America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Even at so-called conservative outlet Fox News.

"Comes under fire"... like it's a big thing.

Probably a small handful of dumbazzes said something... but not the ---majority--- of people in the country.


"Massachusetts jewelry store under fire after 'take a knee' billboard backfires"

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/09/08/massachusetts-jewelry-store-under-fire-after-take-knee-billboard-backfires.html

SMH...

Just my 2¢

Wow, it's a great non political play on the current news, some people have no sense of humor.

Maybe because they are idiots and people are always laughing at them.

central/western MA ain't Greater Boston.

not all of us, David.
There always were and always will be some out there though.

I like how the detractors are calling it racist.

Because someone is racist simply because they don't agree with them.

Sounds like some on these boards.

"If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously, OK? Just knock the hell ... I promise you I will pay for the legal fees. I promise, I promise" (Trump on Feb. 1, 2016.)

At a Vegas rally he told security guards they were too gentle with a protester. "He's walking out with big high-fives, smiling, laughing," Trump said. "I'd like to punch him in the face, I'll tell you."

"Get him out," he said of a protester. "Try not to hurt him. If you do, I'll defend you in court. Don't worry about it." (Warren Michigan)

 (Later Trump said he never claimed he'd pay the legal fees for the guy that followed Trump's advice and sucker-punched a protester, but he did speak with him in court and give him a hug)

_________________________________________________________________________________________

The way I see it Trump ushered in this wave of violence by constantly antagonizing and bullying his cabinet members, intelligence agencies, celebrities that call him out, ex-associates and employees, Black atheletes, reporters, foreign heads of state.
In Art of The Deal he admits to being physically violent growing up and loving it.

 He's raised roadrage-mentality to a new level. Before this hothead we had the same disagreements and frustrations, but now we have licence to resort to violence. By our president. 


Disclaimer: I'm not saying violence didn't exist before this dirt bag. Relax!

But this (along with a plethora of other things we're witnessing, thanks Don) is JUST NOT NORMAL. I know his base loves it, violence especially, but they make up less than 30% of the electorate, from what I'm reading. So there's that.

If they waited till it was played out, it wouldn't be funny.

Stop. Noone on either side is as hypersensitive as Trump.
And noone as offended as his state-run FoxNews.

The left is pointing. The right is pouting.

Wow.

Look at all that posturing on one post.


What a complete and utter load of crap.

You want "state-run" news? Look at CNN. Go on.

If anyone is pointing and pouting it's the Left. Mewling because they were "With Her". Colluding government agencies rigging an election, it's outcome and investigations ever since. Propaganda and walked back stories filled with lies is what the CNN audience has come to expect. They wouldn't know a true story from some made up man on the street fill bit.

LOL!!!

Huck thinks CNN is more credible than Fox... Dude, don't you get what you are to CNN? You're the product.

They don't GAF about telling you the truth, the only thing they care about is keeping your eyeballs glued to their cable channel and their website.

CNN is nothing but a bunch of fluff opinion pieces, with a little bit of actual news thrown in if it meets their agenda... and their agenda is what I just told you in the previous paragraph.

There are fact checking sites which put Fox news at the worst offender for stating partially inaccurate to fully inaccurate news in order to keep it's viewers watching.

Then why bother stating it as a criticism? It's a function of any advertising based news vendor.

You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns.

https://youtu.be/9FnO3igOkOk

Actually, I think between CNN and Fox, the more credible of the two depends on whether their horse is in office or not. Right now, I would say Fox is more credible, when Obama was president, it was probably pretty close.

For the record, I don't find either of them to be very credible when it comes to politics... credibility in politics is subjective anyway.

Actually my opinion is just as good as yours (I think mine is better though). You find a source that says more people trust CNN and MSNBC over Fox, and you're good with that because it's what you believe.

I'm saying it's all mostly bull sh*t scattered with a few facts that support their opinion (for either network).

Did you check the bias of your data source? Everyone knows the old saying about statistics... so I won't even bother with that.

