Well then the New York Times must be a bunch of conspiracy theorists because they came out and admitted their bias even apologizing to their readers and promising to do better.
That's incorrect. The NYT letter was to assure their readers that they will continue ("rededicate" themselves to) doing what they've always been doing.
The first step of beating an addiction (in this case, of deceitful partisanship) is admitting you have an addiction. Their letter was really close, but in the end claimed they didn't have a problem telling the truth, they were just confused by Trump's popularity.
The irony is that you don't understand that the fact that you can only same one 'non-liberal' news channel, essentially proves the point he was making.
Wait a sec. You buy your hookers? The smart money is in a lease. They don't have great resale value, after all. So, just ditch the old one and get a new model every other month.
Her father is never going to see her again. Unless you think the scientists will both cure cancer and solve the unfreezing problems within the next couple decades.
Well, since this "Luis Vitton" is clearly a knock off of the real Louis Vuitton, I guess they would only use gold plating. The authentic Louis Vuitton shingles are 24K gold. I know this because my wife just ordered a new roof for our summer home in the Caymans.
Mr. President, I didn't know they allowed you to access Slashdot again. I thought you were prohibited the last time you tried telling the funniest joke in the world.
Sorry, your attempt at patronizing humor failed. I am not a Trump supporter, I voted for Jill Stein. I just like seeing all the precious snowflakes getting their panties in a twist because their favorite sociopath was defeated by a more intelligent one.
538 pretty much nailed the election based on the bad data they chose for themselves.
FTFY. It boggles the mind that people can't see past the incompetence. I don't know on which planet "pretty much nailed" amounts to getting it completely wrong. I sure as hell don't want to live on that one.
Living there isn't the problem. Driving over a bridge there is life-threatening. Especially wooden bridges.
As I just posted above, the AC that disputed my claim would like to make out that I limited myself to Soros directly paying BLM in cash on a street corner. But my claim was for all outside money funding numerous activities. Don't let the idiot squad drag you into a false debate about a point never made.
Your weird attempt to insert a false dichotomy into my argument notwithstanding, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, which is on the person spreading the allegation not the person hearing it.
I hear that line a lot from people who don't want their beliefs challenged by reality. The rest of us know how to use Google to investigate something we find important enough to post about.
First point: In my original post above, I did not specify who the outsiders are. Unless the protests are being paid for by the actual protesters, then there must be an outside source of funds. That isn't conspiracy theory, that's economics 101, someone has to pay the bills. Whether is is George Soros or someone else, and whether the outsiders funded thousands of dollars or millions, the point stands that someone with money is funding the protests.
Second point: A Google search for "funding of black lives matter" shows numerous links to articles debating the truth and falsehood of particular persons and groups funding Black Lives Matter in particular, and other similar/related groups in general. Go read a few, and you'll find more than white supremacy to keep you occupied.
Third point: I also did not limit my statement to any specific protest group that has happened lately. So how about a Google search for "funding of protests"?
I'm sure you will use your cop-out line of "white supremacists" and "alt-right", and whatever hand-waving you have to do, to ignore reports that you don't like. There were certainly links to the sites you mentioned, and others you will also ignore. But it would take a strong will to ignore all of them.
Yeah, those damn conservative media that show videos of progressives stating they want to take away guns. How dare they confuse the issue with hard evidence?
I'm sorry. I've looked over my post, trying to find the conspiracy theory you are referring to. Other than protesters being funded by outsiders, such as George Soros, I don't see any point I made that could possibly be a dreaded conspiracy theory. And it was shown that George Soros and other rich leftists did pay for protesters, and paid for them to become violent.
So, please point out the conspiracy theory, meaning an unfounded notion of tangled webs of deceit and corruption, in my above post. Thank you.
Slashdot Mirror
Well then the New York Times must be a bunch of conspiracy theorists because they came out and admitted their bias even apologizing to their readers and promising to do better.
That's incorrect. The NYT letter was to assure their readers that they will continue ("rededicate" themselves to) doing what they've always been doing.
The first step of beating an addiction (in this case, of deceitful partisanship) is admitting you have an addiction. Their letter was really close, but in the end claimed they didn't have a problem telling the truth, they were just confused by Trump's popularity.
Again, a poster who thinks that naming a single non-liberal channel proves there isn't a liberal bias in the media.
The irony is that you don't understand that the fact that you can only same one 'non-liberal' news channel, essentially proves the point he was making.
