Tech blogger finds proof DNC chief's emails weren't 'doctored' despite claims

[Slyfox696]

You're about the only person here who believes this nonsense.

Which news organization is the most trusted? The answer is complicated. | Pew Research Center

How News Outlet Trust Differs Over the Political Spectrum | Pew Research Center's Journalism Project

Statistics say otherwise. In fact, those two links essentially show the only people who believe the way you do are those who believe the way you do. It appears most people who don't live in the right wing echo chamber don't agree with you.

I don't know how you do it. There's no way I could consistently post things which were untrue and be okay with myself.

After another media outlet discovered this. Hmmmmm.

That doesn't even make sense. The fact is it was brought to public attention and CNN not only reported on it (which you suggested they wouldn't), they also fired her.

You have been wrong about nearly every single thing in this thread. But you obviously don't care about being wrong, just about spewing your bias all over the place.

 

[Moderate Right]

Which news organization is the most trusted? The answer is complicated. | Pew Research Center

How News Outlet Trust Differs Over the Political Spectrum | Pew Research Center's Journalism Project

Statistics say otherwise. In fact, those two links essentially show the only people who believe the way you do are those who believe the way you do. It appears most people who don't live in the right wing echo chamber don't agree with you.

I don't know how you do it. There's no way I could consistently post things which were untrue and be okay with myself.
That doesn't even make sense. The fact is it was brought to public attention and CNN not only reported on it (which you suggested they wouldn't), they also fired her.

You have been wrong about nearly every single thing in this thread. But you obviously don't care about being wrong, just about spewing your bias all over the place.

Cherry picked stats. Online adults? Really? How old is an online adult? Younger people tend to get more of their news online and younger people tend to be more liberal and Democrat so it goes to figure that the liberally slanted media such as CNN would come out on top.

 

[Erod]

Which news organization is the most trusted? The answer is complicated. | Pew Research Center

How News Outlet Trust Differs Over the Political Spectrum | Pew Research Center's Journalism Project

Statistics say otherwise. In fact, those two links essentially show the only people who believe the way you do are those who believe the way you do. It appears most people who don't live in the right wing echo chamber don't agree with you.

I don't know how you do it. There's no way I could consistently post things which were untrue and be okay with myself.
That doesn't even make sense. The fact is it was brought to public attention and CNN not only reported on it (which you suggested they wouldn't), they also fired her.

You have been wrong about nearly every single thing in this thread. But you obviously don't care about being wrong, just about spewing your bias all over the place.

LOL, what a selective bunch of hooey.

Major news broke last night that the FBI had information on the Clinton Foundation that will lead to eventual indictment. CNN ran from this as fast as it could, with only cursory reference.

Hillary's goose is cooked regardless of Tuesday, but not in la-la-land over at CNN.

 

[Slyfox696]

Cherry picked stats. Online adults? Really? How old is an online adult? Younger people tend to get more of their news online and younger people tend to be more liberal and Democrat so it goes to figure that the liberally slanted media such as CNN would come out on top.

If you had actually read the links, you'd know why your post is invalid.

LOL, what a selective bunch of hooey.

Once more, you make baseless claims you don't even try to defend. Nothing but a bunch of nonsense from you. You reject reason, logic and facts because they don't align with your obviously biased viewpoint.

Major news broke last night that the FBI had information on the Clinton Foundation that will lead to eventual indictment.

Says who? An unnamed Fox News source, right? How about we wait until we have something a little more concrete before we call it "major news".

See, this is the problem with "conservatives" and I use that term loosely. Too many "conservatives" are far too willing to buy whatever conspiracy theory gets put before them, without any desire to fact check or wait for confirmation. It's asinine.

Am I saying the report is false? No, I'm not. I'm saying criticizing a news agency because they want *gasp* confirmation *gasp* before reporting something as being "liberal" is stupid.

You have been wrong in essentially every thing you've said in this thread. You have done nothing but show how incredibly biased you are and your accusation CNN is liberal because they don't conform to your rather extreme right wing views is asinine. You're wrong. You've been proven wrong. You've provided absolutely no defense on everything I've proven you wrong about. You're wrong.

