If you think the Huffington Post is a reliable media outlet, you have been smoking too much.
That colored text in the story? Some of them "link" to actual source material where you can read or hear his statements firsthand. You activate links by clicking on them. Give it a try!
You mean to links from firebrandprogressives.com and theweek.com as the sources to Puffington Post?
And those sources are totally legit, no agenda in them either?
That's like saying "Dude, I totally heard from this one guy I know who share the same viewpoints as me that Obama is gay, so it must be true because that other side said so!"
...oh wait, that's the entire liberal media in a nutshell...
Edit: Paged like a MFer, so here are 3 camels laughing at you:
A reverse Obama that actually sounds good. Reverse Obama is a guy born in Alaska unites the country and stops apologizing for America. He wouldn't dance on Ellen. Stop the keystone pipeline. etc.
no part of the keystone pipeline will benefit the average American.
This is one point that absolute drives me mad. Oil. Fracking. Pipelines. Irresponsible timber harvesting. Coal mining/burning. There was a time when Republicans/conservatives believed in protecting the environment and regulating the jackasses trying to abuse it in the name of greed. There are no Republicans anymore. Just libertarians masquerading as such whilst suffering psychotic episodes of Christian delusion.
Wasn't going to mention him as despite all his upsides, he had some decidedly painful downsides as well, but yeah. He's definitely an example of the positive things I'm talking about.
How many people are all upside and no downside though? Aside from me of course.
If you think the Huffington Post is a reliable media outlet, you have been smoking too much.
That colored text in the story? Some of them "link" to actual source material where you can read or hear his statements firsthand. You activate links by clicking on them. Give it a try!
You mean to links from firebrandprogressives.com and theweek.com as the sources to Puffington Post?
And those sources are totally legit, no agenda in them either?
That's like saying "Dude, I totally heard from this one guy I know who share the same viewpoints as me that Obama is gay, so it must be true because that other side said so!"
...oh wait, that's the entire liberal media in a nutshell...
Edit: Paged like a MFer, so here are 3 camels laughing at you:
What are you talking about, bro?
Firebrand Progressives is clearly not agenda driven. It says so on their website.
Quote:
Firebrand Progressives is a left-of-the-political-spectrum blog. A firebrand is defined as one who creates unrest or strife, as in aggressively promoting a cause: an agitator. Throughout the modern era, the firebrand moniker has been synonymous with progressives such as Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Lyndon Johnson, Teddy Kennedy, and more recently Alan Grayson, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Wendy Davis.
Our mission is to provide edgy, entertaining, and thought-provoking political commentary, insight, and opinion that doesn’t pull any punches. While we make no qualms as to our political persuasion or the fact that our blog is firmly rooted in liberal ideology, it is critical to us that we rely on established facts and cited sources for the basis of our articles.
We hope you enjoy our site and find it to be a compliment to your other sources of daily news and commentary, and we encourage you to share anything you find to be of interest to you.
If you think the Huffington Post is a reliable media outlet, you have been smoking too much.
That colored text in the story? Some of them "link" to actual source material where you can read or hear his statements firsthand. You activate links by clicking on them. Give it a try!
You mean to links from firebrandprogressives.com and theweek.com as the sources to Puffington Post? And those sources are totally legit, no agenda in them either? That's like saying "Dude, I totally heard from this one guy I know who share the same viewpoints as me that Obama is gay, so it must be true because that other side said so!" ...oh wait, that's the entire liberal media in a nutshell... Edit: Paged like a MFer, so here are 3 camels laughing at you:
Not the pinnacle of objective journalism is an understatement.
Journalism what is that ? Some sort of person that writes in a journal ?
It's something I'm not qualified to do anymore because I have a journalism degree, and professional standards are just not ok in today's media environment.
Luckily between the fundamentals of objective journalism combined with the public relations aspects of the degree have served me well outside the field. I make a damn site more now than I probably ever would have in the field.
It just took serving my sentence at Walmart first.
A helicopter jump might not have been the most special part of Former President George H.W. Bush's birthday on Thursday. Bush also got a personal phone call and gift from Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Bush spokesman Jim McGrath confirmed the interaction to Business Insider.
"Yes, they spoke at 2 p.m.," he wrote. "President Putin also sent a portrait. ... It is a portrait of President Bush as a young Navy ensign in his dress whites."
The Kremlin's official English-language Twitter feed also wished Bush well Thursday afternoon.
"Vladimir Putin congratulated George W. Bush on the 90th anniversary," the Kremlin said. (George W. Bush is actually the elder Bush's son.)
The younger Bush famously painted a portrait of Putin.
They may not be the pinacle of objective journalism, but their direct quotes are generally accurate.
Direct quotes buried at least 3 times told by 3 different people, and you don't think that the words won't get a little skewed?
Bob said that Shella said that Peggy said that George said that Mike said that Paul said that you are stupid.
Except Paul said that you are ok. George thinks you are an idiot, Shella said that you are a moron, and Bob heard stupid.
Your point is taken, but even by your own estimation Republicans in your state focus too much on social/Biblical issues instead of real ones.
Even if the quote is warped (which I have no idea one way or the other, but assume minimally), is it wrong to think that this is essentially how he feels?
Your point is taken, but even by your own estimation selective Republicans in your state focus too much on social/Biblical issues instead of real ones.
ftfy
Not all Republicans are the same, you only hear about the worst offenders.
Like how not all Democrats are the same, you only hear about the worst offenders.
Even if the quote is warped (which I have no idea one way or the other, but assume minimally), is it wrong to think that this is essentially how he feels?
He quoted a bunch of scriptures and then goes on an implication of those scriptures.
But you don't see that little tidbit in the Huffington Post or most of their sources (even though that is where that little tidbit came from).
