Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Racist Democrat doesn't want to doorknock in a 'N****r District'
Comments
-
Oh Hondo...2001400ex said:GrundleStiltzkin said:
You miss the point. It started turning hard progressive about a decade ago.MariotaTheGawd said:
Huffington Post's bias was always overstated. People acted like it was the Nation or something, but it was closer to a tabloid for Democrats.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Greg Gutfeld was still writing there in 2008.MariotaTheGawd said:
This is a trope that hasnt been true for probably a decadeDerekJohnson said:I sincerely give credit to the HuffPo for writing that about a liberal. They usually seem to look the other way for those with the "D" next to their name.
But why do you rail on a news source with a progressive tilt not say anything about a news source with a conservative tilt? -
Find a quote from me where I said I wanted him removed from office you lying worthless piece of shit. I said the exact opposite. I wanted him to stay in office, and I told you exactly that at the time. Which makes you what Hondo? You're a fucking pathological liar Hondo.2001400ex said:
So now you are being charitable. Interesting. A dude posts in either a blackface or white hood in the 80s and you want him removed from office. But now a D uses the N word and you are good with it?SFGbob said:
Being a bigot and a racist isn't against the law Hondo. If it were you'd be in chains for you beliefs about skin color and birth control. Let her voters decide her fate.2001400ex said:So no one wants her fired? What she said is awful, why no calls for her head?
-
Oh you don't like the question?GrundleStiltzkin said:
Oh Hondo...2001400ex said:GrundleStiltzkin said:
You miss the point. It started turning hard progressive about a decade ago.MariotaTheGawd said:
Huffington Post's bias was always overstated. People acted like it was the Nation or something, but it was closer to a tabloid for Democrats.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Greg Gutfeld was still writing there in 2008.MariotaTheGawd said:
This is a trope that hasnt been true for probably a decadeDerekJohnson said:I sincerely give credit to the HuffPo for writing that about a liberal. They usually seem to look the other way for those with the "D" next to their name.
But why do you rail on a news source with a progressive tilt not say anything about a news source with a conservative tilt? -
Hondo the lying piece of shit even quoted me saying I didn't want Northman to resign and yet he is such a pathological liar he states the opposite.
https://hardcorehusky.com/discussion/56786/appears-the-the-blackface-wearing-gov-is-going-to-survive#latest
Hondo your word on any topic outside of your love of sucking dick is worthless.
-
So you pointed to a thread where you are a hypocrite in your own thread. Nice work.SFGbob said:Hondo the lying piece of shit even quoted me saying I didn't want Northman to resign and yet he is such a pathological liar he states the opposite.
https://hardcorehusky.com/discussion/56786/appears-the-the-blackface-wearing-gov-is-going-to-survive#latest
Hondo your word on any topic outside of your love of sucking dick is worthless. -
I pointed to a thread that shows you to be a lying piece of shit. I never called for Northam to resign and you're a fucking liar Hondo.
There's no hypocrisy on my part. My position on Northam is exactly the same as on this woman. Of course you having the integrity of a fucking sewer Rat have nothing say about the fact you lied your ass off. -
Who's joking! If you don't know that you're too far around the bend, comrade.MariotaTheGawd said:
I'm not going to say this was funny or upvote it, but it's at least in the same galaxy as an actual jokeSledog said:
It's a tabloid for communists. Democrat means the same thing these days. HTHMariotaTheGawd said:
Huffington Post's bias was always overstated. People acted like it was the Nation or something, but it was closer to a tabloid for Democrats.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Greg Gutfeld was still writing there in 2008.MariotaTheGawd said:
This is a trope that hasnt been true for probably a decadeDerekJohnson said:I sincerely give credit to the HuffPo for writing that about a liberal. They usually seem to look the other way for those with the "D" next to their name.
-
No, I don't care your question, nor the issue that much. Mariot said HuffPo turned away from "looking the other way" on Dem misdeeds a decade ago, as if to say HuffPo became less strident. I don't know how much HuffPo ignores now or then, but the site was started with help from Andrew Breitbart in 2004-05 as more left-of-centerish answer to Drudge. Greg Gutfeld was still writing there in mid-2008. Other conservatives or libertarians wrote there in that time too, but I don't remember who. My point is that HuffPo turned harder left about 10-11 years ago, as Adriana's politics turned harder left. It didn't moderate, just the opposite. If you take that as railing, that's on you.2001400ex said:
Oh you don't like the question?GrundleStiltzkin said:
Oh Hondo...2001400ex said:GrundleStiltzkin said:
You miss the point. It started turning hard progressive about a decade ago.MariotaTheGawd said:
Huffington Post's bias was always overstated. People acted like it was the Nation or something, but it was closer to a tabloid for Democrats.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Greg Gutfeld was still writing there in 2008.MariotaTheGawd said:
This is a trope that hasnt been true for probably a decadeDerekJohnson said:I sincerely give credit to the HuffPo for writing that about a liberal. They usually seem to look the other way for those with the "D" next to their name.
But why do you rail on a news source with a progressive tilt not say anything about a news source with a conservative tilt?
As a "policy stance," for lack of a better term, I really don't care much about any media outlet's ideological or partisan bent. The important thing is to recognize all media sources and all individual journalists have a point of view. -
Yeah you know more about their history than I do. I have never been to their website, just some of their columns come up in my feed and they are never ones negative about Democrats. I read some of the articles, some are awful.GrundleStiltzkin said:
No, I don't care your question, nor the issue that much. Mariot said HuffPo turned away from "looking the other way" on Dem misdeeds a decade ago, as if to say HuffPo became less strident. I don't know how much HuffPo ignores now or then, but the site was started with help from Andrew Breitbart in 2004-05 as more left-of-centerish answer to Drudge. Greg Gutfeld was still writing there in mid-2008. Other conservatives or libertarians wrote there in that time too, but I don't remember who. My point is that HuffPo turned harder left about 10-11 years ago, as Adriana's politics turned harder left. It didn't moderate, just the opposite. If you take that as railing, that's on you.2001400ex said:
Oh you don't like the question?GrundleStiltzkin said:
Oh Hondo...2001400ex said:GrundleStiltzkin said:
You miss the point. It started turning hard progressive about a decade ago.MariotaTheGawd said:
Huffington Post's bias was always overstated. People acted like it was the Nation or something, but it was closer to a tabloid for Democrats.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Greg Gutfeld was still writing there in 2008.MariotaTheGawd said:
This is a trope that hasnt been true for probably a decadeDerekJohnson said:I sincerely give credit to the HuffPo for writing that about a liberal. They usually seem to look the other way for those with the "D" next to their name.
