They're both just like the protesters...89Hen wrote:Funny you say that. I had that exact thought earlier this week.SDHornet wrote:Leave it to the leftists to come up with another "-ist" descriptor for those who don't think like them.
Why is somebody who said Obama is not my president a racist but somebody who says Trump is not my president expressing their belief?
Huh? Come on, we don't want to sick JSO and his fact checking on you.kalm wrote:I've posted as many anti-Hillary/Democratic establishment articles as anyone. I scared Dback and Trip away didn't I? I'm already done!89Hen wrote: I think that begs the question , when are you going to open the minds of ignorant donks?
Please tell me you are not trying to make the claim that The Intercept or Democracy Now or The Nation or the International Socialist Review are "actual news outlets".kalm wrote:Yes, Baldy. Journalists have been known to go in depth on certain subjects in the form of a book while they're covering hundreds of other legitimate news topics on behalf of actual news outlets.Baldy wrote:
What's the difference?
Scahill has had a hard-on for Blackwater for years.
I think it's wonderful that you're paying attention enough to recongnize Scahill mentioning that he'd sourced his own book on the subject. Good job.
* sicGannonFan wrote:Huh? Come on, we don't want to sick JSO and his fact checking on you.kalm wrote:
I've posted as many anti-Hillary/Democratic establishment articles as anyone. I scared Dback and Trip away didn't I? I'm already done!
All left leaning but no more so than their equivalents on the right like the WSJ or National Review.Baldy wrote:Please tell me you are not trying to make the claim that The Intercept or Democracy Now or The Nation or the International Socialist Review are "actual news outlets".kalm wrote:
Yes, Baldy. Journalists have been known to go in depth on certain subjects in the form of a book while they're covering hundreds of other legitimate news topics on behalf of actual news outlets.
I think it's wonderful that you're paying attention enough to recongnize Scahill mentioning that he'd sourced his own book on the subject. Good job.
He's nothing more than a good agenda driven reporter.
Well he does like hisself some Rolling StoneBaldy wrote:Please tell me you are not trying to make the claim that The Intercept or Democracy Now or The Nation or the International Socialist Review are "actual news outlets".kalm wrote:
Yes, Baldy. Journalists have been known to go in depth on certain subjects in the form of a book while they're covering hundreds of other legitimate news topics on behalf of actual news outlets.
I think it's wonderful that you're paying attention enough to recongnize Scahill mentioning that he'd sourced his own book on the subject. Good job.
The National Review, sure, but equating them to the WSJ?kalm wrote:All left leaning but no more so than their equivalents on the right like the WSJ or National Review.Baldy wrote: Please tell me you are not trying to make the claim that The Intercept or Democracy Now or The Nation or the International Socialist Review are "actual news outlets".
He's nothing more than a good agenda driven reporter.
All are certainly more legit than infowars.
Oops...I guess you must be an infowars fan like 89....sorry.
Dipshitists.kalm wrote:They're both just like the protesters...89Hen wrote: Funny you say that. I had that exact thought earlier this week.
Why is somebody who said Obama is not my president a racist but somebody who says Trump is not my president expressing their belief?
dipshits.
Let's see...left wing webcast news aggregate/opinion show vs. lizard people. Slightly closer...but nope.Baldy wrote:The National Review, sure, but equating them to the WSJ?kalm wrote:
All left leaning but no more so than their equivalents on the right like the WSJ or National Review.
All are certainly more legit than infowars.
Oops...I guess you must be an infowars fan like 89....sorry.
That would be like equating Townhall to the NYT.
BTW, One mans infowars is another mans TYT.
Can't believe you're giving up your "centrist" title for Scahill.kalm wrote:Let's see...left wing webcast news aggregate/opinion show vs. lizard people. Slightly closer...but nope.
Well, truth be told, he's the only one that ever really thought he had that title. Most of us here know that kalm left the center a long time ago, assuming he was ever there in the first place.89Hen wrote:Can't believe you're giving up your "centrist" title for Scahill.kalm wrote:Let's see...left wing webcast news aggregate/opinion show vs. lizard people. Slightly closer...but nope.
You're both still trolling I see.GannonFan wrote:Well, truth be told, he's the only one that ever really thought he had that title. Most of us here know that kalm left the center a long time ago, assuming he was ever there in the first place.89Hen wrote: Can't believe you're giving up your "centrist" title for Scahill.
Did you get that response cleared by Mrs. Warren? Do you have to call her Mrs. Warren or is she good with Elizabeth?kalm wrote:You're both still trolling I see.GannonFan wrote:
Well, truth be told, he's the only one that ever really thought he had that title. Most of us here know that kalm left the center a long time ago, assuming he was ever there in the first place.
A post partisan centrist like Klam is not afraid of ideologically leaning sources from either side and appreciates quality journalism regardless of how the author leans. He also recognizes the bubble which etablishment journalism (on both sides) resides in and can differentiate between tin foil hats and legit reporting.
I don't expect either of you to understand. No need to reply...
Calling yourself post-partisan just means you can ignore the fact that you're so far away from the center. Bubble indeed.I mostly call her Betty...or sometimes my little Cherokee love child.GannonFan wrote:Did you get that response cleared by Mrs. Warren? Do you have to call her Mrs. Warren or is she good with Elizabeth?kalm wrote:
You're both still trolling I see.
A post partisan centrist like Klam is not afraid of ideologically leaning sources from either side and appreciates quality journalism regardless of how the author leans. He also recognizes the bubble which etablishment journalism (on both sides) resides in and can differentiate between tin foil hats and legit reporting.
I don't expect either of you to understand. No need to reply...
I actually had to Google David Brooks. I don't read the NYT. That would cut into my time of reading both "US Weekly" and "Entertainment Weekly" (yes, we get both) that we get at home. Gotta keep my pulse on pop culture.kalm wrote:I mostly call her Betty...or sometimes my little Cherokee love child.GannonFan wrote:
Did you get that response cleared by Mrs. Warren? Do you have to call her Mrs. Warren or is she good with Elizabeth?
It hurts your feelings so much that I'm closer to the middle than you....
Dont you have a David Brooks editorial to go read?
kalm wrote:Let's see...left wing webcast news aggregate/opinion show vs. lizard people. Slightly closer...but nope.Baldy wrote: The National Review, sure, but equating them to the WSJ?
That would be like equating Townhall to the NYT.
BTW, One mans infowars is another mans TYT.
Go ahead and continue to defend Alex Jones vs. Scahill or that the background on the Prince family influence and Pence's religiosity is a conspiracy (you know...the original point). Best of luck!
There's no doubt which is why I pointed out in the OP that Scahill's hair is stillon fire.Pwns wrote:I might've agreed with Kalm up until the immediate aftermath of the election. A lot of left-wing websites are starting to read like liberal Infowars since election day.