It is called selective reporting, and it is something the liberal media is guilty of doing nearly 100% of the time. Which is why nobody takes them seriously anymore (except liberals, like Pleebo).
inb4 Pleebo claiming he isn't a liberal, because that would prevent him of later on denying that he wasn't a liberal when the ***hits the fan. You know, plausible deniability.
"That was done in the Old Testament under a law that came directly from God and in that time there it was totally just. It came directly from God," Esk said, adding: "I have no plans to reinstitute that in Oklahoma law. I do have some very huge moral misgivings about those kinds of sins."
It is called selective reading, and it is something Kingnobody is guilty of doing nearly 100% of the time. Which is why nobody takes him seriously anymore (especially liberals, like Pleebo).
“Whether or not you feel compelled to follow a particular lifestyle or not, you have the ability to decide not to do that,” Perry said when asked whether homosexuality is a disorder at an event at the Commonwealth Club of California. “I may have the genetic coding that I’m inclined to be an alcoholic, but I have the desire not to do that.”
Basically, he did not compare being gay to being an alcoholic, he just said that you have a choice of being gay, like you have a choice of being an alcoholic. But, like normal puppets, they jump on key words and throw out the meaning of the rest of the sentence.
"That was done in the Old Testament under a law that came directly from God and in that time there it was totally just. It came directly from God," Esk said, adding: "I have no plans to reinstitute that in Oklahoma law. I do have some very huge moral misgivings about those kinds of sins."
It is called selective reading, and it is something Kingnobody is guilty of doing nearly 100% of the time. Which is why nobody takes him seriously anymore (especially liberals, like Pleebo).
Sorry that I did not see that. Especially since I didn't go further than what their "sources" reported (I didn't read the Post's article because I can see *** faster than you apparently).
But please, continue to use the Huffington Post as your Bible.
The biggest problem with liberals is that everything they believe eventually begins with blaming ppl for most things that are far beyond our control and then they base their complaints on a feeling of shame/superiority.
Case in point. (Global warming,climate change, etc). They blame the successful of anyone for damaging the earth and presume to know how to fix a problem that their own scientists call a religion. They are so short sighted and gullible.
The easiest way to deal with them is to take the subject to its logical end. At that point emotions are completely out of it. Fact, = facts and facts will stand.
Conservative think beyond the emotion and see it to the end. Taking into account how it will effect/affect others as it moves onward.
Liberals think of the immediate problem and tries to deal it, regardless of the collateral damage that will follow. Buy hey, the feel like they done something. Success doesn't matter. Only the good feeling do.
I thought we actually came to an understanding in the other thread that being gay is not a choice. That is the actual meaning behind his statement and that's why he's being called an idiot (again).
The biggest problem with liberals is that everything they believe eventually begins with blaming ppl for most things that are far beyond our control and then they base their complaints on a feeling of shame/superiority.
Case in point. (Global warming,climate change, etc). They blame the successful of anyone for damaging the earth and presume to know how to fix a problem that their own scientists call a religion. They are so short sighted and gullible.
The easiest way to deal with them is to take the subject to its logical end. At that point emotions are completely out of it. Fact, = facts and facts will stand.
Conservative think beyond the emotion and see it to the end. Taking into account how it will effect/affect others as it moves onward.
Liberals think of the immediate problem and tries to deal it, regardless of the collateral damage that will follow. Buy hey, the feel like they done something. Success doesn't matter. Only the good feeling do.
True.
Liberals think with their hearts (and other body parts) and not with their brains. They are emotional, and please emotional people.
Conservatives feel with their brains, and not with their hearts. They are rational, but that makes them seem uncaring.
That is the two strongest differences between the two extremes.
The biggest problem with liberals is that everything they believe eventually begins with blaming ppl for most things that are far beyond our control and then they base their complaints on a feeling of shame/superiority.
Case in point. (Global warming,climate change, etc). They blame the successful of anyone for damaging the earth and presume to know how to fix a problem that their own scientists call a religion. They are so short sighted and gullible.
The easiest way to deal with them is to take the subject to its logical end. At that point emotions are completely out of it. Fact, = facts and facts will stand.
Conservative think beyond the emotion and see it to the end. Taking into account how it will effect/affect others as it moves onward.
Liberals think of the immediate problem and tries to deal it, regardless of the collateral damage that will follow. Buy hey, the feel like they done something. Success doesn't matter. Only the good feeling do.
I we replace "liberal" with "negro" and "conservative" with "white", we get to the heart of your statement. "I assume a position of superiority and project my insecurities on a group of people without evidence"
BTW, do you ever start a post with anything other than "the problem with liberals..."?
I thought we actually came to an understanding in the other thread that being gay is not a choice
You still choose to sleep with people of the same sex.
Or are you going to say that you are being forced to be gay?
Which explains a lot of how you want to take personal responsibility out of everyone's hands (give them an excuse of "I didn't do it, Bill Nye made me do it!")
If your topic covers a story over 6 months old (Watergate, Benghazi, 2012 Election, etc.) post it here.
Discussions on racism, homophobia, transphobia, and the like are allowed, targeted insults based on these will not be tolerated.
Political debates get heated and are meant to be intense, if you take offense to being called or proven wrong, you don't belong here.
If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen; if you prove you can't handle the criticism you bring upon yourself in this thread, you may be removed from it. You are responsible for what you post.
Along those lines, heat is fine, but sustained, clearly personal hostility is not okay. The personal attack rules still apply. Attack positions, not posters. Failure to adhere to this will result in your removal from the thread.
This thread is NOT the Flame Core.
These rules are subject to change and modification where and when needed.
Random Politics & Religion may be mained or demained depending on the activity within at a Moderator's discretion.
