenders are involved. They do not appear to conform with reality. The reality IS that someone who truly identifies as, let's say a woman, if they are forced to use the men's room, guess what gender they likely prefer to sleep with... THAT IS reality. RW media will tell you, that sexual deviants are PRETENDING to identify as female to gain access to women's restrooms to, I don't know, get their freak on... While there may be a VERY limited number of perhaps ACTUAL cases of that, the majority of the time, the transgender wanting to use the restroom IS what they claim to be. Would you prefer 99 guys that identify as a woman standing at urinal troughs among you, your young sons, MAYBE checking out your, or your son's "package" or like 1 "pretender" in a ladies' room where EVERYONE is doing their "bathroom business" in stalls with doors? In the one scenario, they see NOTHING that is even remotely sexually interesting, in the other scenario, they see something that wouldn't interest us but they may decide to stash away in their memory for later in private, that or worse yet, take care of business right there and then, possibly with a young child being turned into an unwitting and unwilling victim. Remember, a biological male that TRULY feels they should have been born female, they likely are attracted to biological males and their genitalia and SOME may be deviants.





Edit:



Everyone should expose themselves to a variety of trustworthy and legitimate outlets




Interesting, you appear to have absolutely no issues with the lies of RW media but take issue with what you claim are the blatant lies of so called "LW media"? I don't know... We might just have to each post examples of media lies and engage in a "fact check off" where we do OUR OWN fact checking, see which media sources come out more truthful and factual... One thing is for certain, you will NOT like the results.



If only you would. It is quite obvious that you don't even just in the previous quote.

SSDD

To my own point regarding the DISHONESTY of Fox "News", https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDvHe7nqCT0&t=839s, beginning to 9:25, but you can watch the whole thing, if you wish. One of the more recent examples that undeniably shows Fox's dishonesty.

Everybody BUT Fox "News" followers KNOW Fox "News" lies continually. They push Conspiracy theories and straight out propaganda yet it's followers refuse to acknowledge the facts. Between the three best known RW media outlets on T.V., Fox "News" NewsMax and OANN, Fox "News" is the LEAST "off their rocker insane", OANN is the most "off their rocker insane". ALL three are alt-right fringe media.

They took John Durham's court filing and built upon it, creating more and more salacious lies based on and supposedly fully supported by John Durham's court filing. They ran the bogus, false stories on ALL of their shows over and over again for what? Two weeks? John Durham had to come out and point out that the stories were untrue then we hear crickets from Fox "news" regarding their lies. But yeah, Fox "News" is the more "trustworthy" media outlet...


Edit: Here is the link to the John Durham court filing so that you can read it for yourself and SEE how badly Fox "News" lied and fabricated so called "facts" that couldn't have been further from the truth... https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.235638/gov.uscourts.dcd.235638.35.0_1.pdf

RandyBrian Loc: Texas

Nothing I posted was intended to be a personal attack, SSDD. Yet by your OWN thin skinned examples of my 'attacks', what would you call the last line above?

Nevertheless, my point, which apparently missed its mark with you, is that logical deduction and reasoning, no matter how well articulated or expressed, is clearly WRONG when the facts do not match. Only a fool stands firmly by reasoned arguments in the face of contrary facts, and I do not think of you as foolish. Perhaps just fooled.
Furthermore, BOTH parties engage in what you are calling 'smoke screens' to cover their true motives and goals. That is the nature of politics, as it is with law. Unfortunately.
As to fact checking FOX against the MSMs? Any time.
As to FOX being 'fringe'.....if so, they are the most successful 'fringe' in history. While CNN, the NYT, MSNBC, and the big three alphabet networks struggle with low viewership, Fox beats the three biggest MSMs put together, and has consistently done so for most of the past 20 years. The large numbers regularly tuning in to FOX absolutely require that a large percentage of them are Democrats.
Personally, I think they have seen what I have on the MSMs. Decades of censorship, obfuscation, and outright lies to push their personal and corporate agendas. You may DISAGREE with much of what FOX news presents, but that does mean that it is either wrong, nor a lie. I am, of course, talking about the NEWS. Not opinion shows like Hannity and Carlson, Maddow and Cuomo, etc. Opinions are not news.

