Biased, petty, sleazy NY Times tries to reinvent America around slavery
- Thread starter artichoke
- Start date
No one ever accused Democrats...especially Micawber...of being particularly rational, informed, or intelligent.
View attachment 13044
Micawber, despite claiming doesn't know anyone on the forum personally, guaranteed he was more physically and intellectually fit than anyone here. That's when the "because I said so" argument came out. He immediately changed his avatar and called it proof.
Of course. NY Times is hilariously discredited trash at this point. It pushes nonsense conspiracy theories, issues wildly incorrect predictions and erroneous butchery of the facts, and gets caught lying at
There is zero reason to try to re-center all of American history around slavery other than to prop up this bullshit Democrat narrative that America is to be defined by violent, bigoted hate (a more fitting description of Democrats than of America).
So when correctly noting that the NYT is lying with BS propaganda, Heritage should isolate quotes that DON'T show their point? Nice logic.
I think we might be zeroing in on why you're such an inept and shitty debater.
Say the people insisting Trump is a secret Russian agent.
And no, falling for Heritage's dirty trick of using facts and evidence to debunk the NYT's latest myriad of Democrat lies DOES NOT make conservatives like Democrats (hilarious conspiracy theorist chumps). It just means they are capable of rational thought.
You should try it.
This guy is a piece of work, his next "source" is David Stossal on a libertarian you tube, followed by a series of bloggers off of right wing websites, he wouldn't know a fact if it bit him in the ass
And again, your whole point is bullshit, as I said, your whatever it is took a half dozen cherry picked quotes out of a numbered plus page Sunday supplement authored by several contributors in a number of separate essays.
If you are going to parrot talk radio at least attempt to do it intelligently
Not "failing," Trump lied again, shocker
https://www.barrons.com/articles/so...york-times-stock-is-hardly-failing-1539105922
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/345669-new-york-times-fact-checks-trumps-claim-that-its-failing
NYT isn't going anywhere, if for no other reason, New York and the NorthEast give it an unmatched subscription base and the quality of its articles
What has always cracked me up is that the percentage of conservatives who have probably ever read the NYT other than a cited article online is minimal, what they know about it comes from their demagogues
MAGA MAN
Let's go Brandon!
It's a biased, liberal rag.
He's an imbalanced conspiracy theorist from the lunatic fringe. What constitutes "proof" to him can be his own crayon drawings.
No point in trying to refute a self-discrediting joke.
He's a prime example of someone using the BISSO argument.
You've never watched FOX but consider it biased because someone that controls your "thoughts" told you it is. Typical left winger unable to think for himself but more than willing to bend over and grab his ankles for a party stupid enough to elect a black boy thinking skin color was a qualification. Pucker up, n-l.
Who is David Stossel? And your sources fell for:
-the Russia collusion hoax,
-the "Investigating Biden's corruption is worse than Biden BEING corrupt" hoax,
-the Covington Catholic hoax,
-the Roy Moore pedophile hoax,
-the Kavanaugh rape gang hoax,
-the Jussie Smollett hoax,
-the Duke Lacrosse team hoax,
-the Trayvon Martin hoax,
-and the "hands up don't shoot" hoax.
My sources fell for none of these obvious scams and frauds. Perhaps my sources could explain to yours how actual facts work.
Repeating your fallacy won't make it less invalid. Isolating the parts that prove their point isn't "cherry-picking." It's just prioritizing relevance (aka, having common sense). An ACTUAL example of cherry-picking would be more like only coached, hand-selected Democrat "witnesses" being allowed to testify while those who could dismantle and obliterate the entire impeachment show trial in 20 minutes of testimony are banned.
Try again, dishonest demagogue.
Fox has far more Democrats than any other outlet has conservatives. Democrats just can't handle anyone daring to include multiple sides of the story.
View attachment 13071
Meanwhile, the entire rest of the media spent eight years straight showing us what ACTUAL state TV looks like.
View attachment 13072
Yeah, house Democrats, usually some young girl or young black guy getting ganged up on by scripted FOX "regular contributors," and if by accident they get a point across the supposed moderated jumps in to reframe the response
Nah, no media source has come anywhere close to apologize and defend a President as FOX does Trump, there is a reason a large number of Trump's White House team comes from FOX
This is awfully hysterical spin. Someone is seriously bent on playing the victim. Could it be that Democrats just suck at debate and get their asses handed to them whenever conservatives are allowed to speak? That's generally what happens to YOU on HERE.
View attachment 13081
Except all the evidence shows the opposite is true.
View attachment 13082
-All Three Networks Ignore New FBI Texts, Senate Report Showing Obama Involvement in Clinton Email Probe
-Obama Officials Manufactured Media Narrative Ahead Investigations Hezbollah Scandal
-CBS Frets Over Trump's ‘Assault’ on Press, Forgets About Obama’s Attacks on Fox
-Hypocrisy: Outraged Networks Ignore Obama’s Tear Gas Usage Against Illegals
-Obama Was Praised For Eliminating Terrorist Leaders, But Trump Got Lampooned
-CNN Attacked Troops Getting 'MAGA' Hats Signed Trump Said Nothing When Obama Did
-ABC, NBC, CBS Praise Obama's 'Powerful' 'Honesty' in Blaming Trump for Violence
-Gallup: 3x More Say Media ‘Too Tough’ on Trump Than Obama
-CBS, NBC Censor Obama Admin. Admitting ObamaCare Premiums Skyrocketing
-CNN Loves Hiring Former Obama Officials
Facts are stubborn things.