quote:

Democrats, in a stunning display of irony, are building an impenetrable wall around their convention in Chicago and demanding ID from everyone entering the venue.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
After someone took a shot at Trump, despite all the SS security, why should the Democrats risk a similar incident? Especially with riots threatening?

You and your new favorite source, X, can be silly at times. Don't you realize yet that these X posters really aren't smarter than the rest of us?

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
I bet there was no security at the republican convention. Probably didn't have to have a ticket to get in or anything.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
After someone took a shot at Trump, despite all the SS security, why should the Democrats risk a similar incident? Especially with riots threatening?

You and your new favorite source, X, can be silly at times. Don't you realize yet that these X posters really aren't smarter than the rest of us?

Roland,
EVERY journalist has an X account. It IS the news of the future. Don’t like it? Abstain from looking!

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
After someone took a shot at Trump, despite all the SS security, why should the Democrats risk a similar incident? Especially with riots threatening?

You and your new favorite source, X, can be silly at times. Don't you realize yet that these X posters really aren't smarter than the rest of us?

Roland,
EVERY journalist has an X account. It IS the news of the future. Don’t like it? Abstain from looking!

I don't care who uses X. There are no gatekeepers to insure accuracy of people's words. This renders X completely unlike legitimate news sources.

quote:

Don’t like them…don’t read them.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Don’t like them…don’t read them.

I'll follow your good advice regarding your cherry-picked X posts. Does this mean I should ignore all your links? If they are of the same caliber, I will do so.

You might as well quote people posting here. The only difference is X has more posters.

Gatekeepers are people like editors, publishers, and boards of legitimate media that usually try not to embarrass themselves with false or inaccurate reports. Those who try to restrain writers from mistakes and excesses.

{{{ }}}

The gatekeepers, being human, don't always do their work well.

Oh…they do it well.

Bias and partiality can infiltrate their work.

Can!?

110% does all day every day.

The consumer has to expect and allow for that.

I certainly do expect it. But no, I don’t allow it. (I don't mean validating only those reports you agree with.)

It's better to have imperfect gatekeepers than none.

Sir, I have never heard anything I disagree with more.

Having other people check one person's work isn't a bad thing. X makes no attempt do so.

Roland,
You live in an extremely naïve state of mind here. All “gatekeepers” are employed by huge corporations and answer to a higher level. ALL large corporations have an agenda and that agenda has little to do with the truth. But it has a lot to do with persuasion.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
After someone took a shot at Trump, despite all the SS security, why should the Democrats risk a similar incident? Especially with riots threatening?

You and your new favorite source, X, can be silly at times. Don't you realize yet that these X posters really aren't smarter than the rest of us?

Roland,
EVERY journalist has an X account. It IS the news of the future. Don’t like it? Abstain from looking!

I don't care who uses X. There are no gatekeepers to insure accuracy of people's words. This renders X completely unlike legitimate news sources.

That has just about become an oxymoron in the 21st.

X is a platform not a source. The people I quote…I have faith in. Don’t like them…don’t read them. X is the future.

Question for you…who vet’s your “gatekeepers?”

All organization have an agenda these days.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
The tunnels between Palestine and Israel a very well protected border prove a wall is a waste of resources to address this multifaceted problem.

Dr. Easter single handedly trying to rescue Musk’s purchase of Twitter is very funny.

I’ll stick to Reuters.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
After someone took a shot at Trump, despite all the SS security, why should the Democrats risk a similar incident? Especially with riots threatening?

You and your new favorite source, X, can be silly at times. Don't you realize yet that these X posters really aren't smarter than the rest of us?

Roland,
EVERY journalist has an X account. It IS the news of the future. Don’t like it? Abstain from looking!

I don't care who uses X. There are no gatekeepers to insure accuracy of people's words. This renders X completely unlike legitimate news sources.

That has just about become an oxymoron in the 21st.

X is a platform not a source. The people I quote…I have faith in. Don’t like them…don’t read them. X is the future.

Question for you…who vet’s your “gatekeepers?”

All organization have an agenda these days.

