Let's Play a Game!

[Esmeralda]

This is one of those threads in which the OP proves the opposition's point. So keep on keepin' on, you sad moron.

You are fantasizing.

No. I feel very grounded in reality today.

Based on what you are posting in this thread, you are not, and you are the one who is laughable. Why don't you explain your perception of how the OP's examples are in conflict with her assertions?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Now, this thread is toast. Toasted on post #1, because is spewed a lot of #2.

 

[Derideo_Te]

This is one of those threads in which the OP proves the opposition's point. So keep on keepin' on, you sad moron.

Care to elaborate on how you reached that conclusion?

Just look at the assertion in #1 and her subsequent posts. It's laughable.

Her point in the OP is that most of the media includes bias in their reporting and she gave examples of both left and right followed by an unbiased example.

Then she posted an unbiased article from NPR.

Are you alleging that NPR is biased?

In which case the onus is on you to demonstrate that bias.

 

[boedicca]

This is one of those threads in which the OP proves the opposition's point. So keep on keepin' on, you sad moron.

You are fantasizing.

No. I feel very grounded in reality today.

Based on what you are posting in this thread, you are not, and you are the one who is laughable. Why don't you explain your perception of how the OP's examples are in conflict with her assertions?

Her posts speak for themselves. If you can't identify the cognitive dissonance between her assertion in #1 and what she puts forward as "journalism", then illuminating you is an impossible task.

 

[Derideo_Te]

And Derideo might as will be subscribing to the same stupidity you are, Carla. I feel sorry for the both of you.

Oh the irony!

 

[boedicca]

This is one of those threads in which the OP proves the opposition's point. So keep on keepin' on, you sad moron.

Care to elaborate on how you reached that conclusion?

Just look at the assertion in #1 and her subsequent posts. It's laughable.

Her point in the OP is that most of the media includes bias in their reporting and she gave examples of both left and right followed by an unbiased example.

Then she posted an unbiased article from NPR.

Are you alleging that NPR is biased?

In which case the onus is on you to demonstrate that bias.

You think that NPR is Not Biased?

*snicker*

 

[TemplarKormac]

This is one of those threads in which the OP proves the opposition's point. So keep on keepin' on, you sad moron.

Care to elaborate on how you reached that conclusion?

Just look at the assertion in #1 and her subsequent posts. It's laughable.

Her point in the OP is that most of the media includes bias in their reporting and she gave examples of both left and right followed by an unbiased example.

Then she posted an unbiased article from NPR.

Are you alleging that NPR is biased?

In which case the onus is on you to demonstrate that bias.

You think that NPR is Not Biased?

*snicker*

 

[Derideo_Te]

This is one of those threads in which the OP proves the opposition's point. So keep on keepin' on, you sad moron.

You are fantasizing.

No. I feel very grounded in reality today.

Based on what you are posting in this thread, you are not, and you are the one who is laughable. Why don't you explain your perception of how the OP's examples are in conflict with her assertions?

Her posts speak for themselves. If you can't identify the cognitive dissonance between her assertion in #1 and what she puts forward as "journalism", then illuminating you is an impossible task.

Failure to do so on your part means her point stands unchallenged.

You will need substance if you are going to to prove your allegation.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And Derideo might as will be subscribing to the same stupidity you are, Carla. I feel sorry for the both of you.

Oh the irony!

Yes, indeed. I thought you were smarter than that.

 

[Derideo_Te]

This is one of those threads in which the OP proves the opposition's point. So keep on keepin' on, you sad moron.

Care to elaborate on how you reached that conclusion?

Just look at the assertion in #1 and her subsequent posts. It's laughable.

Her point in the OP is that most of the media includes bias in their reporting and she gave examples of both left and right followed by an unbiased example.

Then she posted an unbiased article from NPR.

Are you alleging that NPR is biased?

In which case the onus is on you to demonstrate that bias.

You think that NPR is Not Biased?

*snicker*

Still nothing in the way of substance from you "proving" that NPR is "biased".

And no, TK as a cheerleader doesn't count as substance.

 

[boedicca]

This is one of those threads in which the OP proves the opposition's point. So keep on keepin' on, you sad moron.

You are fantasizing.

No. I feel very grounded in reality today.

Based on what you are posting in this thread, you are not, and you are the one who is laughable. Why don't you explain your perception of how the OP's examples are in conflict with her assertions?

Her posts speak for themselves. If you can't identify the cognitive dissonance between her assertion in #1 and what she puts forward as "journalism", then illuminating you is an impossible task.

Failure to do so on your part means her point stands unchallenged.

You will need substance if you are going to to prove your allegation.

This has already been addressed by another poster.

NPR calling the report on CIA interrogation a "Torture" report is in itself evidence of bias. But what else would we expect from people who call ObamaCare, "health care"?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Failure to do so on your part means her point stands unchallenged.

It remains unchallenged because of the fact it disproved itself. No need for effort on our part. The point stands on it's on demerits. The only two people defending it are you and Carla.

