• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,910 Excellent

1 Follower

About Chaka

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Cardiff By The Sea, California

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team

Recent Profile Visitors

15,048 profile views
  1. Again, the NYT agrees that he should be stripped. And it still seems odd to be concerned about an editorializing headline from 1931. Trying to relate it to Hannity is specious at best.
  2. I will admit to knowing little more about this than what I read on Wiki. The New York Times agrees with you that the award should be stripped. The Pulitzer Board decided not to because the reporting for which he was awarded occurred prior to his biased reporting about Stalin. Can't you see the argument that if the reporting for which he was awarded, which apparently was exhaustively reviewed twice, was not actually biased that he should keep the award even if he proved to be a biased ####### at a later point? Again, I am not sure why this is a big concern for you today.
  3. Yeah, it's just a pet peeve of mine. No big deal. I honestly have no idea why you are concerned with the failure to strip the Pulitzer Prize awarded to some ####### in 1932.
  4. Moderator. I don't like viewing these things through the lens of sides. There are far too many positions to be distilled down to a mere us vs. them dispute. When you frame it as a binary position it is too easy to tune out those who don't staunchly hold your specific opinion. The only binary conflict here is truth vs lies. It is difficult to challenge those perpetuating lies with a "relentless adherence to [truth]" when they simply don't care. You can't have discourse with a person when you say "Apples" and they reply "Spaceships!" This thread is not a huge concern in the grand scheme of influencing public consciousness but when it appears on Fox NEWS Network (News, rockaction, News) and is not presented as editorial content then we run into a real problem. Sure, Hannity (like @Quez) probably knows he is spreading lies, and he may not be a journalist, and these may simply be opinions (and he may simply be bat#### ####### crazy) but his lies are being presented as fact. At best they attach the same standard "I'm hearing..." disclaimer as they do every time they know they are about to spread dangerous lies and then they run with it with frightening zeal. So, no, I don't accept that your presentation of Cronkite as biased as anything more than a false equivalency. The dangerous goal of those spreading lies like this is not to influence those of us who follow the news closely, check multiple sources and understand when we are being lied to. The goal is to influence those who don't follow, who only glance the headlines from one source, accept it and move on. It is an attempt to control the population by lying to them and thereby influence government. It is a betrayal of our country Left, Right and everything in between. This is how Republics fall. We love to think we are immune from such things but there is no law of science, nature or God that protects us from that.
  5. I appreciate your input and will sincerely take it under consideration. However I also consider that the perpetuation of outright lies is dangerous to watch happen and fail to act upon. There is no point in disputing the outright lies as the people who perpetuate them have no concern for facts. What options are there beyond apathy or resistance? And what forms should resistance take if the disputation of the lies only furthers the goals of those spreading the lies?
  6. Talking about whatever a Kim Dotcom is, gives it credibility. Any talking about it, gives it credibility. It is one of the pillars of the tactical strategy from what was formerly the Republican party (not sure what to call them but they certainly are no longer republicans). They spread lies, get people to talk about those lies (even if it is denouncing the lies) making the conversation linger long enough that it filters into the consciousness of those who really aren't paying attention so they eventually start associating whoever is being smeared, in this case the DNC, with the taint of scandal. "I hate the DNC because...uh...reasons!" And this tactic is working masterfully as people keep breathing life into each and every lie. @Quez is trying to start another one in his Debbie Wasserman Schultz thread. There is no scandal but he is trying to make it appear as if there is one. He is also using another common tactic from the party formerly known as republican, which is to create a false equivalency. "Why investigate Trump if you aren't going to investigate DWS? Therefore the Trump investigation is unwarranted!" And the fish are just jumping into the boat on that one too. You will never convince @Quez that his position is wrong, no matter how clearly that can be demonstrated with facts because he doesn't care. He just wants to hurt the democrats, or he does it for ####s-and-giggles. Either way what he is doing is dangerous and any additional traction we give him by responding to the lies only encourages the action. Stop feeding those who spread lies and let them fall to the fringes where they belong. If you must respond to those threads I suggest providing recipes. At least that way we will get something useful out of those threads.
  7. Please don't feed the @Quez
  8. Please don't feed the @rockaction.
  9. Actually, yes.
  10. "...chick"? Really?
  11. Another consideration for those who are shooting for the whole home IoT connectivity thing (media centers, lights, thermostat, security, irrigation) is security. The more you put your house out there the more vulnerable you are to cyber attacks. I am still researching options like VPNs and personal servers so I can't comment on cost and effectiveness yet but they are a definite need if you want a connected home.
  12. You can get some live network stuff through streaming services but it depends on your region. For cutting the cable and still getting the live network stuff (CBS, NBC, ABC & Fox) an OTA is probably your best bet (if you get reception). You can check what channels you can receive in your area at tvfool. That reminds me, I will probably pay for the streaming NFL package from DirectTV again this year. I think it ran $129 last season so that is another expense to consider, although I did it last season too so it would not be an additional cost relative to my situation.
  13. Because it's easy to get and keep people riled up. To be fair posts like mine, and yours only help to keep this thread alive and many (if not most) of the posters have moved on from actually trying to argue against these insane lies. But still it's sad that people like pushing stuff like this. It's dangerous. I am not kidding when I say it borders on being traitorous, particularly people like Gingrich and Hannity who should know better than to peddle these destabilizing lies. @Quez? I'd like to think he is smart enough to know better but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
  14. Saving money on media delivery is the new...I don't know something really popular. Is bottle tossing still a thing? What about dabbing?