
sheeeit
-
Posts
761 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Posts posted by sheeeit
-
-
5 minutes ago, achooloco said:
Did…. You never see a hurricane path drawn by a sharpie?
Which is why I said RFK is probably the best choice. He may be the one eyed man in the land of the blind.
Seriously. If someone on Texags told you today that the current POTUS, the most powerful position in the world, who is in an intense campain for relection and where his mental acuity is a huge issue in that campain said publicly, on more than one occasion, that his uncle or his uncle's remains were eaten by cannibals in WW2, you would rightfully think that Texags poster was a lunatic. But somehow its true.
-
1
-
16
-
-
10 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:
You can’t stop laughing? At that? How fucking high are you?
LOL Pretty high. Did you watch the clip?
How can you not laugh at that and all of the implications.
-
2
-
-
14 minutes ago, C-Man said:
https://apnews.com/article/biden-uncle-world-war-ii-cannibals-trump-4f3b7d1c988e041fbc07f60f952ca95f
This is what OP is talking about. Shocker but he’s being disingenuous.
I watched your clip and now I am laughing more. He said cannibals. Of course the usual of you miss the point entirely. I am sure some people are aware that there were cannibals in that area but most would have no idea. Just saying cannibal was going to get tons of people googling to fact check the story. It is seemingly so outrageous. Hell I am high and mostly checked out politically anymore and I fact checked it. The guys plane went down in the ocean. There was a lone survivor who gave the account. They were not near land at all. For fucks sake neither his uncle or his dead body were eaten by cannibals. Poor guy never got out of the plane.
The point is that no even relatively unimpaired person would ever tell a whopper like this in public in front of the press. And he is currently the POTUS and all that entails. Cannibals.
-
17
-
-
I can not stop laughing. I saw a tiktok about this and just assumed it was a joke or some instance where Biden just slurred his words a little bit and they guessed about what he said. Now, quite high, I decided to check it out. Holy shit. The POTUS, figuratively the most powerful person in the world, just said, with a straight face, that he believes his uncle was a pilot eaten by Aboriginal cannibals when his plane went down during WW2. Its impossible but it isnt.
Even if we give him him the most gigantic benefit of the doubt in human history that this was some family story passed down through the years and so he just repeated it, it is still unbelievable. How do you ever say that to the press? Ubder any circumstances? A 10 year old can google it and see that his uncle was not the pilot and that the plane went down over the ocean. There was an actual fucking survivor that told the story. It is impossible that Biden did not know the true story at one time. He is ful blown senile. No person in any way still cognizant would ever say or do that. I kind of feel bad for him and Jill must be one tough woman.
I guess maybe I am really high because if I am presented a situation where the only options for POTUS next year are Biden, Tump or RFK, I actually think RFK might be the best option. And he is a terrible option.
This POTUS election should make us change the rules of the game going forward regarding politics. The system is great but the current rules allowed it to be gamed. There is no other rational explanation. We have some of the very best and brightest and capable people in the world in the US. Hundreds of thousands of them. But our POTUS will be one of 3 of the worst choices we could make. That is only possible in a rigged game.
-
1
-
23
-
-
This whole thread sucks.
-
1
-
-
-
53 minutes ago, We’reTexas said:
Pretty good article in NYT today comparing San Francisco’s approach to that of Portugal, the model for many progressives of a harm reduction approach.
Pretty good article but doesn't reaaly drill down into the issues. I am sure like many here, I have been to Portugal a few times and loved it. But their drug plan is now facing significant problems similar to cities/states here that have largely decriminalized drugs.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/07/portugal-drugs-decriminalization-heroin-crack/
One of the biggest issues has to do with mental health. It is much, much easier to have a person in Portugal commited involuntarily to a mental health institution. I do think our laws in the US are too lenient on this. It is certainly a touchy issue and has the ability to be abused but I think the pendulum on involuntary commitments has swung too far.
-
Its a tough issue for sure. Not sure if it means much but purely by the numbers, the annual number of overdose deaths in Oregon have doubled since 2020.