But why do you rail on a news source with a progressive tilt not say anything about a news source with a conservative tilt?
As a "policy stance," for lack of a better term, I really don't care much about any media outlet's ideological or partisan bent. The important thing is to recognize all media sources and all individual journalists have a point of view.
Well each side plays to their respective base in the media. You might not agree with this, but Conservatives generally want to read more opinionated writing and liberals general want to read more factual based writing (I'm not meaning truth, as you can lie with facts, more meaning the writing style). Especially news sources like Vox, which is liberal but everything is written in a factual context. But you read daily caller and it's more from an emotional context.
That's why it's important to read both sides. -
Now that's a big load of manure!2001400ex said:
Yeah you know more about their history than I do. I have never been to their website, just some of their columns come up in my feed and they are never ones negative about Democrats. I read some of the articles, some are awful.GrundleStiltzkin said:
No, I don't care your question, nor the issue that much. Mariot said HuffPo turned away from "looking the other way" on Dem misdeeds a decade ago, as if to say HuffPo became less strident. I don't know how much HuffPo ignores now or then, but the site was started with help from Andrew Breitbart in 2004-05 as more left-of-centerish answer to Drudge. Greg Gutfeld was still writing there in mid-2008. Other conservatives or libertarians wrote there in that time too, but I don't remember who. My point is that HuffPo turned harder left about 10-11 years ago, as Adriana's politics turned harder left. It didn't moderate, just the opposite. If you take that as railing, that's on you.2001400ex said:
Oh you don't like the question?GrundleStiltzkin said:
Oh Hondo...2001400ex said:GrundleStiltzkin said:
You miss the point. It started turning hard progressive about a decade ago.MariotaTheGawd said:
Huffington Post's bias was always overstated. People acted like it was the Nation or something, but it was closer to a tabloid for Democrats.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Greg Gutfeld was still writing there in 2008.MariotaTheGawd said:
This is a trope that hasnt been true for probably a decadeDerekJohnson said:I sincerely give credit to the HuffPo for writing that about a liberal. They usually seem to look the other way for those with the "D" next to their name.
But why do you rail on a news source with a progressive tilt not say anything about a news source with a conservative tilt?
As a "policy stance," for lack of a better term, I really don't care much about any media outlet's ideological or partisan bent. The important thing is to recognize all media sources and all individual journalists have a point of view.
Well each side plays to their respective base in the media. You might not agree with this, but Conservatives generally want to read more opinionated writing and liberals general want to read more factual based writing (I'm not meaning truth, as you can lie with facts, more meaning the writing style). Especially news sources like Vox, which is liberal but everything is written in a factual context. But you read daily caller and it's more from an emotional context.
That's why it's important to read both sides. -
Which part? Point to the place on the doll where it hurts.Sledog said:
Now that's a big load of manure!2001400ex said:
Yeah you know more about their history than I do. I have never been to their website, just some of their columns come up in my feed and they are never ones negative about Democrats. I read some of the articles, some are awful.GrundleStiltzkin said:
No, I don't care your question, nor the issue that much. Mariot said HuffPo turned away from "looking the other way" on Dem misdeeds a decade ago, as if to say HuffPo became less strident. I don't know how much HuffPo ignores now or then, but the site was started with help from Andrew Breitbart in 2004-05 as more left-of-centerish answer to Drudge. Greg Gutfeld was still writing there in mid-2008. Other conservatives or libertarians wrote there in that time too, but I don't remember who. My point is that HuffPo turned harder left about 10-11 years ago, as Adriana's politics turned harder left. It didn't moderate, just the opposite. If you take that as railing, that's on you.2001400ex said:
Oh you don't like the question?GrundleStiltzkin said:
Oh Hondo...2001400ex said:GrundleStiltzkin said:
You miss the point. It started turning hard progressive about a decade ago.MariotaTheGawd said:
Huffington Post's bias was always overstated. People acted like it was the Nation or something, but it was closer to a tabloid for Democrats.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Greg Gutfeld was still writing there in 2008.MariotaTheGawd said:
This is a trope that hasnt been true for probably a decadeDerekJohnson said:I sincerely give credit to the HuffPo for writing that about a liberal. They usually seem to look the other way for those with the "D" next to their name.
But why do you rail on a news source with a progressive tilt not say anything about a news source with a conservative tilt?
As a "policy stance," for lack of a better term, I really don't care much about any media outlet's ideological or partisan bent. The important thing is to recognize all media sources and all individual journalists have a point of view.
Well each side plays to their respective base in the media. You might not agree with this, but Conservatives generally want to read more opinionated writing and liberals general want to read more factual based writing (I'm not meaning truth, as you can lie with facts, more meaning the writing style). Especially news sources like Vox, which is liberal but everything is written in a factual context. But you read daily caller and it's more from an emotional context.
That's why it's important to read both sides. -
Who told you that?2001400ex said:
Yeah you know more about their history than I do. I have never been to their website, just some of their columns come up in my feed and they are never ones negative about Democrats. I read some of the articles, some are awful.GrundleStiltzkin said:
No, I don't care your question, nor the issue that much. Mariot said HuffPo turned away from "looking the other way" on Dem misdeeds a decade ago, as if to say HuffPo became less strident. I don't know how much HuffPo ignores now or then, but the site was started with help from Andrew Breitbart in 2004-05 as more left-of-centerish answer to Drudge. Greg Gutfeld was still writing there in mid-2008. Other conservatives or libertarians wrote there in that time too, but I don't remember who. My point is that HuffPo turned harder left about 10-11 years ago, as Adriana's politics turned harder left. It didn't moderate, just the opposite. If you take that as railing, that's on you.2001400ex said:
Oh you don't like the question?GrundleStiltzkin said:
Oh Hondo...2001400ex said:GrundleStiltzkin said:
You miss the point. It started turning hard progressive about a decade ago.MariotaTheGawd said:
Huffington Post's bias was always overstated. People acted like it was the Nation or something, but it was closer to a tabloid for Democrats.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Greg Gutfeld was still writing there in 2008.MariotaTheGawd said:
This is a trope that hasnt been true for probably a decadeDerekJohnson said:I sincerely give credit to the HuffPo for writing that about a liberal. They usually seem to look the other way for those with the "D" next to their name.
