Matt Drudge appeared on The Alex Jones Show, where he pushed bizarre conspiracies and falsehoods, and attacked Hillary Clinton as "old" and "sick." The Drudge Report is a big driver of traffic to Jones' Infowars website and the interview cemented their relationship, with Drudge and a "star-struck" Jones heavily praising each other.
so a conservative guest on a conservative show (is it cable or internet?) gave such bizarre conspiracy theories and falsehoods like 'Hillary is old' surprises you?
Did you ever watch 'the view' talk about Bush when they had a liberal guest on? Same thing.
I think your description and depiction of the exchange simply convinces me that people see what they already believe. This 'convinces' you because you already think they're bad sources. If you already agree with it, it won't convince you not to.
She is old, any dispute there?, and by many accounts sick. Not just with the disease of lib/progressiveism (like a mind altering drug), but actually physically, medically sick. Anyone heard her "public" speeches lately? She's as canned and scripted as a SNL skit.
(10-09-2015 02:57 AM)JMUDunk Wrote: [ -> ]She is old, any dispute there?, and by many accounts sick. Not just with the disease of lib/progressiveism (like a mind altering drug), but actually physically, medically sick. Anyone heard her "public" speeches lately? She's as canned and scripted as a SNL skit.
(10-08-2015 01:49 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]so a conservative guest on a conservative show (is it cable or internet?) gave such bizarre conspiracy theories and falsehoods like 'Hillary is old' surprises you?
Did you ever watch 'the view' talk about Bush when they had a liberal guest on? Same thing.
I think your description and depiction of the exchange simply convinces me that people see what they already believe. This 'convinces' you because you already think they're bad sources. If you already agree with it, it won't convince you not to.
I've never considered the View, Infowars, or Drudge to be a good source of information.
A lot of people however believed Drudge to be a legit source of information however.
(10-09-2015 03:06 PM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ]A lot of people however believed Drudge to be a legit source of information however.
He has never really been a source of information, merely an aggregator of it. However, I think he did break the Monica Lewinski scandal or something like that.
(10-09-2015 03:06 PM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ]A lot of people however believed Drudge to be a legit source of information however.
He has never really been a source of information, merely an aggregator of it. However, I think he did break the Monica Lewinski scandal or something like that.
Even the National Enquirer can find an acorn now and then.
Over 20 years, I suppose the DrudgeReport might have "Reported" a few items here and there. But 99% of the time, it just provides links to other people's work. That's not the same thing as being "a source of information" (either legitimate or illegitimate), IMHO, but if anyone disagrees, whatever.
(10-09-2015 03:06 PM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ]A lot of people however believed Drudge to be a legit source of information however.
He has never really been a source of information, merely an aggregator of it. However, I think he did break the Monica Lewinski scandal or something like that.
This, and they are two different things.
I think I've compared on many occasions left and right sources and they all have the same stories... just different perspectives and perhaps 'numbers' on them.... i.e. one might have 5 stories related to something that the other has one, and vice versa.
(10-09-2015 03:06 PM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ]A lot of people however believed Drudge to be a legit source of information however.
He has never really been a source of information, merely an aggregator of it. However, I think he did break the Monica Lewinski scandal or something like that.
This, and they are two different things.
I think I've compared on many occasions left and right sources and they all have the same stories... just different perspectives and perhaps 'numbers' on them.... i.e. one might have 5 stories related to something that the other has one, and vice versa.
It's really simple for the clueless (like Fitbitch) to go to Drudge and actually look at the list of sites Drudge links out to....
(10-09-2015 03:06 PM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ]A lot of people however believed Drudge to be a legit source of information however.
He has never really been a source of information, merely an aggregator of it. However, I think he did break the Monica Lewinski scandal or something like that.
This, and they are two different things.
I think I've compared on many occasions left and right sources and they all have the same stories... just different perspectives and perhaps 'numbers' on them.... i.e. one might have 5 stories related to something that the other has one, and vice versa.
It's really simple for the clueless (like Fitbitch) to go to Drudge and actually look at the list of sites Drudge links out to....
(10-09-2015 03:06 PM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ]A lot of people however believed Drudge to be a legit source of information however.
He has never really been a source of information, merely an aggregator of it. However, I think he did break the Monica Lewinski scandal or something like that.
This, and they are two different things.
I think I've compared on many occasions left and right sources and they all have the same stories... just different perspectives and perhaps 'numbers' on them.... i.e. one might have 5 stories related to something that the other has one, and vice versa.
It's really simple for the clueless (like Fitbitch) to go to Drudge and actually look at the list of sites Drudge links out to....
Rocket science and all
Try and focus on the topic.
You understand, of course the difference between supporting Drudge's linking to legitimate sources of stories and the individual's personal opinions or pieces actually written by him or his staff, right? When he is interviewed, he isn't speaking for the sites and stories he links to.
You implied his site isn't/can't be a legitimate source of news... or that people who think it is are 'wrong'... That is a demonstrably false claim.
(10-09-2015 03:18 PM)I45owl Wrote: [ -> ]He has never really been a source of information, merely an aggregator of it. However, I think he did break the Monica Lewinski scandal or something like that.
This, and they are two different things.
I think I've compared on many occasions left and right sources and they all have the same stories... just different perspectives and perhaps 'numbers' on them.... i.e. one might have 5 stories related to something that the other has one, and vice versa.