The problem with the Oregon law was that they did one good thing in making "open air" or "public" drug use not a felony but they fucked up the end game by not making treatment mandatory. If you look at any counseling plan for the families of addicts they all say some variation of keep loving them but stop enabling them and you must follow through on consequences.
I think a fairly sensible plan would be a law similar to the Oregon law but give a first offender the voluntary option to seek no cost treatment and no jail time. As seeen already, almost no one will do the voluntary treatment (under 1%). But give them the chance. A second offender should only have a choice between jail and treatment and a third offender probably needs jail or they must voluntary be committed to a mental health facility.
I also think this should be something the Feds should help with on cost. Build or takeover a number of facilities scatterrred throughout the country that only treat addicts that are facing jail time. Work with local businesses and let the patients start working while still under treatment in the facility. It would not be overly expensive. We could fund the entirety of the program with a fraction of the money we send overseas.
I think it is critical to input the job training with the program. Once the initial withdrawal episodes are over, get them on a routine where they are doing something meaningful. But still have a facility to live in where they get counseling, medication, safety, food etc. Being hopeless is a terrible thing.
-
Israel
in Cloak Room
On 1/24/2024 at 9:58 PM, Jatrain said:“Israel claims it no longer occupies the Gaza Strip, maintaining that it is neither a State nor a territory occupied or controlled by Israel, but rather it has 'sui generis' status. Pursuant to the Disengagement Plan, Israel dismantled all military institutions and settlements in Gaza and there is no longer a permanent Israeli military or civilian presence in the territory. However, the Plan also provided that Israel will guard and monitor the external land perimeter of the Gaza Strip, will continue to maintain exclusive authority in Gaza air space, and will continue to exercise security activity in the sea off the coast of the Gaza Strip as well as maintaining an Israeli military presence on the Egyptian-Gaza border, and reserving the right to reenter Gaza at will. Israel continues to control six of Gaza's seven land crossings, its maritime borders and airspace and the movement of goods and persons in and out of the territory. Egypt controls one of Gaza's land crossings. Gaza is also dependent on Israel for water, electricity, telecommunications and other utilities, currency, issuing IDs, and permits to enter and leave the territory. Israel also has sole control of the Palestinian Population Registry through which the Israeli Army regulates who is classified as a Palestinian and who is a Gazan or West Banker. Since 2000 aside from a limited number of exceptions Israel has refused to add people to the Palestinian Population Registry. It is this direct external control over Gaza and indirect control over life within Gaza that has led the United Nations, the UN General Assembly, the UN Fact Finding Mission to Gaza, International human rights organisations, US Government websites, the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office and a significant number of legal commentators, to reject the argument that Gaza is no longer occupied”.
- Sanger, Andrew (2011). "The Contemporary Law of Blockade and the Gaza Freedom Flotilla". In M.N. Schmitt; Louise Arimatsu; Tim McCormack (eds.). Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law - 2010. Vol. 13. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 429Nothing in this post negates what I said. The unarguable fact is that in the Fall of 2005 residents of Gaza had virtually no limitations on importing/exporting goods and services that were not weapons. Food, clothing, other goods etc were inspected by Israel, as any country would do coming off of the hostilities, but there were no embargos. But instead of building up their new territory they justed started launching rockets/missiles into Israel. Literally within months of the Israeli pullout.
Also, note to all peoples everywhere, if you rely on a country for your water, electric, technology, fuel etc, you probably should not fire rockets at them.
-
1
-
-
Israel
in Cloak Room
19 hours ago, Jatrain said:It’s ingenuous to say that Israel literally tried a two state solution with Gaza. Nothing about Gaza over the last twenty years even remotely approximates a functioning state - not when Israel controls its borders, food, water, electricity, etc, doesn’t allow it to engage in commerce with the rest of the world, controls the movement of its people into and out of it, etc.
there is context here that is very important. I actually think you bringing that up is the one being disingenuous.
