Russian ambassador told Moscow that Kushner wanted secret communications channel with Kremlin
-
1) No, it is BS in this case because it's used as a distraction. I wasn't discussing the media at all but "the liberal MSM!" is the answer to every post.
2) That article refers to the same report you've posted on here before. It's done by a self proclaimed right wing group. Clearly that is a biased source.
Study done by Harvard Woody...a very liberal institution :
Harvard Study Agrees With MRC: Media Biased Against Trump
Study done by Harvard Woody...a very liberal institution :
Harvard Study Agrees With MRC: Media Biased Against Trump
Lead with the reputable sources, cut out the biased ones, it'll help you make your point.
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
-
Study done by Harvard Woody...a very liberal institution :
Harvard Study Agrees With MRC: Media Biased Against Trump
Lead with the reputable sources, cut out the biased ones, it'll help you make your point.
Lead with the reputable sources, cut out the biased ones, it'll help you make your point.
Reputable sources are in the eye of the beholder.
-
Lead with the reputable sources, cut out the biased ones, it'll help you make your point.
Reputable sources are in the eye of the beholder.
Reputable sources are in the eye of the beholder.
No, no they really aren't.
-
Lead with the reputable sources, cut out the biased ones, it'll help you make your point.
Reputable sources are in the eye of the beholder.
Reputable sources are open and forthcoming with thrir data. Methodologies etc, etc. And they are open yo peer reviews....and if a peer review finds inconsistincys they withdraw the paper. Now.....do u think any of ur sources confine themselves to those parameters?Reputable sources are in the eye of the beholder.
-
Obf u talked earlier of liberals having the lock on "low information"..,yet most of the center and left leaning people here at least, got the basics down pat
-
Obf u talked earlier of liberals having the lock on "low information"..,yet most of the center and left leaning people here at least, got the basics down pat
Obf u talked earlier of liberals having the lock on "low information"..,yet most of the center and left leaning people here at least, got the basics down pat
Really Cleve? When one of the main leaders in the democrat party says this (and she gets voted back in office every 2 years by high information liberal voters?):
The stupidest thing Nancy Pelosi has ever said?
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/05/the_stupidest_thing_nancy_pelosi_has_ever_said.html
-
Except m not judging either party by the political operatives they manage to keep in power for decades. I could go tit for tat with u for 10 pages about the stupid shit republicand say. Im judging based on the people i run into daily.
-
Infact if repiblicans were on avg smarter abd more analytical, i could see myself voting republicsn for a candidate like that. But ur all right wing nutjobs who base everything off a 3000 year piece of rubbish that gas no place in modern civics.
For insyance I can make an argument against gay marriage that has nothing to do with what jeebus supposedly said on the issue, which wasnt much anywsy. But u people cant. Everything is about ur sky wizard.
I see a people in a certain area of the world also similiarly afflicted with their own sky wizard stories. And i want no part of that here
-
LMFAO! So I type 'Clevefan4life, and well, here is is?
-
Usually you don't see trolls make their own accounts to troll with. That's....creepy. Not even good trolling.
-
Dude, I didn't make up anything. I typed his name in google and this came up. Believe it or not. Not surprising to me.
-
Except u were too stupid to spell my name right. Theres actually a "clevefan4life" here at the brownsboard but that dudes been inactive for years. When i first came here people were asking me if i was that guy. I didnt know when i signed up that there was a virtually identical handle already here....otherwise i would have chosen a diff name
-
Lead with the reputable sources, cut out the biased ones, it'll help you make your point.
Reputable sources are in the eye of the beholder.
Reputable sources are in the eye of the beholder.
Now that I think about it, this post I've quoted right here, this would explain 99% of all of the BS we see on here. This belief.
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
The divide in this country grows greater by the day. The same people who gave zero credit to anything Clinton or Obama did have also refused to admit Bush and Trump have ever made a mistake. While this is all unfolding they claim to be the reasonable ones trying to paint the non-believers as unpatriotic, fucking shit.
-
In fairness this shit goes both ways and im absolutely over it. As a person i cant stand trump but he's mot wrong on abdolutely everything....but you wouldnt know that by listening to msm. Im tired of it. Im tired of liberals but im even more tired of conservatives who cant get the basics right which shouldnt be partisan issues in the first place
-
Reputable sources are in the eye of the beholder.
Now that I think about it, this post I've quoted right here, this would explain 99% of all of the BS we see on here. This belief.
Now that I think about it, this post I've quoted right here, this would explain 99% of all of the BS we see on here. This belief.
Uh huh. Some may think the NY Times is the gold standard of reporting but you would be hard pressed to find any conservatives who believe that. You have problems with some of my links you claim are right wing so I guess we are including MLD Woody as part of that 99 percent of BS. Some use Snopes to fact check and they have been known to have a liberal bias. So the real problem is we have a media that most people don't trust (and for a good reason) which includes MLD Woody who constantly finds fault with sources that he doesn't think are reputable (while others may disagree).
-
Now that I think about it, this post I've quoted right here, this would explain 99% of all of the BS we see on here. This belief.
Uh huh. Some may think the NY Times is the gold standard of reporting but you would be hard pressed to find any conservatives who believe that. You have problems with some of my links you claim are right wing so I guess we are including MLD Woody as part of that 99 percent of BS. Some use Snopes to fact check and they have been known to have a liberal bias. So the real problem is we have a media that most people don't trust (and for a good reason) which includes MLD Woody who constantly finds fault with sources that he doesn't think are reputable (while others may disagree).
Uh huh. Some may think the NY Times is the gold standard of reporting but you would be hard pressed to find any conservatives who believe that. You have problems with some of my links you claim are right wing so I guess we are including MLD Woody as part of that 99 percent of BS. Some use Snopes to fact check and they have been known to have a liberal bias. So the real problem is we have a media that most people don't trust (and for a good reason) which includes MLD Woody who constantly finds fault with sources that he doesn't think are reputable (while others may disagree).
No. No....
It is very easy to tell whether a source is reputable or not. There is no "eye of the beholder". If you post a report by a self proclaimed conservative think tank taking a conservative view then yes, obviously that is not a reputable source. There's no "claiming" you post right wing sources. It is blatantly obvious, if no overtly stated on the site itself.
I think Trump, the internet, the #FakeNews BS and everything else has successfully warped some people's minds regarding what is a real source. You'll have posters claiming NASA is #FakeNews while in the same breathe posting an opinion piece on The Blaze that only references a Heartland Institute "report" as a legitimate source.
If you have a group of people that can't even tell the difference between a biased opinion piece and peer reviewed science then it is no wonder we can't make any progress on many issues...
-
Uh huh. Some may think the NY Times is the gold standard of reporting but you would be hard pressed to find any conservatives who believe that. You have problems with some of my links you claim are right wing so I guess we are including MLD Woody as part of that 99 percent of BS. Some use Snopes to fact check and they have been known to have a liberal bias. So the real problem is we have a media that most people don't trust (and for a good reason) which includes MLD Woody who constantly finds fault with sources that he doesn't think are reputable (while others may disagree).
No. No....
It is very easy to tell whether a source is reputable or not. There is no "eye of the beholder". If you post a report by a self proclaimed conservative think tank taking a conservative view then yes, obviously that is not a reputable source. There's no "claiming" you post right wing sources. It is blatantly obvious, if no overtly stated on the site itself.
I think Trump, the internet, the #FakeNews BS and everything else has successfully warped some people's minds regarding what is a real source. You'll have posters claiming NASA is #FakeNews while in the same breathe posting an opinion piece on The Blaze that only references a Heartland Institute "report" as a legitimate source.
If you have a group of people that can't even tell the difference between a biased opinion piece and peer reviewed science then it is no wonder we can't make any progress on many issues...
No. No....
It is very easy to tell whether a source is reputable or not. There is no "eye of the beholder". If you post a report by a self proclaimed conservative think tank taking a conservative view then yes, obviously that is not a reputable source. There's no "claiming" you post right wing sources. It is blatantly obvious, if no overtly stated on the site itself.
I think Trump, the internet, the #FakeNews BS and everything else has successfully warped some people's minds regarding what is a real source. You'll have posters claiming NASA is #FakeNews while in the same breathe posting an opinion piece on The Blaze that only references a Heartland Institute "report" as a legitimate source.
If you have a group of people that can't even tell the difference between a biased opinion piece and peer reviewed science then it is no wonder we can't make any progress on many issues...
is the New York Times or Wapo reputable? You would probably say yes if you are a liberal and no if you are conservative and the reason would be is because of their liberal slant. Again what is considered reputable is what side of the fence you are on. The media has only itself to blame for lack of any credibility. They have been caught again and again with bias or in some cases editing to distort the truth. If you want the truth about the only thing you can do is to get your news from multiple outlets and then do your best to try and figure out the truth.
With the MSM running 90 percent negative stories on Trump the bias is undeniable. Trump's foreign trip for example had some very positive results but you would not know that from much of the media because they hate Trump and only want to report negative stories and that is the sad state of journalism today.
-
1) "News" outlets can post facts and they can post opinion. If they're posting opinion, it is generally coming from another source. Many can't seem to notice when it is more opinion than fact.
2) Multiple sources is a great suggestion that I don't believe you or some other posters on here follow.
3) When we're talking about organizations attempting to pass of scientific fact, there is no "eye of the beholder" on credibility.
4) Trump has also done more in his presidency worthy of criticism than most recent presidents, so it isn't a surprise he gets more negative coverage. Take away his twitter and that % would probably drop. (Also, use the Harvard study % of 80% if you're going to keep throwing around that data. I read it far enough in to see their percentage.)
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login