• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Ilhan Omar's real name is Ilhan Nur Said Elmi and she entered the US as a fraudulent member of the Omar family.

#Phonepunk#

Gold Member
Sep 4, 2018
6,189
7,901
625
Likewise if they reported something that was not true, they would lose viewers, and again piss of shareholders and potentially be sued by those who were misrepresented
lol this is all insanely naive. major media lies all the time. this idea that making up facts would "piss of shareholders" is funny, they don't care about anything other than money.

NYTimes got caught stealth editing a story on Sanders. that is going back and changing a story that has already been printed. controversy sells, and often, controversy can come with stories that are mostly made up. look how much money has been made off the Russia thing when very few people have ever actually read the report.
 
Last edited:

Aurelian

my friends call me "Cunty"
Feb 22, 2009
1,123
880
975
Ottawa, Canada
I will fight this all day, every day because after I kept hearing about how bad Fox News was I decided to add both that and MSNBC to my channel lineup in late 2017, curious to see things for myself. In a world drowning in misleading stories, especially after two full years of Russian collusion hysteria, Fox News is the only major player providing a different perspective, that alone making them valuable. They're openly biased, they admit as much, that isn't in question. I've never personally heard MSNBC admit that much, but that's unimportant considering how blatantly biased they are, too. All things considered, Fox News is providing a much needed viewpoint in a mainstream media landscape that's selectively omitting important facts and key details that make their side look bad.

When the left and the right are both omitting/downplaying facts for political purposes, Fox News, as the only conservative source, provides a necessary function. They're also able to laugh at the absurdity of today's politics, Trump included, when you're tuning in to shows like The Five and the Gutfeld Show. In comparing their content to CNN and MSNBC over the last couple of years they strike me as the most sane of the bunch, by far. Your point of view seems to make more sense to me if you're talking about the Obama years.
I'm not denying that other outlets have their heavy biases, but there's bias and then there's outright misrepresenting stories, which Fox does far more often. Fox is most definitely not the "most sane" of the bunch; this is the outlet that has kept Hannity on despite his peddling multiple known false conspiracies, regularly courts xenophobes, and sees no problem with its personalities having direct connections to politicians that create massive conflicts of interest.

I really wish that more Americans would watch international news shows from Canada, the UK and other countries, because it'd be an eye-opener. Not just because it'd provide a better look at the truth (including how often Fox News lies and distorts things), but because it'd present an example of how you're actually supposed to present news. Opinion is not supposed to take greater precedence than reporting, for one thing, and news personalities aren't supposed to have deep personal connections to the politicians they're discussing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeafTourette

#Phonepunk#

Gold Member
Sep 4, 2018
6,189
7,901
625
more Americans would watch international news shows from Canada, the UK and other countries
seems like a whole lot of time wasted watching the news lol. how many hours a day are we supposed to do this?

IMO people should be on their guard with any media they consume. it doesn't matter if it is Fox or CBS, either one has motives, either one is trying to sell you something. there is truth in there but there is also bullshit.

the onus needs to be on the consumer to keep a critical mind when viewing anything. this idea that there is a magical set of news media that always tells the truth and would solve all our problems if people just watched the right programs is fake and actually trains people to not think for themselves.
 
Last edited:

Aurelian

my friends call me "Cunty"
Feb 22, 2009
1,123
880
975
Ottawa, Canada
seems like a whole lot of time wasted watching the news lol. how many hours a day are we supposed to do this?

IMO people should be on their guard with any media they consume. it doesn't matter if it is Fox or CBS, either one has motives, either one is trying to sell you something. there is truth in there but there is also bullshit.

the onus needs to be on the consumer to keep a critical mind when viewing anything. this idea that there is a magical set of news media that always tells the truth and would solve all our problems if people just watched the right programs is fake and actually trains people to not think for themselves.
You don't have to watch non-stop, of course! Just, say, tune into something like the BBC or CBC, or even read their sites.

You should be on your guard no matter what you consume, but at the same time, you also have to recognize when to walk away and realize there's better. I just can't watch or read Fox for anything political these days knowing that it's almost literally a mouthpiece for Trump and the Republican party. And yes, I'll admit that I'm not fond of consuming much of CNN and MSNBC either. They're still more trustworthy than Fox, but I don't like having to wade through that much editorializing to get to the nugget of a story.

