I'm pretty sure it can be capped with this , 2014 is completely meaningless to the story they were proven to be false about. So stop trying to spin the fuck out of the story to cover your ass, you were wrong, admit it. [Reply]
2014 doesn't matter anymore unless a pattern exists. There does not seem to be any obvious signs of that. Just speculation at best. At this point, the NFL isn't doing anyone any favors not releasing their ruling. Once it's released most news sources will move on unless something groundbreaking happens. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Codered:
2014 doesn't matter anymore unless a pattern exists. There does not seem to be any obvious signs of that. Just speculation at best. At this point, the NFL isn't doing anyone any favors not releasing their ruling. Once it's released most news sources will move on unless something groundbreaking happens.
He plead guilty and paid the penalty for 2014, that matter from a legal standpoint is resolved. But CP can't go around claiming he was innocent back then when he said the opposite, even though we would all feel better if he hadn't abused her.
And with respect to the Star piece, they just pointed out that it's typical for even admitted abusers to later claim, and sometimes truly believe, that they never did anything wrong. Doesn't necessarily mean that describes Hill, but it's still true. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Eleazar:
He plead guilty and paid the penalty for 2014, that matter from a legal standpoint is resolved. But CP can't go around claiming he was innocent back then when he said the opposite, even though we would all feel better if he hadn't abused her.
And with respect to the Star piece, they just pointed out that it's typical for even admitted abusers to later claim, and sometimes truly believe, that they never did anything wrong. Doesn't necessarily mean that describes Hill, but it's still true.
No one here is saying that this isn't true, so why do you keep fighting that straw man? The point is that the editorial board slanted the narrative without saying anything whatsoever about any of the factors that don't make Hill "look even worse." Because doing that would not generate a sexy, click-worthy headline. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Eleazar:
He plead guilty and paid the penalty for 2014, that matter from a legal standpoint is resolved. But CP can't go around claiming he was innocent back then when he said the opposite, even though we would all feel better if he hadn't abused her.
And with respect to the Star piece, they just pointed out that it's typical for even admitted abusers to later claim, and sometimes truly believe, that they never did anything wrong. Doesn't necessarily mean that describes Hill, but it's still true.
Plain and simple. The article is a character assassination on Hill to justify their overall bad reporting on the recent issue, which looks to not be anywhere close to everything they made it out to be or it wanted it to be. [Reply]
Originally Posted by mr. tegu:
Plain and simple. The article is a character assassination on Hill to justify their overall bad reporting on the recent issue, which looks to not be anywhere close to everything they made it out to be or it wanted it to be.
It's an opinion piece. The facts are correct. The rest is opinion. You can agree, disagree, be triggered by it, or disregard it. Up to you :-) [Reply]
Originally Posted by Eleazar:
It's an opinion piece. The facts are correct. The rest is opinion. You can agree, disagree, be triggered by it, or disregard it. Up to you :-)
Yes it's an opinion piece, but when it's filled with statements like this, they are intentionally trying to pass off opinion as fact:
"What Espinal was trying to get was the audio equivalent of that video."
Oh really? That's quite an assumption. Two can play that game.
"What Espinal was trying to get is leverage to extort Hill, because she's a sociopath and knows Hill is leaving her."
Originally Posted by Eleazar:
It's an opinion piece. The facts are correct. The rest is opinion. You can agree, disagree, be triggered by it, or disregard it. Up to you :-)
It’s a character assignation on Hill specifically. If it was only about facts and opinions they wouldn’t omit every fact that could possibly contribute to both sides of the story or possibly make Hill seem better. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Eleazar:
He plead guilty and paid the penalty for 2014, that matter from a legal standpoint is resolved. But CP can't go around claiming he was innocent back then when he said the opposite, even though we would all feel better if he hadn't abused her.
And with respect to the Star piece, they just pointed out that it's typical for even admitted abusers to later claim, and sometimes truly believe, that they never did anything wrong. Doesn't necessarily mean that describes Hill, but it's still true.
I didn't know you were a witness to the situation....good to know [Reply]
Originally Posted by Hog's Gone Fishin:
I just can't understand a Newspaper intentionally trying to bring down their Home team.
I don't think any of those people are from Kansas City.....they view anything like that as an opportunity to blow this shithole for a bigger more liberal city. [Reply]
Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath15:
Thought: If the full audio makes him look worse, why the fuck did KCTV5 edit it?
You know the answer to that...because it doesn't. This just more bullshit spin to try to get people to read it and agree with them because they they made everyone think he broke his sons arm so why not this? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mecca:
You know the answer to that...because it doesn't. This just more bullshit spin to try to get people to read it and agree with them because they they made everyone think he broke his sons arm so why not this?
Of course. Just wanted to throw it out there.
Meanwhile, The Star is getting BBQ’d on Twitter. [Reply]
