Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Poor Rachel Maddow
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
tanqtonic Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,274
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #1
Poor Rachel Maddow
First of all, her exact comments on-air regarding OAN news:

Quote:“In this case, the most obsequiously pro-Trump right-wing news outlet in America really literally is paid Russian propaganda. Their on-air U.S. politics reporter is paid by the Russian government to produce propaganda for that government.”

Now the favorite is, in response to a defamation suit popped on her by OAN, claims that her words are 'opinion'. Kind of a tough road to hoe with those words imo.

Base source (Linky here) is kind of a wild place; a fantastic financial blog intermingled with libertarian slants on the world at large.

I noted previously that I try not to source opinion blogs (with some dude railing on me here for that, for some reason), but overall this is in fact one. The Maddow full metal jacket retreat was featured here, and it seemed easiest to post to it as such.
(This post was last modified: 12-28-2019 03:42 PM by tanqtonic.)
12-28-2019 03:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,244
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 606
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #2
RE: Poor Rachel Maddow
So, is Maddowe a journalist?
12-28-2019 04:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgewebb Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,947
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 85
I Root For:
Location:

The Parliament AwardsDonators
Post: #3
RE: Poor Rachel Maddow
And I thought OAN was the publisher of the Pocket Flight Guide.
(This post was last modified: 12-28-2019 04:17 PM by georgewebb.)
12-28-2019 04:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,794
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #4
RE: Poor Rachel Maddow
(12-28-2019 03:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  First of all, her exact comments on-air regarding OAN news:

Quote:“In this case, the most obsequiously pro-Trump right-wing news outlet in America really literally is paid Russian propaganda. Their on-air U.S. politics reporter is paid by the Russian government to produce propaganda for that government.”

Now the favorite is, in response to a defamation suit popped on her by OAN, claims that her words are 'opinion'. Kind of a tough road to hoe with those words imo.

Base source (Linky here) is kind of a wild place; a fantastic financial blog intermingled with libertarian slants on the world at large.

I noted previously that I try not to source opinion blogs (with some dude railing on me here for that, for some reason), but overall this is in fact one. The Maddow full metal jacket retreat was featured here, and it seemed easiest to post to it as such.

You think I was railing on you for trying to avoid using blogs? If so, I can pull up the post where I explained clearly what I was calling you out for doing.
12-28-2019 04:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,274
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #5
RE: Poor Rachel Maddow
(12-28-2019 04:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-28-2019 03:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  First of all, her exact comments on-air regarding OAN news:

Quote:“In this case, the most obsequiously pro-Trump right-wing news outlet in America really literally is paid Russian propaganda. Their on-air U.S. politics reporter is paid by the Russian government to produce propaganda for that government.”

Now the favorite is, in response to a defamation suit popped on her by OAN, claims that her words are 'opinion'. Kind of a tough road to hoe with those words imo.

Base source (Linky here) is kind of a wild place; a fantastic financial blog intermingled with libertarian slants on the world at large.

I noted previously that I try not to source opinion blogs (with some dude railing on me here for that, for some reason), but overall this is in fact one. The Maddow full metal jacket retreat was featured here, and it seemed easiest to post to it as such.

You think I was railing on you for trying to avoid using blogs?

No.

Quote:If so, I can pull up the post where I explained clearly what I was calling you out for doing.

Knock yourself out.

You got pissy on me on one of my previous statements to that effect; i.e. that I try and not practice that 'link to opinion blogs' thingy. You got riled up because I mentioned it (the horrors.... sheer horrors).

And, that is in line with the active verb of my sentence, i.e. '[me] not[ing]' that practice. I did so here, because the link, is in fact, an opinion site. And the touchstone retort to such a link, is, funnily enough, that is an opinion piece.

You got your knickers in a wad over my previous statement that I try not to source from such places -- so I thought I would defuse your knicker wadding. Apparently for naught.

