Both Clinton's Health

[fskimospy]

Yeah, and they all use the exact same word in their headlines in an amazing coincidence. Look, you don't need to pretend anymore. All the leaked emails and information already showed that most of the media is composed of simple hildabeast / democrat lapdogs and propaganda outlets. Why maintain the pretense that they are not?

Uhmm, the vast majority of those are BLOG POSTS AND OPINION PIECES. lol.

Duped again. As I said earlier it never ceases to amaze me just how easy conservatives are to hoodwink. Tell them what they want to hear and they believe you. No questions asked. But yes, by all means tell us how basically all academic research on the subject is wrong and there's really a nefarious media cabal out to get conservatives. I can't wait to hear you boldly declare yet again that no facts will change your mind.

 

[agent00f]

Yeah, and they all use the exact same word in their headlines in an amazing coincidence. Look, you don't need to pretend anymore. All the leaked emails and information already showed that most of the media is composed of simple hildabeast / democrat lapdogs and propaganda outlets. Why maintain the pretense that they are not?

Let's assume for the sake of argument that you're right the media is for clinton. Now, this is a professional industry with some bar for educational attainment. So is it really any surprise that these people with degrees might prefer clinton to trump?

 

[sportage]

Health issues?
Hell. If it's between Hillary and Donald Trump, I'd take Hillary over Trump any day of the week, regardless.
Including even this....

 

[PokerGuy]

Uhmm, the vast majority of those are BLOG POSTS AND OPINION PIECES. lol.

Duped again. As I said earlier it never ceases to amaze me just how easy conservatives are to hoodwink. Tell them what they want to hear and they believe you. No questions asked. But yes, by all means tell us how basically all academic research on the subject is wrong and there's really a nefarious media cabal out to get conservatives. I can't wait to hear you boldly declare yet again that no facts will change your mind.

.

lol, wrong again, as usual. Nobody was duped. I don't care if they are opinion pieces or not. If you are dumb enough to believe it's just a magical coincidence that they all use the exact same wording, you're probably a hildebeast supporter anyway.

You keep referring to "basically all academic research" on the matter, without being able to cite a single non-left-wing authored research. Surely there should be plenty such studies to find right?

 

[PokerGuy]

Let's assume for the sake of argument that you're right the media is for clinton. Now, this is a professional industry with some bar for educational attainment. So is it really any surprise that these people with degrees might prefer clinton to trump?

They are certainly entitled to prefer whoever they want. I just don't like the pretense that they are in any way neutral journalists when in fact they are just propaganda outlets for one party. If they'd be honest about that I'd have no problem with it.

 

[Pens1566]

Man, nutters are out in full force today.

 

[fskimospy]

.

lol, wrong again, as usual. Nobody was duped. I don't care if they are opinion pieces or not. If you are dumb enough to believe it's just a magical coincidence that they all use the exact same wording, you're probably a hildebeast supporter anyway.

So your major revelation is that openly partisan opinion writers are using similar language? That has to be the stupidest revelation I've heard in a very long time. Who cares if opinion writers are biased? That's kind of the point. (also, we both know you didn't actually check the pieces out before becoming indignant about it)

Also you'll notice that the image linked did not say that they were opinion pieces, instead attributing them to the news outlet instead of the writer despite all news outlets very clearly stating that opinion writers are speaking for themselves only. It was extremely, extremely dishonest.

You keep referring to "basically all academic research" on the matter, without being able to cite a single non-left-wing authored research. Surely there should be plenty such studies to find right?

I've cited plenty of peer reviewed research on it. Are you saying all academic research is left wing? If so, this is an excellent example of being impervious to facts.

 

[fskimospy]

They are certainly entitled to prefer whoever they want. I just don't like the pretense that they are in any way neutral journalists when in fact they are just propaganda outlets for one party. If they'd be honest about that I'd have no problem with it.

But that's the thing, the pieces you accused of using the 'exact same wording' weren't written by people claiming to be neutral journalists.

Oops.

 

[PokerGuy]

But that's the thing, the pieces you accused of using the 'exact same wording' weren't written by people claiming to be neutral journalists.

Oops.

They are pieces posted on nbc, cbs, cnbc, cnn, huffpo etc etc etc. Pretty much all the main stream lefty media sites pretending to be neutral. Of course some are op-eds and so forth, but can you go to those same sites and show me a slew of similarly themed pro-Trump op-eds posted on all those sites?

 

[PokerGuy]

So your major revelation is that openly partisan opinion writers are using similar language? That has to be the stupidest revelation I've heard in a very long time.

