The Fake News Depot
- Thread starter muttly
- Start date
It's a filler in a conversation so they can bide time and come up with a contrived or phony response.
I've seen that, too. But it happens like ALL the time, especially with people who are there to say something and they know exactly what they are going to say to the question asked (see below). Starting a sentence with "so" has become more and more prevalent over the last 4 or 5 years, almost replacing the Valley Girl-esque "like." I notice with a lot of people, but it seems with Tucker Carlson it's virtually every liberal guest and virtually with every response.
You'll notice it more and more now, sooooo, sorry.
When people start a sentence with "so," especially when answering a direct question, there are several things at play. The first is, it's insulting to the person you're talking to. It comes off as, “I’m going to dumb this down so someone like you can have at least a small chance of understanding what I'm saying, and in comprehending the importance of what I do and how important I am.” The listener probably won't even realize it, but if the conversation goes on very long and has a lot of "so" sentences in response to questions, the questioner will soon lose patience and begin to view the person as the pompous tool they probably are.
Another thing is, when you answer a question beginning with "so" it completely undermines your credibility (which is also why the questioner will soon lose patience). The “so” setup announces... "here comes the well-rehearsed part of my discussion!"
And, it shows that you're not entirely all that comfortable with what you are saying. Rather than just plainly answering the question, you’re relying on the crutch of a well-practiced blurb. Usually, whatever follows “so” is a carefully crafted sentence, evolved and honed over many iterations and reactions.
Here's one example, and it's by no means an isolated or unusual example. At the third "so" it just becomes hilarious.
I've seen that, too. But it happens like ALL the time, especially with people who are there to say something and they know exactly what they are going to say to the question asked (see below). Starting a sentence with "so" has become more and more prevalent over the last 4 or 5 years, almost replacing the Valley Girl-esque "like." I notice with a lot of people, but it seems with Tucker Carlson it's virtually every liberal guest and virtually with every response.
You'll notice it more and more now, sooooo, sorry.
When people start a sentence with "so," especially when answering a direct question, there are several things at play. The first is, it's insulting to the person you're talking to. It comes off as, “I’m going to dumb this down so someone like you can have at least a small chance of understanding what I'm saying, and in comprehending the importance of what I do and how important I am.” The listener probably won't even realize it, but if the conversation goes on very long and has a lot of "so" sentences in response to questions, the questioner will soon lose patience and begin to view the person as the pompous tool they probably are.
Another thing is, when you answer a question beginning with "so" it completely undermines your credibility (which is also why the questioner will soon lose patience). The “so” setup announces... "here comes the well-rehearsed part of my discussion!"
And, it shows that you're not entirely all that comfortable with what you are saying. Rather than just plainly answering the question, you’re relying on the crutch of a well-practiced blurb. Usually, whatever follows “so” is a carefully crafted sentence, evolved and honed over many iterations and reactions.
Here's one example, and it's by no means an isolated or unusual example. At the third "so" it just becomes hilarious.
So,..what's your point?
Looks like he kept reading off of talking points during the interview
Miller wore on me over the years. He was having to try too hard to connect the dots with his tortured analogies. Back in the day he was pretty much batting a thousand with those things, but over the last few years he's succumbed to SNL Syndrome, where 9 out of every 10 bits fall flat.
I do miss Bill a little. Much more so when he was giving his talking points with reasoned and well thought out ideas. But as soon as he started talking to someone, he became a little too much to take at times.
I do like Tucker, even though near the end of too many interviews he's basically failed to have his prey take the bait and become ensnared. Like, in the video posted above, dood really never called DeVos a bigot, but Tucker was determined to make it so. If Tuck had just stuck with the main line of questioning, about how the lack of free education dollars affects black folks the most, and therefore it's racist to take those dollars away, he could have exposed that crap for what it was (the math really and truly doesn't add up on that one). He started down that path with the "it affects people of all colors" but he moved on to the bigot tact.
