Null



Auburnfan91

Verified Member
  • Content Count

    3,284
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Auburnfan91 last won the day on October 19 2009

Auburnfan91 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

621 Sterling

About Auburnfan91

  • Rank
    bleed orange and blue

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • Interests
    college football, professional wrestling, music, and movies.
  • Location
    Deatsville, Alabama
  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,706 profile views
  1. Beto is also a climate doomsdayer: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/03/14/beto_orourke_on_green_new_deal_literally_the_future_of_the_world_depends_on_us.html
  2. Don Lemon is a racist. Remember the mentally challenged white kid who was kidnapped and tortured by 4 black teens in Chicago? Don Lemon wouldn't call that incident evil and didn't want to rush to judgment and call it a hate crime. But you can bet had the roles been reversed(4 white teens kidnap and torture a mentally challenged black kid) , Lemon and no one else at CNN would have waited for official charges to come out from Chicago police in order to call it a hate crime or call it evil.
  3. https://thehill.com/homenews/media/433979-media-matters-president-made-insensitive-comments-used-racial-slurs-in Edit: Forgot to add link
  4. They both make daily or every other day appearances on CNN. I'm surprised you've never heard of them or seen them. You must not watch much CNN that much. Navarro in particular has been on election night panels. She's very visible on the network. I think if Tucker eventually owns up and says his comments were inappropriate and insensitive then that would be fine with me.
  5. Calling for violence against folks you don't like or disagree with yeah. That's a line that no one should cross or get excused for. Yet we've seen several contributors on CNN who either tweeted harassing comments calling the Covington students a** wipes(Ana Navarro) or said Nick Sandmann was a deplorable who can be punched in the face(Bakari Sellers)that are still getting paid to be on CNN. I actually said last year that I'd be ok with Joy Reid her keeping her job on MSNBC despite her issues. I thought she wasn't sincere about her apology and kept digging a hole by saying her blogs were hacked. But none the less it doesn't bother me than she kept her job. I really don't like folks like Media Matters whose sole objective is one sided and who let Joy Reid off the hook but have launched an all out war against Carlson because he's a conservative voice. https://www.thewrap.com/media-matters-says-no-boycott-for-joy-reid-ad-pressure-campaigns-are-rare-for-us/ And here's an article I agree with from someone who doesn't like Carlson but doesn't like the style of the boycotts using corporations to decide which speech is acceptable: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/12/19/stop-the-stupid-tucker-carlson-boycott-223387
  6. I don't call for boycotts or the axe for show's I disagree with or comments from hosts I find repugnant.
  7. So what's the point of all this? To take Tucker out? His show was already being boycotted for those that keep up with that sort of thing. Tucker was actually employed by MSNBC during that time he was on Bubba the Love Sponge. He was at MSNBC until March 2008 when his show got cancelled due to low ratings.
  8. Despite being opposing networks, FOX defended CNN last year in both the Kaitlan Collins and Jim Acosta instances against the White House. Yet CNN cheers on the DNC banning FOX from hosting a Democratic debate. Gotta love the hypocrisy of the networks who rail against Trump's treatment of the non-FOX media yet love Dems treating FOX like they're illegitimate and not worthy of access.
  9. Read the rest of the article at: https://apnews.com/8fe77dcc3db84f2fb660dd2b4a94a94d
  10. The media won't just take their L and move on. Instead they spin a story into some other discussion they can morally lecture on and take a moral victory from to confirm their bias. They've now turned the Smollett story into a discussion on hate crimes in general so they can still blame Trump and the right for the prevalence of hate crimes in America. And it's not just the cable news shows that drop the ball. Just last month the Buzzfeed story got swept up by even the OLD MEDIA like NBC. Chuck Todd is the political director at NBC, so he's not only responsible for political coverage on NBC but he's also over MSNBC. They lapped up the Buzzfeed story despite them not being able to independently confirm it. Chuck Todd whined on Meet the Press last month after the Buzzfeed story imploded that it would be used to against the media for jumping on it and speculating so much on it. And see that's where even people like Chuck Todd who are presented as objective and straight based reporting reveal their bias. That kind of mindset is that of a political operative and not a reporter. A political operative's main concern is how will the other side benefit? A political operative's is also about winning the next campaign. That kind of whining from people like Chuck Todd needs to stop. When the media get it wrong they don't need to whine about it being used against them. They need to correct the record and quit constantly giving in to their confirmation bias by attacking the side they want to be guilty instead of waiting on the facts. The media could have still treated Smollett like a victim like the Chicago PD did but the media had no reason to bring on guests to smear the right for the Smollett case when there had been no facts established in the case. Until the facts were established by the Chicago PD, the media should have shown restraint from attacking one side over this.
  11. While that may be true, the author Robby Soave is very much credible/reliable imo. He was one of the first in the media to cast doubt on the UVA Rolling Stone story back in 2014. He appears to have a good track record when it comes to pointing out hoaxes or dubious stories. https://reason.com/blog/2019/01/29/chicago-police-deny-claim-that-jussie-sm So the Reason article did in fact mention the earlier police reports were erroneous. I missed that too..... lol ...... My bad Edit: I've tried to correct the strikethrough parts of my post but for some reason I can't fix it.
  12. And I don't disagree with that part Brad. But my main point in all of this has been that the media shouldn't be taking sides because if fits their narrative. They should only take sides with the facts. They clearly took Smollett's side before any facts were established. They jumped on board with the story and gave people a platform to spew and bash the right over a false flag. No matter the outcome of Smollett's story the media were going to blame Trump and the right. That's the part that needs to be called out and excuses need to quit being made for traditional media who no longer have any intent of being fair in stories that initially confirm their biases.
  13. Here's another from January 29: https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/427464-chicago-police-probe-possible-hate-crime-against-empire-star It appears that the police did not confirm the MAGA comment until hours after Reason and The Hill's articles were put out. By virtue of the time stamp of the articles then they weren't lying. The police for whatever reason wouldn't confirm the comments to either outlet.
  14. Ah, thanks for catching that. Well now that leads us to a couple of scenarios, either CBS or Reason is lying or the Chicago police were giving different answers to different media outlets because the Reason article I posted and linked to said that Chicago police had no record of that MAGA country comment. Both the Reason and CBS article's are from January 29. The same day. So how could one outlet emphatically state that the police had no record of it but the CBS article said that police confirmed the MAGA country comment.