RandyBrian Loc: Texas

One other quick question.
Why is it that the Democrats are 'listening to their base' and 'representing the desires of their constituents'
while doing exactly the same things as the Republicans
who are throwing out 'smokescreens' while they 'seek ways to trigger the hate in their supporters'?
This and similar wording is used regularly by the left's advocates, and I am asking a general question, and not intended specifically about your post. Your post simply brought this firmly to mind.

SSDD

Oh yes, obviously you MUST be correct, no personal attacks when factual statements by me are depicted by you as "factually wrong conclusions" even though they are in fact FACTUAL, supported by logic and common sense, unlike these false claims supported only by conspiracy theorists and propagandists. I also enjoyed how you have decided to label me as thin skinned when it is I that am maintaining a level head and NOT resorting to personal attacks. Your one claim in this response "showing" me to have "personally attacked" you is "If only you would. It is quite obvious that you don't even just in the previous quote." which was in response to your false statement of "I treat ALL media the same. I look for news facts that can be verified, then strive to do so.". If you DID treat all media the same, how do you explain this comment by you, "I watch as much of the LW media as I can stand", do you say the same of RW media? If you don't, then OBVIOUSLY my "If only you would. It is quite obvious that you don't even just in the previous quote." stands as an uncontested FACT. Facts are NOT personal attacks as much as you may wish to call them so. Though I did mis-speak, I should have used the word "prior" in place of "previous" as "previous" might cause one to infer that I meant the quote I was commenting on and not the comment prior to that one. Sorry for any possible confusion I may have caused anyone with my improper working.

As for your second paragraph, enlighten me, how does the fact that those that identify as their opposing biological gender at birth typically favor those that match their gender at birth as prospective intimate partners fail to be the rule and NOT the exception? Do you have evidence to the contrary? You can claim someone is wrong all you like but if you can not provide evidence, your claims fall flat.

As for your third paragraph, nobody has claimed that both parties DON'T use smoke screens. I certainly never made those claims. They BOTH do ALL the time, But only the RW has Fox "News" going to such lengths in assisting the smokescreen. The MSM typically shies away from conspiracy theory in providing cover for "bad actors" in politics. Fox has no such shame. They engage in CTs on a regular basis.

As for, "As to fact checking FOX against the MSMs? Any time." If you wish, I will even let you post the first fact check(s). Feel free to go and gather your evidence of "MSM lies" with the evidence that they have lied. After that will be MY turn... You may even be able to guess which one I will start with. I may even choose to outdo you and really "go to town" in shaming one or more of the "truth tellers" of RW media, or I may go easy on you, depends on how busy I get between now and then in real life. We shall see. Since RW media has no qualms about digging deep and burrowing way down them rabbit holes in their slinging of lies, this will NOT be a fair fight. I will have the distinct advantage.

You seem to mistake popularity for integrity. Fox is definitely more popular, but you fail to take into consideration WHY they are more popular. So may people are taken in by sensational headlines and salacious rumors. THAT is why Fox is more popular, not because their reporting is legitimate, which it ABSOLUTELY is NOT.

As for your final paragraph, the one that oddly does not seem separated from the second to last paragraph... Just because a media outlet fails to run a false story, that isn't "censorship", that is integrity. Of course there ARE times that even legitimate stories fail to run as well. Sometimes it is due to miscalculation, the outlet didn't think it was a big enough story to warrant the coverage, sometimes due to it not passing the "sniff test" even though it may have been true, sometimes it is more nefarious which is typically a tactic call "trap and kill" but that tactic is generally used most frequently by RW media outlets but not exclusively I suspect.

As for ACTUAL news, what Fox has of it is far outweighed by their opinion hosts and even what little they have is tainted by RW spin, lies, CTs and propaganda. On Fox's website, opinion pieces are clearly marked like so, "https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/opinion piece headline", example, "https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trudeau-cuba-free-speech-canada-truckers-jonathan-turley". I have seen spin, lies, CTs and propaganda in articles without the "https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/" preface to the url.