I may not have my dates exactly right but Israel vacated Gaza and turned it over to the Palestinians in 2005. Initially, there were no restrictions on trade. Within the first six months of taking control, over 1000 rockets were fired into Israel from Gaza. 1000. Even then the Israelis did not restrict trade. Additionally, there were several suicide bomb terrorist attacks, as well as a tunnel attack on Israel from Gaza. It wasn’t until Hamas became the elected leader of Gaza that Israel really started to take control.
And, the thing that nobody really seems to talk about that much, Egypt also imposed the same kinds of restrictions on the flow of goods into Gaza.
-
2
-
1
-
-
24 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:
So....yeah....that's not what this case or the Chevron doctrine is about. There would be some function of there being a hodgepodge of regulations when the vast majority of federal regulations are voided. So, for example, Texas will allow you to manufacture product X, spewing whatever you want into the water and air, saving money and having manufacturers flock there to save 2% on production costs. Whereas a state that maybe gives a shit about its population will prohibit poisoning the water and air. And then....how do you deal with the fact that River X runs through Texas and some other state? How about the fact that Texas's massive air pollution will make it to another state? This "fuck the federal government, let's run everything like each state is a separate country answerable to nobody" is insanity. Seriously, it defeats the very things that helped build this nation to be the powerhouse that it is. 50 fiefdoms, each saying "fuck all the rest of you" as loudly as possible is brutal idiocy. But truly, that's not the real risk/problem here.
The real risk/problem is the unpredictability of regulations. Because yes, while regulations do vary SOME when a new admin comes into power, you actually might be surprised by how little they actually end up varying. Because it takes time and work to undo/rewrite regulations. So, no, lack of predictability generally is not a problem for regulated industries. There are exceptions of course, but generally....we have predictability.
But not when the SCOTUS just says "naah, federal regulations are illegal" - or rather "any number of federal courts can declare any number of federal regulations on a whim, just as soon as someone challenges them" -- which is where they are headed.
When you say that the regulations usually don’t amount to anything, you may be correct, but it does not appear so in the case that was brought.
As I read the case, there was a mandate some 40 years ago by a federal agency to force certain fishing vessels to keep federal watchdogs on their ships to make sure that they were observing safe fishing practices. Congress was mindful at the time that this would put a large financial burden on the fishing companies and capped the amount they would have to pay for the federal monitors at 2% to 3% of their daily haul. However, now the federal agency is mandating that the amount the fishing vessels must pay for their federal oversight is 20% of their daily haul. Obviously, that is a massive increase. These fishing companies have sunk lots and lots of money and time into their equipment, and now suddenly face the prospect of not being able to make a profit. The problem is further exacerbated by the fact that international fishing companies that fish in the same waters are not subject to these costs, which allow them to sell their fish at a lower cost. This would seem to be unsustainable for the US fishing vessels.
My understanding of what has happened to date is that the various courts have determined that the Chevron guideline is in play and as a result, the federal agency has complete authority to impose the higher fees.
In reading the responses on here, from most of the posters, it seems that the argument is that the regulatory agencies should have more control than the courts in these matters as the regulatory agencies have industry specific knowledge that the courts would not. However, simply imposing a higher fee has nothing to do with anything industry specific in this case.
We eat lots of fish in the US, and our domestic fishing operations are pretty critical to our food supply. It seems in this case that the funding for the federal agency was drawing up and as a result, the agency just arbitrarily pushed those costs onto the businesses. I know everybody on here likes to make fun of people that complain about federal overreach, but this certainly seems like a good example of it. I can see why this particular case made its way to the Supreme Court.
-
On 1/17/2024 at 5:32 PM, Brisketexan said:
The irony is, your dumbass doesn't even begin to grasp why stare decisis is a thing, or the fact that "consistency and predictability" is one of the bedrock principles behind the rule of law. People and businesses build decades-long business plans and life plans based on well-established law. When the SCOTUS just arbitrarily says "nevermind, we void the past 40+ years of completely consistent law on this point" you just changed the rules of the game in the middle of the fucking game.
