• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Good sources

Termn8or said:
Blah, blah, blah, blah.

For two years we had a cowardly squish as AG, so even though we had evidence, nothing was going to get done.

Now we have a courageous AG who has appointed three US Attorneys conducting three separate criminal investigations.

What do you think is going to happen when they're finished?

Put your thinking cap on.
Click to expand...

The same thing that happened at the end of the Flynn investigation. LOL
 
digitusmedius said:
"They"' have been claiming they have the goods on the Obama adminstration for years and never are able to show anything for it. But now they have the AG doing everything possible to manufacture these "goods" so there's a better than even chance that some trumped (pun intended) charge will come out before the election. It won't be hard to eventually tear the lying apart but the Dirtbag campaign just needs it to be in the news for a few months for it to possibly provide a few EVs to get keep this massively corrupt thing in office. I don't think it will work though. It looks like that part of the public that isn't in the Cult but tended to give Dirtbag the benefit of the doubt is not willing to keep doing that now. It really does seem that most people really can see that the emperor is naked as a plucked chicken (sorry for any nausea that allusion causes).
Click to expand...

You are most likely correct given the history of President Trump's campaign. It has been based more on fiction than fact, and I do not trust any biased news source to provide real facts, whether it be Fox News, MSNBC, or CNN. I have said this before: words like whining, ridiculous, tantrum, and meltdown do not belong in the news unless it is something being quoted from another source. Those words are rooted in opinions and do not belong in the news as facts, yet we see them (and similar words) expressed in the headlines of biased sources all the time.
 
vegas giants said:
Termn8or said:
Blah, blah, blah, blah.

For two years we had a cowardly squish as AG, so even though we had evidence, nothing was going to get done.

Now we have a courageous AG who has appointed three US Attorneys conducting three separate criminal investigations.

What do you think is going to happen when they're finished?

Put your thinking cap on.
Click to expand...

The same thing that happened at the end of the Flynn investigation. LOL
Click to expand...

Yes, the case that conservatives predicted would be dismissed and was.

That we said was an abuse of power, and now is the prosecutor and others are subjects of a new criminal investigation.

We were correct, and you guys were wrong.

Duuh.
 
Termn8or said:
Yes, the case that conservatives predicted would be dismissed and was.

That we said was an abuse of power, and now is the prosecutor and others are subjects of a new criminal investigation.

We were correct, and you guys were wrong.

Duuh.
Click to expand...

But you said indictments follow investigations?


Were you wrong? LOL
 
Termn8or said:
Seems like every liberal on the board attacks and dismisses my sources out of hand.

"Far right propaganda!"

"Dismissed by this media evaluation website!"

So let me ask; what do you folks consider to be good sources?

And how long have you read them?

And if you don't read conservatives sources, how do you know they're good?
Click to expand...

Perhaps because the Baloney Detection Kit is flashing on all points?

fakenews1.jpg
 
Termn8or said:
Yes, the case that conservatives predicted would be dismissed and was.

That we said was an abuse of power, and now is the prosecutor and others are subjects of a new criminal investigation.

We were correct, and you guys were wrong.

Duuh.
Click to expand...

So, you don't know what's happening now in the Flynn case then. And just for fun, want to tell us when you made this "prediction?" It couldn't have been after Barr bent over for Dirtbag again and dismissed them, could it? I can't wait to see you run away again from having to back up the crap you post. You people are so much for to ridicule but make it too easy at the same time.
 
Termn8or said:
Seems like every liberal on the board attacks and dismisses my sources out of hand.

"Far right propaganda!"

"Dismissed by this media evaluation website!"

So let me ask; what do you folks consider to be good sources?

And how long have you read them?

And if you don't read conservatives sources, how do you know they're good?
Click to expand...

Interesting how you form threads so you do not have to answer your own questions.

As I stated in an earlier post. Check and verify all sources and their articles/vids/web sites info. One must be able to separate the facts from editorial comment. I read articles and watch vids from all sides.

So what sources do you use? How do you know they are correct?

I have used MSM, Veterans Today, Michael Savage, Guardian, Political websites, Government sites (police, fema, etc), etc. Pretty much the sources listed in post 12 and others.)
How do I know they are correct? I look for facts that are common over a broad spectrum of sources.

I have said it before . If you look at source articles as a bunch of circles. Where all the circles intersect in most likely the truth. The rest is spun to meet some objective.