As for a history search -- knock yourself out, my friend.
12-28-2019 05:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


RiceLad15 Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,794
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #6
RE: Poor Rachel Maddow
(12-28-2019 05:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(12-28-2019 04:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-28-2019 03:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  First of all, her exact comments on-air regarding OAN news:

Quote:“In this case, the most obsequiously pro-Trump right-wing news outlet in America really literally is paid Russian propaganda. Their on-air U.S. politics reporter is paid by the Russian government to produce propaganda for that government.”

Now the favorite is, in response to a defamation suit popped on her by OAN, claims that her words are 'opinion'. Kind of a tough road to hoe with those words imo.

Base source (Linky here) is kind of a wild place; a fantastic financial blog intermingled with libertarian slants on the world at large.

I noted previously that I try not to source opinion blogs (with some dude railing on me here for that, for some reason), but overall this is in fact one. The Maddow full metal jacket retreat was featured here, and it seemed easiest to post to it as such.

You think I was railing on you for trying to avoid using blogs?

No.

Quote:If so, I can pull up the post where I explained clearly what I was calling you out for doing.

Knock yourself out.

You got pissy on me on one of my previous statements to that effect; i.e. that I try and not practice that 'link to opinion blogs' thingy. You got riled up because I mentioned it (the horrors.... sheer horrors).

And, that is in line with the active verb of my sentence, i.e. '[me] not[ing]' that practice. I did so here, because the link, is in fact, an opinion site. And the touchstone retort to such a link, is, funnily enough, that is an opinion piece.

You got your knickers in a wad over my previous statement that I try not to source from such places -- so I thought I would defuse your knicker wadding. Apparently for naught.

As for a history search -- knock yourself out, my friend.

No twisted knickers here.

I called you out for using an opinion piece multiple times to support theories in Ukraine-Biden. You’re free to do that, but don’t be shocked when someone points out the obvious hypocrisy when, in that instance, you tried to be high and mighty about what sources you use.
12-28-2019 05:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,274
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #7
RE: Poor Rachel Maddow
(12-28-2019 05:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-28-2019 05:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(12-28-2019 04:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-28-2019 03:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  First of all, her exact comments on-air regarding OAN news:

Quote:“In this case, the most obsequiously pro-Trump right-wing news outlet in America really literally is paid Russian propaganda. Their on-air U.S. politics reporter is paid by the Russian government to produce propaganda for that government.”

Now the favorite is, in response to a defamation suit popped on her by OAN, claims that her words are 'opinion'. Kind of a tough road to hoe with those words imo.

Base source (Linky here) is kind of a wild place; a fantastic financial blog intermingled with libertarian slants on the world at large.

I noted previously that I try not to source opinion blogs (with some dude railing on me here for that, for some reason), but overall this is in fact one. The Maddow full metal jacket retreat was featured here, and it seemed easiest to post to it as such.

You think I was railing on you for trying to avoid using blogs?

No.

Quote:If so, I can pull up the post where I explained clearly what I was calling you out for doing.

Knock yourself out.

You got pissy on me on one of my previous statements to that effect; i.e. that I try and not practice that 'link to opinion blogs' thingy. You got riled up because I mentioned it (the horrors.... sheer horrors).

And, that is in line with the active verb of my sentence, i.e. '[me] not[ing]' that practice. I did so here, because the link, is in fact, an opinion site. And the touchstone retort to such a link, is, funnily enough, that is an opinion piece.

You got your knickers in a wad over my previous statement that I try not to source from such places -- so I thought I would defuse your knicker wadding. Apparently for naught.

As for a history search -- knock yourself out, my friend.

No twisted knickers here.

I called you out for using an opinion piece multiple times to support theories in Ukraine-Biden. You’re free to do that, but don’t be shocked when someone points out the obvious hypocrisy when, in that instance, you tried to be high and mighty about what sources you use.

You pointed one opinion piece out. Perhaps that is the reason I try to flag them --- yet when I do you go apeshit. Kind of like right now.....