But why do you rail on a news source with a progressive tilt not say anything about a news source with a conservative tilt?
As a "policy stance," for lack of a better term, I really don't care much about any media outlet's ideological or partisan bent. The important thing is to recognize all media sources and all individual journalists have a point of view.
Well each side plays to their respective base in the media. You might not agree with this, but Conservatives generally want to read more opinionated writing and liberals general want to read more factual based writing (I'm not meaning truth, as you can lie with facts, more meaning the writing style). Especially news sources like Vox, which is liberal but everything is written in a factual context. But you read daily caller and it's more from an emotional context.
That's why it's important to read both sides. -
Well each side plays to their respective base in the media. You might not agree with this, but Conservatives generally want to read more opinionated writing and liberals general want to read more factual based writing (I'm not meaning truth, as you can lie with facts, more meaning the writing style).
Pure crap and complete conjecture based upon the conclusions and opinion of a fucking moron and a pathological liar. Hondo what have I been telling you? Unless you are opining on the best location for you to be able to give a public blow job your opinion is worthless. -
No one. Just gathered that from reading each respective side. Read a Vox article then read a daily caller article on the same topic. Granted this is TV, but watch Rachel maddow then watch Tucker Carlson. Watch their style in how they present information.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Who told you that?2001400ex said:
Yeah you know more about their history than I do. I have never been to their website, just some of their columns come up in my feed and they are never ones negative about Democrats. I read some of the articles, some are awful.GrundleStiltzkin said:
No, I don't care your question, nor the issue that much. Mariot said HuffPo turned away from "looking the other way" on Dem misdeeds a decade ago, as if to say HuffPo became less strident. I don't know how much HuffPo ignores now or then, but the site was started with help from Andrew Breitbart in 2004-05 as more left-of-centerish answer to Drudge. Greg Gutfeld was still writing there in mid-2008. Other conservatives or libertarians wrote there in that time too, but I don't remember who. My point is that HuffPo turned harder left about 10-11 years ago, as Adriana's politics turned harder left. It didn't moderate, just the opposite. If you take that as railing, that's on you.2001400ex said:
Oh you don't like the question?GrundleStiltzkin said:
Oh Hondo...2001400ex said:GrundleStiltzkin said:
You miss the point. It started turning hard progressive about a decade ago.MariotaTheGawd said:
Huffington Post's bias was always overstated. People acted like it was the Nation or something, but it was closer to a tabloid for Democrats.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Greg Gutfeld was still writing there in 2008.MariotaTheGawd said:
This is a trope that hasnt been true for probably a decadeDerekJohnson said:I sincerely give credit to the HuffPo for writing that about a liberal. They usually seem to look the other way for those with the "D" next to their name.
But why do you rail on a news source with a progressive tilt not say anything about a news source with a conservative tilt?
As a "policy stance," for lack of a better term, I really don't care much about any media outlet's ideological or partisan bent. The important thing is to recognize all media sources and all individual journalists have a point of view.
Well each side plays to their respective base in the media. You might not agree with this, but Conservatives generally want to read more opinionated writing and liberals general want to read more factual based writing (I'm not meaning truth, as you can lie with facts, more meaning the writing style). Especially news sources like Vox, which is liberal but everything is written in a factual context. But you read daily caller and it's more from an emotional context.
That's why it's important to read both sides.
I'm not saying conservative sites aren't factual. Just pay attention to the style on how the information is laid out. -
Unless YOU have proof in HAND...it’s speculation for YOU. ‘Those who know’....meaning YOU are not a ‘THOSE’. I didn’t create the English language but ‘speculation’ is pretty cut and dry. Unless you are an eye witness, YOU are speculating. Word of mouth is not proof.2001400ex said:
No one. Just gathered that from reading each respective side. Read a Vox article then read a daily caller article on the same topic. Granted this is TV, but watch Rachel maddow then watch Tucker Carlson. Watch their style in how they present information.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Who told you that?2001400ex said:
Yeah you know more about their history than I do. I have never been to their website, just some of their columns come up in my feed and they are never ones negative about Democrats. I read some of the articles, some are awful.GrundleStiltzkin said:
No, I don't care your question, nor the issue that much. Mariot said HuffPo turned away from "looking the other way" on Dem misdeeds a decade ago, as if to say HuffPo became less strident. I don't know how much HuffPo ignores now or then, but the site was started with help from Andrew Breitbart in 2004-05 as more left-of-centerish answer to Drudge. Greg Gutfeld was still writing there in mid-2008. Other conservatives or libertarians wrote there in that time too, but I don't remember who. My point is that HuffPo turned harder left about 10-11 years ago, as Adriana's politics turned harder left. It didn't moderate, just the opposite. If you take that as railing, that's on you.2001400ex said:
Oh you don't like the question?GrundleStiltzkin said:
Oh Hondo...2001400ex said:GrundleStiltzkin said:
You miss the point. It started turning hard progressive about a decade ago.MariotaTheGawd said:
Huffington Post's bias was always overstated. People acted like it was the Nation or something, but it was closer to a tabloid for Democrats.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Greg Gutfeld was still writing there in 2008.MariotaTheGawd said:
This is a trope that hasnt been true for probably a decadeDerekJohnson said:I sincerely give credit to the HuffPo for writing that about a liberal. They usually seem to look the other way for those with the "D" next to their name.
But why do you rail on a news source with a progressive tilt not say anything about a news source with a conservative tilt?
As a "policy stance," for lack of a better term, I really don't care much about any media outlet's ideological or partisan bent. The important thing is to recognize all media sources and all individual journalists have a point of view.
Well each side plays to their respective base in the media. You might not agree with this, but Conservatives generally want to read more opinionated writing and liberals general want to read more factual based writing (I'm not meaning truth, as you can lie with facts, more meaning the writing style). Especially news sources like Vox, which is liberal but everything is written in a factual context. But you read daily caller and it's more from an emotional context.
That's why it's important to read both sides.
I'm not saying conservative sites aren't factual. Just pay attention to the style on how the information is laid out. -
TYFYSGrundleStiltzkin said:
Unless YOU have proof in HAND...it’s speculation for YOU. ‘Those who know’....meaning YOU are not a ‘THOSE’. I didn’t create the English language but ‘speculation’ is pretty cut and dry. Unless you are an eye witness, YOU are speculating. Word of mouth is not proof.2001400ex said:
No one. Just gathered that from reading each respective side. Read a Vox article then read a daily caller article on the same topic. Granted this is TV, but watch Rachel maddow then watch Tucker Carlson. Watch their style in how they present information.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Who told you that?2001400ex said:
Yeah you know more about their history than I do. I have never been to their website, just some of their columns come up in my feed and they are never ones negative about Democrats. I read some of the articles, some are awful.GrundleStiltzkin said:
No, I don't care your question, nor the issue that much. Mariot said HuffPo turned away from "looking the other way" on Dem misdeeds a decade ago, as if to say HuffPo became less strident. I don't know how much HuffPo ignores now or then, but the site was started with help from Andrew Breitbart in 2004-05 as more left-of-centerish answer to Drudge. Greg Gutfeld was still writing there in mid-2008. Other conservatives or libertarians wrote there in that time too, but I don't remember who. My point is that HuffPo turned harder left about 10-11 years ago, as Adriana's politics turned harder left. It didn't moderate, just the opposite. If you take that as railing, that's on you.2001400ex said:
Oh you don't like the question?GrundleStiltzkin said:
Oh Hondo...2001400ex said:GrundleStiltzkin said:
You miss the point. It started turning hard progressive about a decade ago.MariotaTheGawd said:
Huffington Post's bias was always overstated. People acted like it was the Nation or something, but it was closer to a tabloid for Democrats.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Greg Gutfeld was still writing there in 2008.MariotaTheGawd said:
This is a trope that hasnt been true for probably a decadeDerekJohnson said:I sincerely give credit to the HuffPo for writing that about a liberal. They usually seem to look the other way for those with the "D" next to their name.
But why do you rail on a news source with a progressive tilt not say anything about a news source with a conservative tilt?
As a "policy stance," for lack of a better term, I really don't care much about any media outlet's ideological or partisan bent. The important thing is to recognize all media sources and all individual journalists have a point of view.
Well each side plays to their respective base in the media. You might not agree with this, but Conservatives generally want to read more opinionated writing and liberals general want to read more factual based writing (I'm not meaning truth, as you can lie with facts, more meaning the writing style). Especially news sources like Vox, which is liberal but everything is written in a factual context. But you read daily caller and it's more from an emotional context.
That's why it's important to read both sides.
I'm not saying conservative sites aren't factual. Just pay attention to the style on how the information is laid out. -
If you have some real research on that, Hondo, bring it. Otherwise it doesn’t pass the sniff test. Pathos is a quick and effective way to communicate a point of view to an audience. The tool cares not who’s hand wields it.
-
I'm not presenting it as fact. In any way. Just read some articles on the same subject from each side and you'll see what I'm talking about.GrundleStiltzkin said:If you have some real research on that, Hondo, bring it. Otherwise it doesn’t pass the sniff test. Pathos is a quick and effective way to communicate a point of view to an audience. The tool cares not who’s hand wields it.
The part that is fact is each side panders to their base. Agreed? -
Fuck off
-
Sledog has 100% blown another guy. He can't stop talking about sucking dick
-
Kunt logic, is there anything it can't do? Lets compare to things that aren't equal and draw some kind of conclusion from that comparison. Read Buzzfeed and then read a Heritage Foundation article on the same topic. Obviously the liberals aren't interested in facts.2001400ex said:
No one. Just gathered that from reading each respective side. Read a Vox article then read a daily caller article on the same topic. Granted this is TV, but watch Rachel maddow then watch Tucker Carlson. Watch their style in how they present information.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Who told you that?2001400ex said:
Yeah you know more about their history than I do. I have never been to their website, just some of their columns come up in my feed and they are never ones negative about Democrats. I read some of the articles, some are awful.GrundleStiltzkin said:
No, I don't care your question, nor the issue that much. Mariot said HuffPo turned away from "looking the other way" on Dem misdeeds a decade ago, as if to say HuffPo became less strident. I don't know how much HuffPo ignores now or then, but the site was started with help from Andrew Breitbart in 2004-05 as more left-of-centerish answer to Drudge. Greg Gutfeld was still writing there in mid-2008. Other conservatives or libertarians wrote there in that time too, but I don't remember who. My point is that HuffPo turned harder left about 10-11 years ago, as Adriana's politics turned harder left. It didn't moderate, just the opposite. If you take that as railing, that's on you.2001400ex said:
Oh you don't like the question?GrundleStiltzkin said:
Oh Hondo...2001400ex said:GrundleStiltzkin said:
You miss the point. It started turning hard progressive about a decade ago.MariotaTheGawd said:
Huffington Post's bias was always overstated. People acted like it was the Nation or something, but it was closer to a tabloid for Democrats.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Greg Gutfeld was still writing there in 2008.MariotaTheGawd said:
This is a trope that hasnt been true for probably a decadeDerekJohnson said:I sincerely give credit to the HuffPo for writing that about a liberal. They usually seem to look the other way for those with the "D" next to their name.
But why do you rail on a news source with a progressive tilt not say anything about a news source with a conservative tilt?
As a "policy stance," for lack of a better term, I really don't care much about any media outlet's ideological or partisan bent. The important thing is to recognize all media sources and all individual journalists have a point of view.
Well each side plays to their respective base in the media. You might not agree with this, but Conservatives generally want to read more opinionated writing and liberals general want to read more factual based writing (I'm not meaning truth, as you can lie with facts, more meaning the writing style). Especially news sources like Vox, which is liberal but everything is written in a factual context. But you read daily caller and it's more from an emotional context.