 

[Esmeralda]

This is one of those threads in which the OP proves the opposition's point. So keep on keepin' on, you sad moron.

You are fantasizing.

No. I feel very grounded in reality today.

Based on what you are posting in this thread, you are not, and you are the one who is laughable. Why don't you explain your perception of how the OP's examples are in conflict with her assertions?

Her posts speak for themselves. If you can't identify the cognitive dissonance between her assertion in #1 and what she puts forward as "journalism", then illuminating you is an impossible task.

There is no cognitive dissonance. If you believe there is, then please point it out, explain it. How typically Republican to make accusations without delineating what the accusations are based on. You are a hollow voice of criticism. Explicate just what you think instead of pointing vaguely at what you want to pretend is analytical thinking

 

[Derideo_Te]

And Derideo might as will be subscribing to the same stupidity you are, Carla. I feel sorry for the both of you.

Oh the irony!

Yes, indeed. I thought you were smarter than that.

If I believed that you were capable of substantiating your allegation I would have challenged you to do so.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And no, TK as a cheerleader doesn't count as substance.

Oh, my. Did I hurt your feelings? I am capable of providing substance if need be. But you have to stop providing the substance which smells of bovine fecal matter. Okay?

 

[Carla_Danger]

U.S. Boosts Security At Facilities Ahead Of Torture Report's Release

The U.S. has increased security of its facilities around the world ahead of the release Tuesday by the Senate of the executive summary of its report on the CIA's interrogation practices in the war on terrorism, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said today.

"The administration has for months been preparing for the release of this report. There are some indications that the release of this report could lead to a greater risk that is posed to U.S. facilities and individuals all around the world," Earnest said. "So the administration has taken the prudent step to ensure that the proper security precautions are in place at U.S. facilities around the globe."

He said the Senate Intelligence Committee had informed the White House that the executive summary will be released on Tuesday, adding that the White House supported the move.

"The president believes that on principle it's important to release that report so that people around the world, and people here at home, understand what exactly what transpired," he said.

The Senate Intelligence Committee voted in April to release the 480-page executive summary of the report on the CIA's interrogation policies during the presidency of George W. Bush

It's worth noting here that many people are calling the document the Senate's report. It is, in fact, the executive summary of the full 6,200-page report.

Criticism began even before its details were made public.

Secretary of State John Kerry called Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif, chair of the Senate intelligence panel, last week on behalf of the White House, asking for a delay. NPR's Lauren Hodges reported there were fears in Congress the report would put "American personnel in danger overseas and incite further violence from extremists."

But lawmakers such as Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said it was essential the executive summary was released.

"This report would never happen in North Korea or China or Russia," she told CBS on Monday. "But in the United States, we hold our government accountable. And, I think, that process is so important, so fundamental to our democracy, that it's essential that this report comes out."

Bush, speaking on CNN over the weekend, said he hadn't read the report, but called those in the CIA "patriots."

"And whatever the report says, if it diminishes their contributions to our country, it is way off base," he said. "And I knew the directors, I knew the deputy directors, you know, I knew a lot of the operators. These are good people, really good people and we're lucky as a nation to have them."

The New York Times reported that the former president's team "has decided to link arms with former intelligence officials and challenge its conclusions."

U.S. Boosts Security At Facilities Ahead Of Torture Report s Release The Two-Way NPR




It must be pretty bad if they're having to tighten security.

You failed.
The report is about US interrogation techniques.
The headline writer characterized it as "torture", which is a value judgement.
/fail.

If you're referring to waterboarding, it is torture. You need to brush up on some history. In 1947, the US charged a Japanese officer with war crimes just for waterboarding a US civilian. He did 15 years of hard labor in prison.

 

[boedicca]

This is one of those threads in which the OP proves the opposition's point. So keep on keepin' on, you sad moron.

You are fantasizing.

No. I feel very grounded in reality today.

Based on what you are posting in this thread, you are not, and you are the one who is laughable. Why don't you explain your perception of how the OP's examples are in conflict with her assertions?

Her posts speak for themselves. If you can't identify the cognitive dissonance between her assertion in #1 and what she puts forward as "journalism", then illuminating you is an impossible task.

There is no cognitive dissonance. If you believe there is, then please point it out, explain it. How typically Republican to make accusations without delineating what the accusations are based on. You are a hollow voice of criticism. Explicate just what you think instead of pointing vaguely at what you want to pretend is analytical thinking

I'm a registered Democrat, you silly little knigget. And I've provided plenty of explanation for anyone capable of critical thinking.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If I believed that you were capable of substantiating your allegation I would have challenged you to do so

Yet you haven't. Try me.

 

[DriftingSand]

This just in:

In usual fashion, President Obama took it upon himself to naturalize millions of illegal aliens without Congressional approval or even participation.

 

[TemplarKormac]

There is no cognitive dissonance.

Of course not. Those who participate in it don't recognize it, so entrenched in such a practice that they fail to see the detriment in their own way of thinking.