URGENT: LifeSite is under attack

[LeafByNiggle]

Lifesite is a courageous website where you’ll learn things you won’t hear anywhere else.

Really? Nowhere else? That is a good sign that those things you hear on Lifesite and nowhere else may be falsehoods. As far as courage goes, it takes no courage to put things on the Internet - just money.

 

[Cathoholic]

LeafByNiggle statement . . . .

Nowhere else? That is a good sign that those things you hear on Lifesite and nowhere else may be falsehoods.

LeafByNiggle principle . . . .

Nowhere else? That is a good sign that those things you hear on . . . (Whichever news site) and nowhere else may be falsehoods.

.

CNN guest asserting President Trump has radicalized MORE people than ISIS (and CNN host Tapper not correcting her because it was “a panel, not an interview”) . . . .

She responded, “ISIS had, like 10,000 members. I think the president has far more supporters who espouse an equally hateful ideology.”

Tapper, as panelist David Urban pointed out on air, did not push back on Ioffe’s assertion whatsoever.

The comment was so bizarre, that the “perpetrator” later had the good sense to apologize. Tapper did not.

David Urban also had the good sense to call Tapper out on this.

“For you not to push back on that, is irresponsible,” Urban said to Jake Tapper. “That’s irresponsible. For her to say that the President of the United States has radicalized more people than ISIS is irresponsible.”

.

CNN was the only place (that I can see) hosting a guest comparing President Trump to ISIS. I saw that nowhere else.

The new nowhere else principle of fake news or at least “falsehoods” . . . .

Nowhere else? That is a good sign that those things you hear on CNN and nowhere else may be falsehoods.

Julia Ioffe Apologizes for Saying Trump Radicalized More People than ISIS

Julia Ioffe quickly apologized for claiming that President Trump had radicalized more people than ISIS on CNN's The Lead with Jake Tapper.

www.breitbart.com

 

[Cathoholic]

Nowhere else? That is a good sign that those things you hear on . . . (Whichever news site) and nowhere else may be falsehoods.

.

NBC’s Kate Snow offers only falsehoods and double talk to explain why she and her employer hid crucial facts that would have cleared then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of gang rape allegations.​

On Friday, Breitbart News reported that, although NBC had the information a full week prior to his October 6 confirmation, NBC covered up news that would have cleared Kavanaugh when it mattered most — during those intense final days of the confirmation process.

During that week, here is the information NBC News hid from the public and those senators deciding on whether or not to confirm Kavanaugh:

1. On September 30, the woman who signed a sworn statement corroborating Julie Swetnick’s gang rape allegations against Kavanaugh (the statement was publicly released by attorney Michael Avenatti on October 2), not only told NBC she had never witnessed Kavanaugh spike punch or rape anyone, she also became something of a character witness for Kavanaugh when she told NBC she had never once seen him behave inappropriately.
2. This second witness then told NBC on October 3 (three days prior to Kavanaugh’s confirmation) that Avenatti had fabricated her sworn statement.
3. During this crucial time, Avenatti was playing games with NBC to conceal all of this — what NBC itself describes as “an apparent effort to thwart the reporting process[.]”

Nothing was stopping NBC from reporting the above facts as they came in. There was no valid reason for NBC to withhold this relevant and crucial information, either from the public or from those senators still deciding Kavanaugh’s fate.

What’s more, had NBC released this story as it broke, NBC would have owned a major scoop, a story of national consequence. Instead, NBC chose not to reveal the truth until October 26, more than three weeks after it mattered… . .

NBC's Kate Snow: Info Clearing Kavanaugh Wasn't 'Newsworthy' Before Confirmation

Kate Snow claims it was not newsworthy to inform the public of all this at the height of the Kavanaugh drama—and three weeks after.

www.breitbart.com

Using our new principle of any exclusivity in reporting = fake news perhaps we can extend it to exclusivity in WITHOLDING REAL NEWS as an extension of fake news too.

Fake news like NBC . . . .

 

[Feanor2]

Good going Catholholic with your trusty Breitbart!

