Reply With Quote
WTF were you expecting? An official press release with the use of the word promise? You'd probably still find a way to pretend like you didn't lash out!
WTF were you expecting? An official press release with the use of the word promise? You'd probably still find a way to pretend like you didn't lash out!
I mean you can see the killer's face right now on CNN's front page.
Click on it and you get his name.
Promise kept.
lol lash out
Shut it down, slob.But muh meme
Why did you leave out the first sentence of the article you posted?
It doesn't debunk the fact that media weren't showing the killer's name on principle.
It doesn't debunk that media didn't want to grant infamy to the killer by naming him and posting his picture.
It doesn't debunk that media had bought into this "responsible journalism."
Seriously, you have zero power to your dumb point.
Random babbling; it's what you do when you lose. Par.
What part did you not understand?Random babbling; it's what you do when you lose. Par.
I'll help you out.
Go to this site:
https://www.cnn.com
on the far right is a the headline "Suspect tells investigator he spared people he liked"
Over that headline is a picture of the shooter:
When you click on either the picture or the headline it goes here:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/19/us/te...ing/index.html
The story begins with these words:
So CNN is showing the killers face and name in direct contradiction to your claim they are not.
Any questions?
lol
What part did you not understand?
I'll help you out.
Go to this site:
https://www.cnn.com
on the far right is a the headline "Suspect tells investigator he spared people he liked"
Over that headline is a picture of the shooter:
When you click on either the picture or the headline it goes here:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/19/us/te...ing/index.html
The story begins with these words:
So CNN is showing the killers face and name in direct contradiction to your claim they are not.
Any questions?
lol
In fact, the whole premise of the OP was that outlets like CNN are showing the picture.
Right, and you said they promised not to.
In fact, the whole premise of the OP was that outlets like CNN are showing the picture.
They never did.
Yet you tried to use CNN as an example of their not showing the face or name.
What were you trying to do there?
lol
I mean, I guess you'd have a point if I said all media. And you might have a point if I had said that CNN had promised this across the board. I guess you're getting the smaller argument you want to try and detract from all that ass you just ate.
So you were just parroting my point made yesterday that individual members of the media had adopted the policy.And you might have a point if I had said that CNN had promised this across the board.
OK
lol
I'd have to remember it before I could parrot it. Cite this alleged point, ass breath.
Citizen's United uses the they/them interpretation of the 14th amendment which serves to blur the rights of groups and those of citizens. His dumb ass doesn't know what he is talking about but that is what they used to find the corporate first amendment rights they were saying were protected.
The one I reposted three times for you today?
lol
This is your baby. If you don't want to cite it, I'm fine with that, ass breath.
lmao pav, so the local pd didn't know about cruz, they weren't notified over and over again about cruz, he wasn't a headcase on meds, and the media didn't glorify him and others past and present? you're such a schmuck and a very smug one at that too. you deem my direct response to you as a rant and yet you show no proof to the contrary about what i state but instead try to discredit it by simply calling it a rant. good job troll!
There was never a pledge amongst the media to do anything. It was a campaign by the family members of victims. Whether individual media members chose to comply with their request is irrelevant.
You left out the first sentence because you’re a disingenuous pile of , and re ed enough to think nobody would notice.
Spursshooter.
The first sentence still doesn't even matter to your ing claim bolded. You are seriously ing re ed.
To clarify (because you're apparently mentally handicapped): That some in the media decided to not post pictures or name school shooters is the issue. It doesn't matter what (movement) (may have) exactly spawned their decision to do so (other than the fact that it is the responsible thing to do).
And none of that has to do with your original post, Simple Jack. You know exactly why you left the first sentence of the article out.
If you didn't read it the first four times I posted it in replies to you, that's on you.This is your baby. If you don't want to cite it, I'm fine with that, ass breath.
How many ing times do I have to tell you that the first sentence is inconsequential before you finally get it?
Aw; pouting. Afraid to support your claim.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