What major revelation are you referring to? Who claimed anything about a major revelation?

Posting drunk this morning?

Who cares if opinion writers are biased? That's kind of the point. (also, we both know you didn't actually check the pieces out before becoming indignant about it)

Indignant? Who's indignant? You're delusional. I got a good chuckle about it. Pretty much par for the course.

Also you'll notice that the image linked did not say that they were opinion pieces, instead attributing them to the news outlet instead of the writer despite all news outlets very clearly stating that opinion writers are speaking for themselves only. It was extremely, extremely dishonest.

Did the pieces appear on those sites or not? Nothing dishonest about it. Simple fact.

I've cited plenty of peer reviewed research on it. Are you saying all academic research is left wing? If so, this is an excellent example of being impervious to facts.

The vast majority of academia is extremely left wing, that much is a fact. That doesn't mean their research is wrong, it means you have to be very skeptical of their claims because of their ideology. I treat research on objective matters very differently than research on subjective matters that can easily be made to come out any way you want it to. Would love to see a non-left-wing source for the claims of no media bias.

 

[fskimospy]

They are pieces posted on nbc, cbs, cnbc, cnn, huffpo etc etc etc. Pretty much all the main stream lefty media sites pretending to be neutral. Of course some are op-eds and so forth, but can you go to those same sites and show me a slew of similarly themed pro-Trump op-eds posted on all those sites?

I can show you plenty of pro-trump op-eds from those sites, although considering Huffington Post is an openly anti-Trump organization I don't know why you're asking about it.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/01/trum...-with-that-immigration-speech-commentary.html

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/01/opini...-to-vote-for-trump-opinion-rothfus/index.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/01/opinion/why-this-economy-needs-donald-trump.html

Plenty more where those came from.

As to why these editorials would have to have similar wording that makes no sense. That's a choice of the writer, not the outlet.

 

[PokerGuy]

I can show you plenty of pro-trump op-eds from those sites, although considering Huffington Post is an openly anti-Trump organization I don't know why you're asking about it.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/01/trum...-with-that-immigration-speech-commentary.html

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/01/opini...-to-vote-for-trump-opinion-rothfus/index.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/01/opinion/why-this-economy-needs-donald-trump.html

Plenty more where those came from.

As to why these editorials would have to have similar wording that makes no sense. That's a choice of the writer, not the outlet.

Interesting, the choice of wording is the choice of the writer. And they just all happened to have the same choice of words? Or perhaps they were fed the same talking points... and then the lefty sites have to choose which opinion pieces to include, and they include all the ones with the same themes. Pure coincidence, of course

 

[Jhhnn]

Yeah, and they all use the exact same word in their headlines in an amazing coincidence. Look, you don't need to pretend anymore. All the leaked emails and information already showed that most of the media is composed of simple hildabeast / democrat lapdogs and propaganda outlets. Why maintain the pretense that they are not?

Pretend? Yeh, go ahead- pretend that Trump is something more than an outright fraud & a charlatan who chumped a very unhappy Repub base into putting his name at the top of the ticket.

Not that they don't have good reason to be unhappy, having been chumped into support for trickledown Reaganomics for decades, exploited at the level of fear, pride, ignorance & bigotry. Trump just does the same thing only better.

 

[fskimospy]

What major revelation are you referring to? Who claimed anything about a major revelation?

Posting drunk this morning?

Are you projecting again? Haha. You seemed to think that similar headlines from blog posts and editorials were somehow evidence of a partisan media when they were in fact the product of opinion writers. You got duped again by his stupid infographic.

Like I said, you are such an incredibly easy mark.

Indignant? Who's indignant? You're delusional. I got a good chuckle about it. Pretty much par for the course.

lol. ok.

Did the pieces appear on those sites or not? Nothing dishonest about it. Simple fact.

lol. So if someone posted an infographic that quoted Putin's op-ed about Syria and attributed it to the New York Times you would not think that is dishonest.

Talk about delusional. Attributing something to a paper when the paper explicitly states that pieces published in the op-ed section cannot be attributed to it is deeply dishonest and you know it. I know you don't mind convenient lies but they are still lies.

The vast majority of academia is extremely left wing, that much is a fact. That doesn't mean their research is wrong, it means you have to be very skeptical of their claims because of their ideology. I treat research on objective matters very differently than research on subjective matters that can easily be made to come out any way you want it to. Would love to see a non-left-wing source for the claims of no media bias.