No, not trying to be 'high and mighty' as your whining notes. Just trying to note when I use them. Good fing grief...
(This post was last modified: 12-28-2019 05:42 PM by tanqtonic.)
12-28-2019 05:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,794
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #8
RE: Poor Rachel Maddow
(12-28-2019 05:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(12-28-2019 05:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-28-2019 05:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(12-28-2019 04:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-28-2019 03:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  First of all, her exact comments on-air regarding OAN news:


Now the favorite is, in response to a defamation suit popped on her by OAN, claims that her words are 'opinion'. Kind of a tough road to hoe with those words imo.

Base source (Linky here) is kind of a wild place; a fantastic financial blog intermingled with libertarian slants on the world at large.

I noted previously that I try not to source opinion blogs (with some dude railing on me here for that, for some reason), but overall this is in fact one. The Maddow full metal jacket retreat was featured here, and it seemed easiest to post to it as such.

You think I was railing on you for trying to avoid using blogs?

No.

Quote:If so, I can pull up the post where I explained clearly what I was calling you out for doing.

Knock yourself out.

You got pissy on me on one of my previous statements to that effect; i.e. that I try and not practice that 'link to opinion blogs' thingy. You got riled up because I mentioned it (the horrors.... sheer horrors).

And, that is in line with the active verb of my sentence, i.e. '[me] not[ing]' that practice. I did so here, because the link, is in fact, an opinion site. And the touchstone retort to such a link, is, funnily enough, that is an opinion piece.

You got your knickers in a wad over my previous statement that I try not to source from such places -- so I thought I would defuse your knicker wadding. Apparently for naught.

As for a history search -- knock yourself out, my friend.

No twisted knickers here.

I called you out for using an opinion piece multiple times to support theories in Ukraine-Biden. You’re free to do that, but don’t be shocked when someone points out the obvious hypocrisy when, in that instance, you tried to be high and mighty about what sources you use.

You pointed one opinion piece out. Perhaps that is the reason I try to flag them --- yet when I do you go apeshit. Kind of like right now.....

No, not trying to be 'high and mighty' as your whining notes. Just trying to note when I use them. Good fing grief...

Linking to the post, because you seem to forget that it wasn’t your use of an opinion piece, it was that you specifically said you try not to post them, right after you relied heavily on one.

Quote: And trust me, I go out of my way to avoid posting opinion pieces. Now that I know that all is needed is a master's degree to gain your undying love, I will make sure to ram that down your throat everytime given your undying reverence for those types of degrees.

https://csnbbs.com/thread-797972-post-16...id16477237

Go ahead and post opinion pieces, but stop being so offended when the source of the opinion piece is criticized for their obvious bias.
12-28-2019 06:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,274
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #9
RE: Poor Rachel Maddow
(12-28-2019 06:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-28-2019 05:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(12-28-2019 05:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-28-2019 05:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(12-28-2019 04:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You think I was railing on you for trying to avoid using blogs?

No.

Quote:If so, I can pull up the post where I explained clearly what I was calling you out for doing.

Knock yourself out.

You got pissy on me on one of my previous statements to that effect; i.e. that I try and not practice that 'link to opinion blogs' thingy. You got riled up because I mentioned it (the horrors.... sheer horrors).

And, that is in line with the active verb of my sentence, i.e. '[me] not[ing]' that practice. I did so here, because the link, is in fact, an opinion site. And the touchstone retort to such a link, is, funnily enough, that is an opinion piece.

You got your knickers in a wad over my previous statement that I try not to source from such places -- so I thought I would defuse your knicker wadding. Apparently for naught.

As for a history search -- knock yourself out, my friend.

No twisted knickers here.

I called you out for using an opinion piece multiple times to support theories in Ukraine-Biden. You’re free to do that, but don’t be shocked when someone points out the obvious hypocrisy when, in that instance, you tried to be high and mighty about what sources you use.