Yes, now please feel free to fire the first shot, I would LOVE the opportunity to show you the lies of Fox and perhaps some of the other "trusted" RW media. Don't forget, YOU get to fact check the so called "leftist" MSM so make sure to point out the "lies" with proper documentation from legitimate sources which may include, but are not limited to, government run sites showing facts and stats, non-partisan third party sites or sites without apparent bias, reference related sites, any site really that provides ACTUAL facts and stats that conform to reality. What ISN'T allowed is any site with REAL, apparent bias or that fails to provide facts and/or stats to support their claims with links to confirmation where necessary.

SSDD

When precisely have I EVER said that they do? Wasn't Sinema and Manchin and what they have been doing AGAINST their constituency evidence enough that the Democrats AREN'T doing that? Those are NOT the only two either. IF they hadn't pulled those stunts, there were plenty enough other Democrats that would have stepped up, thrown themselves on that grenade in Sinema's place or in Manchin's place.

So, where DID that "question" come from. We KNOW it didn't come from something I have said. As for this "hate" the Democrats are trying to drum up... I haven't seen them trying to drum up hate, I haven't seen too many Democrats even assign blame. I have seen plenty of Republicans assigning blame and drumming up hate, MTG, Boebert, Jordan, Gaetz and so many other congress persons as well as everyone's favorite hate monger, DJT. Don't open that can of worms without checking to be sure it isn't going to "bitecha back". Very few Democrats have the spine to cast blame onto others, even if/when they are deserving of it and the ones that do, don't do it enough.

RandyBrian Loc: Texas

SSDD, I am at a loss on how to answer this post. Clearly we have even less in common than i thought. If you can sit there and imply that the MSM ignored things like Hunter Biden's laptop, emails and all, within WEEKS of a major election, was them deeming it 'false' or 'not important', then we have very little to discuss.
I have come to the conclusion that you are simply a well educated fellow who will do little beyond using your education in an effort to support Democrat talking points without any attempt at real discussion.
So you can consider this a 'win' if you want, because I am withdrawing from this particular discussion. I admit to being unable to debate effectively with someone who chooses to consider his personal 'logic and reasoning' as more factual than actual provable facts. My education and experience is in science and engineering. I deal with facts. I simply can not debate with someone so 'intellectual', at least in their own minds.
As to comparing RW news vs. LW news, my opinions are based on evidence that I have seen over the last couple of decades, which you have made clear you will not accept as valid evidence. Therefore I will do some research and when I have something, I will start a new topic. Look for it in March.
i wish you well, and hope you stay safe and happy. May God bless you, and bring you Home.
Randy

Fortunate American

SSDD - Same Shite Different Day. (Of course I’m less than 100% human being.)

I, for one, look forward to your post in March, Randy. Thanks- you have a lot more patience with the willfully ignorant, than the rest of us.

Dave, a fortunate American.

RandyBrian Loc: Texas

Clearly you took my question personally, when it was not intended so, and which I clearly stated. You prior post simply 'triggered' the thought in my mind, so I thought I would ask. My question remains. Both sides use many of the same political tactics, but the Democrats claim the Republicans doing EXACTLY WHAT THEY THEMSELVES ARE DOING is immoral, unethical, and/or despicable.
By the way, your earlier statement that "The MSM typically shies away from conspiracy theory in providing cover for "bad actors" in politics. Fox has no such shame. They engage in CTs on a regular basis." is absurdly laughable! Yes, FOX news reports CTs, because the fact that the CT exists IS news. Some of their opinion hosts advance some of them. But the MSM REGULARLY states left wing CTs as factual news, proven and true. Just for fun, do a google search of the times the NYT and CNN have been forced to retract statements and stories, reluctantly and late, but they did so. There were many many MORE that public outrage did NOT rise to a high enough pitch to force their hand, so they did not post retractions.

Fortunate American

When will NYT return the Pulitzer they received for advancing the proven hoax known as Russian collusion?

RandyBrian Loc: Texas

Excellent question. Have they no shame?

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

After obama, NO, they do not!! Nor are they anything more than another Politicalized hack piece not worthy of consideration anymore~~~ Such a shame too.. But they did it to themselves..