I look at it the way I did when I was teaching students to write critical essays. Yes, you have to think for yourself, but that also means weeding out the sources that are generally untrustworthy, even if they occasionally produce some truth. There are organizations that do a better job of striving for objectivity than others, and we should give them more of our attention.
 

merlinevo

Member
Apr 28, 2019
410
857
310
I'm not denying that other outlets have their heavy biases, but there's bias and then there's outright misrepresenting stories, which Fox does far more often. Fox is most definitely not the "most sane" of the bunch; this is the outlet that has kept Hannity on despite his peddling multiple known false conspiracies, regularly courts xenophobes, and sees no problem with its personalities having direct connections to politicians that create massive conflicts of interest.

I really wish that more Americans would watch international news shows from Canada, the UK and other countries, because it'd be an eye-opener. Not just because it'd provide a better look at the truth (including how often Fox News lies and distorts things), but because it'd present an example of how you're actually supposed to present news. Opinion is not supposed to take greater precedence than reporting, for one thing, and news personalities aren't supposed to have deep personal connections to the politicians they're discussing.
Incredibly dishonest and childish analysis of the subject.

You clearly have blinders on when it comes to objective examination of the "news", which is mostly just propaganda for big corporations' interest. News is more about entertaining than informing, and it is childish to think that news, irrespective of network, can provide unbias and impartial reporting without going against their parent companies' directive and interest. If you want to know what real news is, tune into CSPAN, your local education board TV broadcast, or just sit in at a city council meeting. These venues actually provide policy matters and facts without a filter. If you rather be entertained, tune into CNN, NBC, FOX.

You seem to also have a generous take when it comes to judging liberal media. How is Hannity worst than the race baiting Al Sharpton on MSNBC? Need I remind you that there is practically only one major conversative network(FOX) vs 4 or more liberal networks like CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, etc. You are anything but insightful or impartial.
 
Last edited:

Joe T.

Member
Oct 3, 2004
1,956
1,782
1,545
Montreal, Quebec
I'm not denying that other outlets have their heavy biases, but there's bias and then there's outright misrepresenting stories, which Fox does far more often. Fox is most definitely not the "most sane" of the bunch; this is the outlet that has kept Hannity on despite his peddling multiple known false conspiracies, regularly courts xenophobes, and sees no problem with its personalities having direct connections to politicians that create massive conflicts of interest.

I really wish that more Americans would watch international news shows from Canada, the UK and other countries, because it'd be an eye-opener. Not just because it'd provide a better look at the truth (including how often Fox News lies and distorts things), but because it'd present an example of how you're actually supposed to present news. Opinion is not supposed to take greater precedence than reporting, for one thing, and news personalities aren't supposed to have deep personal connections to the politicians they're discussing.
I'm not his biggest fan (too much hot air), but I don't see how the Hannity criticism works when the competition includes Anderson Cooper (much more balanced before 2015), Chris Cuomo (much better in the morning with a co-host), Don Lemon, Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes and Lawrence O'Donnell. Ingraham can be summed up as the female version of Hannity, but between the three networks Tucker Carlson comes ahead of the bunch as far as I'm concerned for giving opposing viewpoints a platform and touching on issues no one else will.

When I want slightly more grounded (and Canadian-specific) news I'll tune into CBC and CTV, but they often use reporting from ABC, NBC or CBS to cover US/international stories or parroting their talking points. The difference is that their panels tend to be more balanced than the ones on US networks, so they don't provide cover for Trudeau the same way panelists on US networks would for Obama, for example. A more recent example would be the way they handled a protest group where a new detention center was being built, the woman representing the group pressed on whether she would condemn the targeting of an architect whose car was burned down in front of his house by anarchists. I could be wrong, but the only media outlet I saw press anyone to condemn antifa for the attack in Tacoma was... Canada's "far right" Rebel Media.

If you aren't getting your news from both liberal and conservative sources you're going to wind up personifying the NPC meme. The goal is to make up your own mind, not relying on someone else to dictate how to think. Seek out all the info you can, even when it's coming from sources whose opinions you dislike/loathe.
 

