All Threads That Are Based Off of Certain Sites...

[Wyatt earp]

Zone 2 Politics have requirements for threads there...

You already blew it out of the water by attacking a posters mom..

Saying someone's mom must be proud of them is not attacking their mom...

I told you I pay attention.

No, you don't, otherwise you wouldn't have gotten me confused with Odium. He's the one that got hurt at work and let's wife be the bread winner.



I go to grad school full-time and work at the college part-time.

Say what?,?????


What?,,,?,?


What?,????


What???

What,??,??????

 

[ChrisL]

It's hard to tell what sources are "reliable" anymore. Seems as if they are all biased. There are very FEW that are not, and those are always buried under the millions of biased sources.

 

[Uncensored2008]

All threads that are based on The Gateway Pundit, True Pundit, and Info Wars, should automatically be moved to the conspiracy theory section. Seriously, how often are they true? The sections of the forum for political news and current events are being littered with these threads that are totally unreliable. The forum might as well allow people to start posting The Onion in the Politics forum.

Tissue. Comrade?

No doubt you seek to suppress anything not obtained from ThinkHatred or DailyKRAP.

Nothing you commie bastards fear more than a free press and free speech - which is why you ALWAYS seek to crush free speech.

 

[Uncensored2008]

How DARE you compare InfoWars to the Atlantic?
That's dumb.

True, but InfoWars is still pretty sketchy....

 

[Wyatt earp]

It's hard to tell what sources are "reliable" anymore. Seems as if they are all biased. There are very FEW that are not, and those are always buried under the millions of biased sources.

Chris you have Google

 

[Wyatt earp]

How DARE you compare InfoWars to the Atlantic?
That's dumb.

True, but InfoWars is still pretty sketchy....

Just research, just like with wiki

 

[flacaltenn]

Your having a hissy fit over nonsense .


Why?

Hissy fit? Asking for the rules to be enforced is a hissy fit?

What rule exactly?

Zone 2 Politics have requirements for threads there...

Yes, I know.

Cite for me EXACTLY, which zone two rule is broken by using these sources.

flacaltenn had posted at one point that threads started in Zone 2 Politics must meet a requirement of having a proper source.

Opinion threads without sourcing are fine. If the opinion is developed enough to have a discussion. General criteria is no "baiting or polarizing" in the Opening and/or title and "personal contribution" is required in the OP. Not just cut and paste. Always need to follow "fair use" copyright and link ANYTHING that even MIGHT have a copyright.

 

[ChrisL]

It's hard to tell what sources are "reliable" anymore. Seems as if they are all biased. There are very FEW that are not, and those are always buried under the millions of biased sources.

Chris you have Google

I can use other search engines. Anyone can. Doesn't matter. All the news outlets seem to have a bias. There are few that report only the facts without any spin.

 

[ChrisL]

Hissy fit? Asking for the rules to be enforced is a hissy fit?

What rule exactly?

Zone 2 Politics have requirements for threads there...

Yes, I know.

Cite for me EXACTLY, which zone two rule is broken by using these sources.

flacaltenn had posted at one point that threads started in Zone 2 Politics must meet a requirement of having a proper source.

Opinion threads without sourcing are fine. If the opinion is developed enough to have a discussion. General criteria is no "baiting or polarizing" in the Opening and/or title and "personal contribution" is required in the OP. Not just cut and paste. Always need to follow "fair use" copyright and link ANYTHING that even MIGHT have a copyright.

He is saying that some sources shouldn't count as sources because they are biased. Is that a rule? That would make it nearly impossible to post anything with a link.

 

[Wyatt earp]

What rule exactly?

Zone 2 Politics have requirements for threads there...

You already blew it out of the water by attacking a posters mom..

Saying someone's mom must be proud of them is not attacking their mom...

I told you I pay attention.

No, you don't, otherwise you wouldn't have gotten me confused with Odium. He's the one that got hurt at work and let's wife be the bread winner.



I go to grad school full-time and work at the college part-time.

So first you tell us you got hurt at work claiming disability, now you are telling us you are in college?

 

[MisterBeale]

Compare.

The Atlantic: There's No Way Mueller Will Indict Trump

Do you notice the irony here? I post this about putting certain sites that report nothing but known lies into the correct part of the forum and I'm called unAmerican because I am infringing on someone's free speech, but the same posters saying this post threads and posts all day long complaining about people on the left who protest and talk about their rights to abortion and being whatever gender they feel they actually are... and how they shouldn't be allowed to do it.

People either need to believe in these RIGHTS, or not. Quit this bullshit about rights being so important as long as it fits your political agenda.

