Random Pish-Posh And Dribblety-Poop #12

Also a senior level advisor on the Trump campaign... and Trump wants to complain about "crooked media".

moral hazard.

Yes, the article is biased, but it's also factual. Hell, they even showed evidence of all laws broken by Clinton, Lynch, and Comney.

If you want to stick your head in the sand (or in somebody's oriface), by all means go for it.

And for anyone who automatically dismisses the article because of where it is published, well, there's no hope for you then.

And there you have the quandary. Most of the media outlets are so polarized that they won't report negative things about their own side, and the others that do report it they are immediately dismissed because "bias". If they're all in the tank, who in the heck are we supposed to believe?

You can believe me. However you can't believe I'm not butter.

What the liberals/democrats tell you to believe. Get with the program man!

You either buy into the line that Clinton is the most honest person in the world, or you are a deplorable!

I just find this funny and reminds me of this forum:

I remember when the left at least pretended to claim to be "free-thinking" and "tolerant". At some point the curtain fell and it became all about controlled thought, controlled speech, forced "equality", media collusion, and greed... with a sprinkle of progressive glitter to dress it all up.

(And yes I know that the right isn't sterling either at this point, but what I said goes along with King's post)

I think you've finally just dove off the cliff marked sanity and into the open waters of say whatever *** nonsense pops up in your head lol...

You don't even make sense any more and this just resmbles the ramblings of a crazy person...

And that's the extremely simplistic interpretation of what I said, not even scratching the surface of what that actually means. But hey, they depend on people to view it as a macro-level platitude instead of, you know, actually thinking and looking at it pragmatically.

Pretty much... There's so much nonsense out there too you don't really know who to believe anymore so people just usually go with whichever one lines up more closely with their own views...

before I comment on this one could you provide a bit more detail on the controlled thought speech and "forced equality"?

Baseless claims? A majority of that was heavily reinforced by revelations from this week. It's what the politics of the left has become. You might not notice it because you seem to view it from some kind of hazy utopian perspective, but that's what is going on whether you're paying attention or not.

No. For one, I never said that this was an unbiased source. In actuality, there is no such thing as an "unbiased source." in news today. Everything has a political spin to it.

Sure, go ahead and read whatever article you want and come to whatever conclusion you wish. I reported an article that used actual law as evidence to their assertions. And, so far, nobody has challenged the article in question. Well, except for obvious biases, of course.

But you know what? If you only read articles from sources biased on one side of the political spectrum (I'm looking at you Chanti), then your viewpoints are going to match said spectrum if it hasn't already. You could read the article, find the errors, or if there's no errors involved, accept the article and base your conclusions therefor. That's generally how I do it.

That's your perceived notions, not mine. I asked anyone to defend against the article and what it said. You have yet to attack what the author said.

I'm not the one who just said that they weren't going to read it because it's "biased" (and in the way you aren't aligned with).

Absolutely. But I'm going to be on the road in a few minutes, so if you want to get into it then it would have to be later tonight.

Have you been under a rock this past week? Or are you pretending these emails from Clinton's top adviser is meaningless and/or false?

Pot meet Kettle.

So are you saying you will now stop being an obnoxious *** towards people when they post links from MotherJones or the HuffPost? And that you will stop dismissing their points?

Or are you admitting you're hopeless?

Actually, you are missing the point.

You are being so gung-ho about a response to an attack on an article only because it's considered biased in your eyes that you are forgetting the article in question.

Why don't you look at the article in question with your "pragmatic" mind? Oh, and while you are at it, without the usual bias you portray too.

Ok, Tolerance. Now, are you saying that the media (who we are discussing about on the topic of biases) isn't being A) selective in their reporting and B) selective in their presentation of their articles? Yes, it happens both sides, but most mainstream media is heavily biased for Clinton/against Trump. I mean, you can't look further than the "top" MSM sources (with the exception of Fox News, which still remains the top) to see the liberal biases.

And anyone who is outspoken against these notions? Automatically ostracized by the same media. See: Trump.

How again is the progressive left "tolerant" in your eyes?

Freedom of speech only applies to anyone speaking against the government. The soldier's family has every right to demand retribution, in a civil sense, against that "church."

But if you think the progressive left doesn't control thoughts and speech, then explain this new wave of "politically correct" speech coming from the left. Where you have to say what they want you to say or, again, you get automatically ostracized by the left. Case in point: Clinton's accusation of Trump's supporters as "deplorables," which all she knows about these people is that they will never support her (and her "politically correct" speech).

Wait, did you just say that government lobbying is unrestricted? You do know there are specific regulations regarding lobbying, right? That doesn't sound like unrestricted practices to me....

But you miss the point of the whole accusation of media collusion. In this society, the media are supposed to be the watchdogs of the federal government. If something is wrong, or if somebody is corrupt, the media is there to point it out and demand an investigation (if they haven't done so already). Who do you think started the Watergate investigations? Actually, all investigations regarding government officials period.

What is shocking about this is how the MSM is being silent about this whole Clinton affair, even though the evidence is apparent that multiple federal crimes have been committed by the Clintons and their cronies. And now we are seeing collusion with the media to keep it silent? Where's that investigation?!?!?!?

Greed exists for all the above things, it's pretty much attached to the whole accusation because the progressive left is "supposed to be above it all."

Do you even read any article then?

All articles are biased one way or another.

And seriously, are you saying that their evidence presented is false? Have you even attempted to read it? Or are you going to keep that head implanted in whatever hole you have in front of you?

The article in question is about the crimes committed by Clinton. Are you seriously going to believe that Clinton is going to come to the microphone, in October of 2016, and say that, yes, she committed all those crimes?

Do you realize how idiotic your statement just made you? "I'm not going to pay attention to anything except what I want to hear, and only if it comes out of the mouths of the people I want to hear them say what I want them to say."

I would suggest you actually read the article, but I don't feel like wasting my time on such a closed minded individual such as yourself.

You been reading about the investigations into Trump U. again?

Too bad Chelsea Clinton doesn't own or is married to an owner and publisher of a print rag that writes political hit pieces on her mothers opponents... Then we could have fun with someone's bluff.

If you want to approach this issue like it's a courtroom, shouldn't you listen to all the issues, instead of ignoring those who you say are "biased"?

You do know that you have the ability to sift through the biases yourself (or in other words, remove the fluff) and get to what the article is really telling you.

Then again, this article is all about the crimes committed by Clinton and her cronies. It outlines what they said, what they testified under oath, and what they did, and compares it to what they said, what they testified under oath, and what they did, using the law itself to show that what they said, what they testified under oath, and what they did was illegal because it contradicted with what they said, what they testified under oath, and what they did.

In other words, it uses their own words against them to show not only what Clinton did was illegal, but it is also being covered up by the "Justice" Department. Which is so blatantly obvious you have to be completely Amish or completely stupid to not see it. And that is meant to be a mutually exclusive comparison, so no Amish feelings should be hurt.

That's all the articles said about Trump U.: