APNewsBreak: US declares 22 Clinton emails 'top secret'

MuyLocoNC

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
see4 said:
No lithium here good madam. I'm on Oxy for pain after my surgery.

But honestly that is besides the point. The fact of the matter is, you're not able to comprehend with the simplest of information.
Click to expand...
Just to be clear, you don't see the contradiction between your two posts that I quoted?

@Rrog My IQ could drop your IQ and it would lose IQ stopping to pick it up.
 
see4

see4

Well-Known Member
MuyLocoNC said:
Just to be clear, you don't see the contradiction between your two posts that I quoted?

@Rrog My IQ could drop your IQ and it would lose IQ stopping to pick it up.
Click to expand...
Not surprisingly you aren't able to grasp the concept, "facts are not debatable". One can then go on to say, "one does not determine which sources are credible, only the factual ones". I know this is hard for you to comprehend, which is why I'm not upset in having to explain it to you more than once.
 
MuyLocoNC

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
see4 said:
Not surprisingly you aren't able to grasp the concept, "facts are not debatable". One can then go on to say, "one does not determine which sources are credible, only the factual ones". I know this is hard for you to comprehend, which is why I'm not upset in having to explain it to you more than once.
Click to expand...
I was pointing to the hypocrisy of you claiming certain sources aren't credible (garbage), then claiming no one can determine the credibility of a source a few posts later. I understand you cornered yourself and have to squirm as a lib never accepts defeat, even when dripping in it.

I wouldn't give a squirt of piss for the "facts" your sources put forth. Liberal "facts" aren't just debatable, they are immediately considered false until corroborated by a source I find acceptable. That's the problem with liberals' loooooooong history of lying through their teeth to further whatever agenda happens to be in play, everything said going forward is suspect.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
MuyLocoNC said:
I was pointing to the hypocrisy of you claiming certain sources aren't credible (garbage), then claiming no one can determine the credibility of a source a few posts later. I understand you cornered yourself and have to squirm as a lib never accepts defeat, even when dripping in it.

I wouldn't give a squirt of piss for the "facts" your sources put forth. Liberal "facts" aren't just debatable, they are immediately considered false until corroborated by a source I find acceptable. That's the problem with liberals' loooooooong history of lying through their teeth to further whatever agenda happens to be in play, everything said going forward is suspect.
Click to expand...
We review the facts and get 100% accuracy, you review the "facts" you get from conservative outlets and get 14 point margins of error...

So who's really dealing in objective facts?
 
Flaming Pie

Flaming Pie

Well-Known Member
see4 said:
Not surprisingly you aren't able to grasp the concept, "facts are not debatable". One can then go on to say, "one does not determine which sources are credible, only the factual ones". I know this is hard for you to comprehend, which is why I'm not upset in having to explain it to you more than once.
Click to expand...
How do you know when the media is reporting facts?

Links to scientific studies? Links to other media? Links to government documents?
 
see4

see4

Well-Known Member
MuyLocoNC said:
I was pointing to the hypocrisy of you claiming certain sources aren't credible (garbage), then claiming no one can determine the credibility of a source a few posts later. I understand you cornered yourself and have to squirm as a lib never accepts defeat, even when dripping in it.

I wouldn't give a squirt of piss for the "facts" your sources put forth. Liberal "facts" aren't just debatable, they are immediately considered false until corroborated by a source I find acceptable. That's the problem with liberals' loooooooong history of lying through their teeth to further whatever agenda happens to be in play, everything said going forward is suspect.
Click to expand...
Your circular logic is circular.

Facts are not debatable. "News" from the likes of breitbart and Fox have proven time and time again not to be credible sources of information, their stories have turned out to be only half truths. And neither of the aforementioned sources ever redact prior false claims, and attempt to represent fact. Whereas sources like AP, Reuters and BBC for whom all take news seriously are very credible sources of information, and most everyone can trust what they say as fact, as reported.

Facts have nothing to do with political bias, only in your fantasy world does that exist.
 
see4

see4

Well-Known Member
Flaming Pie said:
How do you know when the media is reporting facts?