That's why it's important to read both sides.
I'm not saying conservative sites aren't factual. Just pay attention to the style on how the information is laid out.
Stupid, pathological liar and a Kunt. You're a hell of guy Hondo. -
Well heritage foundation did invent Obamacare. So there's that.SFGbob said:
Kunt logic, is there anything it can't do? Lets compare to things that aren't equal and draw some kind of conclusion from that comparison. Read Buzzfeed and then read a Heritage Foundation article on the same topic. Obviously the liberals aren't interested in facts.2001400ex said:
No one. Just gathered that from reading each respective side. Read a Vox article then read a daily caller article on the same topic. Granted this is TV, but watch Rachel maddow then watch Tucker Carlson. Watch their style in how they present information.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Who told you that?2001400ex said:
Yeah you know more about their history than I do. I have never been to their website, just some of their columns come up in my feed and they are never ones negative about Democrats. I read some of the articles, some are awful.GrundleStiltzkin said:
No, I don't care your question, nor the issue that much. Mariot said HuffPo turned away from "looking the other way" on Dem misdeeds a decade ago, as if to say HuffPo became less strident. I don't know how much HuffPo ignores now or then, but the site was started with help from Andrew Breitbart in 2004-05 as more left-of-centerish answer to Drudge. Greg Gutfeld was still writing there in mid-2008. Other conservatives or libertarians wrote there in that time too, but I don't remember who. My point is that HuffPo turned harder left about 10-11 years ago, as Adriana's politics turned harder left. It didn't moderate, just the opposite. If you take that as railing, that's on you.2001400ex said:
Oh you don't like the question?GrundleStiltzkin said:
Oh Hondo...2001400ex said:GrundleStiltzkin said:
You miss the point. It started turning hard progressive about a decade ago.MariotaTheGawd said:
Huffington Post's bias was always overstated. People acted like it was the Nation or something, but it was closer to a tabloid for Democrats.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Greg Gutfeld was still writing there in 2008.MariotaTheGawd said:
This is a trope that hasnt been true for probably a decadeDerekJohnson said:I sincerely give credit to the HuffPo for writing that about a liberal. They usually seem to look the other way for those with the "D" next to their name.
But why do you rail on a news source with a progressive tilt not say anything about a news source with a conservative tilt?
As a "policy stance," for lack of a better term, I really don't care much about any media outlet's ideological or partisan bent. The important thing is to recognize all media sources and all individual journalists have a point of view.
Well each side plays to their respective base in the media. You might not agree with this, but Conservatives generally want to read more opinionated writing and liberals general want to read more factual based writing (I'm not meaning truth, as you can lie with facts, more meaning the writing style). Especially news sources like Vox, which is liberal but everything is written in a factual context. But you read daily caller and it's more from an emotional context.
That's why it's important to read both sides.
I'm not saying conservative sites aren't factual. Just pay attention to the style on how the information is laid out.
Stupid, pathological liar and a Kunt. You're a hell of guy Hondo. -
Yeah Maddow deals in fact!!!2001400ex said:
No one. Just gathered that from reading each respective side. Read a Vox article then read a daily caller article on the same topic. Granted this is TV, but watch Rachel maddow then watch Tucker Carlson. Watch their style in how they present information.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Who told you that?2001400ex said:
Yeah you know more about their history than I do. I have never been to their website, just some of their columns come up in my feed and they are never ones negative about Democrats. I read some of the articles, some are awful.GrundleStiltzkin said:
No, I don't care your question, nor the issue that much. Mariot said HuffPo turned away from "looking the other way" on Dem misdeeds a decade ago, as if to say HuffPo became less strident. I don't know how much HuffPo ignores now or then, but the site was started with help from Andrew Breitbart in 2004-05 as more left-of-centerish answer to Drudge. Greg Gutfeld was still writing there in mid-2008. Other conservatives or libertarians wrote there in that time too, but I don't remember who. My point is that HuffPo turned harder left about 10-11 years ago, as Adriana's politics turned harder left. It didn't moderate, just the opposite. If you take that as railing, that's on you.2001400ex said:
Oh you don't like the question?GrundleStiltzkin said:
Oh Hondo...2001400ex said:GrundleStiltzkin said:
You miss the point. It started turning hard progressive about a decade ago.MariotaTheGawd said:
Huffington Post's bias was always overstated. People acted like it was the Nation or something, but it was closer to a tabloid for Democrats.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Greg Gutfeld was still writing there in 2008.MariotaTheGawd said:
This is a trope that hasnt been true for probably a decadeDerekJohnson said:I sincerely give credit to the HuffPo for writing that about a liberal. They usually seem to look the other way for those with the "D" next to their name.
But why do you rail on a news source with a progressive tilt not say anything about a news source with a conservative tilt?
As a "policy stance," for lack of a better term, I really don't care much about any media outlet's ideological or partisan bent. The important thing is to recognize all media sources and all individual journalists have a point of view.
Well each side plays to their respective base in the media. You might not agree with this, but Conservatives generally want to read more opinionated writing and liberals general want to read more factual based writing (I'm not meaning truth, as you can lie with facts, more meaning the writing style). Especially news sources like Vox, which is liberal but everything is written in a factual context. But you read daily caller and it's more from an emotional context.
That's why it's important to read both sides.