Imagine building a football team around the established rules that you can both run and pass the ball. You invest millions in personnel, including a QB with a great arm and a corps of good WRs. Then, they change the rules to ban the forward pass. Your investment just went up in smoke.
Reversing decades of established precedent is reserved for only the most egregious of errors. This SCOTUS has demonstrated that it has zero regard for stare decisis, and will reverse anything and everything because they now have 5 judges who feel all Koch-y.
Let’s try to leave all politics out of it, and just debate the law. But isn’t what you seem to be lamenting above with your football team analogy kind of exactly what is happening now? If you own a fishing company like the one the case is based on or an energy company or a technology company or just about anything and you base your business model and your research and development and the hundreds of billions of dollars that go into that based on a set of rules under a Democrat administration, and then those regulations can change dramatically in four years under a Republican administration you can potentially be screwed just like you are worrying about above. Take the EPA as an example. I think everyone would agree that the mandate given to the EPA under a John Kerry administration would be wildly different than under a Ted Cruz administration.
So isn’t what the courts are potentially saying is the state of Oregon can regulate the fishing industry in Oregon whatever way the Oregon legislature sees fit. It seems to me that everyone here is saying this is going to give judges more power, but I think it is really just trying to restore power to state legislatures.
from a purely theoretical standpoint I’m not sure I would disagree with that.
-
Israel
in Cloak Room
On 1/18/2024 at 2:47 PM, Brisketexan said:Just in case there remained any doubt as to whether Bibi was a piece of dick:
So. We have two sides, each functionally dominated by its more militant elements. And each one pledging that there side will be the one dominating the region "from the river to the sea."
There is no end to this. There never will be.
There is a lot of truth in this. I do think that the Biden admin is being a little flaky in this deal. BB may well be a complete piece of shit, but he told the US what he was going to do when they started this offensive and we supported him right up until the point that we seem to not be supporting him. I think the whole concept of a measured response is simply absurd. This is war for the Israelis. Either one weapon delivered to Israel is too many or there really should be no limit. Our government under any administration is so busy trying to appease every loud voice that we wind up pissing everyone off.
as to a two state solution, it obviously sounds logical and the only sane thing to do from our perspective as Americans. From Israel’s perspective, they literally just tried it with Gaza, and it resulted in tens of thousands of missiles being shot into Israel, thousands of dead Israelis and tens of thousands of dead Palestinians. It was an absolute disaster by all accounts. I can certainly understand why Israel does not want to try that again.
As to BB,s popularity, I think those opinion polls are not very accurate. I don’t think anyone likes to see mass killing, but deep down I think the majority of Israel’s are OK with this war going on until Hamas is effectively neutered. The absolute horrificness of the Hamas attacks just steeled Israel to the point that they are not going to stop this time. I hope for everyone’s sake that it can be done quickly and then BB rides off into the sunset.
-
22 hours ago, Macanudo said:
I really don't think that is true. I bet the vast majority of Pizza Hut pizzas are sold through delivery or pickup. And... Drive through small town America. Those ubiquitous Pizza Huts that used to be in every decent sized small town are now out of business or morphed into some other small restaurant.
I did a little checking and you are correct, that Pizza Hut is transitioning away from dine in stores. Ironically, they actually added more than they closed in 2023, but The trend is downward. But they do still have over 1000 dine in restaurants, and several hundred in California, and the truth remains that having in-house delivery drivers for those locations is a loser.
-
35 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:
Shit pizza places like Pizza Hut and Dominos; why do they operate out of storefronts when (if) the vast majority of the business is delivery?
Seems like a spot in an industrial park or similar would be cheaper to operate. We all know about "ghost kitchens". Maybe that's the future for big pizza?
Adding to the answers above, those places do a pretty sizable percentage of their sales in takeout/drive through.
-
14 minutes ago, Macanudo said:
That article is basically about office employees (cost of space and equipment.) A pizza delivery guy does not coast an employer anywhere close to 40%. Take it from a former pizza delivery guy. 30+ years later and I still can't stomach Mr. Gatti's pizza.