 

[Erod]

If you had actually read the links, you'd know why your post is invalid.
Once more, you make baseless claims you don't even try to defend. Nothing but a bunch of nonsense from you. You reject reason, logic and facts because they don't align with your obviously biased viewpoint.

Says who? An unnamed Fox News source, right? How about we wait until we have something a little more concrete before we call it "major news".

See, this is the problem with "conservatives" and I use that term loosely. Too many "conservatives" are far too willing to buy whatever conspiracy theory gets put before them, without any desire to fact check or wait for confirmation. It's asinine.

Am I saying the report is false? No, I'm not. I'm saying criticizing a news agency because they want *gasp* confirmation *gasp* before reporting something as being "liberal" is stupid.

You have been wrong in essentially every thing you've said in this thread. You have done nothing but show how incredibly biased you are and your accusation CNN is liberal because they don't conform to your rather extreme right wing views is asinine. You're wrong. You've been proven wrong. You've provided absolutely no defense on everything I've proven you wrong about. You're wrong.

Dude, she's cooked. The FBI doesn't waste their time on rabbit trails, and they're not politically driven like our DoJ that meets with Bill Clinton on tarmacs. The FBI is going to nail this corrupt bitch to the freaking cross, and that's better than she deserves.

And I'm not wrong. You are. Everybody knows you are. Even you know you are. CNN has no soul. It's bought and paid for by the DNC. Has been since the early 90s.

 

[Slyfox696]

Dude, she's cooked. The FBI doesn't waste their time on rabbit trails, and they're not politically driven like our DoJ that meets with Bill Clinton on tarmacs. The FBI is going to nail this corrupt bitch to the freaking cross, and that's better than she deserves.

And, again, you don't support anything you say. It's like a broken record. Make outlandish claim, have outlandish claim proven false, make a different outlandish claim (in some cases, like this one, your claim has nothing to do with the topic). It's all you have.

You really should stop letting your obvious bias get in the way of realistic discussion. I've proven nearly everything you've said false. CNN isn't the ultra biased arm of the DNC as you've claimed, they have liberal leaning hosts and plenty of conservative/Republican guests/pundits. You're wrong and I've proven it.

So go ahead and keep saying things which aren't true and I'll keep exposing your posts as the propaganda they are.

 

[Erod]

And, again, you don't support anything you say. It's like a broken record. Make outlandish claim, have outlandish claim proven false, make a different outlandish claim (in some cases, like this one, your claim has nothing to do with the topic). It's all you have.

You really should stop letting your obvious bias get in the way of realistic discussion. I've proven nearly everything you've said false. CNN isn't the ultra biased arm of the DNC as you've claimed, they have liberal leaning hosts and plenty of conservative/Republican guests/pundits. You're wrong and I've proven it.

So go ahead and keep saying things which aren't true and I'll keep exposing your posts as the propaganda they are.

Your "proof" is comical. It's not about just having some token conservative on your show. Look how the narrative is controlled to be anti-Trump constantly, while explaining away Hillary and criticizing anyone or anything that questions her.

These wikileak emails have gotten VERY little play. CNN has dived into all the sexual allegations of Trump for days on end, meanwhile almost completely ignoring the bombshells from wikileaks and just dismissing them as "Russian interference". It's so blatant how they basically just refused to even discuss.

Then, the FBI happened, and now it's all about attacking Comey and Russia. Never mind the information in those emails that show mass corruption, pay for play, treason, mishandling of classified information.

It's systemic through the DoJ, the Clintons, and even Obama. It's orchestrated. How much more proof do you need than Bill Clinton meeting privately with Lynch on an airplane? She's the Attorney effin General! She shouldn't be meeting with anyone under investigation EVER! The FBI is complaining that the DoJ won't allow them to do their jobs.

And CNN? Nary a word about such REAL news. Nope, let's get back to the beauty pageant contestants asap! Let's casually glaze over the million red flags surrounding Hillary, Lynch, Wasserman, Huma, Brazile, Mills, etc, etc, etc.

