A guide for parsing the news and propaganda from liberal to conservative

[flacaltenn]

Marty, sak, flacaltenn, all are simply unable to objectively parse all the info.

Professionals objectively do that.

Why can't they?

So, flacaltenn, you are having problems accepting the chart. Your denial simply invalidates your comments.

So you are on silent ignore for this OP.

Oh Holy Hell you pompous arrogant ass. Silent IGNORE? Because my "denial invalidates my comments"?? The HELL they do.. I gave you a reasoned and cogent response to the WhackaDoodle lunatic who produced that propaganda in your OP. I told you to THINK FOR YOURSELF. Ignore the bias. CONSUME IT ALL and reason it out.

Guess you might have to put me on FULL IGNORE -- because I'm going after you..

What the fuck does "my denial invalidates my comments" in your twisted feeble mind? WTF -- am I denying?
Someone put you charge of TESTING everyone's perception of the Media outlets included (and purposely excluded) in the nearly anonymous,, nearly irrelevant factoid that you tripped over on the Web? You think there is only ONE version of that chart?

First of all princess, your highness, I told you cannot even evaluate media on the basis of what they DECIDE to print. Because the decision to even carry a story or bury it is in itself a bias. That's WHY --- WELL INFORMED folks like me READ IT ALL.. We don't take recommendations from nearly anonymous TwitterHeads.

OR --- we don't get reprimanded by folks like you who have made poster of month simply by ABANDONING YOUR OP --- to go attack, criticize, and brawl with posters who respond to your crap..

YOU -- are supposed to DEFEND the proposition. Not whine about how folks "don't get it". How I can't "objectively parse the info". I parsed it. OBJECTIVELY and found it stone stupid.

Not the graph design -- that's useful. But the DATA in it might as well have been proposed by CNN itself. Or the New York Times. And THAT -- bluster butt -- IS NOT objective.

 

[flacaltenn]

One needs to read the crazies of the far right and far left to understand the balance of left center to right center, which is what those with cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias pathologies abhor.

Do YOU read it all ??? Isn't that pretty much what I said in "my denial"? So 10 posts after dismissing me for "not parsing objectively" and dismissing me -- you're agreeing with me? You're a clown. You think you're not biased or don't have brain rot from the selective crap that you search for all day long?

The only one with biases and pathologies is you --- you sad clown..

 

[JakeStarkey]

And your parsing, as explained, failed because your argumentation failed. Tis what is.

OK, flacaltenn, is now on silent ignore to me on this thread.

 

[sakinago]

So, flacaltenn, you are having problems accepting the chart. Your denial simply invalidates your comments.

So you are on silent ignore for this OP.

This comment is nonsensical. Denial of what exactly? The chart? That doesn't explain why his comments are invalid. The only defense you've given to the chart is, I haven't found a better chart. Then when we pick the chart apart, with factual information, you try to tell us that denying the chart makes everything we said invalid. Well isn't that just a nice world you've set up for yourself, you don't have to defend the chart, just declare invalid to comments against the chart.

Then you try to tell me I have no right talking about the chart, when you're the one who posted it as your OP...


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[flacaltenn]

And your parsing, as explained, failed because your argumentation failed. Tis what is.

OK, flacaltenn, is now on silent ignore to me on this thread.

You didn't explain the PREVIOUS GIBBERISH. And now you add MORE to it. WTF does "your parsing, as explained, failed because your argumentation failed. " MEAN?

What augmentation? I gave specifics on why the chart was clever, but the DATA IN IT was BIASED garbage.

DEFEND it... Tell us all WHY CNN or the NYTimes DESERVES to be in the objective center positions on that chart..

 

[JakeStarkey]

Struggle in the web all you want, sak.

 

[flacaltenn]

http://nypost.com/2016/11/11/new-york-times-we-blew-it-on-trump/

After taking a beating almost as brutal as Hillary Clinton’s, the New York Times on Friday made an extraordinary appeal to its readers to stand by her. The publisher’s letter to subscribers was part apology and part defense of its campaign coverage, but the key takeaway was a pledge to do better.

Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. admitted the paper failed to appreciate Donald Trump’s appeal.

“After such an erratic and unpredictable election there are inevitable questions: Did Donald Trump’s sheer unconventionality lead us and other news outlets to underestimate his support among American voters?”

While insisting his staff had “reported on both candidates fairly,” he also vowed that the paper would “rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor.”

Ah, there’s the rub. Had the paper actually been fair to both candidates, it wouldn’t need to rededicate itself to honest reporting. And it wouldn’t have been totally blindsided by Trump’s victory.

 

[sakinago]

And your parsing, as explained, failed because your argumentation failed. Tis what is.

OK, flacaltenn, is now on silent ignore to me on this thread.

In what part did his argument fail?? Simply declaring it failed is not enough to show failure, that's an A priori fallacy (it is just because it is). At this point I am certainly not arguing with you for my own good, since you ADD nothing of value to the conversation. Just you're own declarations with zero info from anywhere backing it up. There's gonna be a time when your not anonymously typing behind a keyboard, and you're in a face to face debate, you're going to look very stupid when you try this crap on someone with a not even half a brain. This goes to show you the liberal arts are officially dead in America.