I
 
mike2810 said:
Interesting how you form threads so you do not have to answer your own questions.

As I stated in an earlier post. Check and verify all sources and their articles/vids/web sites info. One must be able to separate the facts from editorial comment. I read articles and watch vids from all sides.

So what sources do you use? How do you know they are correct?

I have used MSM, Veterans Today, Michael Savage, Guardian, Political websites, Government sites (police, fema, etc), etc. Pretty much the sources listed in post 12 and others.)
How do I know they are correct? I look for facts that are common over a broad spectrum of sources.

I have said it before . If you look at source articles as a bunch of circles. Where all the circles intersect in most likely the truth. The rest is spun to meet some objective.

I
Click to expand...

My sources are the WJ oped page, National Review, American Spectator, Powerline, the Federalist, American Thinker, RedState, PJ Media, American Greatness, Gateway Pundit with caveats.

I don't think I've seen one single liberal accept any as sources.
 
Termn8or said:
My sources are the WJ oped page, National Review, American Spectator, Powerline, the Federalist, American Thinker, RedState, PJ Media, American Greatness, Gateway Pundit with caveats.

I don't think I've seen one single liberal accept any as sources.
Click to expand...

They are extreme right wing sites
 
mike2810 said:
So what sources do you use? How do you know they are correct?
Click to expand...

I know they are correct from decades of experience and comparison.


I have said it before . If you look at source articles as a bunch of circles. Where all the circles intersect in most likely the truth. The rest is spun to meet some objective.
Click to expand...

Sorry, that used to be reasonable, but putting your sources aside, the liberal MSM and conservative media are almost polar opposites.

There is little intersection.

This is literally a Pravda type moment in the country. Most conservatives reject the liberal MSM out of hand until they see info confirmed elsewhere.

The MSM are corrupt, dishonest, filled with propaganda.
 
Termn8or said:
I know they are correct from decades of experience and comparison.




Sorry, that used to be reasonable, but putting your sources aside, the liberal MSM and conservative media are almost polar opposites.

There is little intersection.

This is literally a Pravda type moment in the country. Most conservatives reject the liberal MSM out of hand until they see info confirmed elsewhere.

The MSM are corrupt, dishonest, filled with propaganda.
Click to expand...

You are so far out on the right wing you can not see the center
 
Termn8or said:
My sources are the WJ oped page, National Review, American Spectator, Powerline, the Federalist, American Thinker, RedState, PJ Media, American Greatness, Gateway Pundit with caveats.

I don't think I've seen one single liberal accept any as sources.
Click to expand...

Maybe that is because you include the editorial comment rather than just the facts.

Have you ever accepted a "Liberal" source as being correct? I don't think I have seen you accept any.

Actually I have seen liberals accept a right wing source when only the facts are used. For example we all can agree that Floyd died while restrained by LEO's. No source I know of denies that fact. What is in question because was in murder, accident, etc. That is where different leaning sources do their spin.
 
Termn8or said:
Babbling bulls*** and no answer.

Thanks for not playing.
Click to expand...

Let’s not pretend that you actually are interested in the answers to your question.
 
Termn8or said:
I know they are correct from decades of experience and comparison.




Sorry, that used to be reasonable, but putting your sources aside, the liberal MSM and conservative media are almost polar opposites.

There is little intersection.

This is literally a Pravda type moment in the country. Most conservatives reject the liberal MSM out of hand until they see info confirmed elsewhere.

The MSM are corrupt, dishonest, filled with propaganda.
Click to expand...

You realize that a liberal can say the same thing of " I know they are correct from decades of experience and comparison".


You missed the point. They all contain the same facts that are true. It is the spin you seem to not be able to get over.
 
Termn8or said:
Seems like every liberal on the board attacks and dismisses my sources out of hand.

"Far right propaganda!"

"Dismissed by this media evaluation website!"

So let me ask; what do you folks consider to be good sources?

And how long have you read them?

And if you don't read conservatives sources, how do you know they're good?
Click to expand...

PBS New Hour for daily network news. CBSN has some very good documentaries. WSJ and NYT for "print" news.
 
Termn8or said:
As if you have a clue.
Click to expand...

They are all very well known far right wing sources. Your attempt at snarky dismissal is dishonest and pathetic.

Most of your named sources have well deserved reputations for lying as well.