Did you know that tall people make more money than short people do? Don't hear the left whining about that, because they haven't figured out how to play the race or gender card with that. <snort>
I do miss Bill a little. Much more so when he was giving his talking points with reasoned and well thought out ideas. But as soon as he started talking to someone, he became a little too much to take at times.
I do like Tucker, even though near the end of too many interviews he's basically failed to have his prey take the bait and become ensnared. Like, in the video posted above, dood really never called DeVos a bigot, but Tucker was determined to make it so. If Tuck had just stuck with the main line of questioning, about how the lack of free education dollars affects black folks the most, and therefore it's racist to take those dollars away, he could have exposed that crap for what it was (the math really and truly doesn't add up on that one). He started down that path with the "it affects people of all colors" but he moved on to the bigot tact.
Did you know that tall people make more money than short people do? Don't hear the left whining about that, because they haven't figured out how to play the race or gender card with that. <snort>
Good points. I think Carson will get a little better over time since this is sort of new to him. See what happens. True on Oreilly. Talking points was his best part and Watters world. I still liked Miller but you are right, he was better a few years ago. Still good live though.
Here's some First Class FAKE NEWS for ya. It's all over the place, but I will single out NBC News and Slate, as they are rather representative of the agendized news in the MSM.
First, NBC News:
The story is about a 9th Circuit judge's comments over the deportation of an illegal alien, an undocumented immigrant, of you will, who came to the US at age 15 and has lived here for 28 years, has 3 kids and a wife (American citizens, all) and is a fine, upstanding businessman coffee farmer in Hawaii. Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco called the deportation of Andres Magana Ortiz "inhumane."
A Circuit Court judge (or even a bunch of them) really can't order a stay of deportation. They don't have the legal authority to do that, as long as the immigration court's legal procedures and proceedings were lawful.
"President Trump has claimed that his immigration policies would target the 'bad hombres," said Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. The government decision in the immigration case "shows that even the 'good hombres' are not safe. He will be returned to Mexico, having spent 28 years successfully building a life and family in this country. The government forces us to participate in ripping apart a family. I concur as a judge, but as a citizen I do not."
The NBC story goes into great detail about this wonderful immigrant and his family, including how immigration authorities began removal proceedings in 2011, but he was granted permission to stay. They left out who the president was in 2011, but I'm pretty sure it was Obama. They also didn't mention that he was granted permission to stay under an Obama program that was struck down by the Supreme Court. They never mention, not even a little hint, at why deportation proceeding began in 2011. That's odd, don't you think? I do. But if they did, it would blow apart the narrative of "even the good hombres are being deported, and it's ripping families apart."
Then on to Salon:
Where they do pretty much the same thing, only they lay it on a little thicker. "His wife and children are American citizens, and he is a businessman in Hawaii who has worked closely with the U.S. government to help fight pests that destroy coffee crops."
OMG, he's worked with the U.S. friggin' government to help fight coffee crop destroying pests. This is same U.S. friggin' government who are now ripping his family apart! Oh, the humanity!
And if he is deported, he cannot return to the US for TEN YEARS! OMG. Humanity, again.
They go on to state, "Under the Obama administration, Magana Ortiz was permitted to remain in the U.S. and pursue a path to legal residency. But shortly after President Donald Trump took office and ramped up deportations, Magana Ortiz was ordered to report for removal." Thaaaaat's a little disingenuous. Ortiz had no shot, zero, at legal residency. The Supreme Court said so, and so did ICE. And, Ortiz was ordered for final removal back in November, not "shortly after Trump took office."
The slate piece then moves on to the judge's comments and about generally how big a bully Trump is. The end with, "Federal judges can force the executive to comply with the law [poke, poke], but they cannot save the country from lawful, if inhuman, overreach [ripping families apart, oh, the humanity]. Congress gave the president dangerously broad power to deport undocumented immigration. (sic) Until it curbs that authority, individuals like Magana Ortiz will receive little help from the courts." Actually, the power of deporting unauthorized immigrants is codified in the US Code of Federal Regulations, not some broad authority given to the president. The president's job is to merely enforce the laws that Congress writes. Obama overstepped his power, actually, when he refused to do just that very thing.