I would argue that I'm more correct on this topic... because I can, because it's all subjective... and my opinion is just as valid as anyone else's.

You can argue all you want bgz...
You are basing your entire position firmly on your personal observation,which is naturally limited.

I'm basing my position on others aggregation of information.
Is it possible that the others are biased? Yes.
Of course, I've also looked up a study which performed an audit of the language used by the group which did the aggregation (politifact) and suggests they are not biased
Https://homes.cs.washington.edu/~nasmith/papers/card+Lin+smith.tr18.pdf

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Politifact-Language-Audit-Card-Lin/c761ef1ed330186d09063550a13e7cded8282217

Try that link.
And just discounting anything from a university is ridiculous and basically makes discussing this further worthless. If you can't argue a research paper on the study methods then your opinion isn't that worthwhile.

Sigh.... Ok. Let's try from the top.

Fact checking websites, such as politifact have identified fox as lying more often than other news sources.

You claimed that we cannot trust the fact checking websites to be unbiased, and your feelings tell you they are all equally lying.

I posted a study showing that there is no discernable bias in (specifically) politifact. So one would then have some assurances that their assessment that fox lies more than other news sources is accurate.

Meanwhile, you just continue one with your feelings....

So who checks the bias of the algorithm writer? When they were testing if their algorithm was working correctly, were tweaks applied to achieve their desired results? If they did, would they tell you? Is their project open source, or do we have to just take their word for it?

They themselves said that language processing is difficult and that a lot of work needed to be done through more studies and research.

Anyway, because someone wrote a language processor to determine whether articles on a "non-partisan" fact checking site are bias or not is not proof that said non-partisan site is not biased.

Are there humans working at politifact? Are the humans non-biased? I don't know if I've ever actually met a non-biased human... I might have at one point or another, but I don't think I have.

From what I can see from politifact, it includes pundits... since when can a talking head be seen as 100% truth talker... I mean, their job is to sit there and fill air with a bunch of BS to keep the audience engaged.

So you're saying politifact should be seen as a non-bias source even though it's owned by left leaning publications where one of which is funded by a major donor that also funds the Clinton Foundation?

So you're right, I tend to go with my gut when it comes to the full-of-sh*t-o-meter. It's in my nature... I assume everyone is full of sh*t until proven otherwise.

Unfortunately you haven't proven to me otherwise on this topic... I don't think it's provable.

I'm still of the opinion that all 3 networks are full of sh*t, and trying to measure the sh*t is futile because we don't have a big enough scale.

Look bgz... You can be as ignorant as you want. It's your right as an American.

Is there a chance of bias in the fact checkers of the fact checkers? Sure. And you can keep going down that rabbit hole until it's fact checkers all the way down.

But even one level of verification is better than your "gut feeling". Because humans are extraordinarily susceptible to frequency bias... Your idea in your head about whether one group is lying to you more than the others, or if they're all lying to you equally is basically worthless. Thats just simple truth.

But you'll persist in saying that you're sure they're all full of sh*t.

Where did I say you shouldn't reference multiple sources?

You made a blanket statement about news sources. I provided a correction, with references.

You decided your gut is much more effective.

Nowhere did I suggest that you should even look at one source specifically or state that multiple sources we're bad.

(Caveat... If you include sources such as Infowars, odds are you are reducing your information by including them)

Infowars is awesome!!!

The tranny porn bit was hysterical!!! Alex Jones says... I've had porn popup on my phone like 500 times, rofl...

Oh, and can't forget the "gay frogs" one either, that was funny AF...

As far as checking it as a credible news source... um, no.

lol, I think there's a high probability of him taking the tranny c0ck like a champ.

He's got an excuse though... he's just affected by the same thing that's turning the frogs gay (I forget what he said that was).

here's the SoCal version of the OP take a knee billboard...

https://usatodayhss.com/2018/trump-signs-orange-county-football-game-racial-tensions

maybe they will on Yom Kippur.