When I see articles from WashPo and NYT, I know they are going to be slanted against the right. I used to read them, but it became clear they had an agenda. Look what happened at NYT when an op-ed they didn't like slipped through. It's almost as if open debate is considered racist.


I used to google things, then post the first one or two that came up. But sometimes this would be from sources such as Infowars, and I would get the same disdain from the lefties here as I give the WashPo references. So I have learned to go down the list until I find one that you guys will at least read - maybe Reuters or Stars and Stripes, or the Omaha newspaper.

I find your complete faith in WashPo as the "Bible" of the left touching - and worrisome.

(06-10-2020 10:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  It's almost as if open debate is considered racist.

or 'Silence is violence'

That is why I denote the current progressives as proto-Maoists.

What is happening to freedom of discourse is truly comparable to the Cultural Revolution.

(06-10-2020 10:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  When I see articles from WashPo and NYT, I know they are going to be slanted against the right. I used to read them, but it became clear they had an agenda. Look what happened at NYT when an op-ed they didn't like slipped through. It's almost as if open debate is considered racist.


I used to google things, then post the first one or two that came up. But sometimes this would be from sources such as Infowars, and I would get the same disdain from the lefties here as I give the WashPo references. So I have learned to go down the list until I find one that you guys will at least read - maybe Reuters or Stars and Stripes, or the Omaha newspaper.

I find your complete faith in WashPo as the "Bible" of the left touching - and worrisome.

WashPo and Infowars are in completely different leagues. You’re confusing the WSJ with InfoWars in finding comparable media outlets.

Again, the WashPo article is a compilation of studies from scientific journals and non-profits.

definiition of racism changing

I present my personal definition of racism:

Racism is the making of decisions about, or the forming of attitudes toward, a person or group of persons, based in whole or in part upon their race.

(06-10-2020 10:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 10:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  When I see articles from WashPo and NYT, I know they are going to be slanted against the right. I used to read them, but it became clear they had an agenda. Look what happened at NYT when an op-ed they didn't like slipped through. It's almost as if open debate is considered racist.


I used to google things, then post the first one or two that came up. But sometimes this would be from sources such as Infowars, and I would get the same disdain from the lefties here as I give the WashPo references. So I have learned to go down the list until I find one that you guys will at least read - maybe Reuters or Stars and Stripes, or the Omaha newspaper.

I find your complete faith in WashPo as the "Bible" of the left touching - and worrisome.

WashPo and Infowars are in completely different leagues. You’re confusing the WSJ with InfoWars in finding comparable media outlets.

Again, the WashPo article is a compilation of studies from scientific journals and non-profits.

compiled to make a point?

and nonprofits? Do they have agendas? Dies calling their gains "surpluss" instead of "profit" make them pure? What is so special about the tax status?

The compilations will change as you move left to right across the spectrum of news sources. Still compilations, though.

Similar to compilations that purport to show the science is in on climate change, or compilations that purport to show the ones in the first compilation are tommyrot. You seem to put a lot of faith in the motives and agendas of the compilers Is it because they are WashPo? The sterling example of journalistic integrity? Nah...

(06-10-2020 10:41 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 10:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 10:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  When I see articles from WashPo and NYT, I know they are going to be slanted against the right. I used to read them, but it became clear they had an agenda. Look what happened at NYT when an op-ed they didn't like slipped through. It's almost as if open debate is considered racist.


I used to google things, then post the first one or two that came up. But sometimes this would be from sources such as Infowars, and I would get the same disdain from the lefties here as I give the WashPo references. So I have learned to go down the list until I find one that you guys will at least read - maybe Reuters or Stars and Stripes, or the Omaha newspaper.

I find your complete faith in WashPo as the "Bible" of the left touching - and worrisome.

WashPo and Infowars are in completely different leagues. You’re confusing the WSJ with InfoWars in finding comparable media outlets.

Again, the WashPo article is a compilation of studies from scientific journals and non-profits.

compiled to make a point?

and nonprofits? Do they have agendas? Dies calling their gains "surpluss" instead of "profit" make them pure? What is so special about the tax status?

The compilations will change as you move left to right across the spectrum of news sources. Still compilations, though.

Similar to compilations that purport to show the science is in on climate change, or compilations that purport to show the ones in the first compilation are tommyrot. You seem to put a lot of faith in the motives and agendas of the compilers Is it because they are WashPo? The sterling example of journalistic integrity? Nah...

Ok, I guess you're not interested in learning more about the issue. I tried to provide a source of multiple studies that dive into race issues in the criminal justice system and all you do is poo-poo the source of the compilation. Cool.