Let's be very clear here. All I'm asking is that the forum follow its own set of rules. If a thread isn't true, and it is based on false or unproven information, it doesn't belong in the politics or current events parts of the forum. The Gateway Pundit, True Pundit, and Info Wars do not report TRUE information.

That's the thing, sometimes their information IS true, sometimes it isn't.

You have to be discerning and figure out if it is true.

Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.


They are just the same as any other news organization.


HuffPo, WaPo, Brietbart, etc. Sometimes their info is true, sometimes it isn't.

Just b/c you don't like them, doesn't mean everything they print is wrong.

When? Seriously... when and what percent of the time is the Gateway Pundit, True Pundit, or Info Wars EVER been right?

I don't know.

I don't ever go to those sites, so I would not know the time and percentages.

I just know what the truth is from other sources, and occasionally I will see posts from those sites on here, and will note that yes, indeed, those sites have it correct.

 

[ChrisL]

All threads that are based on The Gateway Pundit, True Pundit, and Info Wars, should automatically be moved to the conspiracy theory section. Seriously, how often are they true? The sections of the forum for political news and current events are being littered with these threads that are totally unreliable. The forum might as well allow people to start posting The Onion in the Politics forum.

Why do you only bring up biased conservative sites? What about biased liberal sites, like Mother Jones and CNN?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Zone 2 Politics have requirements for threads there...

You already blew it out of the water by attacking a posters mom..

Saying someone's mom must be proud of them is not attacking their mom...

I told you I pay attention.

No, you don't, otherwise you wouldn't have gotten me confused with Odium. He's the one that got hurt at work and let's wife be the bread winner.



I go to grad school full-time and work at the college part-time.

So first you tell us you got hurt at work claiming disability, now you are telling us you are in college?

This makes sense now..

I get it

 

[flacaltenn]

What rule exactly?

Zone 2 Politics have requirements for threads there...

Yes, I know.

Cite for me EXACTLY, which zone two rule is broken by using these sources.

flacaltenn had posted at one point that threads started in Zone 2 Politics must meet a requirement of having a proper source.

Opinion threads without sourcing are fine. If the opinion is developed enough to have a discussion. General criteria is no "baiting or polarizing" in the Opening and/or title and "personal contribution" is required in the OP. Not just cut and paste. Always need to follow "fair use" copyright and link ANYTHING that even MIGHT have a copyright.

He is saying that some sources shouldn't count as sources because they are biased. Is that a rule? That would make it nearly impossible to post anything with a link.

Lemme read thru a bit before commenting. Sources are for members to judge for the most part. Not our job. BUT -- we won't allow any particular sources to DOMINATE the forum. Like folks partial to InfoWars or neo-nazi sites. ESPECIALLY when more mainstream links are available..

 

[MisterBeale]

All threads that are based on The Gateway Pundit, True Pundit, and Info Wars, should automatically be moved to the conspiracy theory section. Seriously, how often are they true? The sections of the forum for political news and current events are being littered with these threads that are totally unreliable. The forum might as well allow people to start posting The Onion in the Politics forum.

Why do you only bring up biased conservative sites? What about biased liberal sites, like Mother Jones and CNN?

I think you know the answer to that one.

He believes that only the liberal view of the universe is factual.

If he were to listen to NPR, he would tell you they are only telling the truth, and if he were to listen to Rush Limbaugh, he would tell you that Limbaugh lies.

It is all about perception with folks.




(A big clue should be the fact that he posted this thread in "Announcement and Feedback" thinking there is an absolute truth about the universe, rather than having this discussion where most sane folks put these threads, in the sub-forum, "Media.")

 

[Wyatt earp]

You already blew it out of the water by attacking a posters mom..

Saying someone's mom must be proud of them is not attacking their mom...

I told you I pay attention.

No, you don't, otherwise you wouldn't have gotten me confused with Odium. He's the one that got hurt at work and let's wife be the bread winner.



I go to grad school full-time and work at the college part-time.

So first you tell us you got hurt at work claiming disability, now you are telling us you are in college?

This makes sense now..

I get it

Dude who you are is who you are , a word of advice don't pretend who you are not on here.


Old guys like me will catch you.

 

[flacaltenn]

Perhaps were people to seek original sources of information and performed their own analysis of it rather than consuming information from derivative sources, there'd be far less of a problem. Oh, wait, if one obtains original information, one won't there find guidance on what political position to take with regard to that information....

Oooowww.. Almost correct. I was with you there until the "wont there find guidance" part. That's not true anymore at all. Since primary sources can be MORE partisan and misleading than derivative sources that include more context and history...

 

[Dale Smith]

Anyone remember "Prop or Not?"

