hill_William wrote:
Meanwhile, on the 'new' thread for brainwashed people:

Quote:

EERY wrote:
Illegal Southwest border crossings were down 40% last month
http://www.localnews8.com/news/politi ... talk-is-working/384919050

Hard hitting journalism straight from the source in Idaho. Nothing against Idaho but - nowhere near the Southern Border. I suppose one needs to search long and hard for appropriately positive stories on the trainwreck Danagerous Donald Adminsitration, yes?

hill_William wrote:
Quote:

EERY wrote:
Was originally a WSJ article, but you have to be a paying subscriber to read the full article. I just did everyone a favor and found a similar article for free. Nice try though.... well not really.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.wsj.com ... trump-policies-1489027350

So you're suggesting it's OK to steal content from the Wall Street Journal? Not very Republicrat of you.

hill_William wrote:
Quote:

EERY wrote:
Quote:

hill_William wrote:
Quote:

EERY wrote:
Was originally a WSJ article, but you have to be a paying subscriber to read the full article. I just did everyone a favor and found a similar article for free. Nice try though.... well not really.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.wsj.com ... trump-policies-1489027350

So you're suggesting it's OK to steal content from the Wall Street Journal? Not very Republicrat of you.

Are you suggesting that an Idaho news station isn't allowed to report on facts readily available to anyone?

Moving forward, when posting 'JoeSchmo[at]nobody.net' type links - will you continue to expect folks to research your sources before replying just in case you were secretly referring to other outlets? Once again, you've attempted to shift the burden of proof to your opponent. Not a good look.

Example: 'I'm outraged you didn't know my JoeSchmo source actually came from The Times of London.' It's a serious question of credibility.

Nice trap ... not really.

EERY wrote:
Quote:

hill_William wrote:
Quote:

EERY wrote:
Quote:

hill_William wrote:
Quote:

EERY wrote:
Was originally a WSJ article, but you have to be a paying subscriber to read the full article. I just did everyone a favor and found a similar article for free. Nice try though.... well not really.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.wsj.com ... trump-policies-1489027350

So you're suggesting it's OK to steal content from the Wall Street Journal? Not very Republicrat of you.

Are you suggesting that an Idaho news station isn't allowed to report on facts readily available to anyone?

Moving forward, when posting 'JoeSchmo[at]nobody.net' type links - will you continue to expect folks to research your sources before replying just in case you were secretly referring to other outlets? Once again, you've attempted to shift the burden of proof to your opponent. Not a good look.

Example: 'I'm outraged you didn't know my JoeSchmo source actually came from The Times of London.' It's a serious question of credibility.

Nice trap ... not really.

I don't expect you to do a d@mn thing, but post links that show up in your Marxist intolerant left stink bubble.

I wasn't outraged. Just assisting you out of your ignorance.

Yet again you fail to refute the content of the article, so you twist the debate to the source. You are starting to build a track record of this, which leaves me to wonder if it is due to a lack of principle or depth.

What trap? I was just stating facts. "Nice trap... not really" Did you think of this comeback all by yourself? How original!... not really

EERY wrote:
Quote:

hill_William wrote:
Two interesting pieces in Wired this morning:

On Wikileaks: '...it has unleashed a cloud of confusion that makes it hard for experts to discern the facts and easy for non-experts to see whatever they want.'

Link

A reporter tried living on Dangerous Donald's media diet: 'the logical conclusion of what happens when the President of the United States seems to believe everything he hears—and when he limits what he hears to what he wants to hear.'

Link

Have a great day!

Issie Lapowsky, now there is some quality fair and balanced journalism. (SIC) Pretty much the entire body of her work consists of the words racist, supremacist, and alt right. She makes her dime writing articles for dumb down liberal types.

Would you be interested in discussing the content I presented above or would you prefer continuing to take the easy way out? Just curious. Up to you. I'm fine either way.

wvufan1818 wrote:
Typos and sources are more serious than the content, unless of course it's an alt-left fascist source then he is all for it. Lol. Classic liberalism (mental illness)

eer44fan wrote:
Quote:

wvufan1818 wrote:
Typos and sources are more serious than the content, unless of course it's an alt-left fascist source then he is all for it. Lol. Classic liberalism (mental illness)

Actually it's not classic liberalism at all. Bork did a great job of defining classic liberalism in Slouching Toward Gomorrah. Most of the left leaning diatribes posted here follow the Hayden - SDS model, which is very far removed from classic liberalism.

EERY wrote:
Quote:

Would you be interested in discussing the content I presented above or would you prefer continuing to take the easy way out? Just curious. Up to you. I'm fine either way.

Great question! Yes I would be willing to discuss this article in further detail, as well as the claims I made about the CONTENT of Issie Lapowsky's full body of work.

I will also go into detail about my claims about some of the posters on this site disputing the source and not the content, by basing their viewpoints not by the content of the source's work, but by comedian/media types who put out clips that are predominantly taken out of context.

This write up will take some research, and I'm not sure exactly how long it will take to be thorough on all points. I will get back to you as soon as I can on this matter.

If I am willing to base an argument on such a premise, I should be willing to back it up. Rendering the amount of time that it is going to take to submit all this information, is the reason I never bothered to do so in the past. Not that I'm not willing, just that I have other things going on besides this.