(06-10-2020 10:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 10:41 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 10:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 10:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  When I see articles from WashPo and NYT, I know they are going to be slanted against the right. I used to read them, but it became clear they had an agenda. Look what happened at NYT when an op-ed they didn't like slipped through. It's almost as if open debate is considered racist.


I used to google things, then post the first one or two that came up. But sometimes this would be from sources such as Infowars, and I would get the same disdain from the lefties here as I give the WashPo references. So I have learned to go down the list until I find one that you guys will at least read - maybe Reuters or Stars and Stripes, or the Omaha newspaper.

I find your complete faith in WashPo as the "Bible" of the left touching - and worrisome.

WashPo and Infowars are in completely different leagues. You’re confusing the WSJ with InfoWars in finding comparable media outlets.

Again, the WashPo article is a compilation of studies from scientific journals and non-profits.

compiled to make a point?

and nonprofits? Do they have agendas? Dies calling their gains "surpluss" instead of "profit" make them pure? What is so special about the tax status?

The compilations will change as you move left to right across the spectrum of news sources. Still compilations, though.

Similar to compilations that purport to show the science is in on climate change, or compilations that purport to show the ones in the first compilation are tommyrot. You seem to put a lot of faith in the motives and agendas of the compilers Is it because they are WashPo? The sterling example of journalistic integrity? Nah...

Ok, I guess you're not interested in learning more about the issue. I tried to provide a source of multiple studies that dive into race issues in the criminal justice system and all you do is poo-poo the source of the compilation. Cool.

Says the guy who reads every link and never disses the source.

Damn, must be nice to be so much better than everybody else.

yeah, find the same list from a credible source and I will read it. The exact same list.

(06-10-2020 10:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 10:41 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 10:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 10:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  When I see articles from WashPo and NYT, I know they are going to be slanted against the right. I used to read them, but it became clear they had an agenda. Look what happened at NYT when an op-ed they didn't like slipped through. It's almost as if open debate is considered racist.


I used to google things, then post the first one or two that came up. But sometimes this would be from sources such as Infowars, and I would get the same disdain from the lefties here as I give the WashPo references. So I have learned to go down the list until I find one that you guys will at least read - maybe Reuters or Stars and Stripes, or the Omaha newspaper.

I find your complete faith in WashPo as the "Bible" of the left touching - and worrisome.

WashPo and Infowars are in completely different leagues. You’re confusing the WSJ with InfoWars in finding comparable media outlets.

Again, the WashPo article is a compilation of studies from scientific journals and non-profits.

compiled to make a point?

and nonprofits? Do they have agendas? Dies calling their gains "surpluss" instead of "profit" make them pure? What is so special about the tax status?

The compilations will change as you move left to right across the spectrum of news sources. Still compilations, though.

Similar to compilations that purport to show the science is in on climate change, or compilations that purport to show the ones in the first compilation are tommyrot. You seem to put a lot of faith in the motives and agendas of the compilers Is it because they are WashPo? The sterling example of journalistic integrity? Nah...

Ok, I guess you're not interested in learning more about the issue. I tried to provide a source of multiple studies that dive into race issues in the criminal justice system and all you do is poo-poo the source of the compilation. Cool.

I will thank you for *not* using the NY Times. Their reaction to their publication of the Tom Cotton opinion was grotesque, and indicative of a highly biased organization.

You pretty much have to admit that firing an opinion editor for the temerity of allowing a conservative point of view points out a very deep rot there.

Something that many of us have noted even here for years. This latest hubub re: the Tom Cotton piece puts them knee deep at the MSNBC level in a very explicit manner.

(06-10-2020 10:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 10:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 10:41 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 10:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 10:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  When I see articles from WashPo and NYT, I know they are going to be slanted against the right. I used to read them, but it became clear they had an agenda. Look what happened at NYT when an op-ed they didn't like slipped through. It's almost as if open debate is considered racist.


I used to google things, then post the first one or two that came up. But sometimes this would be from sources such as Infowars, and I would get the same disdain from the lefties here as I give the WashPo references. So I have learned to go down the list until I find one that you guys will at least read - maybe Reuters or Stars and Stripes, or the Omaha newspaper.

I find your complete faith in WashPo as the "Bible" of the left touching - and worrisome.

WashPo and Infowars are in completely different leagues. You’re confusing the WSJ with InfoWars in finding comparable media outlets.

Again, the WashPo article is a compilation of studies from scientific journals and non-profits.

compiled to make a point?

and nonprofits? Do they have agendas? Dies calling their gains "surpluss" instead of "profit" make them pure? What is so special about the tax status?

The compilations will change as you move left to right across the spectrum of news sources. Still compilations, though.

Similar to compilations that purport to show the science is in on climate change, or compilations that purport to show the ones in the first compilation are tommyrot. You seem to put a lot of faith in the motives and agendas of the compilers Is it because they are WashPo? The sterling example of journalistic integrity? Nah...

Ok, I guess you're not interested in learning more about the issue. I tried to provide a source of multiple studies that dive into race issues in the criminal justice system and all you do is poo-poo the source of the compilation. Cool.

Says the guy who reads every link and never disses the source.

Damn, must be nice to be so much better than everybody else.

yeah, find the same list from a credible source and I will read it. The exact same list.

What a backwards stance.

If FoxNews pulled together a list of published studies about why systemic racism is a myth, I wouldn't dismiss the sources solely because FoxNews published them. I'd look at the sources and see if they, themselves, were problematic or potentially biased.

I don't diss major media sources that have a history of being overly scrutinized and generally passing the test. I diss biased media sources that have a history of blatantly unethical actions.

(06-10-2020 11:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I diss biased media sources that have a history of blatantly unethical actions.

Exactly what I am doing.

(06-10-2020 11:14 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 11:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I diss biased media sources that have a history of blatantly unethical actions.

Exactly what I am doing.

Lol, ok.

How about we simply link the reports, rather than read a 3rd party's synopsis of them?

Lad, feel free to use WaPo to give you the links, but don't expect OO to argue with you about what WaPo says about them.

(06-10-2020 11:20 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  How about we simply link the reports, rather than read a 3rd party's synopsis of them?

Lad, feel free to use WaPo to give you the links, but don't expect OO to argue with you about what WaPo says about them.

Have you opened the WashPo article? It has 20+ different studies referenced.

Sorry, but I'm not taking that much time to go and copy and paste all the relevant information, just because OO can't handle the source of the compilation.

Y'all taking some crazy pills. Have a good one.

(06-10-2020 11:24 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 11:20 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  How about we simply link the reports, rather than read a 3rd party's synopsis of them?

Lad, feel free to use WaPo to give you the links, but don't expect OO to argue with you about what WaPo says about them.

Have you opened the WashPo article? It has 20+ different studies referenced.

Sorry, but I'm not taking that much time to go and copy and paste all the relevant information, just because OO can't handle the source of the compilation.

Y'all taking some crazy pills. Have a good one.

I didn't realize I was the only one he wanted to convince.

I am waiting until some unbiased source compiles twenty or so unbiased studies explaining why it would benefit the SEC to take Rice as a new member.

Apparently the cancel culture has now claimed the scalp of 'Gone With the Wind'.

If it wasnt so sad, it would be laughable.

I think the term 'Maoist' is spot on at this point.

What are the next films on the 'we must censor list'?

My guesses would be:

Blazing Saddles
Tropic Thunder
Dirty Harry

I'm so tired of these leftists resorting to violence at these protests...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevo...03f8e9384c

(06-10-2020 12:46 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I'm so tired of these leftists resorting to violence at these protests...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevo...03f8e9384c

The left is the only side so full of anger and rage, and willing to destroy life and property.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/all/three-m...s-n1224231

(06-10-2020 12:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 12:46 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I'm so tired of these leftists resorting to violence at these protests...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevo...03f8e9384c

The left is the only side so full of anger and rage, and willing to destroy life and property.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/all/three-m...s-n1224231

Probably because they are all check-cashers and not check-signers.

Who said *only*? I mean, your throwing the onesies and twosies in light of the absolute wave of looting, assaults, and arson that is coming from the left makes your comments look like some three year olds pissing onto a forest fire.

I will grant you that some of the violence is 'right-based' and should be acknowledged as such on the right.

But your sniggering and cackling about that in light of literal **** ton of looting, assaults, arson, *and* murder coming from your side kind of makes you look pretty stupid in comparison. Please keep it up.

And for once I agree with a statement from 93: Yes I *am* sick and fing tired of leftists resorting to violence at these protests. Funny that. To note that comment was made in that sarcastic manner is really a good observation on you being a bright, shining beacon of observation about that relative source of violence in the last 10 days. But I dot really expect much more from him, tbh.

3+1 = 4

I wonder why they failed to mention the guy who drove his car through a crowd, drove it through a crowd that was blocking the road.

I guess they have refuted the claim that right wingers are pure.


Who made that claim, anyway? Them? Not any of us.