I'm not saying conservative sites aren't factual. Just pay attention to the style on how the information is laid out.
https://nypost.com/2017/03/16/rachel-maddows-trump-bombshell-completely-backfired/
She also was completely punked by Avenatti and that bullshit Kavanaugh accuser. She pushed that crap as fact. -
you people love that murdoch tabloidSFGbob said:
Yeah Maddow deals in fact!!!2001400ex said:
No one. Just gathered that from reading each respective side. Read a Vox article then read a daily caller article on the same topic. Granted this is TV, but watch Rachel maddow then watch Tucker Carlson. Watch their style in how they present information.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Who told you that?2001400ex said:
Yeah you know more about their history than I do. I have never been to their website, just some of their columns come up in my feed and they are never ones negative about Democrats. I read some of the articles, some are awful.GrundleStiltzkin said:
No, I don't care your question, nor the issue that much. Mariot said HuffPo turned away from "looking the other way" on Dem misdeeds a decade ago, as if to say HuffPo became less strident. I don't know how much HuffPo ignores now or then, but the site was started with help from Andrew Breitbart in 2004-05 as more left-of-centerish answer to Drudge. Greg Gutfeld was still writing there in mid-2008. Other conservatives or libertarians wrote there in that time too, but I don't remember who. My point is that HuffPo turned harder left about 10-11 years ago, as Adriana's politics turned harder left. It didn't moderate, just the opposite. If you take that as railing, that's on you.2001400ex said:
Oh you don't like the question?GrundleStiltzkin said:
Oh Hondo...2001400ex said:GrundleStiltzkin said:
You miss the point. It started turning hard progressive about a decade ago.MariotaTheGawd said:
Huffington Post's bias was always overstated. People acted like it was the Nation or something, but it was closer to a tabloid for Democrats.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Greg Gutfeld was still writing there in 2008.MariotaTheGawd said:
This is a trope that hasnt been true for probably a decadeDerekJohnson said:I sincerely give credit to the HuffPo for writing that about a liberal. They usually seem to look the other way for those with the "D" next to their name.
But why do you rail on a news source with a progressive tilt not say anything about a news source with a conservative tilt?
As a "policy stance," for lack of a better term, I really don't care much about any media outlet's ideological or partisan bent. The important thing is to recognize all media sources and all individual journalists have a point of view.
Well each side plays to their respective base in the media. You might not agree with this, but Conservatives generally want to read more opinionated writing and liberals general want to read more factual based writing (I'm not meaning truth, as you can lie with facts, more meaning the writing style). Especially news sources like Vox, which is liberal but everything is written in a factual context. But you read daily caller and it's more from an emotional context.
That's why it's important to read both sides.
I'm not saying conservative sites aren't factual. Just pay attention to the style on how the information is laid out.
https://nypost.com/2017/03/16/rachel-maddows-trump-bombshell-completely-backfired/
She also was completely punked by Avenatti and that bullshit Kavanaugh accuser. She pushed that crap as fact. -
Just when I thought you couldn't be any more fucking retarded, you ask MariotaIsaFaggot to hold your Zima.2001400ex said:
Yeah you know more about their history than I do. I have never been to their website, just some of their columns come up in my feed and they are never ones negative about Democrats. I read some of the articles, some are awful.GrundleStiltzkin said:
No, I don't care your question, nor the issue that much. Mariot said HuffPo turned away from "looking the other way" on Dem misdeeds a decade ago, as if to say HuffPo became less strident. I don't know how much HuffPo ignores now or then, but the site was started with help from Andrew Breitbart in 2004-05 as more left-of-centerish answer to Drudge. Greg Gutfeld was still writing there in mid-2008. Other conservatives or libertarians wrote there in that time too, but I don't remember who. My point is that HuffPo turned harder left about 10-11 years ago, as Adriana's politics turned harder left. It didn't moderate, just the opposite. If you take that as railing, that's on you.2001400ex said:
Oh you don't like the question?GrundleStiltzkin said:
Oh Hondo...2001400ex said:GrundleStiltzkin said:
You miss the point. It started turning hard progressive about a decade ago.MariotaTheGawd said:
Huffington Post's bias was always overstated. People acted like it was the Nation or something, but it was closer to a tabloid for Democrats.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Greg Gutfeld was still writing there in 2008.MariotaTheGawd said:
This is a trope that hasnt been true for probably a decadeDerekJohnson said:I sincerely give credit to the HuffPo for writing that about a liberal. They usually seem to look the other way for those with the "D" next to their name.
But why do you rail on a news source with a progressive tilt not say anything about a news source with a conservative tilt?
As a "policy stance," for lack of a better term, I really don't care much about any media outlet's ideological or partisan bent. The important thing is to recognize all media sources and all individual journalists have a point of view.
Well each side plays to their respective base in the media. You might not agree with this, but Conservatives generally want to read more opinionated writing and liberals general want to read more factual based writing (I'm not meaning truth, as you can lie with facts, more meaning the writing style). Especially news sources like Vox, which is liberal but everything is written in a factual context. But you read daily caller and it's more from an emotional context.
That's why it's important to read both sides. -
So Maddow really didn't report that blockbuster on Trump's tax returns?MariotaTheGawd said:
you people love that murdoch tabloidSFGbob said:
Yeah Maddow deals in fact!!!2001400ex said:
No one. Just gathered that from reading each respective side. Read a Vox article then read a daily caller article on the same topic. Granted this is TV, but watch Rachel maddow then watch Tucker Carlson. Watch their style in how they present information.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Who told you that?2001400ex said:
Yeah you know more about their history than I do. I have never been to their website, just some of their columns come up in my feed and they are never ones negative about Democrats. I read some of the articles, some are awful.GrundleStiltzkin said:
No, I don't care your question, nor the issue that much. Mariot said HuffPo turned away from "looking the other way" on Dem misdeeds a decade ago, as if to say HuffPo became less strident. I don't know how much HuffPo ignores now or then, but the site was started with help from Andrew Breitbart in 2004-05 as more left-of-centerish answer to Drudge. Greg Gutfeld was still writing there in mid-2008. Other conservatives or libertarians wrote there in that time too, but I don't remember who. My point is that HuffPo turned harder left about 10-11 years ago, as Adriana's politics turned harder left. It didn't moderate, just the opposite. If you take that as railing, that's on you.2001400ex said:
Oh you don't like the question?GrundleStiltzkin said:
Oh Hondo...2001400ex said:GrundleStiltzkin said:
You miss the point. It started turning hard progressive about a decade ago.MariotaTheGawd said:
Huffington Post's bias was always overstated. People acted like it was the Nation or something, but it was closer to a tabloid for Democrats.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Greg Gutfeld was still writing there in 2008.MariotaTheGawd said:
This is a trope that hasnt been true for probably a decadeDerekJohnson said:I sincerely give credit to the HuffPo for writing that about a liberal. They usually seem to look the other way for those with the "D" next to their name.