It's as plain as a skillet to the face, but you are so ladled in your false liberalism and self hate, you can't (or won't) see it.

 

[Slyfox696]

Your "proof" is comical.

No, it's realistic. Just because someone isn't a nutjob, that doesn't mean they are not conservative.

It's not about just having some token conservative on your show.

They don't have a token conservative, they have many conservatives. Big difference. Once more, you are not posting the truth.

Look how the narrative is controlled to be anti-Trump constantly, while explaining away Hillary and criticizing anyone or anything that questions her.

That doesn't happen at all. You are literally making that up. Now it's true Hillary Clinton hasn't bragged about sexually assaulting people, so there is a difference in that, but she has taken more than her fair share of lumps and CNN can't go five minutes without talking about how she is losing her lead in the polls.

You are wrong and you obviously don't watch CNN.

These wikileak emails have gotten VERY little play. CNN has dived into all the sexual allegations of Trump for days on end, meanwhile almost completely ignoring the bombshells from wikileaks and just dismissing them as "Russian interference". It's so blatant how they basically just refused to even discuss.

At this point I'm at a loss as to how someone can say something so blatantly false and still feel okay with themselves.

They have talked about Clinton's e-mails nonstop. Not just the Wikileaks but also the FBI stuff surrounding them as well. You could not be more wrong. Why do you insist on saying things which simply are not true?

And CNN? Nary a word about such REAL news.

They covered Bill meeting with Lynch repeatedly. They have talked about the conflicts within the FBI and between the FBI and Justice Department on several occasions. They even talked about your "close to indictment" story and how other, more reputable, sources have basically said it's false (not surprisingly).

You are just making stuff up because you clearly don't watch.

It's as plain as a skillet to the face, but you are so ladled in your false liberalism and self hate, you can't (or won't) see it.

No, it's because it's NOT TRUE. You are outright not posting anything close to the truth. The idea I'm "ladled" with "liberalism" because you're posting lies is mind-numbingly stupid.

Over and over again you have made one false statement after another. For some reason, you continue to insist on saying things which are flat out not true. I'm guessing you're a Trump supporter, right? Because constantly saying things which are provably false seems to be quite common with Trump supporters anymore. Facts and reality doesn't matter, Trump supporters just make up their own reality and then tell any lie necessary to support that alternate reality.

Are you a Trump supporter? If not, you REALLY should stop posting things which are PROVABLY false. CNN DID report on Brazile AND they fired her. David Gergen IS a Republican, registered and has served multiple Republican Presidents. Katrina Pierson is/was official spokesperson for Trump campaign. Kellyanne Conway is the campaign manager and she was on CNN multiple times yesterday. Kayleigh McEnany has studied at Oxford and Harvard. Jeffrey Lord served in the Reagan administration. Amanda Carpenter is a former campaign manager for Ted Cruz. Boris Epshteyn is a Republican political strategist and a senior adviser to Trump. Your claim they just put on a bunch of liberals and "token" conservatives is absolutely not true. They have covered the Wikileaks story, they've covered the FBI letter to Congress, they're constantly discussing the narrowing polls, all things which are negative about Hillary.

At this point, it's obvious you would rather post a lie than acknowledge the truth. So I'm done. I've proven nearly everything you've said in this thread a lie and have done so multiples time in multiples ways. It's not open to interpretation, they've been proven to be false. And when the best you have is to say current and former campaign managers, senior advisors and registered Republicans are "token", you know you've lost.

So if you want to post another bunch of statements which are provably untrue to anyone who lives outside the fictional reality so many Republicans/conservatives seem to desire to live in, then go ahead. Have a great time. Just understand we both know the things you are saying have already been proven false.

 

[Erod]

No, it's realistic. Just because someone isn't a nutjob, that doesn't mean they are not conservative.
They don't have a token conservative, they have many conservatives. Big difference. Once more, you are not posting the truth.

That doesn't happen at all. You are literally making that up. Now it's true Hillary Clinton hasn't bragged about sexually assaulting people, so there is a difference in that, but she has taken more than her fair share of lumps and CNN can't go five minutes without talking about how she is losing her lead in the polls.

