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

[Markle]

MORE proof, as if it is needed of the panic of the Democrats.

The success, after the success of President Donald Trump, is driving Democrats to total destruction.

Here we see Democrats so desperate they are demanding censorship.

This is what Democrats have come too! Disgusting.

Having threads moved to the appropriate forum is not censorship...

Who's appropriate forum yours?

Kid your [you're] insane

Nuff said!

Appropriate, in your opinion.

Says it all!

 

[ChrisL]

He kept posting us he was complaining he couldn't work no more and his significant other was busting there ass working to pay the rent..

Now it turns out he is just a kid

I don't know how old you are, but I don't consider 41 to be a kid anymore!

Damn you old ..i am just 7 years old

What are you talking about??? You are making no sense. You claimed he was just a kid. His profile says he is 41 years old. Therefore, not a kid.

He just posted on this thread he is going to college

One of my best friends is going to college, and she is 38.

 

[ChrisL]

It's gotten WAAAY better since then. Agree. It WAS a disaster. And it's much less annoying and you're not being probed as much..

Ok I will try it again, but Google is so good with spelling errors and gibberish it's like they know what you are trying to search for

Well, they kind of do know what you are searching for because they keep "tabs" on your search history. That is why you only have to type in the first couple of letters of your search and things that you have searched for in the past that begin with those same words will pop up on your screen.

How do you know this?

This is not a secret.

Ok let's do a test..


I am going to type in Google .

ChrisL is a lying skank whore

View attachment 174345



^^^

And that's the result I got..



You lie

ChrisL

Christ, lay off the drink, will ya?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Nope.

Aside from the prohibition on linking to obscene or graphic material, pornography, or to other message boards, we're not the truth police.

If you see someone using a batshit site as a source, feel free to call them out on it.

 

[DarkFury]

CNN should be moved automatically to satire.
MSNBC should be moved to the gay and lesbian forum.

 

[DarkFury]

Nope.

Aside from the prohibition on linking to obscene or graphic material, pornography, or to other message boards, we're not the truth police.

If you see someone using a batshit site as a source, feel free to call them out on it.

But doc, just think you could be called on to settle hard questions in a porn forum!
Like "Are those tits REAL?"
Lmao!

 

[MisterBeale]

Nope.

Aside from the prohibition on linking to obscene or graphic material, pornography, or to other message boards, we're not the truth police.

If you see someone using a batshit site as a source, feel free to call them out on it.

 

[monkrules]

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....

That's asking a lot of people. Most righties I've known couldn't work their way through a ******* comic book rack.

Not trying to be insulting.

Just listen to any of the rw radio Hate shows, check out the kinds of people who call in... wanna hear "low information" voters...? There's some truly scary shit out there in RW tinfoil-hat land. Lol

 

[Spare_change]

Ok. Then we also need remove CNN, FOX, WP, MSN, Mother jones, the atlantic, VOX etc etc etc
Acting like only a few media outlets are dishonest, is dishonest.

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

Appropriate ... but dumb.

 

[monkrules]

Have you READ the Atlantic? Ever? They aren't news reporters, anyway. They write in depth articles on particular issues of interest, usually because they're in the news, but it isn't "news reporting" per se.
I have occasionally (now by mistake) stumbled into some of MindWars' posts and a lot of times even the headlines on an InfoWars article is a complete lie. Its own article disproves it. It's a total bullshit site and the Atlantic is NOT. You could learn stuff.

OldLady I love most of your posts.

But honestly, you've read a thousand threads on USMB. How many of these posters do you think would have the patience, concentration, and comprehension required to work their way through a 4 to 6000 word in-depth article in something like the Atlantic, New Yorker, etc...? After all, this is basically a right wing forum, know what I mean. Lol...

 

[Spare_change]

Ok. Then we also need remove CNN, FOX, WP, MSN, Mother jones, the atlantic, VOX etc etc etc
Acting like only a few media outlets are dishonest, is dishonest.

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

They are dumb. Very few outlets report the news, instead of their personal spin or strait up lies.

Have you READ the Atlantic? Ever? They aren't news reporters, anyway. They write in depth articles on particular issues of interest, usually because they're in the news, but it isn't "news reporting" per se.
I have occasionally (now by mistake) stumbled into some of MindWars' posts and a lot of times even the headlines on an InfoWars article is a complete lie. Its own article disproves it. It's a total bullshit site and the Atlantic is NOT. You could learn stuff.

