User avatar
Termin8tor
30 Mar 2017 07:09 am
30 Mar 2017 07:09 am
Termin8tor
User avatar
As I explicitly said. One party cannot keep a good face if they ignore facts from a neutral or even friendly media source - they will discredit their own argument if they call **** on such sources, and lose all credibility. But no one has to blindly trust ANY source, simply because you do. If it is...
— LiberalForum Archive
User avatar
Cannonpointer
29 Mar 2017 05:23 pm
29 Mar 2017 05:23 pm
Cannonpointer
User avatar
Facts are not facts until BOTH parties agree. One party cannot keep a good face if they ignore facts from a neutral or even friendly media source - they will discredit their own argument if they call **** on such sources, and lose all credibility. But no one has to blindly trust ANY source, simply...
— LiberalForum Archive
User avatar
Termin8tor
29 Mar 2017 05:00 pm
29 Mar 2017 05:00 pm
Termin8tor
User avatar
Sorry, I'm not being paid to take the time to go through all that, especially when no matter what I cite, most on the other side will brush it off anyway. And who defines "neutral?" For decades, the liberal-left has insulted and rejected excellent sources like Robert Conquest. Do I have to wait 3 d...
— LiberalForum Archive
User avatar
Termin8tor
29 Mar 2017 04:54 pm
29 Mar 2017 04:54 pm
Termin8tor
User avatar
As she cites an utter joke of a leftist wackjob source. Gosh, another apparent felony by a close Clinton associate, from a highly respected author. So how will you smear him? Because that's all you got. RussiaGate: Hillary Clinton and John Podesta's Troubling Ties to Russia BY DEBRA HEINE MAR...
— LiberalForum Archive
User avatar
Cannonpointer
29 Mar 2017 04:48 pm
29 Mar 2017 04:48 pm
Cannonpointer
User avatar
1. You could just drop it - not use that evidence, or 2. Plow ahead and damn the torpedoes, or 3. Start a NEW thread about the MSM coverup. The problem with you is that you will commonly use an agenda source when legitimate sources SHOULD be available - for example, WSJ OpEds. Assuming the WSJ does...
— LiberalForum Archive
User avatar
Termin8tor
29 Mar 2017 04:25 pm
29 Mar 2017 04:25 pm
Termin8tor
User avatar
If it's citing factual information that supposedly "objective" sources in the corrupt liberal MSM will refuse to cover, only a moron would not use partisan sources. I could go on for literally days about massive amounts of information the MSM either hid or just refused to cover. So what should I d...
— LiberalForum Archive
User avatar
Termin8tor
29 Mar 2017 04:03 pm
29 Mar 2017 04:03 pm
Termin8tor
User avatar
Yeah, I get quite angry when decent people are dishonestly smeared. So who's crazy, the person who gets angered by smears? Or the person who commits them and has for many years?...
— LiberalForum Archive
User avatar
Termin8tor
29 Mar 2017 04:01 pm
29 Mar 2017 04:01 pm
Termin8tor
User avatar
The last one, Dim....
— LiberalForum Archive
User avatar
Termin8tor
29 Mar 2017 04:00 pm
29 Mar 2017 04:00 pm
Termin8tor
User avatar
Figures you'd cite leftist bulls***. It claims that the wackjob left Nation Institute is moderately liberal. Same for moonbat left Rolling Stone. I mean, every media outlet I copied from its list is hopelessly liberal biased to the point of ethical and even financial corruption in many ca...
— LiberalForum Archive
User avatar
Nobody
29 Mar 2017 03:44 pm
29 Mar 2017 03:44 pm
Nobody
User avatar
I do the same thing. I love when I can find something from one of their own favorite sources that contradicts what they say, so they can't just dismiss it for having a liberal bias. LOL I'm still waiting for Clem to name one of the many 'wackjob websites' that I use as sources....
— LiberalForum Archive