You are wrong and you obviously don't watch CNN.

At this point I'm at a loss as to how someone can say something so blatantly false and still feel okay with themselves.

They have talked about Clinton's e-mails nonstop. Not just the Wikileaks but also the FBI stuff surrounding them as well. You could not be more wrong. Why do you insist on saying things which simply are not true?

They covered Bill meeting with Lynch repeatedly. They have talked about the conflicts within the FBI and between the FBI and Justice Department on several occasions. They even talked about your "close to indictment" story and how other, more reputable, sources have basically said it's false (not surprisingly).

You are just making stuff up because you clearly don't watch.

No, it's because it's NOT TRUE. You are outright not posting anything close to the truth. The idea I'm "ladled" with "liberalism" because you're posting lies is mind-numbingly stupid.

Over and over again you have made one false statement after another. For some reason, you continue to insist on saying things which are flat out not true. I'm guessing you're a Trump supporter, right? Because constantly saying things which are provably false seems to be quite common with Trump supporters anymore. Facts and reality doesn't matter, Trump supporters just make up their own reality and then tell any lie necessary to support that alternate reality.

Are you a Trump supporter? If not, you REALLY should stop posting things which are PROVABLY false. CNN DID report on Brazile AND they fired her. David Gergen IS a Republican, registered and has served multiple Republican Presidents. Katrina Pierson is/was official spokesperson for Trump campaign. Kellyanne Conway is the campaign manager and she was on CNN multiple times yesterday. Kayleigh McEnany has studied at Oxford and Harvard. Jeffrey Lord served in the Reagan administration. Amanda Carpenter is a former campaign manager for Ted Cruz. Boris Epshteyn is a Republican political strategist and a senior adviser to Trump. Your claim they just put on a bunch of liberals and "token" conservatives is absolutely not true. They have covered the Wikileaks story, they've covered the FBI letter to Congress, they're constantly discussing the narrowing polls, all things which are negative about Hillary.

At this point, it's obvious you would rather post a lie than acknowledge the truth. So I'm done. I've proven nearly everything you've said in this thread a lie and have done so multiples time in multiples ways. It's not open to interpretation, they've been proven to be false. And when the best you have is to say current and former campaign managers, senior advisors and registered Republicans are "token", you know you've lost.

So if you want to post another bunch of statements which are provably untrue to anyone who lives outside the fictional reality so many Republicans/conservatives seem to desire to live in, then go ahead. Have a great time. Just understand we both know the things you are saying have already been proven false.

I've bet you've got your own fencepost right next to you at all times.

CNN's overt bias is legendary. They even seem to wear it with a badge of honor.

That you don't know that, or that you would even compromise yourself by arguing against it, it more than any of us can comprehend.

You're obsessed with appearances on CNN, as if that demonstrates objectivity. Look at the daily narrative, the theme, the manipulation of the news that is thick as syrup there. It's nauseating. Fox does it, too, but not it's "news" shows.

Compare the objectivity and newsworthy nature of Bret Baier versus the touchy-feely massaging of the news by Wolf Blitzer, Erin Burnett, or Anderson Cooper. I'm OK with Jake Tapper, and I'm generally OK with John King.

How can you dispute the obvious in Dana Bash, Wolf Blitzer, Chris Cuomo, Christiane Amanpour, etc? Then, they actually gave a job to Elliott Spitzer? LOL

The only worthy thing CNN does is live coverage of big event news like earthquakes or terrorist attacks. They're very good at that. (Especially Cooper when he's on location.) Other than that, they're a spillover from the DNC strategy sessions of the day. They take instruction well. They carry the water as they're supposed to, and wrap it in a "news" show that is far more drama than reality.

 

[Moderate Right]

I've bet you've got your own fencepost right next to you at all times.

CNN's overt bias is legendary. They even seem to wear it with a badge of honor.

That you don't know that, or that you would even compromise yourself by arguing against it, it more than any of us can comprehend.

You're obsessed with appearances on CNN, as if that demonstrates objectivity. Look at the daily narrative, the theme, the manipulation of the news that is thick as syrup there. It's nauseating. Fox does it, too, but not it's "news" shows.