You pointed one opinion piece out. Perhaps that is the reason I try to flag them --- yet when I do you go apeshit. Kind of like right now.....

No, not trying to be 'high and mighty' as your whining notes. Just trying to note when I use them. Good fing grief...

Linking to the post, because you seem to forget that it wasn’t your use of an opinion piece, it was that you specifically said you try not to post them, right after you relied heavily on one.

Funny I just said that no more than 10 mins ago, son. Learn to gd read. Edited to add: I bolded it above to help you out with your gd reading problem....

Quote:Go ahead and post opinion pieces, but stop being so offended when the source of the opinion piece is criticized for their obvious bias.

Take a chill pill son. You are the one going stung horse crazy at this point. The point is that *you* got fing bent out of shape for a statement that I try not to --- and I do try not to.

I am far from offended at having biases pointed out. Knock yourself out, son.

You threw a fing snit fit then, and you are throwing one now. Take an adderall.

The statement that I try not to do that really gets your fing goat going for some odd reason. I hear aromatherapy might help with that. Jeezus krist, what a gd tantrum.....
(This post was last modified: 12-28-2019 06:29 PM by tanqtonic.)
12-28-2019 06:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


RiceLad15 Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,794
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #10
RE: Poor Rachel Maddow
(12-28-2019 06:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(12-28-2019 06:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-28-2019 05:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(12-28-2019 05:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-28-2019 05:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  No.


Knock yourself out.

You got pissy on me on one of my previous statements to that effect; i.e. that I try and not practice that 'link to opinion blogs' thingy. You got riled up because I mentioned it (the horrors.... sheer horrors).

And, that is in line with the active verb of my sentence, i.e. '[me] not[ing]' that practice. I did so here, because the link, is in fact, an opinion site. And the touchstone retort to such a link, is, funnily enough, that is an opinion piece.

You got your knickers in a wad over my previous statement that I try not to source from such places -- so I thought I would defuse your knicker wadding. Apparently for naught.

As for a history search -- knock yourself out, my friend.

No twisted knickers here.

I called you out for using an opinion piece multiple times to support theories in Ukraine-Biden. You’re free to do that, but don’t be shocked when someone points out the obvious hypocrisy when, in that instance, you tried to be high and mighty about what sources you use.

You pointed one opinion piece out. Perhaps that is the reason I try to flag them --- yet when I do you go apeshit. Kind of like right now.....

No, not trying to be 'high and mighty' as your whining notes. Just trying to note when I use them. Good fing grief...

Linking to the post, because you seem to forget that it wasn’t your use of an opinion piece, it was that you specifically said you try not to post them, right after you relied heavily on one.

Funny I just said that no more than 10 mins ago, son. Learn to gd read. Edited to add: I bolded it above to help you out with your gd reading problem....

Quote:Go ahead and post opinion pieces, but stop being so offended when the source of the opinion piece is criticized for their obvious bias.

Take a chill pill son. You are the one going stung horse crazy at this point. The point is that *you* got fing bent out of shape for a statement that I try not to --- and I do try not to.

I am far from offended at having biases pointed out. Knock yourself out, son.

You threw a fing snit fit then, and you are throwing one now. Take an adderall.

The statement that I try not to do that really gets your fing goat going for some odd reason. I hear aromatherapy might help with that. Jeezus krist, what a gd tantrum.....

Yes, it is truly me having a snit fit here. Project much?