X has a place but it certainly is not the place to go for reliable journalism. Lane likes it because of the confirmation bias aspect. He finds things he agrees with, not necessarily things that are true or factually correct.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
More fundamentally, wall or other, the Democrats are perfectly willing to keep people who don’t belong there out of their convention, their gated communities, and their towns (see Martha’s Vineyard)

But they mightily object to excluding folks from places they don’t belong when it’s not their personal ox being gored.

I don’t think a “wall” literally is of much benefit by itself. As part of an overall security system it does have some benefits.

If you want to argue the point that a wall is too simplistic, fine, I agree with that. Saying build a wall is a low information way to say keep illegals out, IMO, but your beliefs may vary.

The point as I saw it is the rank hypocrisy of the left about migrants and such are welcome… but not at our convention (which is ostensibly about representing their view) and yet they claim we cannot do anything about the problem… except they know they can, they just don’t want to for their own selfish reasons.

Proof that the democrats are certainly no better than the republicans on much of anything.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
After someone took a shot at Trump, despite all the SS security, why should the Democrats risk a similar incident? Especially with riots threatening?

You and your new favorite source, X, can be silly at times. Don't you realize yet that these X posters really aren't smarter than the rest of us?

Roland,
EVERY journalist has an X account. It IS the news of the future. Don’t like it? Abstain from looking!

I don't care who uses X. There are no gatekeepers to insure accuracy of people's words. This renders X completely unlike legitimate news sources.

That has just about become an oxymoron in the 21st.

X is a platform not a source. The people I quote…I have faith in. Don’t like them…don’t read them. X is the future.

Question for you…who vet’s your “gatekeepers?”

All organization have an agenda these days.

X has a place but it certainly is not the place to go for reliable journalism. Lane likes it because of the confirmation bias aspect. He finds things he agrees with, not necessarily things that are true or factually correct.

All journalists have an X page. Therefore, if there are reliable journalists…they can be found on X.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
And yes…Reuters has an X page.

quote:

Originally posted by nute:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
After someone took a shot at Trump, despite all the SS security, why should the Democrats risk a similar incident? Especially with riots threatening?

You and your new favorite source, X, can be silly at times. Don't you realize yet that these X posters really aren't smarter than the rest of us?

Roland,
EVERY journalist has an X account. It IS the news of the future. Don’t like it? Abstain from looking!

I don't care who uses X. There are no gatekeepers to insure accuracy of people's words. This renders X completely unlike legitimate news sources.

That has just about become an oxymoron in the 21st.

X is a platform not a source. The people I quote…I have faith in. Don’t like them…don’t read them. X is the future.

Question for you…who vet’s your “gatekeepers?”

All organization have an agenda these days.

X has a place but it certainly is not the place to go for reliable journalism. Lane likes it because of the confirmation bias aspect. He finds things he agrees with, not necessarily things that are true or factually correct.

All journalists have an X page. Therefore, if there are reliable journalists…they can be found on X.

...and so can every two bit loon who thinks his message is the right one, and there are an excess of people who lack the intelligence or the will to sift fact from fiction and so consume total garbage masquerading as credible news.

I'll stick to the FT, Reuters, AP, WSJ, the Independent and maybe the Beeb. There maybe the occasional inaccuracy on all of them, but id bet my next pay check there arent as many inaccuracies on all of them combined as there are on Twitter.

quote:

she very well new wasn’t true

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
That's a different issue. I believe that she knew of no proof.

But it's different from knowing a report is false.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
That's a different issue. I believe that she knew of no proof.

But it's different from knowing a report is false.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
We condemn that. I know I did.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
That's a different issue. I believe that she knew of no proof.

But it's different from knowing a report is false.

So, you spent how many Posts screaming at joe for his Charlottesville comments at the DNC? Zero was it?

Where were you when the media mocked baron trump over his perceived social awkwardness

Selective outeage abounds

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
That's a different issue. I believe that she knew of no proof.

But it's different from knowing a report is false.

So, you spent how many Posts screaming at joe for his Charlottesville comments at the DNC? Zero was it?

Where were you when the media mocked baron trump over his perceived social awkwardness

Selective outeage abounds

Again, I'm having trouble following you. You mention two incidents I have no knowledge of.

But it seems to me you're playing with a two-edged sword. As in four fingers pointing back at you.