Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
49 minutes ago, keepthefaith said:

 

Whatever Ainsley says is fine with me.

And now Conservatives have Rush Limbo on. The East German level of propaganda need not be force fed, they eat it like they eat sh it and buy lottery tickets 

Posted
1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

And now Conservatives have Rush Limbo on. The East German level of propaganda need not be force fed, they eat it like they eat sh it and buy lottery tickets 

you must be young..... Rush has been around much longer than CNN or Fox, and even before cable TV, hell I heard him for the first time in the 80s... He is by no means a "new" phenomenon 

Posted
1 minute ago, Cinga said:

you must be young..... Rush has been around much longer than CNN or Fox, and even before cable TV, hell I heard him for the first time in the 80s... He is by no means a "new" phenomenon 

??? New? WTF are you talking about?

Posted
15 minutes ago, Cinga said:

you must be young..... Rush has been around much longer than CNN or Fox, and even before cable TV, hell I heard him for the first time in the 80s... He is by no means a "new" phenomenon 

 

Rush started getting big nationally in the summer leading up to the 1988 election

 

 

around the same time WFAN out of NYC sparked up

Posted
6 hours ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

CNN is one sided and has been that way long before Alternate Truth became a meme, FOX News is one sided.

 

Sean Hannity (the mouthpiece) for Conservatives spreads so much hate and disdain its ridiculous and the base sucks his crap up.   

don't pretend only one side is bad.   It is not helping to unite a divided America 

Hannity shouldn't be on TV.  I'd say the same thing about Rachel Maddow.  Just pure propaganda which is why they get the ratings and they just polarize this country even more.  Everybody knows MSNBC has become a liberal network and Fox News is a far right cable network at least in prime time.  However, the reason conservatives hate CNN is of the three major cable networks, they're the one's that are supposed to be fair and balanced.  They aren't.

Posted
Just now, row_33 said:

people sit there and watch Hannity for an hour every weeknight, seriously?

 

 

He's #1 in ratings out of any of the cable news networks.  He has a loyal audience.

Posted
7 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

He's #1 in ratings out of any of the cable news networks.  He has a loyal audience.

 

I've tried but he and Glenn Beck were not worth 15 seconds of my time.

 

Good thing every episode of Firing Line is online, it's all the same issues and we're 40 plus years down the road and it's only gotten worse.

 

 

Posted
Just now, row_33 said:

 

I've tried but he and Glenn Beck were not worth 15 seconds of my time.

 

Good thing every episode of Firing Line is online, it's all the same issues and we're 40 plus years down the road and it's only gotten worse.

 

 

I used to watch Beck sometimes for comedy.  At least he brought something new to the table with his chalkboard.

 

hqdefault.jpg

Posted

I guess Jordan Peterson is the latest fad, the knife-wielding attacks by his enemies are quite enjoyable these days.

 

 

turned down a chance to see a sold out lecture last month, will go see Martin Amis in a few weeks instead at a book signing.

 

Posted
53 minutes ago, Cinga said:

you must be young..... Rush has been around much longer than CNN or Fox, and even before cable TV, hell I heard him for the first time in the 80s... He is by no means a "new" phenomenon 

 

CNN was founded in 1980, and Limbaugh didn't get a national syndication until 1988. Until then, his show was broadcast locally in the Sacramento market.

 

Fox first aired in Autumn of 1996.

Posted

CNN had balanced programming for a long time.

 

At least a conservative was allowed on up to around 1994.

 

 

Posted
23 hours ago, GG said:

 

How about looking up and linking the study itself?

 

Hint, it took less than 4 clicks.

 

When I know what they’re saying to be true, I’ll present a sourced article without taking the time to sift through the data they gathered.

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted
10 hours ago, The_Dude said:

 

When I know what they’re saying to be true, I’ll present a sourced article without taking the time to sift through the data they gathered.

 

And you wonder why you're being mocked?

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Sad 1
Posted
10 hours ago, The_Dude said:

 

When I know what they’re saying to be true, I’ll present a sourced article without taking the time to sift through the data they gathered.

Let me understand what you are saying. It appears as if you are willing to post something that you know might not be true, but your standards prevent you from posting a link, because it might not be accurate?

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
12 hours ago, The_Dude said:

 

When I know what they’re saying to be true, I’ll present a sourced article without taking the time to sift through the data they gathered.

So when something reports to your confirmation biases, you don't question it's sources or methods.

 

It's always hilarious to hear someone report that they've experienced as much personal and intellectual growth as they are willing to.

Posted
7 hours ago, GG said:

 

And you wonder why you're being mocked?

 

Please understand I don’t strive to be the cool kid on the internet message board. If you and the cool kids mock me I’ll be quite alright. 

5 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

So when something reports to your confirmation biases, you don't question it's sources or methods.

 

It's always hilarious to hear someone report that they've experienced as much personal and intellectual growth as they are willing to.

 

Thats not what I said. I said when somebody writes something I already know to be true and I see that they’ve sourced it I’m not going to dissect the source. That’d be a waste of my time and I don’t care about becoming a message board rockstar because I can still get an erection. 

Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

Thats not what I said. I said when somebody writes something I already know to be true and I see that they’ve sourced it I’m not going to dissect the source. That’d be a waste of my time and I don’t care about becoming a message board rockstar because I can still get an erection. 

No, that's exactly what you said.  What's hilarious is that your personal and intellectual growth are so stunted, by choice, that you don't even realize it, and worse yet that you're actually proud of it as demonstrated by the peacocking lap you're taking right now.

 

It's absolutely hilarious to observe.

Edited by TakeYouToTasker
Posted
12 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

No, that's exactly what you said.  What's hilarious is that your personal and intellectual growth are so stunted, by choice, that you don't even realize it, and worse yet that you're actually proud of it as demonstrated by the peacocking lap you're taking right now.

 

It's absolutely hilarious to observe.

 

"Why do I need to be informed, when I already know everything?"

×
×
  • Create New...