That's what I figured! This viewpoint allows you to dismiss peer reviewed research whenever you find it convenient. Impervious to facts.[/quote][/quote]

 

[Jhhnn]

Interesting, the choice of wording is the choice of the writer. And they just all happened to have the same choice of words? Or perhaps they were fed the same talking points... and then the lefty sites have to choose which opinion pieces to include, and they include all the ones with the same themes. Pure coincidence, of course

Or maybe they all know a duck when they see one.

 

[fskimospy]

Interesting, the choice of wording is the choice of the writer. And they just all happened to have the same choice of words? Or perhaps they were fed the same talking points... and then the lefty sites have to choose which opinion pieces to include, and they include all the ones with the same themes. Pure coincidence, of course

Opinion writers are frequently fed talking points and I wouldn't be at all surprised if they sometimes coordinated their messages. None of that is relevant to your claim of media bias.

Like I already said you claim there is media bias, and then when confronted with actual analysis that refutes your position you then just declare the research biased too. Just like with the FBI investigation you already know you're right, the only question is how far the conspiracy against you goes.

 

[PokerGuy]

Opinion writers are frequently fed talking points and I wouldn't be at all surprised if they sometimes coordinated their messages. None of that is relevant to your claim of media bias.

So the opinion writers are fed talking points. No problem. How come those particular opinion pieces happen to be the ones chosen to be on the front page of all the sites? Surely then you can find similar situations where a bunch of rightly opinion pieces echoing the same theme appear on all those sites?

 

[PokerGuy]

Are you projecting again? Haha. You seemed to think that similar headlines from blog posts and editorials were somehow evidence of a partisan media when they were in fact the product of opinion writers. You got duped again by his stupid infographic.

Who has control over what opinion pieces appear on the sites? Who controls that happy coincidence that all these same themed same worded pieces appear on the sites? Are you really that gullible?

That's what I figured! This viewpoint allows you to dismiss peer reviewed research whenever you find it convenient. Impervious to facts.

Well then, should be extremely simple for you to find good non-left-wing research on the issue to confirm your claims then, right?

 

[fskimospy]

Who has control over what opinion pieces appear on the sites? Who controls that happy coincidence that all these same themed same worded pieces appear on the sites? Are you really that gullible?

I know one of us is awfully gullible, as this thread proves, haha.

Well then, should be extremely simple for you to find good non-left-wing research on the issue to confirm your claims then, right?

You just declared all academic research left wing, which is the primary source of nonpartisan research that exists in the country. This is beyond stupid.

 

[fskimospy]

So the opinion writers are fed talking points. No problem. How come those particular opinion pieces happen to be the ones chosen to be on the front page of all the sites? Surely then you can find similar situations where a bunch of rightly opinion pieces echoing the same theme appear on all those sites?

Who said those pieces were on the front page of all those sites? You're just making shit up now. You asked for examples, I gave them to you. If you're actually someone who can accept facts that contradict what you thought then go ahead and admit it now. If you're impervious to facts, just say so.

 

[Vic]

Trump has repeatedly threatened to curtail freedom of the press, particularly of press that is critical of him, so it should come as no surprise that many news media organizations do not wish to support him. It's not a conspiracy.

 

[PokerGuy]

You just declared all academic research left wing, which is the primary source of nonpartisan research that exists in the country. This is beyond stupid.

No, I declared most of academia to be left wing. I specifically said that doesn't mean their research is automatically incorrect, but it does mean it needs more scrutiny, especially when it comes to subjective topics.

 

[fskimospy]

No, I declared most of academia to be left wing. I specifically said that doesn't mean their research is automatically incorrect, but it does mean it needs more scrutiny, especially when it comes to subjective topics.

Well I've linked to this sort of research many times. Feel free to scrutinize it all you want, but I personally doubt you have the expertise to do so. This isn't a slam on you, just a statement of fact.

 

[PokerGuy]

Who said those pieces were on the front page of all those sites? You're just making shit up now. You asked for examples, I gave them to you.

No. You did not give me examples of similarly themed (ie talking points coming from the party) from the right on all those major sites. Likely because that situation never happens because the sites control what opinion pieces they pick to put on the site.

If you're actually someone who can accept facts that contradict what you thought then go ahead and admit it now. If you're impervious to facts, just say so.

I can absolutely accept facts that contradict what I thought. I'll do so as soon as it happens.

 

[Vic]

No, I declared most of academia to be left wing. I specifically said that doesn't mean their research is automatically incorrect, but it does mean it needs more scrutiny, especially when it comes to subjective topics.

OMG! Academia is fact-based instead of opinion-based! Who knew?