It's really simple for the clueless (like Fitbitch) to go to Drudge and actually look at the list of sites Drudge links out to....
Rocket science and all
Try and focus on the topic.
You understand, of course the difference between supporting Drudge's linking to legitimate sources of stories and the individual's personal opinions or pieces actually written by him or his staff, right? When he is interviewed, he isn't speaking for the sites and stories he links to.
You implied his site isn't/can't be a legitimate source of news... or that people who think it is are 'wrong'... That is a demonstrably false claim.
All I said was that lots of people use him as a source of reliable information. Personally, I take all sources of information with a grain of salt.
(10-11-2015 03:59 PM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ]All I said was that lots of people use him as a source of reliable information. Personally, I take all sources of information with a grain of salt.
You walk an incredibly 'thin' line in many of your posts with seemingly the sole purpose of 'throwing poo' at the right. You're certainly not alone, but you're one of the few whom I engage with, so I note it.
Drudge is not the source for 90% of what he posts. He is the aggregator of other sources. The vast majority of his sources are reliable, even if they are partisan. You can take them with a grain of salt without considering them unreliable.
I consider HuffPo to be a reliable source of information. I think she selects 'left leaning' writers and providers of information, but I am generally able to discern between fact and spin. I would generally select Drudge over Huffpo not based on the reliability of the information, but the number of times that they post on things that interest me. While I am sensitive to the agenda, abortion and gay rights aren't particularly 'urgent' issues for me. Taxes are. Healthcare is. Finance is. Most often I find myself believing exactly what was said, and not what the 'headline' says it said. If all one reads is headlines, or if they 'buy in' to every inference, they are not well informed... but that is because they didn't read it thoroughly, and not because it was not written correctly/unreliable
You know, kinda like your comment that 'many people' use him as a source, but you take all sources with a grain of salt... Those two things are not incompatible. Oddly, I find you frequently posting perspectives from left leaning resources/aggregators where if you actually DID take them with a grain of salt, you never would have posted it.... You know, like the Ben Carson thing. If you bothered to read the actual article, you'd know the situations were different. If you bothered to read the actual article, you'd know that he answered the question because he was asked a question. Politicians get asked 'stupid' questions all the time, and the ones that constantly 'stay on message' and don't answer the questions get written up by 'the other side' for avoiding the rather simple question.
I don't know what I'd do may be true, but it doesn't generally get you elected President. You know this, but you disagree with his politics so you skipped the salt this time.
Oh, and btw, your point was that Matt Drudge's interview was 'bizzare' and full of conspiracies and lies.
(10-11-2015 03:59 PM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ]All I said was that lots of people use him as a source of reliable information. Personally, I take all sources of information with a grain of salt.
You walk an incredibly 'thin' line in many of your posts with seemingly the sole purpose of 'throwing poo' at the right. You're certainly not alone, but you're one of the few whom I engage with, so I note it.
Drudge is not the source for 90% of what he posts. He is the aggregator of other sources. The vast majority of his sources are reliable, even if they are partisan. You can take them with a grain of salt without considering them unreliable.
I consider HuffPo to be a reliable source of information. I think she selects 'left leaning' writers and providers of information, but I am generally able to discern between fact and spin. I would generally select Drudge over Huffpo not based on the reliability of the information, but the number of times that they post on things that interest me. While I am sensitive to the agenda, abortion and gay rights aren't particularly 'urgent' issues for me. Taxes are. Healthcare is. Finance is. Most often I find myself believing exactly what was said, and not what the 'headline' says it said. If all one reads is headlines, or if they 'buy in' to every inference, they are not well informed... but that is because they didn't read it thoroughly, and not because it was not written correctly/unreliable
You know, kinda like your comment that 'many people' use him as a source, but you take all sources with a grain of salt... Those two things are not incompatible. Oddly, I find you frequently posting perspectives from left leaning resources/aggregators where if you actually DID take them with a grain of salt, you never would have posted it.... You know, like the Ben Carson thing. If you bothered to read the actual article, you'd know the situations were different. If you bothered to read the actual article, you'd know that he answered the question because he was asked a question. Politicians get asked 'stupid' questions all the time, and the ones that constantly 'stay on message' and don't answer the questions get written up by 'the other side' for avoiding the rather simple question.
I don't know what I'd do may be true, but it doesn't generally get you elected President. You know this, but you disagree with his politics so you skipped the salt this time.
Oh, and btw, your point was that Matt Drudge's interview was 'bizzare' and full of conspiracies and lies.
He is a Troll. That is why you are always confused when you read his posts. You appear to be very intelligent and thoughtful poster (love your ACA stuff) which is the opposite of the person posting
(10-09-2015 03:06 PM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ]A lot of people however believed Drudge to be a legit source of information however.
He has never really been a source of information, merely an aggregator of it. However, I think he did break the Monica Lewinski scandal or something like that.
This, and they are two different things.
I think I've compared on many occasions left and right sources and they all have the same stories... just different perspectives and perhaps 'numbers' on them.... i.e. one might have 5 stories related to something that the other has one, and vice versa.
It's really simple for the clueless (like Fitbitch) to go to Drudge and actually look at the list of sites Drudge links out to....
Rocket science and all
Try and focus on the topic.
trolls are like liars after a certain amount of lies they lose track of the truth
![[Image: hillary-hand-.jpg]](http://iotwreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/hillary-hand-.jpg)
