bc the ones you currently listen to are either lying to you or stupid or both.
theres no such thing as an unbiased journalist or objectivity.
and dont kid yourself into thinking you arent already being manipulated.
Last edited:
Who is the Victim - Blasey or Kavanaugh ... or Both?
- Thread starter Old Man Jingles
- Start date
theres no such thing as an unbiased journalist or objectivity.
and dont kid yourself into thinking you arent already being manipulated.
I didn't say the ones I currently listen to are unbiased.
But if both are biased, and manipulating me, then what reason do I have for choosing yours over mine?
actually i wouldnt say my guys arent manipulating me, but they are trying to get me to view things a certain way and act accordingly. your guys are doing the same, but the question is whether or not they can figure out the truth and if they have good intentions.
i think objectivity started over 100 years ago. i dont think that it always existed.
Last edited:
Fred's Myth
Nonhyphenated American
You're debating the village idiot.
hey your one to talk, and this is the guy who thinks and imaginary god is going to save him.
Of the Left.
Capitalize the H, use you're instead of your, and an instead of and, and you'll be able to defend yourself. Otherwise....
Sportello
Well-Known Member
Sportello
Well-Known Member
She is cut from the same cloth as her husband.
She will not be remembered as a good person.
floridays
Well-Known Member
Based on what exactly? Please offer examples that lead you to make this prediction. Educate me.
It will be fine
Well-Known Member
She filed a slander lawsuit listing the unique marketing opportunity of being First Lady as damages. Not exactly a classy move as it shows her motivation is to monetize her position not represent the nation.
floridays
Well-Known Member
Supply the needed court filing, and pleadings. I did ask to be educated, I would like the full information, to be educated.
Sportello
Well-Known Member
Sportello
Well-Known Member
It will be fine
Well-Known Member
Google your own sources, you tend to disregard any links I post without reading. From one of many articles.
In her New York lawsuit, Trump’s attorneys wrote that the publication of the story online had damaged her reputation and commercial prospects. They suggested that it has cost her millions in potential business — albeit it does not specifically mention her tenure as first lady.
They wrote that she “had the unique, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity” to “launch a broad-based commercial brand in multiple product categories, each of which could have garnered multimillion-dollar business relationships for a multi-year term during which plaintiff is one of the most photographed women in the world.”
floridays
Well-Known Member
She should because she made a claim in support of why Melania will not be remembered as a good human.
She used a supposed slander suit as evidence.
I simply ask for the court filing and pleadings to verify her position.
The only reason she should is to verify her truthfulness. Beyond that
floridays
Well-Known Member
Understood, I love the "albeit" part of your response. That is why I asked for the filing and her pleadings. I don't like a reporter telling me what is in court papers.
floridays
Well-Known Member
I certainly do disregard links that have been proven to post speculation and anonymous sources to promote their agenda. When the dust settles, check all the NYT, Washington Post articles, pre and during the Mueller investigation. They are 99.9 %, turning out to be false. I couldn't say 100% because it is not safe to say all.