But why do you rail on a news source with a progressive tilt not say anything about a news source with a conservative tilt?
As a "policy stance," for lack of a better term, I really don't care much about any media outlet's ideological or partisan bent. The important thing is to recognize all media sources and all individual journalists have a point of view.
Well each side plays to their respective base in the media. You might not agree with this, but Conservatives generally want to read more opinionated writing and liberals general want to read more factual based writing (I'm not meaning truth, as you can lie with facts, more meaning the writing style). Especially news sources like Vox, which is liberal but everything is written in a factual context. But you read daily caller and it's more from an emotional context.
That's why it's important to read both sides.
I'm not saying conservative sites aren't factual. Just pay attention to the style on how the information is laid out.
https://nypost.com/2017/03/16/rachel-maddows-trump-bombshell-completely-backfired/
She also was completely punked by Avenatti and that bullshit Kavanaugh accuser. She pushed that crap as fact. -
Lie but one made out of stupidity and the fact that you're a liberal talking point parrot not malice. Hondo is more interested in fact!!!2001400ex said:
Well heritage foundation did invent Obamacare. So there's that.SFGbob said:
Kunt logic, is there anything it can't do? Lets compare to things that aren't equal and draw some kind of conclusion from that comparison. Read Buzzfeed and then read a Heritage Foundation article on the same topic. Obviously the liberals aren't interested in facts.2001400ex said:
No one. Just gathered that from reading each respective side. Read a Vox article then read a daily caller article on the same topic. Granted this is TV, but watch Rachel maddow then watch Tucker Carlson. Watch their style in how they present information.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Who told you that?2001400ex said:
Yeah you know more about their history than I do. I have never been to their website, just some of their columns come up in my feed and they are never ones negative about Democrats. I read some of the articles, some are awful.GrundleStiltzkin said:
No, I don't care your question, nor the issue that much. Mariot said HuffPo turned away from "looking the other way" on Dem misdeeds a decade ago, as if to say HuffPo became less strident. I don't know how much HuffPo ignores now or then, but the site was started with help from Andrew Breitbart in 2004-05 as more left-of-centerish answer to Drudge. Greg Gutfeld was still writing there in mid-2008. Other conservatives or libertarians wrote there in that time too, but I don't remember who. My point is that HuffPo turned harder left about 10-11 years ago, as Adriana's politics turned harder left. It didn't moderate, just the opposite. If you take that as railing, that's on you.2001400ex said:
Oh you don't like the question?GrundleStiltzkin said:
Oh Hondo...2001400ex said:GrundleStiltzkin said:
You miss the point. It started turning hard progressive about a decade ago.MariotaTheGawd said:
Huffington Post's bias was always overstated. People acted like it was the Nation or something, but it was closer to a tabloid for Democrats.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Greg Gutfeld was still writing there in 2008.MariotaTheGawd said:
This is a trope that hasnt been true for probably a decadeDerekJohnson said:I sincerely give credit to the HuffPo for writing that about a liberal. They usually seem to look the other way for those with the "D" next to their name.
But why do you rail on a news source with a progressive tilt not say anything about a news source with a conservative tilt?
As a "policy stance," for lack of a better term, I really don't care much about any media outlet's ideological or partisan bent. The important thing is to recognize all media sources and all individual journalists have a point of view.
Well each side plays to their respective base in the media. You might not agree with this, but Conservatives generally want to read more opinionated writing and liberals general want to read more factual based writing (I'm not meaning truth, as you can lie with facts, more meaning the writing style). Especially news sources like Vox, which is liberal but everything is written in a factual context. But you read daily caller and it's more from an emotional context.
That's why it's important to read both sides.
I'm not saying conservative sites aren't factual. Just pay attention to the style on how the information is laid out.
Stupid, pathological liar and a Kunt. You're a hell of guy Hondo. -
Bob go back and read what I wrote. Fuck you are an idiot. Embarrassing.SFGbob said:
Yeah Maddow deals in fact!!!2001400ex said:
No one. Just gathered that from reading each respective side. Read a Vox article then read a daily caller article on the same topic. Granted this is TV, but watch Rachel maddow then watch Tucker Carlson. Watch their style in how they present information.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Who told you that?2001400ex said:
Yeah you know more about their history than I do. I have never been to their website, just some of their columns come up in my feed and they are never ones negative about Democrats. I read some of the articles, some are awful.GrundleStiltzkin said:
No, I don't care your question, nor the issue that much. Mariot said HuffPo turned away from "looking the other way" on Dem misdeeds a decade ago, as if to say HuffPo became less strident. I don't know how much HuffPo ignores now or then, but the site was started with help from Andrew Breitbart in 2004-05 as more left-of-centerish answer to Drudge. Greg Gutfeld was still writing there in mid-2008. Other conservatives or libertarians wrote there in that time too, but I don't remember who. My point is that HuffPo turned harder left about 10-11 years ago, as Adriana's politics turned harder left. It didn't moderate, just the opposite. If you take that as railing, that's on you.2001400ex said:
Oh you don't like the question?GrundleStiltzkin said:
Oh Hondo...2001400ex said:GrundleStiltzkin said:
You miss the point. It started turning hard progressive about a decade ago.MariotaTheGawd said:
Huffington Post's bias was always overstated. People acted like it was the Nation or something, but it was closer to a tabloid for Democrats.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Greg Gutfeld was still writing there in 2008.MariotaTheGawd said:
This is a trope that hasnt been true for probably a decadeDerekJohnson said:I sincerely give credit to the HuffPo for writing that about a liberal. They usually seem to look the other way for those with the "D" next to their name.
But why do you rail on a news source with a progressive tilt not say anything about a news source with a conservative tilt?
As a "policy stance," for lack of a better term, I really don't care much about any media outlet's ideological or partisan bent. The important thing is to recognize all media sources and all individual journalists have a point of view.
Well each side plays to their respective base in the media. You might not agree with this, but Conservatives generally want to read more opinionated writing and liberals general want to read more factual based writing (I'm not meaning truth, as you can lie with facts, more meaning the writing style). Especially news sources like Vox, which is liberal but everything is written in a factual context. But you read daily caller and it's more from an emotional context.
