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.
This is a trope that hasnt been true for probably a decade
Greg Gutfeld was still writing there in 2008.
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.
You miss the point. It started turning hard progressive about a decade ago.
But why do you rail on a news source with a progressive tilt not say anything about a news source with a conservative tilt?
Oh Hondo...
Oh you don't like the question?
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.
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.
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!
Which part? Point to the place on the doll where it hurts.
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.
This is a trope that hasnt been true for probably a decade
Greg Gutfeld was still writing there in 2008.
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.
You miss the point. It started turning hard progressive about a decade ago.
But why do you rail on a news source with a progressive tilt not say anything about a news source with a conservative tilt?
Oh Hondo...
Oh you don't like the question?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is a trope that hasnt been true for probably a decade
Greg Gutfeld was still writing there in 2008.
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.
You miss the point. It started turning hard progressive about a decade ago.
But why do you rail on a news source with a progressive tilt not say anything about a news source with a conservative tilt?
Oh Hondo...
Oh you don't like the question?
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.
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.
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?
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.
I'm not saying conservative sites aren't factual. Just pay attention to the style on how the information is laid out.
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.
This is a trope that hasnt been true for probably a decade
Greg Gutfeld was still writing there in 2008.
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.
You miss the point. It started turning hard progressive about a decade ago.
But why do you rail on a news source with a progressive tilt not say anything about a news source with a conservative tilt?
Oh Hondo...
Oh you don't like the question?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
This is a trope that hasnt been true for probably a decade
Greg Gutfeld was still writing there in 2008.
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.
You miss the point. It started turning hard progressive about a decade ago.
But why do you rail on a news source with a progressive tilt not say anything about a news source with a conservative tilt?
Oh Hondo...
Oh you don't like the question?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
The part that is fact is each side panders to their base. Agreed?
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.
This is a trope that hasnt been true for probably a decade
Greg Gutfeld was still writing there in 2008.
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.
You miss the point. It started turning hard progressive about a decade ago.
But why do you rail on a news source with a progressive tilt not say anything about a news source with a conservative tilt?
Oh Hondo...
Oh you don't like the question?
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.
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.
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?
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.
I'm not saying conservative sites aren't factual. Just pay attention to the style on how the information is laid out.
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.
Stupid, pathological liar and a Kunt. You're a hell of guy Hondo.
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.
This is a trope that hasnt been true for probably a decade
Greg Gutfeld was still writing there in 2008.
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.
You miss the point. It started turning hard progressive about a decade ago.
But why do you rail on a news source with a progressive tilt not say anything about a news source with a conservative tilt?
Oh Hondo...
Oh you don't like the question?
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.
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.
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?
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.
I'm not saying conservative sites aren't factual. Just pay attention to the style on how the information is laid out.
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.
Stupid, pathological liar and a Kunt. You're a hell of guy Hondo.
Well heritage foundation did invent Obamacare. So there's that.
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.
This is a trope that hasnt been true for probably a decade
Greg Gutfeld was still writing there in 2008.
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.
You miss the point. It started turning hard progressive about a decade ago.
But why do you rail on a news source with a progressive tilt not say anything about a news source with a conservative tilt?
Oh Hondo...
Oh you don't like the question?
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.
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.
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?
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.
I'm not saying conservative sites aren't factual. Just pay attention to the style on how the information is laid out.
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.
This is a trope that hasnt been true for probably a decade
Greg Gutfeld was still writing there in 2008.
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.
You miss the point. It started turning hard progressive about a decade ago.
But why do you rail on a news source with a progressive tilt not say anything about a news source with a conservative tilt?
Oh Hondo...
Oh you don't like the question?
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.
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.
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?
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.
I'm not saying conservative sites aren't factual. Just pay attention to the style on how the information is laid out.
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.
This is a trope that hasnt been true for probably a decade
Greg Gutfeld was still writing there in 2008.
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.
You miss the point. It started turning hard progressive about a decade ago.
But why do you rail on a news source with a progressive tilt not say anything about a news source with a conservative tilt?
Oh Hondo...
Oh you don't like the question?
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.
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.
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.
Just when I thought you couldn't be any more fucking retarded, you ask MariotaIsaFaggot to hold your Zima.
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.
This is a trope that hasnt been true for probably a decade
Greg Gutfeld was still writing there in 2008.
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.
You miss the point. It started turning hard progressive about a decade ago.
But why do you rail on a news source with a progressive tilt not say anything about a news source with a conservative tilt?
Oh Hondo...
Oh you don't like the question?
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.
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.
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?
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.
I'm not saying conservative sites aren't factual. Just pay attention to the style on how the information is laid out.
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.
This is a trope that hasnt been true for probably a decade
Greg Gutfeld was still writing there in 2008.
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.
You miss the point. It started turning hard progressive about a decade ago.
But why do you rail on a news source with a progressive tilt not say anything about a news source with a conservative tilt?
Oh Hondo...
Oh you don't like the question?
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.
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.
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?
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.
I'm not saying conservative sites aren't factual. Just pay attention to the style on how the information is laid out.
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.
Stupid, pathological liar and a Kunt. You're a hell of guy Hondo.
Well heritage foundation did invent Obamacare. So there's that.
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!!!
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.
This is a trope that hasnt been true for probably a decade
Greg Gutfeld was still writing there in 2008.
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.
You miss the point. It started turning hard progressive about a decade ago.
But why do you rail on a news source with a progressive tilt not say anything about a news source with a conservative tilt?
Oh Hondo...
Oh you don't like the question?
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.
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.
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?
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.
I'm not saying conservative sites aren't factual. Just pay attention to the style on how the information is laid out.
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.
This is a trope that hasnt been true for probably a decade
Greg Gutfeld was still writing there in 2008.
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.
You miss the point. It started turning hard progressive about a decade ago.
But why do you rail on a news source with a progressive tilt not say anything about a news source with a conservative tilt?
Oh Hondo...
Oh you don't like the question?
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.
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.
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?
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.
I'm not saying conservative sites aren't factual. Just pay attention to the style on how the information is laid out.
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.
This is a trope that hasnt been true for probably a decade
Greg Gutfeld was still writing there in 2008.
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.
You miss the point. It started turning hard progressive about a decade ago.
But why do you rail on a news source with a progressive tilt not say anything about a news source with a conservative tilt?
Oh Hondo...
Oh you don't like the question?
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.
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.
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?
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.
I'm not saying conservative sites aren't factual. Just pay attention to the style on how the information is laid out.
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.
Stupid, pathological liar and a Kunt. You're a hell of guy Hondo.
Well heritage foundation did invent Obamacare. So there's that.
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!!!
Wait what? The heritage foundation medical plan isn't the basis for Obamacare?
Comments
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.
I'm not saying conservative sites aren't factual. Just pay attention to the style on how the information is laid out.
The part that is fact is each side panders to their base. Agreed?
Stupid, pathological liar and a Kunt. You're a hell of guy Hondo.
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.