#Phonepunk#

Gold Member
Sep 4, 2018
6,189
7,901
625
I look at it the way I did when I was teaching students to write critical essays. Yes, you have to think for yourself, but that also means weeding out the sources that are generally untrustworthy, even if they occasionally produce some truth. There are organizations that do a better job of striving for objectivity than others, and we should give them more of our attention.
IMO you learn just as much, maybe more, from an untrustworthy source. you are inherently skeptical, so you are trying to find the hidden context behind what they are saying. this is a deeper read. the personality of the writer and their biases is at the forefront of your read, making it MORE critical. seems like "weeding out" them would deprive your students of these exercises.

also what does "weeding out" mean? ignoring entirely? im not a fan of this. this seems like an anti-intellectual approach. IMO you should listen to everyone. everyone gets a chance to be heard. now, you can decide someone is bullshit, from hearing what they say, and this is fine. but to decide that before you hear them out, that is prejudice, and to validate that behavior via "weeding out" seems anti-intellectual.

honestly i don't see how NBC or the NYTimes, both of which have gotten caught lying about wars to the public and working directly with the W and Obama administrations to sell us all kinds of things, are more trustworthy than Fox. they are a different flavor. they are catering to a different demographic. but they are the same thing, they are entertainment news, they are both catering to hyper consumers. people who DO watch news all day. to pretend any of them are objective is folly. superficially, they are very different, but functionally, they serve the same masters. they each will lie for their side. it is for this reason that being open to hearing anyone and deciding for yourself is the most open & rational approach.
 
Last edited:

Aurelian

my friends call me "Cunty"
Feb 22, 2009
1,123
880
975
Ottawa, Canada
IMO you learn just as much, maybe more, from an untrustworthy source. you are inherently skeptical, so you are trying to find the hidden context behind what they are saying. this is a deeper read. the personality of the writer and their biases is at the forefront of your read, making it MORE critical. seems like "weeding out" them would deprive your students of these exercises.

also what does "weeding out" mean? ignoring entirely? im not a fan of this. this seems like an anti-intellectual approach. IMO you should listen to everyone. everyone gets a chance to be heard. now, you can decide someone is bullshit, from hearing what they say, and this is fine. but to decide that before you hear them out, that is prejudice, and to validate that behavior via "weeding out" seems anti-intellectual.

honestly i don't see how NBC or the NYTimes, both of which have gotten caught lying about wars to the public and working directly with the W and Obama administrations to sell us all kinds of things, are more trustworthy than Fox. they are a different flavor. they are catering to a different demographic. but they are the same thing, they are entertainment news, they are both catering to hyper consumers. people who DO watch news all day. to pretend any of them are objective is folly. superficially, they are very different, but functionally, they serve the same masters. they each will lie for their side. it is for this reason that being open to hearing anyone and deciding for yourself is the most open & rational approach.
Weeding out means looking at sources and deciding whether or not to use them. That doesn't mean never looking at them, but it does mean recognizing that a given source shouldn't be used when looking for credible information because the chances of finding reliable data are slim. If you were a scientist, would you turn to a data gathering method that produced useful data 90 percent of the time, or keep turning to the one that produces 10 percent just in case there's a tidbit?

I'd consider an approach like the above quite intellectual, because it accepts a simple truth: that some observations are more factual than others. "Everyone gets a chance to be heard" doesn't fly, because it makes the incorrect assumption that being particularly vocal or self-assured is the same as being right. Just because Fox News lies to you really, really confidently doesn't change that it's lying, for example.

And on the accuracy of sources: it's all about frequency and overall goals. Yes, the NBC and NYT have had significant problems, but they both have demonstrable track records that indicate they're overall trustworthy. They're willing to paint unflattering pictures of politicians across the spectrum; they rely on hard data and observable evidence; when they have leaks, they're by and large accurate. It's still important to examine their reporting and not to automatically trust everything they say, but you can count on them in a way you just can't with Fox. For goodness' sake, I just gave an example where Fox not only made a false claim about Ilhan Omar, but did so in a malicious way that NBC and NYT would never even consider.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeafTourette

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
24,263
24,773
1,075
Like Jussie Smollett and RussiaGate right?
And preggo Smolletta fraud in FL, and Covington, and Kavanaugh, etc., etc.

It’s like the some on left just wants these atrocities and racist instances to be real so damned bad. I wonder why that is? 🤔
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: SpartanN92

Boss Mog

Member
Dec 12, 2013
5,087
4,527
740
Don't know if 100% true, but this chart details the accusations

well:
So why isn't she being arrested and removed from office immediately? This is what I don't understand, we have all the evidence, lock that bitch up, then strip her of her citizenship and deport her when she gets out of prison.
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
9,575
10,981
805
So why isn't she being arrested and removed from office immediately? This is what I don't understand, we have all the evidence, lock that bitch up, then strip her of her citizenship and deport her when she gets out of prison.
Last i heard, and it wasn't definitive, was that she naturalized as a minor [at 17] so may not be responsible for 'errors' on her paperwork, since they'd be signed by her father/guardian, not her. Basically, you're dealing with a situation where someone came in as a refugee from a place that doesn't exactly keep good paperwork on their side, etc. The general belief of the person [who was a naturalization lawyer, but not completely versed on this specific case], was that while something may happen to her for the later fraud, it was unlikely her citizenship would come into question.
 