We would provide citations, but you guys just reply that you don't like the site hosting the video, or that you don't like the guys making the video.
Wait a sec. You buy your hookers? The smart money is in a lease. They don't have great resale value, after all. So, just ditch the old one and get a new model every other month.
So you've just turned a societal pariah into a lab specimen.
Her father is never going to see her again. Unless you think the scientists will both cure cancer and solve the unfreezing problems within the next couple decades.
Well, since this "Luis Vitton" is clearly a knock off of the real Louis Vuitton, I guess they would only use gold plating. The authentic Louis Vuitton shingles are 24K gold. I know this because my wife just ordered a new roof for our summer home in the Caymans.
Mr. President, I didn't know they allowed you to access Slashdot again. I thought you were prohibited the last time you tried telling the funniest joke in the world.
Sorry, your attempt at patronizing humor failed. I am not a Trump supporter, I voted for Jill Stein. I just like seeing all the precious snowflakes getting their panties in a twist because their favorite sociopath was defeated by a more intelligent one.
I get nearly the same list, but with Target at the top. Maybe that's the default for the letter T.
If you think that it is adult to call anyone who disagrees with you "fascist", than you will fit in nicely with this argument thread.
Wait until we start having troubles with water.
538 pretty much nailed the election based on the bad data they chose for themselves.
FTFY. It boggles the mind that people can't see past the incompetence. I don't know on which planet "pretty much nailed" amounts to getting it completely wrong. I sure as hell don't want to live on that one.
Living there isn't the problem. Driving over a bridge there is life-threatening. Especially wooden bridges.
If Trump was a jerk to the UK, would it be racism?
>
Also, you voted for a racist, misogynistic fascist. .
I think the term you are looking for is "deplorable".
No, he was talking about the president elect.
So you are calling Hillary Clinton racist and fascist? Much more evidence of that than there is for Trump.
Oh, yes. The liberals only called one person racist, misogynist, or fascist in the last year.
Great comeback.
How often to conservatives or Republicans riot?
You mean like when an armed group took over the federal wildlife?
How many cars did they destroy? How many building were burned? How many people were injured during these riots you speak of?
As I just posted above, the AC that disputed my claim would like to make out that I limited myself to Soros directly paying BLM in cash on a street corner. But my claim was for all outside money funding numerous activities. Don't let the idiot squad drag you into a false debate about a point never made.
Your weird attempt to insert a false dichotomy into my argument notwithstanding, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, which is on the person spreading the allegation not the person hearing it.
I hear that line a lot from people who don't want their beliefs challenged by reality. The rest of us know how to use Google to investigate something we find important enough to post about.
First point: In my original post above, I did not specify who the outsiders are. Unless the protests are being paid for by the actual protesters, then there must be an outside source of funds. That isn't conspiracy theory, that's economics 101, someone has to pay the bills. Whether is is George Soros or someone else, and whether the outsiders funded thousands of dollars or millions, the point stands that someone with money is funding the protests.
Second point: A Google search for "funding of black lives matter" shows numerous links to articles debating the truth and falsehood of particular persons and groups funding Black Lives Matter in particular, and other similar/related groups in general. Go read a few, and you'll find more than white supremacy to keep you occupied.
Here are a few interesting ones.
http://www.washingtontimes.com...
http://www.thenewamerican.com/...
http://www.snopes.com/ford-mot...
http://www.politico.com/story/...
Third point: I also did not limit my statement to any specific protest group that has happened lately. So how about a Google search for "funding of protests"?
http://www.thegatewaypundit.co...
http://www.thegatewaypundit.co...
https://www.lewrockwell.com/20...
I'm sure you will use your cop-out line of "white supremacists" and "alt-right", and whatever hand-waving you have to do, to ignore reports that you don't like. There were certainly links to the sites you mentioned, and others you will also ignore. But it would take a strong will to ignore all of them.
Have a nice day.
Yeah, those damn conservative media that show videos of progressives stating they want to take away guns. How dare they confuse the issue with hard evidence?
I'm sorry. I've looked over my post, trying to find the conspiracy theory you are referring to. Other than protesters being funded by outsiders, such as George Soros, I don't see any point I made that could possibly be a dreaded conspiracy theory. And it was shown that George Soros and other rich leftists did pay for protesters, and paid for them to become violent.
So, please point out the conspiracy theory, meaning an unfounded notion of tangled webs of deceit and corruption, in my above post. Thank you.