This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Alternative Facts
Pages: 1 ... 170171172 173174 ... 306
5131
« on: January 20, 2015, 05:27:28 PM »
*Drops Mic*
Your lack of a gif here disturbs me.
5132
« on: January 20, 2015, 04:58:41 PM »
These heroes leave the comforts of their own homes and leave their families to go overseas and fight for our freedom. They fight us to be able to go on the internet and do whatever we like.
Do they?
5133
« on: January 20, 2015, 03:25:16 PM »
You have no problem attacking Breitbart but are completely comfortable to defend MSNBC. Your bias is showing.
The Breitbart article proceedings to do what every great source (Including MSNBC, Fox News, etc) does with interview, and pick five sentences and leave the rest
I am not defending MSNBC - which is a bad source (And yes I have used it before, along with also using Fox News - if the article is the only one available). Whether or not you feel it is bad as Breitbart is up to you.
Considering the amount of controversies and debacles MSNBC has under its wing compared to Breitbart, I think it's pretty evident which is the worst news outlet.
And as Kupo said, one is a 24 hour news channel that has been around far longer than Breitbart. But if we're going by the amount of controversies and debacles to determine how good a source is, The Huff Post is apparently quite good and clean.
5134
« on: January 20, 2015, 01:30:53 PM »
Fuck you guys, we aren't getting into a socialism vs. communism debate.
We are going there. 
5135
« on: January 20, 2015, 01:27:46 PM »
what about communism?
That falls under socialism.
*sigh*
5136
« on: January 20, 2015, 01:25:39 PM »
How much ass kissing is going on in the staff chat by the Ex-Monitors to secure their new position?
I'm training them. Beware.
5137
« on: January 20, 2015, 01:24:39 PM »
You have no problem attacking Breitbart but are completely comfortable to defend MSNBC. Your bias is showing.
The Breitbart article proceedings to do what every great source (Including MSNBC, Fox News, etc) does with interview, and pick five sentences and leave the rest I am not defending MSNBC - which is a bad source (And yes I have used it before, along with also using Fox News - if the article is the only one available). Whether or not you feel it is bad as Breitbart is up to you.
5138
« on: January 20, 2015, 01:20:01 PM »
More importantly however, why is Camnator fucking banned again?
Derailing continually, report spamming, some other shit.
5139
« on: January 20, 2015, 01:17:55 PM »
First off, allow me to take a moment to laugh at linking "Breitbart" It is pretty hilarious considering you've linked MSNBC and HuffPost innumerable times in the past.
Breitbart.com is objectively worse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC_controversies
Yeah I don't know about that.
MSNBC was also the news outlet that had the cumnugget Matt Binder on air and took everything he had to say as the gospel truth and refused to give any credence to gamergate arguments. Top notch journalistic practices right there.
Not being open to debate on Gamergate is hardly as bad as believing in a fictional terrorist organization. You have failed your readers if you refuse to acknowledge utter falsehoods.
Actually taking everything in such a black and white manner is the antithesis of good journalism. Reputable journalism is supposed to analyze, investigate and consider two sides of the argument in an egalitarian manner. That's why I respect David Pakman on his reporting on Gamergate despite him being relatively left leaning. He remains non partisan and neutral.
Not sure why you're trying to compare Gamergate with ISIS anyway.
Because you did.
No I brought up an example of poor journalistic practices within MSNBC and multiple major discrepancies within their reports to bring attention to the fact that they're just as bad, if not perhaps worse, than Breitbart.
It was you that conflated the two together, actually.
If you're going to compare two news sources, you have to compare the facts themselves, or else what's the point? We can't have some invisible boundary that's like 'let's look at these separately and give them equal negative value' because that's dishonest.
Exactly.
Which is why I linked multiple controversies for MSNBC whereas you linked one for Breitbart. If you'd like to find a different way to quantify Breitbart and MSNBC's bias then you're more than welcome to try.
Well, Breitbart has a few but there's not as many. I guess when you're not a 24/7 news channel, there's a lot less that can go wrong >.>
Although I feel like generally, MSNBC tries to pretend that it's more neutral than it really is. Breitbart.com has never pretended to not be biased, I don't think.
All the more evidence as to why MSNBC is shit tier.
Not really, but this argument has become pointless.
5140
« on: January 20, 2015, 12:16:14 PM »
First off, allow me to take a moment to laugh at linking "Breitbart" It is pretty hilarious considering you've linked MSNBC and HuffPost innumerable times in the past.
Not saying I haven't. I've even cited Fox News a couple times.
So why question the authenticity of a source when you know the ones you use are just as equally biased?[/quote
Hell, why use them?
Because he's not just citing a "oh hey, daily news article, Congress is shit, praise Obama!"
He's citing an interview, not a news story, done on a reporter who spent time with ISIS, by a far less biased news source which is even mentioned in the first sentence. The Breitbart article proceedings to do what every great source (Including MSNBC, Fox News, etc) does with interview, and pick five sentences and leave the rest - when the entire thing is an important read.
That's not why you originally attacked the source though, was it? You specifically said citing something like Breitbart is unreliable because Breitbart is known to cater to conservative audiences.