Anyways, not worth my time. Shouldn’t have taken the bait you threw out in your comment.
12-28-2019 06:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 66,176
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1775
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #11
RE: Poor Rachel Maddow
(12-28-2019 06:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-28-2019 05:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(12-28-2019 05:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-28-2019 05:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(12-28-2019 04:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You think I was railing on you for trying to avoid using blogs?
No.
Quote:If so, I can pull up the post where I explained clearly what I was calling you out for doing.
Knock yourself out.
You got pissy on me on one of my previous statements to that effect; i.e. that I try and not practice that 'link to opinion blogs' thingy. You got riled up because I mentioned it (the horrors.... sheer horrors).
And, that is in line with the active verb of my sentence, i.e. '[me] not[ing]' that practice. I did so here, because the link, is in fact, an opinion site. And the touchstone retort to such a link, is, funnily enough, that is an opinion piece.
You got your knickers in a wad over my previous statement that I try not to source from such places -- so I thought I would defuse your knicker wadding. Apparently for naught.
As for a history search -- knock yourself out, my friend.
No twisted knickers here.
I called you out for using an opinion piece multiple times to support theories in Ukraine-Biden. You’re free to do that, but don’t be shocked when someone points out the obvious hypocrisy when, in that instance, you tried to be high and mighty about what sources you use.
You pointed one opinion piece out. Perhaps that is the reason I try to flag them --- yet when I do you go apeshit. Kind of like right now.....
No, not trying to be 'high and mighty' as your whining notes. Just trying to note when I use them. Good fing grief...
Linking to the post, because you seem to forget that it wasn’t your use of an opinion piece, it was that you specifically said you try not to post them, right after you relied heavily on one.
Quote:
And trust me, I go out of my way to avoid posting opinion pieces. Now that I know that all is needed is a master's degree to gain your undying love, I will make sure to ram that down your throat everytime given your undying reverence for those types of degrees.
https://csnbbs.com/thread-797972-post-16...id16477237
Go ahead and post opinion pieces, but stop being so offended when the source of the opinion piece is criticized for their obvious bias.

If you post anything, you are posting opinion pieces. You may post opinion pieces disguised as fact pieces, but those facts are invariably cherry picked to advance the opinion of the author.

And if you want to attack an opinion piece, attack the content, not the source. Closing one’s mind to fact (or opinion, for that matter) merely because of the identity of the source, is a very poor way to acquire knowledge, or more importantly, understanding.
(This post was last modified: 12-29-2019 07:19 AM by Owl 69/70/75.)
12-29-2019 06:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,244
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 606
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #12
RE: Poor Rachel Maddow
(12-29-2019 06:58 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  And if you want to attack an opinion piece, attack the content, not the source. Closing one’s mind to fact (or opinion, for that matter) merely because of the identity of the source, is a very poor way to acquire knowledge, or more importantly, understanding.

Bingo. I think it is OK to attack the source in addition to the content, but not OK to just dismiss the source.

OK: This is the kind of biased reporting I have come to expect from CNN. They say this but omit that, and it gives a very slanted outlook.

Not OK: I am not going to waste my time reading anything from CNN. They are just the propaganda arm of the DNC. Everybody knows that.
12-29-2019 12:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,794
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #13
RE: Poor Rachel Maddow
(12-29-2019 06:58 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(12-28-2019 06:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-28-2019 05:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(12-28-2019 05:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-28-2019 05:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  No.
Knock yourself out.
You got pissy on me on one of my previous statements to that effect; i.e. that I try and not practice that 'link to opinion blogs' thingy. You got riled up because I mentioned it (the horrors.... sheer horrors).
And, that is in line with the active verb of my sentence, i.e. '[me] not[ing]' that practice. I did so here, because the link, is in fact, an opinion site. And the touchstone retort to such a link, is, funnily enough, that is an opinion piece.
You got your knickers in a wad over my previous statement that I try not to source from such places -- so I thought I would defuse your knicker wadding. Apparently for naught.
As for a history search -- knock yourself out, my friend.
No twisted knickers here.
I called you out for using an opinion piece multiple times to support theories in Ukraine-Biden. You’re free to do that, but don’t be shocked when someone points out the obvious hypocrisy when, in that instance, you tried to be high and mighty about what sources you use.
You pointed one opinion piece out. Perhaps that is the reason I try to flag them --- yet when I do you go apeshit. Kind of like right now.....
No, not trying to be 'high and mighty' as your whining notes. Just trying to note when I use them. Good fing grief...
Linking to the post, because you seem to forget that it wasn’t your use of an opinion piece, it was that you specifically said you try not to post them, right after you relied heavily on one.
Quote:
And trust me, I go out of my way to avoid posting opinion pieces. Now that I know that all is needed is a master's degree to gain your undying love, I will make sure to ram that down your throat everytime given your undying reverence for those types of degrees.
https://csnbbs.com/thread-797972-post-16...id16477237
Go ahead and post opinion pieces, but stop being so offended when the source of the opinion piece is criticized for their obvious bias.