Compare the objectivity and newsworthy nature of Bret Baier versus the touchy-feely massaging of the news by Wolf Blitzer, Erin Burnett, or Anderson Cooper. I'm OK with Jake Tapper, and I'm generally OK with John King.

How can you dispute the obvious in Dana Bash, Wolf Blitzer, Chris Cuomo, Christiane Amanpour, etc? Then, they actually gave a job to Elliott Spitzer? LOL

The only worthy thing CNN does is live coverage of big event news like earthquakes or terrorist attacks. They're very good at that. (Especially Cooper when he's on location.) Other than that, they're a spillover from the DNC strategy sessions of the day. They take instruction well. They carry the water as they're supposed to, and wrap it in a "news" show that is far more drama than reality.

Let me get this straight, you're expecting a liberal to think that liberal news is not biased?

 

[Erod]

Let me get this straight, you expecting a liberal to think that liberal news is not biased?

What the hell was I thinking?

 

[Slyfox696]

Major news broke last night that the FBI had information on the Clinton Foundation that will lead to eventual indictment. CNN ran from this as fast as it could, with only cursory reference.

Hillary's goose is cooked regardless of Tuesday, but not in la-la-land over at CNN.

I still haven't, and won't, read your last post because I'm over proving things which aren't true, only for you to make up something else which isn't true. But I did see this today, so I came back, for one post only, to post this:

Fox News anchor Bret Baier apologized on Friday for reporting earlier this week that FBI investigators were moving toward a "likely indictment" in their investigation into the Clinton Foundation.

"I explained a couple of times yesterday the phrasing of one of my answers to Brit Hume on Wednesday night, saying it was inartful the way I answered the last question about whether the investigations would continue after the election," Baier said. "And I answered that 'Yes, our sources said it would. They would continue to likely an indictment.'"


Baier continued: "That just wasn't inartful — it was a mistake, and for that I'm sorry."

Fox News' Bret Baier apologizes for Clinton indictment report - Business Insider

So, to recap, you essentially claimed CNN is biased because they didn't report something which wasn't true. Some people would acknowledge that and keep it in mind. Some people would show the integrity to admit they were wrong. I suspect you'll just try to defend something even Baier didn't try to defend.

Anyways, back to your posting of things which just aren't true.

Let me get this straight, you're expecting a liberal to think that liberal news is not biased?

Let me get this straight...you think because I prefer facts and reality, I'm a liberal?

 

[j-mac]

That's not at all what I said. I said this notion David Gergen isn't conservative because he doesn't engage in outlandish fairy tales or deal in conspiracy theories is absurd. Just because one doesn't engage in extremism, that doesn't make him any less conservative (or liberal).

In other words, just because YOU don't agree with David Gergen, that doesn't make him less of a conservative. And if you think holding rational positions means he's not a conservative, then the problem is you, not him.

Yeah, yeah....:roll: we all know why, and when liberals like, or respect those on the right, and that is when they can be of use to them.....So, spare us all the 'he was a good conservative' bs....The political world may have gotten more edgy since his day, but the same divisions from then are still there today, and this ramping up of "extremism" took both sides to create.

 

[Slyfox696]

Yeah, yeah....:roll: we all know why, and when liberals like, or respect those on the right, and that is when they can be of use to them.....So, spare us all the 'he was a good conservative' bs

I find it absolutely fascinating how divisive some "conservatives" are. If someone doesn't agree wholeheartedly with their particular brand of far right thinking, then they are a "liberal". Some of these "conservatives" are so desperate to adhere to some arbitrary notion of political purism, it's essentially akin to eating their own in a race to the farthest right.

As I've said multiple times on this forum, I'm not a liberal and I'm not a conservative. On some issues I lean one way and on others I lean the opposite. Generally speaking, you can count on me to never stray too far away from the center and you can always count on me to care far more about facts than a person or a team.

David Gergen is a rational and insightful person. Even if he's not talking politics, he's interesting and insightful. No matter how delusional someone may be, it's never going to change the fact Gergen is generally a very good political commentator, regardless of whether I agree with him or not.