Links to scientific studies? Links to other media? Links to government documents?
Click to expand...
Depends. Your question(s) are pretty generic.

How do I know when the media is reporting facts? When it comes from AP, Reuters, BBC and the like.
Links to scientific studies? If it warrants the need.

Links to government documents? I know where you're going with this... and no, your interpretation of documents and studies does not constitute fact. But nice try though.
 
Flaming Pie

Flaming Pie

Well-Known Member
see4 said:
Depends. Your question(s) are pretty generic.

How do I know when the media is reporting facts? When it comes from AP, Reuters, BBC and the like.
Links to scientific studies? If it warrants the need.

Links to government documents? I know where you're going with this... and no, your interpretation of documents and studies does not constitute fact. But nice try though.
Click to expand...
How about the Guardian?
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
Flaming Pie said:
How do you know when the media is reporting facts?

Links to scientific studies? Links to other media? Links to government documents?
Click to expand...
You are making this harder than it is.

When information agrees with Padwan's world view it is a 'fact'. When it doent it is faux news spin!1111
 
Flaming Pie

Flaming Pie

Well-Known Member
see4 said:
What are you asking? Are they a reliable source of information? Or do I personally use them as a source of information?
Click to expand...
Not trying to do a gotcha moment. Just curious as to what you consider credible sources.

For future reference. Is it just fox news and breitbart that is off limits? How about local news?
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
You are making this harder than it is.

When information agrees with Padwan's world view it is a 'fact'. When it doent it is faux news spin!1111
Click to expand...
Right, that's why I take the side of the evidence while you favor propaganda

Anthropogenic climate change - the overwhelming majority of the entire world accepts it as fact, as do I. You don't, you favor right wing rhetoric spewed by conservative media outlets

Economics - again, the overwhelming majority of credible economists favor progressive taxation and a strong social safety net for the poor, as do I. Weird, must be a coincidence.. You favor trickle down economics that even the architects of which have admitted it's failures. Funny

You favor what makes you feel good and what confirms your biases, I use what works, what the experts who study it say and what is, say it with me, verifiable.

The only thing I believe that isn't verifiably true is that no god's exist, I'm certain you can't make the same claim.
 
see4

see4

Well-Known Member
Flaming Pie said:
Not trying to do a gotcha moment. Just curious as to what you consider credible sources.

For future reference. Is it just fox news and breitbart that is off limits? How about local news?
Click to expand...
Information that is not factual is off limits.
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Right, that's why I take the side of the evidence while you favor propaganda

Anthropogenic climate change - the overwhelming majority of the entire world accepts it as fact, as do I. You don't, you favor right wing rhetoric spewed by conservative media outlets

Economics - again, the overwhelming majority of credible economists favor progressive taxation and a strong social safety net for the poor, as do I. Weird, must be a coincidence.. You favor trickle down economics that even the architects of which have admitted it's failures. Funny

You favor what makes you feel good and what confirms your biases, I use what works, what the experts who study it say and what is, say it with me, verifiable.

The only thing I believe that isn't verifiably true is that no god's exist, I'm certain you can't make the same claim.
Click to expand...
Extra points for being consistently wrong!!
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
I bet there's nothing you believe that I couldn't find on the generic conservative outlets

Do you enjoy being told what to believe, how to think and act, who and who not to associate with and always be in constant fear?
Click to expand...
I have a question for you... How much is the most amount of money you have made in a single day?
 
Elwood Diggler

Elwood Diggler

Well-Known Member
MuyLocoNC said:
I was pointing to the hypocrisy of you claiming certain sources aren't credible (garbage), then claiming no one can determine the credibility of a source a few posts later. I understand you cornered yourself and have to squirm as a lib never accepts defeat, even when dripping in it.

I wouldn't give a squirt of piss for the "facts" your sources put forth. Liberal "facts" aren't just debatable, they are immediately considered false until corroborated by a source I find acceptable. That's the problem with liberals' loooooooong history of lying through their teeth to further whatever agenda happens to be in play, everything said going forward is suspect.
Click to expand...



wmd
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top