Yes, because the interview Breitbart is reporting on is minced up to cater to the Conservative audience. It's a shit story on a somewhat decent interview, that is what is the problem. No, what actually happened is that you saw the name which immediately raised your liberal heckles, so now you're backpedaling.
Not at all.
5141
« on: January 20, 2015, 11:55:38 AM »
First off, allow me to take a moment to laugh at linking "Breitbart" It is pretty hilarious considering you've linked MSNBC and HuffPost innumerable times in the past.
Not saying I haven't. I've even cited Fox News a couple times.
So why question the authenticity of a source when you know the ones you use are just as equally biased?[/quote
Hell, why use them?
Because he's not just citing a "oh hey, daily news article, Congress is shit, praise Obama!" He's citing an interview, not a news story, done on a reporter who spent time with ISIS, by a far less biased news source which is even mentioned in the first sentence. The Breitbart article proceedings to do what every great source (Including MSNBC, Fox News, etc) does with interview, and pick five sentences and leave the rest - when the entire thing is an important read.
5142
« on: January 20, 2015, 11:47:09 AM »
First off, allow me to take a moment to laugh at linking "Breitbart" It is pretty hilarious considering you've linked MSNBC and HuffPost innumerable times in the past.
Not saying I haven't. I've even cited Fox News a couple times.
5143
« on: January 20, 2015, 11:18:51 AM »
Capitalism with socialistic elements.
5144
« on: January 20, 2015, 01:53:08 AM »
First off, allow me to take a moment to laugh at linking "Breitbart"
Second off, ISIS hasn't exactly made this goal elusive or hidden. Pretty sure they've flat out said this before.
Who cares about the source? It's not the source that matters
Gonna stop you right there. The source of a material always matters, because it directly impacts how the story is written, what details are used, etc. A conservative website is, most likely, going to cater to those in that party who feel we need a full scale war and elimination of these religious extremists.
Second off, ISIS can plan as much as they want - and yes, they can kill plenty of people. But to believe that they have the size and power to kill "hundreds of millions" is laughable. They are not that powerful - not at the moment.
You never fail to show your bias, Icy. Sorry I didn't pick out a liberally biased source so you wouldn't have to whine about it.
I can honestly see ISIS growing big enough to have a war (not just the bits of fighting in Iraq and Syria). To say they aren't a threat is absurd.
Well, if you actually quoted the interview article and not a Breitbart report of it, you'd see that Todenhofer disagrees in the notion of having a full scale war (at least involving western entities). But let's just link the conservative write up
5145
« on: January 20, 2015, 01:30:38 AM »
First off, allow me to take a moment to laugh at linking "Breitbart"
Second off, ISIS hasn't exactly made this goal elusive or hidden. Pretty sure they've flat out said this before.
Who cares about the source? It's not the source that matters
Gonna stop you right there. The source of a material always matters, because it directly impacts how the story is written, what details are used, etc. A conservative website is, most likely, going to cater to those in that party who feel we need a full scale war and elimination of these religious extremists. Second off, ISIS can plan as much as they want - and yes, they can kill plenty of people. But to believe that they have the size and power to kill "hundreds of millions" is laughable. They are not that powerful - not at the moment.
5146
« on: January 20, 2015, 01:11:02 AM »
First off, allow me to take a moment to laugh at linking "Breitbart"
Second off, ISIS hasn't exactly made this goal elusive or hidden. Pretty sure they've flat out said this before.
5147
« on: January 20, 2015, 01:02:04 AM »
i fucking hate music
can I get a list of what you do like?
5148
« on: January 19, 2015, 11:11:14 PM »
Icy you're back <3 <3 <3
More cynical than ever.
You're the best. Glad you're back
Thanks.
5149
« on: January 19, 2015, 10:56:31 PM »
Now go back to moving threads like a good Monitor.
that's my job.
5150
« on: January 19, 2015, 10:52:02 PM »
Icy you're back <3 <3 <3
More cynical than ever.
5151
« on: January 19, 2015, 10:38:38 PM »
> "has like 100 places with -land"
> posts five
oh, right, silly me
fuck how do you spell that word, um, the hyperbole
the one that's like spelled exhaturate or something
> using hyperbole to cover up mistakes Kek
5152
« on: January 19, 2015, 10:35:39 PM »
> "has like 100 places with -land"
> posts five
5153
« on: January 19, 2015, 09:57:58 PM »
I was in one for about 8 months.
5154
« on: January 19, 2015, 09:54:56 PM »
Cheat, can I be Isara?
5155
« on: January 19, 2015, 09:26:58 PM »
How can you not move the comment I made the resulted in the huge forest fire?
Medal rescinded.
5156
« on: January 19, 2015, 09:24:35 PM »
Fuck you mods!
For once, I'm not being fucked!
#puns
I'll fuck you if you like
:^)
My ass is still sore from last time.
5157
« on: January 19, 2015, 09:22:29 PM »
Fuck you mods!
For once, I'm not being fucked! #puns
5158
« on: January 19, 2015, 09:16:34 PM »
5159
« on: January 19, 2015, 09:07:11 PM »
I already beat you to it.
5160
« on: January 19, 2015, 09:00:36 PM »
This thread is an A+ shitfest.
I dropped a match and it turned into a forest fire...
You deserve a medal.
Pages: 1 ... 170171172 173174 ... 306
|
Show Posts