The Atlantic produces opinion pieces ... they use a factual framework, and then hang opinion on its bones. But, like anything else, they are the opinions of the writer. They are NOT straight reporting (that almost doesn't exist any more) ... no current "jounalist" seems to be able to avoid lecturing his audience. The Atlantic is no different .... only the opinions are different.

 

[monkrules]

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.

I hate the threads in which the poster dreams up what they consider to be a controversial title, then in their post they write: "Discuss". Then they bail.

That's just cheap, real bullshit.

 

[usmbguest5318]

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....

That's asking a lot of people. Most righties I've known couldn't work their way through a ******* comic book rack.

Not trying to be insulting.

Just listen to any of the rw radio Hate shows, check out the kinds of people who call in... wanna hear "low information" voters...? There's some truly scary shit out there in RW tinfoil-hat land. Lol

That's asking a lot of people. Most righties I've known couldn't work their way through a ******* comic book rack.

Perhaps so...I've often wondered to what policies people in either major party would ascribe were they not to know under what political party label the politicians and pundits who advance them line-up.

Then again, I'm with Madison and the rest of the Founders as goes my disdain for "factions."

• The Federalist Papers : No. 10

Moreover, I doubt many "righties" have studied The Federalist Papers, let alone #10. I seriously doubt that the current leader of the GOP has read any of them, or if he has, that he took to heart any of them.

No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause; because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time.
-- James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 10​

Not trying to be insulting.

I didn't take it as though you were, though I presume you wrote that not for my benefit....

 

[monkrules]

Perhaps so...I've often wondered to what policies people in either major party would ascribe were they not to know under what political party label the politicians and pundits who advance them line-up.

I agree. It would be interesting to see some kind of blind experiment conducted, the results would be hilarious, I'd bet.

Moreover, I doubt many "righties" have studied The Federalist Papers, let alone #10. I seriously doubt that the current leader of the GOP has read any of them, or if he has, that he took to heart any of them.

No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause; because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time.
-- James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 10

That Madison quote could well have been written specifically with trump in mind.

I moved here a couple of years ago and, sadly, still have many boxes of books packed away. A collection of the Federalist Papers is among them.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Perhaps so...I've often wondered to what policies people in either major party would ascribe were they not to know under what political party label the politicians and pundits who advance them line-up.

I agree. It would be interesting to see some kind of blind experiment conducted, the results would be hilarious, I'd bet.

Moreover, I doubt many "righties" have studied The Federalist Papers, let alone #10. I seriously doubt that the current leader of the GOP has read any of them, or if he has, that he took to heart any of them.

No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause; because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time.
-- James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 10

That Madison quote could well have been written specifically with trump in mind.

I moved here a couple of years ago and, sadly, still have many boxes of books packed away. A collection of the Federalist Papers is among them.

That Madison quote could well have been written specifically with trump in mind.

It could have and yet it wasn't, having, as you know, been written some 200+ years prior. Moreover, not only could it have been written of Trump, it also strikes me as equally applicable to the assembly of his proponents in the 115th Congress, which is precisely to whom the second sentence in that passage applied. Indeed, reading that second sentence, I cannot imagine how anyone construse as other than a "kangaroo court" any of the recent lustrum's Congressional investigations.

I mean seriously! Seven (?), eight (?) Benghazi hearings and not so much as a Congressional letter of censure or rebuke was issued to the central target of the investigation. And now what is Congress proposing to do? Investigate prior investigations. Truly, Congress' investigative power should be stripped from it for Congressional investigations, just like Congressional impeachments and convictions are purely political and subject to no legal standards of probity, burdens of proof, etc. Congressional investigations, for the most part, have little purpose other than to get witnesses to say something from which "political hay bales" can be made.

Why did I mention Congressional investigations? Because it seems to me that the average voter doesn't actually know that Congress' proceedings aren't bound by anything other than whatever Congress says it is, yet it all looks very "by the book" and "on the up and up" when one watches it on television. After all, what is Congress but 535 of the most politically motivated people in the country?

 

[OldLady]

The fact of the matter is, the whole notion by the OP is unAmerican.

I don't care if an OP uses the Onion of the National Enquirer.

Every time someone from the far left uses HuffPo, or someone from the far right uses Breitbart, I'll skim the article, but we all know the drill.

If you start a thread but use as your source a compromised piece of journalism, the board will note that.

If the OP looks at the link, and doesn't like that source, move on, don't try to control the conversation. IF they don't like the way the forum is set-up, find a new forum.

We don't knew a ministry of truth here.

Putting threads in the appropriate part of the forum isn't unAmerican. So are you for putting The Onion in the Politics forum?

The Onion clearly states it is for entertainment only.


Don't be disingenuous.

If we should put any articles containing media links in the Conspiracy sub-forum, it should by those that can be proven to have any links to the Anglo-American Ruling Establishment.

As both the Democrats and Republicans are part of the inner circle which is NON-Elected, and it IS a non-Democratic, non-Public entity, it therefor qualifies AS A CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE PUBLIC.

If any media source, journalist, editor, or owner can be proven to have ties to the PRATT HOUSE in New York, or the Council on Foreign Affairs or any politician, business, or interest that is a member, then the thread should be put into the conspiracy sub-forum.

ANYTHING by admitted "ruling class journalists" belongs in the conspiracy sub-forum.

RULING CLASS JOURNALISTS
RULING CLASS JOURNALISTS

http://www.pennsylvaniacrier.com/filemgmt_data/files/Ruling Class Journalists.pdf

Alex Jones said in court he plays a role and that Info Wars is for entertainment.

We say lots of things in court. Alex Jones knows that a lot of gullible people believe him.

 

[MisterBeale]

The fact of the matter is, the whole notion by the OP is unAmerican.

I don't care if an OP uses the Onion of the National Enquirer.

Every time someone from the far left uses HuffPo, or someone from the far right uses Breitbart, I'll skim the article, but we all know the drill.

If you start a thread but use as your source a compromised piece of journalism, the board will note that.

If the OP looks at the link, and doesn't like that source, move on, don't try to control the conversation. IF they don't like the way the forum is set-up, find a new forum.

We don't knew a ministry of truth here.

Putting threads in the appropriate part of the forum isn't unAmerican. So are you for putting The Onion in the Politics forum?

The Onion clearly states it is for entertainment only.


Don't be disingenuous.

If we should put any articles containing media links in the Conspiracy sub-forum, it should by those that can be proven to have any links to the Anglo-American Ruling Establishment.

As both the Democrats and Republicans are part of the inner circle which is NON-Elected, and it IS a non-Democratic, non-Public entity, it therefor qualifies AS A CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE PUBLIC.

If any media source, journalist, editor, or owner can be proven to have ties to the PRATT HOUSE in New York, or the Council on Foreign Affairs or any politician, business, or interest that is a member, then the thread should be put into the conspiracy sub-forum.

ANYTHING by admitted "ruling class journalists" belongs in the conspiracy sub-forum.

RULING CLASS JOURNALISTS
RULING CLASS JOURNALISTS

http://www.pennsylvaniacrier.com/filemgmt_data/files/Ruling Class Journalists.pdf

Alex Jones said in court he plays a role and that Info Wars is for entertainment.

We say lots of things in court. Alex Jones knows that a lot of gullible people believe him.

You would say anything in court to continue seeing your grandchildren, right?

 

[OldLady]

The fact of the matter is, the whole notion by the OP is unAmerican.

I don't care if an OP uses the Onion of the National Enquirer.

Every time someone from the far left uses HuffPo, or someone from the far right uses Breitbart, I'll skim the article, but we all know the drill.

If you start a thread but use as your source a compromised piece of journalism, the board will note that.

If the OP looks at the link, and doesn't like that source, move on, don't try to control the conversation. IF they don't like the way the forum is set-up, find a new forum.

We don't knew a ministry of truth here.

Putting threads in the appropriate part of the forum isn't unAmerican. So are you for putting The Onion in the Politics forum?

The Onion clearly states it is for entertainment only.


Don't be disingenuous.

If we should put any articles containing media links in the Conspiracy sub-forum, it should by those that can be proven to have any links to the Anglo-American Ruling Establishment.

As both the Democrats and Republicans are part of the inner circle which is NON-Elected, and it IS a non-Democratic, non-Public entity, it therefor qualifies AS A CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE PUBLIC.

If any media source, journalist, editor, or owner can be proven to have ties to the PRATT HOUSE in New York, or the Council on Foreign Affairs or any politician, business, or interest that is a member, then the thread should be put into the conspiracy sub-forum.

ANYTHING by admitted "ruling class journalists" belongs in the conspiracy sub-forum.

RULING CLASS JOURNALISTS
RULING CLASS JOURNALISTS

http://www.pennsylvaniacrier.com/filemgmt_data/files/Ruling Class Journalists.pdf

Alex Jones said in court he plays a role and that Info Wars is for entertainment.

We say lots of things in court. Alex Jones knows that a lot of gullible people believe him.

You would say anything in court to continue seeing your grandchildren, right?

That's not the point. Alex Jones knows that a lot of gullible people believe his trash.

 

[gipper]

The fact of the matter is, the whole notion by the OP is unAmerican.

I don't care if an OP uses the Onion of the National Enquirer.

Every time someone from the far left uses HuffPo, or someone from the far right uses Breitbart, I'll skim the article, but we all know the drill.

If you start a thread but use as your source a compromised piece of journalism, the board will note that.

If the OP looks at the link, and doesn't like that source, move on, don't try to control the conversation. IF they don't like the way the forum is set-up, find a new forum.

We don't knew a ministry of truth here.

Putting threads in the appropriate part of the forum isn't unAmerican. So are you for putting The Onion in the Politics forum?

The Onion clearly states it is for entertainment only.


Don't be disingenuous.

If we should put any articles containing media links in the Conspiracy sub-forum, it should by those that can be proven to have any links to the Anglo-American Ruling Establishment.

As both the Democrats and Republicans are part of the inner circle which is NON-Elected, and it IS a non-Democratic, non-Public entity, it therefor qualifies AS A CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE PUBLIC.

If any media source, journalist, editor, or owner can be proven to have ties to the PRATT HOUSE in New York, or the Council on Foreign Affairs or any politician, business, or interest that is a member, then the thread should be put into the conspiracy sub-forum.

ANYTHING by admitted "ruling class journalists" belongs in the conspiracy sub-forum.

RULING CLASS JOURNALISTS
RULING CLASS JOURNALISTS

http://www.pennsylvaniacrier.com/filemgmt_data/files/Ruling Class Journalists.pdf

Sadly, few Americans know that the MSM is almost entirely controlled by CFR members. Those members have a goal which is not for the benefit of the nation or the American people. It is entirely for THEIR benefit, both financially and the attainment of political power. They have been amazingly successful.

In a sane informed nation, these CFR members would be prosecuted and imprisoned. They are traitors.

 

[gipper]

Putting threads in the appropriate part of the forum isn't unAmerican. So are you for putting The Onion in the Politics forum?

The Onion clearly states it is for entertainment only.


Don't be disingenuous.

If we should put any articles containing media links in the Conspiracy sub-forum, it should by those that can be proven to have any links to the Anglo-American Ruling Establishment.

As both the Democrats and Republicans are part of the inner circle which is NON-Elected, and it IS a non-Democratic, non-Public entity, it therefor qualifies AS A CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE PUBLIC.

If any media source, journalist, editor, or owner can be proven to have ties to the PRATT HOUSE in New York, or the Council on Foreign Affairs or any politician, business, or interest that is a member, then the thread should be put into the conspiracy sub-forum.

ANYTHING by admitted "ruling class journalists" belongs in the conspiracy sub-forum.

RULING CLASS JOURNALISTS
RULING CLASS JOURNALISTS

http://www.pennsylvaniacrier.com/filemgmt_data/files/Ruling Class Journalists.pdf

Alex Jones said in court he plays a role and that Info Wars is for entertainment.

We say lots of things in court. Alex Jones knows that a lot of gullible people believe him.

You would say anything in court to continue seeing your grandchildren, right?

That's not the point. Alex Jones knows that a lot of gullible people believe his trash.

...and you think CBS News and PBS are accurate....

Media and CFR: holding hands

The above Muckety map shows well-known media figures who are members of the council. (You might want to view the map in the larger version, for more elbow room.)

Around the periphery of the map, you’ll see the media outlets employing these journalists. They are some of the biggest news companies in America, including the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, Bloomberg, Thomson Reuters, the New Yorker, public broadcasting and commercial broadcast companies.

News Corp., owner of Fox and the Wall Street Journal, is a corporate member. So is Time Warner, owner of Time, Fortune and CNN. Bloomberg and Thomson Reuters are also corporate members.

Individual membership in the Council on Foreign Relations is an honor bestowed on the few. Applicants must be sponsored by sitting members. Acceptance is so highly regarded that it is often listed on CVs.

Media and CFR: holding hands | Muckety - See the news