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
-
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.