LOL. My condolences on Mr Gattis. That is tough work for sure.
Associated payroll taxes (especially in Cali) and insurance alone add up to nearly 15% already. We are also talking about Pizza Huts which almost all still have an in house dining option. Pizza Hut makes money from in house dining and drive through business but barely breaks even or loses money on their in house delivery business.
-
1 hour ago, YGIFS said:
Obviously this kinda thing isn’t needed right now. But I enjoy the rush of being part of the beta test in case shit goes sideways. They won’t stop our trucks and I have it in writing from a few county commissioners out that way whom pledged otherwise.
as for the $500 gift cards placed in the glovebox of some of those cabs to give to the scared women for food and hotels (their medical bills are on them for obvious reasons), I wouldn’t know anything about that. The fucked next fucked up thing to sweat though is when Texas starts monitoring online communication or does an undercover/sting deal. That’s not just Lobo internet hyperbole, it’s just what’s next so they can toss some red meat to their base.
You have county commissioners putting in writing that they will not stop trucks delivering women to New Mexico for abortions? Are you sure this "beta test" isn't just in your head?
-
31 minutes ago, Macanudo said:
I highly doubt that delivery drivers are getting benefits. Here's what Pizza Hut is offering in my neck of the woods:
Benefits•SOME Perks & Benefits (Based on eligibility requirements:)•A discount program that has discounts on things like glasses, hearing aids, weight loss programs, step tracking devices, shoes, etc•A provider finder/cost estimation tool, allowing members to find in-network providers and get a cost estimation before the visit•A wellness program, where earning points for things like achieve step goals, can be redeemed to purchase wellness related items•A pregnancy planning tool, that helps track fertility, baby growth, milestones, etc•Receive your GED credentials at no cost to you•Tuition Assistance•We invest in YOU by Empowerment and Building Confidence for your future•**Tips are paid daily for driversThe generally accepted average for "cost of employees" is 25%-40% of wages.
https://web.mit.edu/e-club/hadzima/how-much-does-an-employee-cost.html
California is higher as there is an additional 7% or so for state payroll taxes. But, we can just use 15% and the calculus doesn't change much. I have studied this stuff a bunch. Low cost pizza has to do delivery of some kind to stay competitive. It is cheaper to offload that delivery cost now than to do it internally. It is not even close.
And the employer headaches suck. If your in house staff has a guy out (cook, wait staff etc), everyone else can make up the difference generally. If your delivery driver is out you are stuck and your customers get mad and go to another restaurant.
-
49 minutes ago, YGIFS said:
We transported a few with no issue. I didn’t personally go. But they ended up taking 3 or 4. Drop in the bucket. But cool thing was one driver who had a mom and daughter with him said he chatted with some dudes at a fuel station out west and that guy was Doing the same thing. Ladies were inside using the restroom. Texas won’t stop commerce. I’ll post some other details with anonymity later.
hmmm. interesting
-
1 hour ago, Macanudo said:
There's some related scuttlebutt that Pizza Hut used the wage increase in California as an excuse to fire all of those delivery drivers. However, they've shifted the expense of delivery to Uber Eats, Grubhub, etc. The rumors are that Pizza Hut had this planned all along to cut costs while using the wage increase as cover.
Walgreens completely over expanded, both in store fronts and acquisitions of other entities in the last few years. They've been cutting staff and hours for a while now resulting in overworked employees. Pharmacists are striking here and there. Blaming the shoplifting gives them further cover to shut stores,
These moves are simply corporate shenanigans to drive profit and increase shareholder value at the expense of all else. We're all just pawns in the game of life.
The issue with delivery drivers is a tough one. I am all for people getting paid whatever they can. California is one of a few states that have outlawed a minimum "tipped wage". Essentially, the delivery drivers were going to get a $20 min wage, plus mileage reimbursements, plus all of their tips.
