TOTALLY GEEKED!

Oooh, the Alt Right! Another made up term of the idiot Left wing whackos!

***pssssst***. Youareramblingagain

Tignanello wrote:

---

***pssssst***. Youareramblingagain

---

Some of us actually watch the news.

Who knows? It's on the news right now.

OK, try Fox News then.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4182824/Protesters-speech-Breitbart-editor-UC-Berkeley.html

I didn't have a link initially. I was watching the news live when i posted.

I enjoy talking to myself at times! Used to be that most people would click on the news . It was happening live that's why i posted it that way.

Fort Worth Mom, I completely agree with you.

The news used to be "Get it right first, we don't want to have to put out a retraction, ever" then, coincidentally, about 8 years ago, it morphed into "Get the story out first, before anyone else, if we're wrong and someone notices we can always broadcast a retraction during a 4:30AM commercial break or something".

I miss the good old days when you could trust the news.

Excellent point, Lady Gaga. I have an idea the press has been manipulating public opinion, etc. since the first newspaper was printed......

I've never completely trusted the news.

Like they say, there are always 3 sides to any story.

But I do think some are, or were, more trust worthy than others.

When Walter Kroncite or Dan Rather or Peter Jennings relayed the news, you tended to have more faith in what they were saying was true.

Or at least true as they understood it.

But sensationalism became the news when it became a 24 hour channel.

There just wasn't enough to fill all the time.

I remember baby Jessica and the constant coverage of that situation.

A lot of the time, there was nothing new to add, so the reporter made news.

CNN, Turner broadcasting, changed the way we got our news.

And then along came the other networks, all vying for that one story that made them stand out from the rest.

The world at a glance at our fingertips.

Just click the remote and see what's going on in any country.

It's become a ratings war.

And nothing boosts ratings like sensationalism. 

Why is this behavior still being tolerated?

You don't like something? Ok. Take a day.

But this is months later.

At what point do the people in authority say enough?

Right, if they don't knock it off.

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

---

Tignanello wrote:

---

***pssssst***. Youareramblingagain

---

Some of us actually watch the news.

---

 I don't own a television.  As you well know from other conversations.  Are you shaming me for that?

 

Also, it was readable.  (and post-able in the first place).  Idiots.

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

I think that the ultimatum has to go to Berkeley. Take care of your mess, or it will be seen as a violation of federal law and you will lose federal funding. The school needs to immediately respond by expelling the people involved that they can identify.

---

 Not to mention pressing criminal charges.

Cheerios4606 wrote:

---

I really do hope charges are filed.

---

 They should, but won't. Just the same as the riots that took place in DC during the inauguration.  Do you know that limo that was torched was owned by a Muslim, driver is Spanish, here legally BTW?  Insurance company told the owner that they won't cover the damage, he needed to have riot insurance.  That is a loss of 70K+ to that person.  So these rioters hurt the exact people they purport to riot for.  No, they are rioting for "the fun of it".  They do need to be ID'd and arrested, that way the owner can at least sue them for the loss.

burns07 wrote:

---

was present at Texas for a lot of the " student " rallies against the war ( Nam ) in the late 60s early 70s--even the most rabid protesters(SDS, et al) NEVER deliberately injured innocent people or looted--we wouldn't allow it--beat the living hell out of a lot of them--can say for certain that these entitled idiots do understand force and a couple of pops to the face

---

 Hmm Burns, I thought you were in your 30's but I think you must be my age!  or even older!

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

I know what to do_sometimes wrote:

---

Cheerios4606 wrote:

---

I really do hope charges are filed.

---

 They should, but won't. Just the same as the riots that took place in DC during the inauguration.  Do you know that limo that was torched was owned by a Muslim, driver is Spanish, here legally BTW?  Insurance company told the owner that they won't cover the damage, he needed to have riot insurance.  That is a loss of 70K+ to that person.  So these rioters hurt the exact people they purport to riot for.  No, they are rioting for "the fun of it".  They do need to be ID'd and arrested, that way the owner can at least sue them for the loss.

---

 250 people were arrested and charged with rioting.

---

 But unless they have proof over the torching of the limo, the owner is SOL in sueing.

Tignanello, Insurance in the United States isn't about covering the individual. It's about how can the company collect the most money while at the same time giving out the least amount in payments for "covered damages".

Believe me, if there's a loophole in the policy that lets them out of covering, they will find and use it.

Well, this is an interesting thread.

Let's just say, I think people can post about things ON the news - I don't think it has to be in print or even linked. If you are confused, you have the option to google, everything you needed was pretty much in the title. Or, hey, ask nicely instead of complaining.

That being said, a little more information in the OP would have been nice - not everyone knows everything as quickly as others and you could have easily avoided the confusion.

I think calling someone out for commenting on the news and then complaining they are being "shamed" for not watching the news is quite a stretch.

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Well, this is an interesting thread.

Let's just say, I think people can post about things ON the news - I don't think it has to be in print or even linked. If you are confused, you have the option to google, everything you needed was pretty much in the title. Or, hey, ask nicely instead of complaining.

That being said, a little more information in the OP would have been nice - not everyone knows everything as quickly as others and you could have easily avoided the confusion.

I think calling someone out for commenting on the news and then complaining they are being "shamed" for not watching the news is quite a stretch.

---

 As my post seems to require further information as well, I said  'are you shaming me for that'.  It was a question, not a complaint.  

I imagine that the 'calling out someone for commenting on the news' is also a little b*llsh*t.  How in the world was anyone supposed to know it was news based on the OP?  I'm not the only one who thought she was rambling.  Interpret how you will, however.  Seems like quite a stretch.

 

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

I know what to do_sometimes wrote:

---

Cheerios4606 wrote:

---

I really do hope charges are filed.

---

 They should, but won't. Just the same as the riots that took place in DC during the inauguration.  Do you know that limo that was torched was owned by a Muslim, driver is Spanish, here legally BTW?  Insurance company told the owner that they won't cover the damage, he needed to have riot insurance.  That is a loss of 70K+ to that person.  So these rioters hurt the exact people they purport to riot for.  No, they are rioting for "the fun of it".  They do need to be ID'd and arrested, that way the owner can at least sue them for the loss.

---

 250 people were arrested and charged with rioting.

---

 And they all will be let off with a cheap fine

The ones who should be shamed are the ones who rioted.

I really haven't been following it, to be honest. I try not to give them the attention they crave.