If you post anything, you are posting opinion pieces. You may post opinion pieces disguised as fact pieces, but those facts are invariably cherry picked to advance the opinion of the author.

And if you want to attack an opinion piece, attack the content, not the source. Closing one’s mind to fact (or opinion, for that matter) merely because of the identity of the source, is a very poor way to acquire knowledge, or more importantly, understanding.

The issue you’re ignoring is that there are authors that are known to edit content or present falsehoods as fact - when you do that enough, you’re not a trustworthy source and should not be trusted to relay facts.

Should all sources be weighted the same? Because I don’t think taking Alex Jones’ opinions seriously is expanding anyone’s knowledge.
12-29-2019 06:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,244
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 606
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #14
RE: Poor Rachel Maddow
(12-29-2019 06:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The issue you’re ignoring is that there are authors that are known to edit content or present falsehoods as fact - when you do that enough, you’re not a trustworthy source and should not be trusted to relay facts.

Should all sources be weighted the same? Because I don’t think taking Alex Jones’ opinions seriously is expanding anyone’s knowledge.

Who's Alex Jones?

But both you and Tanq have good points. Everybody is presenting an opinion, and some of those opinions are not trustworthy. I think the big difference is that some of the ones you find trustworthy, I don't, and vice-versa.

For example, Adam Schiff has told us "the evidence is in plain sight right there on the table" and that Trump asked the leader of the Ukraine to "make up dirt". Yet his opinion still carries weight with certain factions. Maybe with you. Not with me - I know he is a biased liar. He is pursuing impeachment as a means of polishing his own political image. JMHO.

Now if I told you I heard that from Alex Jones's blog, or program, or office, whoever he is, would it change the facts that Schiff is a liar? What if I heard it from CNN? Still a liar.

Some very suspicious things have been happening since Trump got in the race for the Republican nomination in 2016, and more since he won the election. But if I ignored all the sources the left says are untrustworthy, I would be just another sheep believing everything Schiff, Nadler, Tlaib, Clinton, Pelosi et al say. I would have believed that Trump was a Russian puppet and all the other BS that has been bandied about as fact by some. I would have believed Kavanaugh was a rapist. But I used my brain and saw that the accusations were ridiculous, and now I watch as the antiTrumpers look for something, anything, to get him out before the 2020 election, because the people might just vote him in again.

It's political and one side is playing dirty. The left side, to be clear.
(This post was last modified: 12-29-2019 06:52 PM by OptimisticOwl.)
12-29-2019 06:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mrbig Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,035
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 112
I Root For: Rice
Location: New Orleans
Post: #15
RE: Poor Rachel Maddow
No one thinks Kavanaugh is a rapist. They think he is an attempted rapist.
12-30-2019 09:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 66,176
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1775
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #16
RE: Poor Rachel Maddow
(12-30-2019 09:35 PM)mrbig Wrote:  No one thinks Kavanaugh is a rapist. They think he is an attempted rapist.

I don't think he is an attempted rapist.
(This post was last modified: 12-30-2019 11:05 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
12-30-2019 11:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,244
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 606
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #17
RE: Poor Rachel Maddow
(12-30-2019 09:35 PM)mrbig Wrote:  No one thinks Kavanaugh is a rapist. They think he is an attempted rapist.

What do you think, and why?
12-30-2019 11:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2020 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2020 MyBB Group.