....The political world may have gotten more edgy since his day, but the same divisions from then are still there today, and this ramping up of "extremism" took both sides to create.

That's...great? It doesn't change the fact David Gergen is a Republican/conservative. Just because he's not a nutjob, that doesn't mean he's not Republican/conservative.

 

[Moderate Right]

I find it absolutely fascinating how divisive some "conservatives" are. If someone doesn't agree wholeheartedly with their particular brand of far right thinking, then they are a "liberal". Some of these "conservatives" are so desperate to adhere to some arbitrary notion of political purism, it's essentially akin to eating their own in a race to the farthest right.

As I've said multiple times on this forum, I'm not a liberal and I'm not a conservative. On some issues I lean one way and on others I lean the opposite. Generally speaking, you can count on me to never stray too far away from the center and you can always count on me to care far more about facts than a person or a team.

David Gergen is a rational and insightful person. Even if he's not talking politics, he's interesting and insightful. No matter how delusional someone may be, it's never going to change the fact Gergen is generally a very good political commentator, regardless of whether I agree with him or not.

That's...great? It doesn't change the fact David Gergen is a Republican/conservative. Just because he's not a nutjob, that doesn't mean he's not Republican/conservative.

If you were a true moderate you would see that CNN leans to the left, as do most mainstream media.

 

[Slyfox696]

If you were a true moderate you would see that CNN leans to the left, as do most mainstream media.

No they don't. That's nothing more than a myth perpetuated by those with a severe persecution complex. I watch CNN all the time and, unlike some people, have the ability to be objective. CNN has liberal hosts and a crapton of conservative guests. Everyone gets a chance to present their side.

 

[Moderate Right]

No they don't. That's nothing more than a myth perpetuated by those with a severe persecution complex. I watch CNN all the time and, unlike some people, have the ability to be objective. CNN has liberal hosts and a crapton of conservative guests. Everyone gets a chance to present their side.

Everyone gets to present their side at Fox News to. They pay millions of dollars to Democratic Fox News contributors to tell their side, Juan Williams, just to name one. I guess that makes them as fair and balanced as CNN. If you don't agree with that then you're not as moderate as you claim you are. Some of you guys think you are moderate just because you're not as far left as Bernie. Hillary and Obama are not really moderates but you probably think they are.

 

[Slyfox696]

Everyone gets to present their side at Fox News to. They pay millions of dollars to Democratic Fox News contributors to tell their side, Juan Williams, just to name one. I guess that makes them as fair and balanced as CNN. If you don't agree with that then you're not as moderate as you claim you are. Some of you guys think you are moderate just because you're not as far left as Bernie. Hillary and Obama are not really moderates but you probably think they are.

You literally just post vomited nothing but rhetoric. I call Fox News biased because they literally talk about things which are not true and pass conspiracies on as fact. I call MSNBC just as biased as Fox. CNN is neither one of those two stations.

I know facts don't matter to some people. But honest people, like myself, prefer facts over a bunch of stupidity. CNN is not biased. I'll bet dollars to donuts I watch way more CNN than you do. And only a biased partisan would think CNN doesn't come as close as reasonably possible to being non-biased.

I'm quite moderate. I'm also someone who cares about facts. I know facts and you aren't always the best of friends, we established that during the Net Neutrality debate. So, who to believe...the non-biased guy who has no problem criticizing MSNBC the same as he does Fox News, who cares about facts and watches way more CNN than you do or...you...who doesn't care about facts, seems to be pretty solidly partisan and doesn't watch CNN nearly as much as I do. Tough call...

Look, I'm over stupidity and lies. Either provide an actual piece of evidence or show some integrity to admit you're wrong. I've provided PLENTY of evidence throughout this thread which proves you wrong. I've yet to see you provide one piece of evidence which doesn't essentially boil down to "I think it's true".

 

[Moderate Right]

You literally just post vomited nothing but rhetoric. I call Fox News biased because they literally talk about things which are not true and pass conspiracies on as fact. I call MSNBC just as biased as Fox. CNN is neither one of those two stations.

