Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All the 183 "have been charged with 205 BUSHFIRE-related offenses". The 24 were just the people "charged with deliberately setting fires" .... which boggles the mind as most arsonists will claimed it was unintentional or an accident.
...Speaking of "accident", conveniently enough, 53 were caught and charged with STARTING A FIRE in violation of the fire ban (-though there was insufficient evidence to charge arson), and 47 more have been caught and charged with discarding lit matches or other burning objects to the ground (but again, insufficient proof of deliberate arson), and the other 59 are not mentioned.... nor is even ONE SINGLE natural cause.
Let us read what it said...
**************************************************
Of the 183, 24 people have been charged with deliberately setting fires. According to police, of the 183, another “53 people have had legal actions for allegedly failing to comply with a total fire ban,” and an additional “47 people have had legal actions for allegedly discarding a lighted cigarette or match on land.”
Local press reports indicate that not all of the people charged committed acts that contributed to the raging brushfires. For example, a man in the Sydney suburb of Wallacia was fined for lighting a fire to make a cup of tea. That blaze was extinguished by firefighters. Another man was cited for lighting a fire to cook food in the town of Tarro. That fire was also put out by responding crews.
*************************************************
So there were 24 charged with setting a fire and some of those had nothing to do with the bush fires.
The rise of the so called "fact checking" websites is a predictable signal of decline in our journalism institution.
After the long-problematic MSM's embarrassing role as democrat propaganda wing in the 2016 election season, and one of its forward platoons since the election, trust in the institution of journalism is understandably at a record low. Our media has mortgaged their credibility, now and in the future, for a failed attempt to get Hillary Clinton elected.
Doubling down in an attempt to claim their lost credibility, by creating obviously fake "fact checking" progressive-propaganda sites that Google promotes in its newsfeed, is the type of "bet the house against all odds" gamble that people make when they have literally nothing left to lose. Because they have already lost. Open institutional corruption, which a wide swath of the public is not only aware of but can witness every day, is a clear sign of decline and that the institution itself is both aware of it and lacks the ability or Will to reverse it.
The rise of the so called "fact checking" websites is a predictable signal of decline in our journalism institution.
After the long-problematic MSM's embarrassing role as democrat propaganda wing in the 2016 election season, and one of its forward platoons since the election, trust in the institution of journalism is understandably at a record low. Our media has mortgaged their credibility, now and in the future, for a failed attempt to get Hillary Clinton elected.
Doubling down in an attempt to claim their lost credibility, by creating obviously fake "fact checking" progressive-propaganda sites that Google promotes in its newsfeed, is the type of "bet the house against all odds" gamble that people make when they have literally nothing left to lose. Because they have already lost. Open institutional corruption, which a wide swath of the public is not only aware of but can witness every day, is a clear sign of decline and that the institution itself is both aware of it and lacks the ability or Will to reverse it.
I use sites like that. I have yet to see them not cite their sources. I disregard any information that can't be verified. I follow the source off the website to verify. That's how fact-checking works. They'd get called out pretty quick because that website is designed for people who WILL fact check.
I use sites like that. I have yet to see them not cite their sources. I disregard any information that can't be verified. I follow the source off the website to verify. That's how fact-checking works. They'd get called out pretty quick because that website is designed for people who WILL fact check.
Please. Fact check websites are open, obvious propaganda that generally rely on the old MSM standby: the lie by omission. I generally know what they are omitting merely by reading the headline, so I'm unsure how you miss it through your supposedly thorough fact checking process. You can "fact check" your cited sources all that you like. To reveal a lie by omission takes a truly open peer review process. "That's (actually) how fact checking works". And public, open peer review is exactly what the MSM will never subject themselves to. Because liars and propagandists cannot afford to be truly open to "fact check" criticism.
Where will they get "called out"? Through the MSM whose propaganda narratives it is the purpose of the "fact checkers" to support? The purpose of the modern MSM is to dictate propaganda and these ridiculous fact checking sites are a desperate, and quite obviously corrupt gambit to very shakily give an illusion of (non-existent) credibility of the MSM after they showed a clear will to destroy it.