From an economic standpoint (and I am using round numbers to make the point), the cost to have those employees just doesn't work. On average, a Pizza Hut delivery person will make 3 deliveries per hour. That driver's cost per hour to Pizza Hut is approximately $34/hour ($20 wage plus 30% for mandatory taxes/benefits/insurance etc, $8 in mileage reimbursement). An average Pizza Hut has about a 40% gross (as opposed to net) margin. So that driver has to deliver at least $80 worth of pizza per hour just for the store to break even. The average price of a delivery is $25. 3 deliveries a shift equals $75. Adding in a $2 delivery fee basically justs get the owner to a break even point.
Also, drivers for places like Pizza Hut are usually required to help with dishes, folding boxes, clean up after shift etc. Most people do not want to do that so they drive for one of the delivery companies. As a result, staffing for drivers for Pizza Hut was very difficult. It became too much of a customer relations pain in the ass than it was worth. So they just cut out a portion of their business that was not profitable and was causing customer issues. Easy decision. And the customer experience was actually better as there is an almost unending stream of drivers available to deliver for them through the services.
I will be shocked if any delivery heavy restaurants have their own drivers much longer.
-
1
-
-
On 12/12/2023 at 3:33 PM, YGIFS said:
Paxton's sudden embrace of the minutiae of hospital policy is curious, if not disturbing.
And "where I'm going with this."??? I'll tell you. On 2 January, I'm in a caravan of trucks (hint, hint---the logo is a horse) with a half dozen women to New Mexico to receive medical care. We should have the funding in place for their lodging secured by end of this week, Christmas at the latest. I'll deadhead back and they can get bus or train tickets back from same pool of funds. Nobody's gonna stop our trucks, not in pro-business Texas. When they've recovered and rested, they can travel back at their convenience.
I'm tempted to send photos of the trucks crossing the border to Paxton and Patrick as a "fuck you", but it would just draw unnecessary attention to the drivers who are trying to do a solid.
Saw the thread bump. Was curious if anything ever happened here.
-
2 hours ago, Willfully Horn said:
Reuter’s disagrees.
“U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia used a scheme of hacking and propaganda to cause discord in the United States and harm Trump's Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton.
Mueller's probe, with several Trump campaign figures already pleading guilty or being convicted, has documented numerous contacts between Russians and people close to the president.“
Links, or
lol. I am not interested, at all, in rehashing Trump. I would prefer to never have to hear about him ever again. But this topic has to do with the NYT. This article is by the Columbia Journalism Review. Google them if you want to learn what they do, but they are considered the gold standard in journalism ethics by everyone. The attached article is very long. It goes directly to the point of what I have been saying. The short version is that supposed respected papers, most notably the NYT and WAPO, essentially abandoned their journalistic ethics when reporting on Trump.
https://www.cjr.org/special_report/trumped-up-press-versus-president-part-1.php
-
39 minutes ago, bolverk said:
What is your point? The NYT article clearly insinuated that these collectives may be running afoul of the IRS like they are doing something illegal or somehow committing tax fraud. The collectives don't get to just say they are non profit. They approach the IRS asking for status as a 501(c)(3) entity. Either the IRS grants it or it doesn't. If the IRS comes back later and changes their mind then the collectives will have to re classify. Nothing will change with the NIL program.
-
On 1/6/2024 at 3:06 PM, Captainant said:
I really doubt there would be this much acrimony towards NYT if trump had not targeted them so relentlessly. Because genuinely, I haven't heard a single addressable complaint aside from the usual "well they're just a RAG, ok??? MANY PEOPLE ARE SAYING!!"
If y'all had something more than boohoo victimhood it would be much more interesting
I do not think the NYT is a rag. But it has become way more left leaning in the last 10 years. Part of that is simple numbers. The vast majority of journalism students are liberal, the vast vast majority of journalism professors are liberal and the majority of print newsrooms are liberal. It would be impossible for journalism to not lean left. But the fact that you posted this is the perfect example that you are just like the people you seem to detest.
Anyone could start with Trump Russia collusion headlines and stories in the NYT. They willfully printed stories that were inaccurate or complete fabrications. They clearly did not do their own reporting or their own verifying because, as we know, virtually all of the nefarious allegations proved to be false.
