Riiight

[Ally]

Yes, I'm sure you have access to the super-secret wealth of ducks that no one else has access to. Possibly when everything starts looking to be a blurry same to you, it's time to get your eyes checked.

[FISHY1118]

You are equating two completely different things. Scientific consensus is not about politics. Politics uses the fact that scientists are cautious before making a judgment to exploit stupid people who don't understand terminology because the dim are easily swayed with jargon. It's like imbeciles who use the "it's just a theory" phrase to discount a scientific theory because they equate your cousin Jethro's "theory" of flat-earth nonsense as being on the same playing field as a scientific theory, based on a fundamental lack of comprehension of what a scientific theory is.

The fact that scientists don't rush to judgment, unlike the majority of people, is to their credit, not to their detriment and they should be applauded for it, instead of derided. It's just a further example of how no one has standards anymore that people think it's a bad thing to not have an immediate answer to a complicated question. Because they've been conditioned with spoon-fed pap for so long, they can't tolerate anything that's not easily digestible and simple.

When youve seen as many scientific ducks , political ducks , authoritarian ducks , news network ducks , social media organisation ducks, as i have, then perhaps you too might see them ducks are alllllllllllll the same .

[Ally]

Well New Scientist have to say that so there is then two sides to the same arguement, so then both sides can go on and on and on till no one can definitively say who is right or whos wrong

....... snip.....

Perhaps so herlock , But you know what they say about something that walks like a duck , looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck ?

You are equating two completely different things. Scientific consensus is not about politics. Politics uses the fact that scientists are cautious before making a judgment to exploit stupid people who don't understand terminology because the dim are easily swayed with jargon. It's like imbeciles who use the "it's just a theory" phrase to discount a scientific theory because they equate your cousin Jethro's "theory" of flat-earth nonsense as being on the same playing field as a scientific theory, based on a fundamental lack of comprehension of what a scientific theory is.

The fact that scientists don't rush to judgment, unlike the majority of people, is to their credit, not to their detriment and they should be applauded for it, instead of derided. It's just a further example of how no one has standards anymore that people think it's a bad thing to not have an immediate answer to a complicated question. Because they've been conditioned with spoon-fed pap for so long, they can't tolerate anything that's not easily digestible and simple.

[FISHY1118]

I don’t know why they have to say that Fishy. I’m just assuming that they’re saying that because the answer is unknown as yet. I haven’t a clue.

Perhaps so herlock , But you know what they say about something that walks like a duck , looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck ?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well New Scientist have to say that so there is then two sides to the same arguement, so then both sides can go on and on and on till no one can definitively say who is right or whos wrong .Its the same game being played over and over no matter what the topic is discussed where American politics is concerned ,of the two tho im thinking Lab over Rat , just my opinion .

I don’t know why they have to say that Fishy. I’m just assuming that they’re saying that because the answer is unknown as yet. I haven’t a clue.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I guess you can continue to believe that the virus did not come from the lab but the evidence is overwhelming that it did so much so that both the liberal media and conservative media pretty much agree. In America, we have been having bipartisan senate hearings on the origin of the virus and gain of function research.

I wasn’t saying what I believed anything as I know nothing about the subject. What I was saying was that after a look online it appears that those investigating/ the scientific community appear not to have come to any definite conclusions as to its origins so far. It might be the case that it originated in a lab for all that I know but I prefer to hear expert conclusions first rather than taking an approach favoured by conspiracy theorists. And let’s face it, the USA is particularly plagued by conspiracy theorists at the moment (although they exist everywhere of course.)

[Varqm]

Trump took the virus seriously. He was right about the virus origin coming from a China lab. He put a travel ban in place for China and E.U. Democrats oppose the travel bans. Dr. Fauci even said Trump's early travel bans saved lives.

Travel ban, that's it? LOL. Dumb. The numbers don't lie.

[Svensson]

I know what you are doing. It is getting old. If I post anything from FOX or OANN or Newsmax you go on about fake news. I have been there done that with you. Liberal news sources do not deny text was changed. They basically say Shift did not mean for it to happen. Do you know how to google? GEEZ Fact Check: Did Adam Schiff 'Tamper' With Jim Jordan Jan. 6 Evidence in Meadows Hearing? (msn.com) Very liberal source on the subject. Very conservative source. So, Adam Schiff Doctored Text Messages for Anti-Trump Witch Hunt Jan 6th Committee? (townhall.com) Do your own research.

So celee, what I am doing here is trying to educate you about the difference between primary sources and secondary sources. If you do not trust the secondary source, then you can use the secondary source to check out the primary source which is what my intention was. In the case of the two links you provided, the MSN.com source sounds legit whereas the townhall source does not provide me with the info I needed to properly assess the problem. Which is another confirmation, in my mind, why prublications like townhall are BS touting propaganda outlets.

You made the claim that "Adam Schiff has forged a text message". The reason I insisted on you providing a link is that I know what you are actually talking about. There is no "forgery" going on here and even the townhall does not suggest a forgery. Secondly, I don't even know when and in what context the incident you alleged has taken place. Adam Schiff has been a target for Republicans for about 5 years now. Finally, as Ally says, the "Do you own research" argument is a cop-out. It means you are not willing to stand by your claim. For the party of personal responsibility, you laying the groundwork to deny just about anything if and when things go south OR, as in your case, just move on to the next talking point which has been created out of thin air.