 

[Cathoholic]

Thank you.

 

[Victoria33]

As far as courage goes, it takes no courage to put things on the Internet - just money.

I assume that one being on a Catholic website that one is not for the slaughter of innocents. I would never enable politicians myself by my vote to take part in that slaughter. I think those motives are much wrong than what one seems to find wrong with lifesite. I also think that saying they have a monetary motive is greatly wrong as well.

As already said, every corner of the press makes mistakes. I think accusations against lifesitenews are in fact, very weak.

 

[Victoria33]

Matthew 10: 22
You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.

This is what I think of the criticisms of lifesitenews. Let’s see there real errors pointed out if they are being vilified in such a manner.

 

[Victoria33]

bigleaguepolitics.com has an article currently up of live twitter threats against the life of the President that have not been taken down by twitter. Maybe their posting the list will make twitter do something. Additionally, there is so much profanity in the list, I don’t think it can be posted in good taste. Those critical of what goes on the web, need to be evenhanded and fair.

 

[Victoria33]

I actually saw some article on how this Sayoc fellow was indeed, a Democrat activist at one time as well.

 

[F_Marturana]

So, Rush is insisting? What about the bombers social media accounts?

 

[F_Marturana]

Perhaps you could post it. Not all articles by virtue of their existence are true.

For example, Jennifer Aniston must have 7 or 8 kids by now.

 

[Victoria33]

I gave the website. If you don’t care to go visit it and instead make fun of it, that is uncharitable. We shouldn’t expect another to do all of work for ourselves.

 

[F_Marturana]

I don’t see a link or website in your post. I didn’t make fun of anything.

Jennifer Aniston is the topic of tabloids frequently claiming she is expecting a baby. I used that as an example. Not to make fun.

 

[Victoria33]

I thought one was remarking on the twitter posts attacking Trump. My fault, I said it was at bigleaguepolitics. The other I saw was in some forum. Maybe it is not believable but it is not inconceivable, the mainstream media might not tell us.

 

[EricF]

Limbaugh as a source. Muting this farce now.

 

[Victoria33]

Limbaugh is a great source.

Has always been kind of Catholics besides his brother becoming Catholic. I’m not sure about people’s criticisms. Solidly pro-life too. God Bless Him. An American treasure.

 

[Victoria33]

I see your avatar. I would state that a farce would be a State that should be conservative like New Mexico toeing liberalism. That’s what I would call a farce.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

As far as courage goes, it takes no courage to put things on the Internet - just money.

I assume that one being on a Catholic website that one is not for the slaughter of innocents.

That is true. But just because I am against the slaughter of the innocents that does not mean I give everyone a free pass on factual reporting just for saying they too are against the slaughter of the innocents.

I would never enable politicians myself by my vote to take part in that slaughter. I think those motives are much wrong than what one seems to find wrong with lifesite.

Once again, the wrong done by others does not excuse lifesite from being examined for doing wrong.

I also think that saying they have a monetary motive is greatly wrong as well.

I did not say that, or mean it, or imply it. I only said that it takes no courage to posting things on the Internet. It only takes money to buy the web hosting services, and perhaps pay a web developer. None of that is “courage.” (Remember someone said they were courageous.) I was not challenging their motives at all.

 

[Victoria33]

Just a negative against Limbaugh, I doubt if one could actually back this up. If one does, I probably agree with Rush usually. “Comedy Gold” would seem to denote such behavior over and over and over again. I doubt if one could actually show this habitually done. Maybe he was a bit short with Sandra Fluk (sp?) but no one is perfect.

Oh, yes, how sardonic, let’s make sure no one talks about the ills of Russia, we aren’t over there but we know we give our 2 cents about Rush Limbaugh.

 

[sallybutler]

Many of the people participating in these forums were once Democrats, but now longer identify as such. Are you suggesting that once a Democrat, always tainted? not to be trusted.

Wouldn’t that apply to Trump also?

I actually saw some article on how this Sayoc fellow was indeed, a Democrat activist at one time as well.