That's why it's important to read both sides.
I'm not saying conservative sites aren't factual. Just pay attention to the style on how the information is laid out.
https://nypost.com/2017/03/16/rachel-maddows-trump-bombshell-completely-backfired/
She also was completely punked by Avenatti and that bullshit Kavanaugh accuser. She pushed that crap as fact. -
Fuck you. I'm not playing your game. Fucking pathological liar.2001400ex said:
Bob go back and read what I wrote. Fuck you are an idiot. Embarrassing.SFGbob said:
Yeah Maddow deals in fact!!!2001400ex said:
No one. Just gathered that from reading each respective side. Read a Vox article then read a daily caller article on the same topic. Granted this is TV, but watch Rachel maddow then watch Tucker Carlson. Watch their style in how they present information.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Who told you that?2001400ex said:
Yeah you know more about their history than I do. I have never been to their website, just some of their columns come up in my feed and they are never ones negative about Democrats. I read some of the articles, some are awful.GrundleStiltzkin said:
No, I don't care your question, nor the issue that much. Mariot said HuffPo turned away from "looking the other way" on Dem misdeeds a decade ago, as if to say HuffPo became less strident. I don't know how much HuffPo ignores now or then, but the site was started with help from Andrew Breitbart in 2004-05 as more left-of-centerish answer to Drudge. Greg Gutfeld was still writing there in mid-2008. Other conservatives or libertarians wrote there in that time too, but I don't remember who. My point is that HuffPo turned harder left about 10-11 years ago, as Adriana's politics turned harder left. It didn't moderate, just the opposite. If you take that as railing, that's on you.2001400ex said:
Oh you don't like the question?GrundleStiltzkin said:
Oh Hondo...2001400ex said:GrundleStiltzkin said:
You miss the point. It started turning hard progressive about a decade ago.MariotaTheGawd said:
Huffington Post's bias was always overstated. People acted like it was the Nation or something, but it was closer to a tabloid for Democrats.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Greg Gutfeld was still writing there in 2008.MariotaTheGawd said:
This is a trope that hasnt been true for probably a decadeDerekJohnson said:I sincerely give credit to the HuffPo for writing that about a liberal. They usually seem to look the other way for those with the "D" next to their name.
But why do you rail on a news source with a progressive tilt not say anything about a news source with a conservative tilt?
As a "policy stance," for lack of a better term, I really don't care much about any media outlet's ideological or partisan bent. The important thing is to recognize all media sources and all individual journalists have a point of view.
Well each side plays to their respective base in the media. You might not agree with this, but Conservatives generally want to read more opinionated writing and liberals general want to read more factual based writing (I'm not meaning truth, as you can lie with facts, more meaning the writing style). Especially news sources like Vox, which is liberal but everything is written in a factual context. But you read daily caller and it's more from an emotional context.
That's why it's important to read both sides.
I'm not saying conservative sites aren't factual. Just pay attention to the style on how the information is laid out.
https://nypost.com/2017/03/16/rachel-maddows-trump-bombshell-completely-backfired/
She also was completely punked by Avenatti and that bullshit Kavanaugh accuser. She pushed that crap as fact. -
Wait what? The heritage foundation medical plan isn't the basis for Obamacare?SFGbob said:
Lie but one made out of stupidity and the fact that you're a liberal talking point parrot not malice. Hondo is more interested in fact!!!2001400ex said:
Well heritage foundation did invent Obamacare. So there's that.SFGbob said:
Kunt logic, is there anything it can't do? Lets compare to things that aren't equal and draw some kind of conclusion from that comparison. Read Buzzfeed and then read a Heritage Foundation article on the same topic. Obviously the liberals aren't interested in facts.2001400ex said:
No one. Just gathered that from reading each respective side. Read a Vox article then read a daily caller article on the same topic. Granted this is TV, but watch Rachel maddow then watch Tucker Carlson. Watch their style in how they present information.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Who told you that?2001400ex said:
Yeah you know more about their history than I do. I have never been to their website, just some of their columns come up in my feed and they are never ones negative about Democrats. I read some of the articles, some are awful.GrundleStiltzkin said:
No, I don't care your question, nor the issue that much. Mariot said HuffPo turned away from "looking the other way" on Dem misdeeds a decade ago, as if to say HuffPo became less strident. I don't know how much HuffPo ignores now or then, but the site was started with help from Andrew Breitbart in 2004-05 as more left-of-centerish answer to Drudge. Greg Gutfeld was still writing there in mid-2008. Other conservatives or libertarians wrote there in that time too, but I don't remember who. My point is that HuffPo turned harder left about 10-11 years ago, as Adriana's politics turned harder left. It didn't moderate, just the opposite. If you take that as railing, that's on you.2001400ex said:
Oh you don't like the question?GrundleStiltzkin said:
Oh Hondo...2001400ex said:GrundleStiltzkin said:
You miss the point. It started turning hard progressive about a decade ago.MariotaTheGawd said:
Huffington Post's bias was always overstated. People acted like it was the Nation or something, but it was closer to a tabloid for Democrats.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Greg Gutfeld was still writing there in 2008.MariotaTheGawd said:
This is a trope that hasnt been true for probably a decadeDerekJohnson said:I sincerely give credit to the HuffPo for writing that about a liberal. They usually seem to look the other way for those with the "D" next to their name.
But why do you rail on a news source with a progressive tilt not say anything about a news source with a conservative tilt?
As a "policy stance," for lack of a better term, I really don't care much about any media outlet's ideological or partisan bent. The important thing is to recognize all media sources and all individual journalists have a point of view.
Well each side plays to their respective base in the media. You might not agree with this, but Conservatives generally want to read more opinionated writing and liberals general want to read more factual based writing (I'm not meaning truth, as you can lie with facts, more meaning the writing style). Especially news sources like Vox, which is liberal but everything is written in a factual context. But you read daily caller and it's more from an emotional context.
That's why it's important to read both sides.
I'm not saying conservative sites aren't factual. Just pay attention to the style on how the information is laid out.
Stupid, pathological liar and a Kunt. You're a hell of guy Hondo.