Teletraan1

Member
May 17, 2012
6,148
2,910
670
Canada
They can get her for perjury and fraud. When she was divorcing her brother she claimed under oath she had not seen him and was unaware of his whereabouts as a reason for the divorce. There are photographs that contradict that testimony. All of the clouds surrounding her citizenship were when she was a minor.
 

Panda1

Member
Jan 12, 2010
1,086
572
935
This is the most racist thread...guys she is Muslim and a woman therefore perfect...what kind of clown world do you live in when you think a woman and a Muslim one that could even think let alone do anything illegal. If anything these are Zionist rumours being pushed by the racist white patriarchy.
You should all be ashamed of your self.
May Allah forgive your ignorance
 

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
6,528
7,183
880
This is the most racist thread...guys she is Muslim and a woman therefore perfect...what kind of clown world do you live in when you think a woman and a Muslim one that could even think let alone do anything illegal. If anything these are Zionist rumours being pushed by the racist white patriarchy.
You should all be ashamed of your self.
May Allah forgive your ignorance
We are just being hypnotized by the Benjamins because some people did something!
 

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
6,528
7,183
880
I don't think she should be held accountable for when she was a 10 year old refugee. Even if she changed her name or made up relatives she was 10 years old, thats on her father or guardian. I don't expect a 10 year old fleeing from a war torn country to have any idea about immigration fraud.

Now what she did as an adult is fair game. And we can be honest, if she was a Trump staffer Mueller would of tried her for her process crimes and she would probably be facing decades in jail if not outright deportation. She lied on her taxes, perjured herself and was a bigamist. There is a very good chance she also committed immigration fraud and finance fraud with the university when she married Elmi in a christian ceremony. Also to note she lived in the same house with Elmi and Hirsi when she was married to both. That technically may be polygamy.

This is the type of scandal that would take down most politicians, but since she is in a one of the highest levels on the oppression hierarchy she gets off scott free and can push back on any of these by simply using the R word.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Panda1

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
6,528
7,183
880
This is what happens when you mess with Trump.

I think I hear Stevie Wonder around somewhere because these be a lot Skeletons in her closet.

Though traffic violations and her doing a protest aren't really a big deal, but I agree with the articles conclusion

The sheer number of these violations demonstrates that Ilhan Omar believes, apparently with good reason, that she simply need not have any regard for Minnesota law. And when one takes into account the trespassing arrest, the campaign finance violations, and the marriage to her brother, a disturbing pattern emerges. Does this Minnesota lawmaker have any respect at all for the law? …

Its becoming clear that like Erika Thomas she thinks her victim status in the oppression hierarchy gives her special privileges.

I just wonder how many years in jail a guy like Cohen or Manafort would of gotten for this rap sheet? 20? 30? Death penalty?

This ones for you Ilhan.

 
Last edited:

Greedings

Member
May 23, 2016
1,795
1,208
440
With the name stuff:
I work with a few Arabic and Pakistani people and they all have dodgey names. Their birth name is different to the one on their documents. Their passport is different from their visa. They change their name almost at will. Some use titles as names (Syed is a common problem, which is often used as a name but is actually a title, as far as I understand meaning: descended from Muhammad).
I get the feeling they don’t quite understand how important a name is in the west. Maybe there’s some cultural difference, and they see names are more fluid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeafTourette
Mar 14, 2018
180
216
230
With the name stuff:
I work with a few Arabic and Pakistani people and they all have dodgey names. Their birth name is different to the one on their documents. Their passport is different from their visa. They change their name almost at will. Some use titles as names (Syed is a common problem, which is often used as a name but is actually a title, as far as I understand meaning: descended from Muhammad).
I get the feeling they don’t quite understand how important a name is in the west. Maybe there’s some cultural difference, and they see names are more fluid.
lol I've notice the same thing. I think 'not realising the importance' is a very charitable interpretation. It's often to do with getting round the rules...