Then you'd be wrong, but you should be used to that by now.
If the video isn't edited, shows the person in question and produces the exact sound of their comment how is that spin?
More Liberal Honesty
- Thread starter PsyOps
- Start date
If the video isn't edited, shows the person in question and produces the exact sound of their comment how is that spin?
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
bwhahahaha you think a video on fox is not edited...........Then you'd be wrong, but you should be used to that by now.
If the video isn't edited, shows the person in question and produces the exact sound of their comment how is that spin?
This_person
Well-Known Member
You have a minuscule point in the abstract; people edit Trump videos routinely.
Where you lose even the tiniest bit of credibility is by not watching and judging for yourself.
PsyOps
Pixelated
So what! Because Fox is the only network reporting the words of these leftist, terrorist sympathizers in the media. If you can find it somewhere else, have at it. But just because it came from Fox doesn't make their words any less true. Their own words:
- WaPo: "Airstrike at Baghdad airport kills Iran's most revered military leader".
- NBC: "Soleimani, an iconic military leader"
- Fareed Zakaria on CNN: "It's difficult how to convey how revered he is in Iran... This guy is regarded, in Iran, as a completely heroic figure; personally very brave..." Cooper: "I was trying to think of somebody, and I was thinking of de Gaulle".
- Dr. James Dorsey on CNA: "Killing Soleimani is the equivalent had Iran assassinated, for example, the National Security Advisor of the United States".
- NBC Today (I don't know who the bald dude is): Soleimani is a brilliant man. He was the Cardinal Richelieu. He was the Machiavelli..."
These people are still living under the Obama policy of removing the word "terrorist" from their vocabulary. Are you disputing that this guy was a terrorist? Are you willing to stipulate that he was different than Bin Laden or Baghdadi? Are we not still under the Congressional authorization to use force against Terrorism? Finally, are you really incapable of seeing what these people say about Soleimani, and their words are on record, despite what source decided to report on it?
The #resisttards have been instructed to deny anything that is reported on Fox. Gets in the way of their programming.
Because they're paid to and they all have TDS.
You realize shitforbrains is going to dismiss what you typed as "edited spin" as well so he can continue to deny!
SkylarkTempest
Active Member
What kind of reply is that? That doesn't explain your reasoning at all and does nothing to inform me of your point of view. Clearly I do pay attention to what's going on, but reasonable people can disagree. I'm curious to know if there's an angle I'm not seeing. If you don't want to reply, then don't, but please try and be adult about it.
I recognize that reply, why the new nom de guerre?
"New Year/New MPD"
he just can't resist the condescending "I'm trying to have a civil discussion".
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
the difference is spin, and you are guzzling it as fast as you can.
The WaPo line is 100% accurate. He was irans most revered military leader
the NBC line, lets see the context, i bet the next part is "in iran"
The CBS statement 100% accurate
Zakaria, i dont know if its 100% accurate, but it probaly is
Dorsey, 100% accurate
so far none of those people or organizations have praised solimani, they are describing his role in Iran. thats the problem with spun up videos, they get YOU spun up but they dont deliever on truth. You really are smarter than this Psy. you know that context is everytthing.
We most certainly considered solimani a terrosit, but Iran considers the US forces in the ME terrorists too. Today i read the declared all US military and governent officals as terrorists too. So the playing field is even. WE are all justifed in killing terrorists
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
says the guy who doesn't know what editing is.....You realize shitforbrains is going to dismiss what you typed as "edited spin" as well so he can continue to deny!
This_person
Well-Known Member
So, you can’t judge the comments audibly without context, but you CAN judge them if you read them without context.the difference is spin, and you are guzzling it as fast as you can.
The WaPo line is 100% accurate. He was irans most revered military leader
the NBC line, lets see the context, i bet the next part is "in iran"
The CBS statement 100% accurate
Zakaria, i dont know if its 100% accurate, but it probaly is
Dorsey, 100% accurate
so far none of those people or organizations have praised solimani, they are describing his role in Iran. thats the problem with spun up videos, they get YOU spun up but they dont deliever on truth. You really are smarter than this Psy. you know that context is everytthing.
We most certainly considered solimani a terrosit, but Iran considers the US forces in the ME terrorists too. Today i read the declared all US military and governent officals as terrorists too. So the playing field is even. WE are all justifed in killing terrorists
What a joke!!
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
even when you pretend to ignore peope you are wrong, i guess you have to go with what you are good at
Spitfire
Active Member
Greetings:
I am not sure I understand. It is logically possible to recognize this man was a terrorist who needed to die, and at the same time recognize his "reverence" which some seem to confuse with "sympathizing with a terrorist". I don't see how that connection is made. I mean the comparison to Richelieu and Machiavelli a isn't a complimentary one. Any to deny they weren't brilliant ... I mean, please explain. He was revered. Iran's population is over 80 million people. It's well known that lots of "regular people" Iranians don't like this dude and aren't crying over his death, but that still doesn't logically preclude describing him as "revered" as far as a general description.
In any case POTUS made a decision to take him out; the decision is his and his alone to make. Action appears to 100% within scope of authority that Congress voted away to the EOP. I don't think these would be covered by extant AUMF but rather authority granted specifically via USC. It doesn't mean Trump has bigger weenor than Obama, it just means he decided to try another path forward on the Iran situation. Give it a chance to work or not work. Time will tell for any net-positives or net-negatives to the U.S.
I choose to remain optimistic.
Hijinx
Well-Known Member
I don't know the size of either Trumps or Obama's weenor and to be perfectly honest I don't give a shi"ite.
But when it come to their balls as the term is used for measuring courage and not measuring actual testicles.,they don't have to be seen to be judged, and Obama's would fit in a BB Box with room left over, while Trumps are the size of basketballs.
And certainly I can respect the fact that terrorists, thugs, and beheaders. held this guy in great esteem, perhaps in reverence.
Pretty sure the relatives of the 1500 Iranians this slime had killed do not hold such reverence.
But when it come to their balls as the term is used for measuring courage and not measuring actual testicles.,they don't have to be seen to be judged, and Obama's would fit in a BB Box with room left over, while Trumps are the size of basketballs.
And certainly I can respect the fact that terrorists, thugs, and beheaders. held this guy in great esteem, perhaps in reverence.
Pretty sure the relatives of the 1500 Iranians this slime had killed do not hold such reverence.