But let's just examine a few things the NYT has done regarding big headline grabbing stories in the last few years that might cause a person to think that they were biased.
1) The NYT headline and story about Israel Bombs Hospital in Gaza. I suppose the NYT can be sort of excused initially but not really. First, they said the information was "from Palestinian spokes people. Obviously trying to insinuate that it wasn't Hamas saying it but supposedly unbiased Palestinians. Lending credibility. Second (and almost worse for a supposed venerable outfit) they put a picture under the headline of a bombed out building. Now, of course, they admit the info was from Hamas and admit the picture was not the hospital in question. Someone with more compassion than me might forgive the original headline and story because it was a race to get out the news. But there can be no excuse for the blatant picture misrepresentation. That is like National Inquirer level for a political publication. Can you see why Israeli's might think the NYT is biased?
2) Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick. This one was really bad. The NYT used headlines saying he had been killed during the insurrection by someone bashing him in the head with a fire extinguisher. Someone on this thread made the absurd statement that the NYT always sources the people in their stories. Its just bullshit. In this case they said "according to two law enforcement officials". They obviously just either made up the quotes or, certainly, did absolutely zero investigating on their own. They kept the articles coming for months. They even then tried to insinuate he died from mace or pepper spray from one of the insurrectionists. These were Pulitzer winning journalists. Jan 6 was a big deal in America. Tensions were very high. Yet somehow the NYT and multiple Pulitzer winning journalists couldn't fact check a huge incident like this? Not a single phone call to his family or the doctors or anyone? The reporting absolutely flamed the fires. It was 3.5 months before they finally printed a retraction that the officer sustained no injuries on Jan 6. Obviously the damage was done.
3) Russian Bounty Stories. The NYT pushed this story full scale in the months leading up to the election. The NYT claimed not only that the bounties were real and that US soldiers were murdered but that also Trump knew about it and did nothing in response. They used "intelligence officials" as their source. No one identified. They ran stories right through the election. Months after the election the NYT "updated" the story to say that the intelligence was never confirmed and no US soldiers had ever been killed or even injured. You think they run a story like that about Biden or Obama?
4) Nick Sandman. The NYT headline was "Boys in ‘Make America Great Again’ Hats Mob Native Elder at Indigenous Peoples March". The story was completely one sided, no comments from any of the "boys". Weeks later an "updated" story to "provide more context" went up. No boys "mobbed" anyone.
5) Caliphate. The NYT promoted, sponsored, ran multiple stories etc on this report from one of its prized reporters. The story won a Peabody and was nominated for a Pulitzer. Again, months and months later, the NYT admits that the story was likely bullshit. They gave back the Peabody.
6) Duke Lacrosse. NYT first reported the story. Then after it became apparent the story was wrong, the NYT wrote a lengthy article defending itself and the reporter and later admitted to leaving out all exculpatory information. The reporter, Selena Roberts said this "I wrote that a crime didn't have to occur for us to inspect the irrefutable evidence of misogyny and race baiting that went on that night" That is the standard for the NYT? It doesn't matter if we get a story wrong and ruin lives if we "feel" it was bad?
7) 1619 Project. The NYT promoted the story vigorously. Multiple "fact checkers" were called on by the NYT to check the story/essay. Multiple fact checkers came back to the NYT and pointed out numerous errors. The NYT published the essay without any corrections. Months later they admitted that many of the historical points were in fact false and had to "correct" the story multiple times. This is the NYT. They can not do stuff like this and be considered a venerable institution.
Like I said, I do not think the NYT is a rag and I truly believe it is a worthwhile publication. But I can absolutely see the argument made from some. And those that blindly champion it are just as wrong as those that now won't read it.
-
1
-
Joe Biden 2024 thread - Dark Brandon Where Art Thou?
in Cloak Room
Posted
Wait, you are not a Trump supporter? How did I miss that?
LOL. Maybe you are the high one. Watch the first clip. That is exactly what he said.