Please. Fact check websites are open, obvious propaganda that generally rely on the old MSM standby: the lie by omission. I generally know what they are omitting merely by reading the headline, so I'm unsure how you miss it through your supposedly thorough fact checking process. You can "fact check" your cited sources all that you like. To reveal a lie by omission takes a truly open peer review process. "That's (actually) how fact checking works". And public, open peer review is exactly what the MSM will never subject themselves to. Because liars and propagandists cannot afford to be truly open to "fact check" criticism.
Where will they get "called out"? Through the MSM whose propaganda narratives it is the purpose of the "fact checkers" to support? The purpose of the modern MSM is to dictate propaganda and these ridiculous fact checking sites are a desperate, and quite obviously corrupt gambit to very shakily give an illusion of (non-existent) credibility of the MSM after they showed a clear will to destroy it.
I use those sites when a claim has been made such as a misquote or a doctored photo.
I like watching debates between 2 people who both know their stuff when I am ignorant on a topic. I don't think that can be stopped.
Some of you need to learn to read and research the difference between a refugee and an asylum seeker. I had a good friend who was an asylum seeker. She could not go to an American embassy in a foreign country, she had to present herself here in the US on American soil at a port of entry and apply for asylum. It was not for economic regions. She was fleeing a war torn country, the kind where buildings are being blown apart by bombs and missiles and soldiers are killing their own countrymen. Blood in the streets. She was granted asylum and is an American citizen now. Many of you must live on an island and have no idea whats its like to wonder if you are going to live to see the sunrise or you are going to be blown into little bits. The world is a very nasty place and so many of you have no idea how lucky or privileged you are.
If a story favors a liberal topic they go with the facts and trumpet them. If the story favors a conservative topic they will degrade, insult, manipulate and play the "Semantics Game" to deny it.
Perfect Example;
The fires in Australia have been touted as being the holy grail of global warming. When Inforwars published the undeniable FACT, they the fires were actually started by arson, and not natural causes, Snopes looked into it.
Snopes immediately called the claim "FALSE" and proceeded to frame the original claim using derogatory comments like "conspiracy site", "denialism" and "false report";
"conspiracy site InfoWars that spreads climate change denialism, falsely reported that “nearly 200 people” were arrested in Australia for “deliberately” starting bushfires."
Snopes then went on to explain why it was FALSE (you ready for this?);
"Police in New South Wales released a statement disclosing that since Nov. 8, 2019, 183 people, including 40 juveniles, have been charged with 205 bushfire-related offenses." And that "not all of the people charged committed acts that contributed to the raging brushfires"
THATS RIGHT, the claim was deemed "FALSE", not because it wasn't started by arson, but because Infowars said "nearly 200" which Snopes decided is not the same as 183, and because not all 183 contributed or did it "deliberately"
Snopes could have said it was true that it was Arson and not global warming that started the fires, and then nit-picked the semantics of "nearly" or the amount who did it "deliberately", but of course that goes against the narrative of global warming, so Snopes degraded the messenger and then labeled the entire story as FALSE.
"Nearly 200" Australians were arrested in late 2019 and early 2020 for deliberately setting bushfires."
I didn't see where the claim was deemed false because 183 is less than 200. It's close enough and could be attributed to rounding. It looks like the claim was deemed false because it said "deliberately starting bushfires"
Quote:
“53 people have had legal actions for allegedly failing to comply with a total fire ban,” and an additional “47 people have had legal actions for allegedly discarding a lighted cigarette or match on land.”
"Nearly 200" Australians were arrested in late 2019 and early 2020 for deliberately setting bushfires."
I didn't see where the claim was deemed false because 183 is less than 200. It's close enough and could be attributed to rounding. It looks like the claim was deemed false because it said "deliberately starting bushfires"
I looked it up to make sure Snopes represented the claim accurately:
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