I know facts don't matter to some people. But honest people, like myself, prefer facts over a bunch of stupidity. CNN is not biased. I'll bet dollars to donuts I watch way more CNN than you do. And only a biased partisan would think CNN doesn't come as close as reasonably possible to being non-biased.

I'm quite moderate. I'm also someone who cares about facts. I know facts and you aren't always the best of friends, we established that during the Net Neutrality debate. So, who to believe...the non-biased guy who has no problem criticizing MSNBC the same as he does Fox News, who cares about facts and watches way more CNN than you do or...you...who doesn't care about facts, seems to be pretty solidly partisan and doesn't watch CNN nearly as much as I do. Tough call...

Look, I'm over stupidity and lies. Either provide an actual piece of evidence or show some integrity to admit you're wrong. I've provided PLENTY of evidence throughout this thread which proves you wrong. I've yet to see you provide one piece of evidence which doesn't essentially boil down to "I think it's true".

So you see that in Fox News but you don't see it with CNN. Why don't you just change your lean and admit the truth? Fox News tells things from a slanted right perspective. CNN and most other mainstream media tell things from a liberally slanted perspective. The reason Fox News was born in the first place is because there were a whole lot of people out there who were sick and tired of hearing the slanted news plastered all across the mainstream media where these people knew they were not getting the unslanted truth. Why do you think it is that polls consistently show that people don't trust the media? Because they now that ALL media, including Fox and CNN, tell slanted versions of the truth.

 

[Slyfox696]

So you see that in Fox News but you don't see it with CNN.

I see it in MSNBC and don't see it in CNN. What's your point?

Why don't you just change your lean and admit the truth?

I've given you the truth. You haven't given anything except "because I think so".

 

[Moderate Right]

I see it in MSNBC and don't see it in CNN. What's your point?

I've given you the truth. You haven't given anything except "because I think so".

And that is somehow different than because YOU think so?

 

[Slyfox696]

And that is somehow different than because YOU think so?

Yes, because I haven't said "because I think so". I've given a long list of evidence (stories covered, ties severed, conservatives guests/analysts, etc.). Once more, you demonstrate a lack of desire to address facts and a tendency to just make up stuff as you go.

 

[Moderate Right]

Yes, because I haven't said "because I think so". I've given a long list of evidence (stories covered, ties severed, conservatives guests/analysts, etc.). Once more, you demonstrate a lack of desire to address facts and a tendency to just make up stuff as you go.

You've taken so called "evidence" and formulated your own liberally biased opinions based on it. In the end an opinion is just an opinion. Your "evidence" is actually not evidence at all and your opinions certainly are not.

 

[Slyfox696]

You've taken so called "evidence" and formulated your own liberally biased opinions based on it.

That's just ridiculous. You obviously haven't even read the thread.

In the end an opinion is just an opinion. Your "evidence" is actually not evidence at all and your opinions certainly are not.

It was most certainly evidence. And you still haven't provided any.

I'm so tired of dealing with people who simply cannot post facts. Much like the Net Neutrality discussion, you obviously don't know what you're talking about. You haven't presented a SINGLE piece of evidence to support your position and when you challenge me to present evidence, you just try to claim it's not actually evidence. Just another argument devoid of objectivity from you.

I'm tired of stupidity and I'm tired of lies. Either present an actual piece of evidence or admit you don't care about facts, you just want to throw around stupid labels, regardless of how false they are.

 

[Moderate Right]

That's just ridiculous. You obviously haven't even read the thread.
It was most certainly evidence. And you still haven't provided any.

I'm so tired of dealing with people who simply cannot post facts. Much like the Net Neutrality discussion, you obviously don't know what you're talking about. You haven't presented a SINGLE piece of evidence to support your position and when you challenge me to present evidence, you just try to claim it's not actually evidence. Just another argument devoid of objectivity from you.

I'm tired of stupidity and I'm tired of lies. Either present an actual piece of evidence or admit you don't care about facts, you just want to throw around stupid labels, regardless of how false they are.

You posted cherry picked facts and then formulated opinions based on those cherry picked facts.