So, the townhall article does not even provide me with the full text message whereas the MSN article does. the reason this is relevant is because MSN argue that the second half of the text message does not alter the meaning of the message displayed. the Townhall article does not tell me WHY it is relevant that the text message had been abbreviated which suggests to me that they thought it would undermine the central argument that Adam Schiff had "doctored" a text message. the second problem with the lack of actual facts in the townhall article is that I would then need to go to the primary source, or another source to get those facts. The townhall article then veers off to go on about the Riot, the Steele Dossier and the suggestion that Democrats had not accepted the outcome of the 2016 selection (the last point is seriously hilarious).

This is why I consider Townhall as right-wing BS. Light on facts, full of opinion without sources or downright falsehoods. I consider them propaganda becasue all the other, non-related stuff is designed to (successfully) brainwash you and they are probably repeats all over their articles again and again and again. The MSN article meanwhile sticks to the subject matter and does not veer off into "left-wing" propaganda. Finally, the Townhall article's very first sentence is the ruling of the "fact-check" which is just ridiculous. IN a fact-check, you report on the issue, then lay out the facts and based on the facts, you deliver your verdict. So the townhall article is either bad journalism or (my suspicion), not meant to be journalism at all. It's a propaganda pice.

Finally, on the content itself, Schiff should have ended the graphic with "[...]" and not a fullstop. I do think that Jordan is perfectly within his rights to send a text along the line of "POTUS's lawyers should look at the attached ruling to see what can be applied." Which he does not have a right to do is "VP should declare some electoral slates unconstitutional because of an unrelated court case, which has nothing to do with elections, and I (as opposed to a Judge) have just made the unilateral decision that this should apply" which is essentially what he did.

So Schiff was correct in using this as an example of the kind of BS that was fed to Meadows. Schiff's punctuation is incorrect but it did not alter the central message, which is that Pence should ignore electoral slates based on no legal reason at all.

[FISHY1118]

Really? Has it been proven that COVID originated in a lab? I just checked New Scientist who said on October 13th that the current scientific consensus is that the virus was not engineered and that any suggestion that it escaped from a lab is an unproven hypothesis. It appears that they are still looking into it. Perhaps a definitive announcement has been made that I’m not aware of but if it hasn’t then you appear to be stating an opinion as a fact. Compounded of course if it’s the opinion of a lunatic like Trump.

Well New Scientist have to say that so there is then two sides to the same arguement, so then both sides can go on and on and on till no one can definitively say who is right or whos wrong .Its the same game being played over and over no matter what the topic is discussed where American politics is concerned ,of the two tho im thinking Lab over Rat , just my opinion .

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

I'm currently watching a program called "Undercover Boss" where a CEO of a fast-food chain just told an employee he'll pay her hospital bills for her cancer surgery.
Maybe springing for affordable insurance for all employers would be a nice thing, too, Mr. CEO??

Or you could have socialised healthcare, such as the NHS to pick an entirely random example, and the employee wouldn't even need affordable insurance, she gets her cancer investigated and treated gratis. The downside is that there may be one complex and convoluted case amongst the millions of cases dealt with every year, which couldn't possibly happen in a profit driven privatised system. Nye Bevan. What a bastard.

[celee]

Really? Has it been proven that COVID originated in a lab? I just checked New Scientist who said on October 13th that the current scientific consensus is that the virus was not engineered and that any suggestion that it escaped from a lab is an unproven hypothesis. It appears that they are still looking into it. Perhaps a definitive announcement has been made that I’m not aware of but if it hasn’t then you appear to be stating an opinion as a fact. Compounded of course if it’s the opinion of a lunatic like Trump.

I guess you can continue to believe that the virus did not come from the lab but the evidence is overwhelming that it did so much so that both the liberal media and conservative media pretty much agree. In America, we have been having bipartisan senate hearings on the origin of the virus and gain of function research.

[Pcdunn]

Gee, you could almost say that we have the FREEDOM to call a doctor when we need one

I'm currently watching a program called "Undercover Boss" where a CEO of a fast-food chain just told an employee he'll pay her hospital bills for her cancer surgery.
Maybe springing for affordable insurance for all employers would be a nice thing, too, Mr. CEO??

[Herlock Sholmes]

Trump took the virus seriously. He was right about the virus origin coming from a China lab. He put a travel ban in place for China and E.U. Democrats oppose the travel bans. Dr. Fauci even said Trump's early travel bans saved lives.

Really? Has it been proven that COVID originated in a lab? I just checked New Scientist who said on October 13th that the current scientific consensus is that the virus was not engineered and that any suggestion that it escaped from a lab is an unproven hypothesis. It appears that they are still looking into it. Perhaps a definitive announcement has been made that I’m not aware of but if it hasn’t then you appear to be stating an opinion as a fact. Compounded of course if it’s the opinion of a lunatic like Trump.

[Ally]

Hi, I'm Ally. You're said you're not going to be talking to me anymore, not even when you're calling me Svensson.

[celee]

Just for the record Svensson I never report people and I provided you with sources. You should do your own research information on Shift is easy to find.