Okay - that’s obviously bad, but even the Fox News website tells the facts much of the time - they just bury the hell out of them in spin. What specifically is the spin here?
The spin is that the government is unjustified in the restrictions on recreational activities, similar to how it was unjustified in the restrictions during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, or requiring vaccinations, etc.
Outside the “snitch” headline, nowhere do I see that stated - or even implied. I hate right-wing spin as much as any sane person, but I also try to be fair. The article proper didn’t contain a single thing that screamed “bullshit” to me.
So Im just saying seems a bit unreasonable. M not talking about the veracity. I don’t have the background on the reporting site to say anything about it
Just a reminder that the Western Standard is a right wing source with accuracy and credibility aspiring to that of Fox Entertainment.
Okay - that’s obviously bad, but even the Fox News website tells the facts much of the time - they just bury the hell out of them in spin. What specifically is the spin here?
The spin is that the government is unjustified in the restrictions on recreational activities, similar to how it was unjustified in the restrictions during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, or requiring vaccinations, etc.
Vaccinations save lives, and are completely justified. Stop listening to conspiracy theorist idiots with no scientific or medical training.
I believe you’ve misunderstood me. I am fully pro-vaccine.
Yes, I completely misinterpreted your comment.
No no no, fight! The Internet is at stake; don’t be civil.
Outside the “snitch” headline, nowhere do I see that stated - or even implied. I hate right-wing spin as much as any sane person, but I also try to be fair. The article proper didn’t contain a single thing that screamed “bullshit” to me.
The total ban on hiking and camping very unreasonable. And hard to enforce.
The ban on anything flame related totally justified, and most follow it
Agreed. I don’t know why you’re saying that in response to a conversation regarding the article’s veracity, however.
So Im just saying seems a bit unreasonable. M not talking about the veracity. I don’t have the background on the reporting site to say anything about it