Indeed, none of the “news” sources you mention are even news organizations (except the WSJ, whose editorial page sounds like a trashy right wing blog. are partisan political marketing operations and ideological blogs. All of them have a vested interest in peddling the big oil/Wall Street/Limbaugh looney message to like minded customers.
 
Last edited:
Termn8or said:
The WSJ news pages are very liberal. So is Bloomberg, from my recollection.
Click to expand...

It's not them, it's you: your bias makes you view them this way. Same with me - I recall plenty WSJ and Bloomberg right wing articles. But I recognize I lean left and they might really be center-ish.

Termn8or said:
And what liberals just don't understand is, if you don't read sources on the right hand side ...
Click to expand...

I think I answered your question as to which sources are reasonable.

Don't forget to differentiate opinion sections from news sections - that's important as well.

Having said that, even sources on the right side have to be trustworthy... E.g. some "washington times" articles are definitely factually wrong (as in if you follow their source links, they say opposite to what they claim they say). I've seen quite a few. I've seen less but also some factually wrong articles on CNN opinion. CNN news has been a straight shooter overall though.

As Cardinal said, NYTimes and WaPo get their facts correct, despite being left leaning. That's important.
 
Termn8or said:
Oh yeah, forget two years of crap about the Russian Collusion Hoax.:lol:

Never mind that they and the Times are actively covering up the biggest scandal in US history.
Click to expand...

:screwy

Coverups are done by the perpetrators, not the press. The press reveals coverups. I mean, unless you're suggesting the Times' editorial board has implanted an alien microscopic pladula in Barr's brain. Is that it?
 
Termn8or said:
Seems like every liberal on the board attacks and dismisses my sources out of hand.

"Far right propaganda!"

"Dismissed by this media evaluation website!"

So let me ask; what do you folks consider to be good sources?

And how long have you read them?

And if you don't read conservatives sources, how do you know they're good?
Click to expand...

This is the wrong place to seek validation. If your sources are repeatedly struck down as being less than dispassionate or objective, perhaps you should seek out other sources.
 
mike2810 said:
You realize that a liberal can say the same thing of " I know they are correct from decades of experience and comparison".


You missed the point. They all contain the same facts that are true. It is the spin you seem to not be able to get over.
Click to expand...

What anti-MSM people seem to forget is that MSM is a highly competitive business. The Trump fantasy holds together logically only if the different networks were colluding with each other. Sadly, I think this is what many believe.

The reality is that multiple networks reporting the same facts from the same events confirms their veracity. Any opportunity to scoop a rival network's false report would be jumped on. CNN and MSNBC don't get together and agree to lie about what the facts are.
 
Termn8or said:
My sources are the WJ oped page, National Review, American Spectator, Powerline, the Federalist, American Thinker, RedState, PJ Media, American Greatness, Gateway Pundit with caveats.

I don't think I've seen one single liberal accept any as sources.
Click to expand...

Right....all superfund sites for the rightwing pukefunnel of lies. Thank you for admitting it.
 
Olddemocrat said:
Termn8or said:
Seems like every liberal on the board attacks and dismisses my sources out of hand.

"Far right propaganda!"

"Dismissed by this media evaluation website!"

So let me ask; what do you folks consider to be good sources?

And how long have you read them?

And if you don't read conservatives sources, how do you know they're good?
Click to expand...

This is the wrong place to seek validation. If your sources are repeatedly struck down as being less than dispassionate or objective, perhaps you should seek out other sources.
Click to expand...

That's just ridiculous.

If you understand calculus, but people who can barely pass basic algebra make fun of you, should you give up your understanding of calculus on the basis of popular vote by ignoramuses?
 
Michael Cole said:
What anti-MSM people seem to forget is that MSM is a highly competitive business. The Trump fantasy holds together logically only if the different networks were colluding with each other. Sadly, I think this is what many believe.

The reality is that multiple networks reporting the same facts from the same events confirms their veracity. Any opportunity to scoop a rival network's false report would be jumped on. CNN and MSNBC don't get together and agree to lie about what the facts are.
Click to expand...

Uh, no. If that were true, CNN wouldn't have badly lagged Fox for years now, They'd have changed their model.

MS-LSD thrives by feeding leftist garbage to their ignorant audience.

Fox isn't perfect, but presents the news about as well as can be expected.

The problem for CNN is that there's nothing in the middle of the road except dead armadillos.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom