Why I Don't Listen To Democrats

[Independentthinker]

This is a bullshit source.
Try to do better.

Everything you don't like is a bullshit source. But, it's not a bullshit source.

 

[MagicMike]

Everything you don't like is a bullshit source. But, it's not a bullshit source.

You initially stated that "anything on MSNBC is pure fiction," yet that claim is not supported by your own (questionable) link which states:

When reporting straight news stories, MSNBC is highly factual and well-sourced. They use NBC News as their primary source; however, due to some of the guest political pundits spreading misinformation on their daily programs, we cannot rate MSNBC High for factual reporting on the whole.

A 2014 Pew Research Survey found that 48% of MSNBC’s audience is consistently or primarily liberal, 33% Mixed, and 18% consistently or mostly conservative. This indicates that a more liberal audience prefers MSNBC. Further, a Reuters institute survey found that 46% of respondents trust their news coverage and 35% do not, ranking them #5 in trust of the major USA news providers.

 

[BS Filter]

You initially stated that "anything on MSNBC is pure fiction," yet that claim is not supported by your own (questionable) link which states:

When reporting straight news stories, MSNBC is highly factual and well-sourced. They use NBC News as their primary source; however, due to some of the guest political pundits spreading misinformation on their daily programs, we cannot rate MSNBC High for factual reporting on the whole.

A 2014 Pew Research Survey found that 48% of MSNBC’s audience is consistently or primarily liberal, 33% Mixed, and 18% consistently or mostly conservative. This indicates that a more liberal audience prefers MSNBC. Further, a Reuters institute survey found that 46% of respondents trust their news coverage and 35% do not, ranking them #5 in trust of the major USA news providers.

That's not a very good recommendation.

 

[Independentthinker]

You initially stated that "anything on MSNBC is pure fiction," yet that claim is not supported by your own (questionable) link which states:

When reporting straight news stories, MSNBC is highly factual and well-sourced. They use NBC News as their primary source; however, due to some of the guest political pundits spreading misinformation on their daily programs, we cannot rate MSNBC High for factual reporting on the whole.

A 2014 Pew Research Survey found that 48% of MSNBC’s audience is consistently or primarily liberal, 33% Mixed, and 18% consistently or mostly conservative. This indicates that a more liberal audience prefers MSNBC. Further, a Reuters institute survey found that 46% of respondents trust their news coverage and 35% do not, ranking them #5 in trust of the major USA news providers.

LOL. So, now you have changed your story about my link. Is it questionable or not? If so then your post is questionable.

 

[MagicMike]

LOL. So, now you have changed your story about my link. Is it questionable or not? If so then your post is questionable.

So you still stand by your statement that anything on MSNBC is pure fiction even though your own link says otherwise?

 

[MagicMike]

That's not a very good recommendation.

Would you care to see the stats on Fox, Newsmax, and Breitbart?

 

[BS Filter]

Would you care to see the stats on Fox, Newsmax, and Breitbart?

Don't care. I don't watch cable news.

 

[Independentthinker]

So you still stand by your statement that anything on MSNBC is pure fiction even though your own link says otherwise?

I see you purposely avoided my question of whether you believe my link was questionable or not. It's very amusing that you call it questionable and then you turn right around and quote from my link. I guess it wasn't questionable then.

 

[MagicMike]

I see you purposely avoided my question of whether you believe my link was questionable or not. It's very amusing that you call it questionable and then you turn right around and quote from my link. I guess it wasn't questionable then.

No.
It's questionable.
Yet the fact that your own questionable source disproves your initial statement that your source was supposed to back up makes you look like the fool that you are.

Usually people try to post links they believe back up whatever it is they are trying to say.
But you did it backwards.
You posted a source that disproved your idiotic statement.

Keep up the good work though.

 

[Independentthinker]

No.
It's questionable.
Yet the fact that your own questionable source disproves your initial statement that your source was supposed to back up makes you look like the fool that you are.

Usually people try to post links they believe back up whatever it is they are trying to say.
But you did it backwards.
You posted a source that disproved your idiotic statement.

Keep up the good work though.

LOL. It's questionable but you felt they were unquestionable enough to quote them.

 

[MagicMike]

LOL. It's questionable but you felt they were unquestionable enough to quote them.

I quoted it because it was painfully obvious you hadn't bothered ti read your own goofy link.

 

[Independentthinker]

I quoted it because it was painfully obvious you hadn't bothered ti read your own goofy link.

LOL. So to prove my link is questionable, you quote the link from my post, proving that you don't think the source is questionable.

 

[MagicMike]

LOL. So to prove my link is questionable, you quote the link from my post, proving that you don't think the source is questionable.

You should really read your own links befire you post them.

 

[Independentthinker]

You should really read your own links befire you post them.

So, you're saying that the link and the source are not questionable.

 

[MagicMike]

So, you're saying that the link and the source are not questionable.

Do you have a reading disability?
I have already answered that question.

 

[Independentthinker]

Do you have a reading disability?
I have already answered that question.

Yes, you have said my source was questionable and then you used my source yourself to try proving that my source was questionable. I'm not the one with the disability. You are.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The next time you need any kind of medical procedure then I suggest you just go get one of the bums in the Walgreen's parking lot to perform it for you.
You know....since it (education) doesn't really matter.
Same with the pilot of the next airline flight you have to take.
Or the teachers you leave your kids with all day long five days a week.
Or the plumber, electrician, mechanic, etc. you are going to depend upon to perform the next much needed technical service for you.
Here's the reality of your "education is overrated," cult propaganda mantra.....

Students Not Being Paid Is the Worst Insult to Intelligence in History

You dishonestly beg the question by assuming that this failed system is the most productive. Slave-graduates only know "how to do a job," which is as generic as the fact that most American boys "know how to play baseball" but can't even make their high-school teams.

Typical that a professor-lover would dishonestly and intentionally miss the point and make up a strawman. You assume that people must buy their jobs, or (the real reason why plebeian students aren't paid) have their Daddies buy their jobs for them. You can't defend this class-biased indentured servitude, so you have to distort any objections to it.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

That is an ignorant statement.
Care to clarify it or even back it up in any way?

Diploma-Dumbo Dialogue

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

So you still stand by your statement that anything on MSNBC is pure fiction even though your own link says otherwise?

If Collegians Aren't Paid, Graduates Are Amateurs

Being a Diploma Dumbo made your thinking shallow. The media's dishonesty isn't about facts, but whether these actual facts are relevant to the interpretation they put on them. For example, Putin did actually invade the Ukraine, but that fact should be rationally interpreted like Eisenhower's "Invasion of Normandy."

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Would you care to see the stats on Fox, Newsmax, and Breitbart?

What Makes You "Think" That Those Are the Leftists' Opposites?