Unpacking the Shadowy Outfit Behind 2017’s Biggest Fake News Story
Unpacking the Shadowy Outfit Behind 2017’s Biggest Fake News Story

". . . . As journalist Robert Parry wrote in October 2016, the propaganda campaign in favor of military confrontation with Russia was driven by “a consensus among the major think tanks of Official Washington, where there is near universal support for Hillary Clinton, not because they all particularly like her, but because she has signaled a return to neocon/liberal-hawk strategies.”


The people who were lining up to take senior positions in a Clinton White House believed that President Obama had been too timid in stressing the dangers of overreach and the need for restraint, especially in the Middle East, and it was time for a more hawkish approach, as embodied by Clinton.


Parry goes on to say that at the forefront of this propaganda campaign was the Atlantic Council, a think tank associated with NATO. Their main goal was “a major confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia,” Parry warned.


So, to make sense of all this, most of the people listed would have held cabinet positions in a Hillary Clinton presidency. If the Interpreter is a project of RFE/RL then the decision to go ahead with PropOrNot would have to go across their desk. That would include, possibly, then Secretary of State, John Kerry.


The unasked question of why would a U.S. Government Agency do this needs to be addressed. All the people listed above were actively working for Clinton to get her elected and throw Donald Trump’s campaign off the rails.


After the election, they were going to take care of Clinton’s “deplorables” by dissecting alternative media. I wrote about this before the election and I warned several major new sites what they could expect. I was right on the money. After she lost, it was already in motion. The deplorable media didn’t fall into a particular political pattern other than they did not promote Hillary Clinton.


The purpose of PropOrNot has been to trick people into demanding that freedom of speech be rolled back. This was/is to be done by destroying fact-based media. If you read further, the entire plan is laid out starting from 2015 when it started coming together.


These people want reality shaped on what the perceived majority (louder) group believes to be true, regardless of what the facts are. Perception based reality is only a Facebook like away from killing one person or elevating another to hero status regardless of what they have done. . . . "


IOW, the need to censor alternative narratives from those other than the one approved by ruling class journalists, is a campaign to control thoughts and minds to push forward the agenda of Washington think tanks and the Federal bureaucracy, AKA, the welfare/warfare Deep State.

Heaven forbid Americans actually choose what is best for them instead of the corporate interests and monied interests that enslave them.

The only conspiracy that Lewdog would have pushed forward is the conspiracy to keep folks from having the ability to be free thinkers.

I cannot add a thing to this, MisterBeale.........relevant and "dead on" as all your posts are.

And the thing is, Robert Perry was a LIBERAL, and these folks sometimes won't even listen to him.

Unfortunately, he just died.

I wonder if "they" did him in for his tireless crusade. lol

Seriously though, great man, tragic loss.

The term" liberal" used to mean something good.......it was about individual liberties where the rights of one did not supersede the desires of the state. It meant being free from the "hive mentality", programming and conditioning. Now being "liberal'" is all about collectivism and the "greater good"". Thanks for posting that article. Your awareness and the knowledge that you possess is my eventual goal. I "thank" you profusely for helping me along the way. So many have done the heavy lifting for me and you are definitely one of them.

Like we say in Texas...."Good on ya".

 

[Wyatt earp]

Zone 2 Politics have requirements for threads there...

Yes, I know.

Cite for me EXACTLY, which zone two rule is broken by using these sources.

flacaltenn had posted at one point that threads started in Zone 2 Politics must meet a requirement of having a proper source.

Opinion threads without sourcing are fine. If the opinion is developed enough to have a discussion. General criteria is no "baiting or polarizing" in the Opening and/or title and "personal contribution" is required in the OP. Not just cut and paste. Always need to follow "fair use" copyright and link ANYTHING that even MIGHT have a copyright.

He is saying that some sources shouldn't count as sources because they are biased. Is that a rule? That would make it nearly impossible to post anything with a link.

Lemme read thru a bit before commenting. Sources are for members to judge for the most part. Not our job. BUT -- we won't allow any particular sources to DOMINATE the forum. Like folks partial to InfoWars or neo-nazi sites. ESPECIALLY when more mainstream links are available..

Infowars is a Nazi site?

Then what's the tampon squad huff post or Washington compost..

Normal?

 

[Uncensored2008]

It's hard to tell what sources are "reliable" anymore. Seems as if they are all biased. There are very FEW that are not, and those are always buried under the millions of biased sources.

Chris you have Google

I can use other search engines. Anyone can. Doesn't matter. All the news outlets seem to have a bias. There are few that report only the facts without any spin.

Try DuckDuckGo.

DuckDuckGo

Unfiltered results, unlike Google.