What was left out of these stories, you might ask? Why were deportation proceedings initiated in 2011?
Two, not one, but two convictions for DUI.
Whenever you see a story about some wonderful non-citizen who is pure as the driven snow and who has been living here for decades getting deported, you can bet yer ass that their ONLY offense is NOT being entering the country illegally or overstaying their visa. There's something else there, something that is cause for deportation.
First, NBC News:
The story is about a 9th Circuit judge's comments over the deportation of an illegal alien, an undocumented immigrant, of you will, who came to the US at age 15 and has lived here for 28 years, has 3 kids and a wife (American citizens, all) and is a fine, upstanding businessman coffee farmer in Hawaii. Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco called the deportation of Andres Magana Ortiz "inhumane."
A Circuit Court judge (or even a bunch of them) really can't order a stay of deportation. They don't have the legal authority to do that, as long as the immigration court's legal procedures and proceedings were lawful.
"President Trump has claimed that his immigration policies would target the 'bad hombres," said Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. The government decision in the immigration case "shows that even the 'good hombres' are not safe. He will be returned to Mexico, having spent 28 years successfully building a life and family in this country. The government forces us to participate in ripping apart a family. I concur as a judge, but as a citizen I do not."
The NBC story goes into great detail about this wonderful immigrant and his family, including how immigration authorities began removal proceedings in 2011, but he was granted permission to stay. They left out who the president was in 2011, but I'm pretty sure it was Obama. They also didn't mention that he was granted permission to stay under an Obama program that was struck down by the Supreme Court. They never mention, not even a little hint, at why deportation proceeding began in 2011. That's odd, don't you think? I do. But if they did, it would blow apart the narrative of "even the good hombres are being deported, and it's ripping families apart."
Then on to Salon:
Where they do pretty much the same thing, only they lay it on a little thicker. "His wife and children are American citizens, and he is a businessman in Hawaii who has worked closely with the U.S. government to help fight pests that destroy coffee crops."
OMG, he's worked with the U.S. friggin' government to help fight coffee crop destroying pests. This is same U.S. friggin' government who are now ripping his family apart! Oh, the humanity!
And if he is deported, he cannot return to the US for TEN YEARS! OMG. Humanity, again.
They go on to state, "Under the Obama administration, Magana Ortiz was permitted to remain in the U.S. and pursue a path to legal residency. But shortly after President Donald Trump took office and ramped up deportations, Magana Ortiz was ordered to report for removal." Thaaaaat's a little disingenuous. Ortiz had no shot, zero, at legal residency. The Supreme Court said so, and so did ICE. And, Ortiz was ordered for final removal back in November, not "shortly after Trump took office."
The slate piece then moves on to the judge's comments and about generally how big a bully Trump is. The end with, "Federal judges can force the executive to comply with the law [poke, poke], but they cannot save the country from lawful, if inhuman, overreach [ripping families apart, oh, the humanity]. Congress gave the president dangerously broad power to deport undocumented immigration. (sic) Until it curbs that authority, individuals like Magana Ortiz will receive little help from the courts." Actually, the power of deporting unauthorized immigrants is codified in the US Code of Federal Regulations, not some broad authority given to the president. The president's job is to merely enforce the laws that Congress writes. Obama overstepped his power, actually, when he refused to do just that very thing.
What was left out of these stories, you might ask? Why were deportation proceedings initiated in 2011?
Two, not one, but two convictions for DUI.
Whenever you see a story about some wonderful non-citizen who is pure as the driven snow and who has been living here for decades getting deported, you can bet yer ass that their ONLY offense is NOT being entering the country illegally or overstaying their visa. There's something else there, something that is cause for deportation.
Won't be long, Hispanics tend to be shorter.
Is this women an Idiot? Any 6th grader knows how tidal forces work.This is totally fake but it's still funny as hell!
Did you see where I said it was fake?
