The Biden State Department Is A Joke.

You think my sources are garbage and I think the same about yours. If I refuse to look at sources you provide links to, will I ever be able to see your side of the argument? You can't come to this place acting like you know everything, but then refuse to have your narrative challenged by sources you don't agree with.

Free your mind and look outside of your bubble. If you have the truth on your side, then you can easily disprove any sources we give you. If you don't have the facts, then it is understandable why you would want to avoid any source that has information that does not align with your narrative.

You know, Rick, I don't go to left wing web sites, either. I don't read crap for Democratic Underground, nor do I listen to Rachel Maddow. I confine my sources to main stream sites that have verified journalists. You just don't agree with the main stream sources, so you call them "fake news." (Thanks for that label, Donny VonShitzinPantz.)


You claim that you get your information from various sources, but it's clear what you actually do. First, you go to Fox, or Breitbart, or Steve Bannon, et. al. to get the daily talking points and tell you what to think. Then you go to the main stream sites and find tidbits of information that "prove" your right wing propaganda sites are true. It's fairly easy to see that when you repeat the daily talking points. It's too bad that you're stuck in this right wing fascist loop of information and can't seem to escape. Good luck to you.

Do you have your manifesto written yet?

Please name your sources that are not left wing sources.

You also need to consider that ALL the sources have the exact same information. Any sources you say isn't a left wing source is pretty much guaranteed to mimic the same stuff CNN and MSNBC spews. There are no middle sources that are not biased one way or another unless these sources are very new and have very low readership or very few viewers.

Oh, I've named these before, Rick.

CNN, ABCNews, APNews, NPR, Newsweek, Time, etc. Some lean kind of left, but most have honest journalists than try to be objective. I'm sure you don't agree, since your definition of unbiased journalism is obviously different than mine.

You do remember that we've had this discussion before with absolutely no resolution on sources, right? I could post a graphic that shows those sources are pretty much central, but you won't accept it.


Oh, what the hell, here are some sources that show bias results:
(I'm certain that you will disagree with the results)

www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2014/10/2...-the-left-and-right/

guides.library.harvard.edu/newsleans/thechart

You don’t understand that the graphic you posted wasn’t developed by an unbiased computer, it was made by people and all people are biased.

The difference between you and me is that I actually watch and read most of those leftist sources but you avoid any of the right wing sources. You’ve admitted that you are not interested in getting opposing views… you won’t even look at them. To me that says everything I need to know.

Rick wrote: You don’t understand that the graphic you posted wasn’t developed by an unbiased computer, it was made by people and all people are biased.

Then find and post information that proves your right wing sources are unbiased. Geez, back up your lunatic assertions.

Rick wrote: The difference between you and me is that I actually watch and read most of those leftist sources but you avoid any of the right wing sources. You’ve admitted that you are not interested in getting opposing views… you won’t even look at them. To me that says everything I need to know.

No, the difference between you and me is that you lean so far right that you can't even identify objective journalism. You've been brainwashed by the Fox lie "fair and balanced."

Let's play out the facts and you can tell me where I'm wrong.

I come here daily to express my opinion, using my own words. If I try to convince you of something by posting a source you don't like, then you refuse to look at the source.

You come here mostly to make long copy/paste posts of other people's opinions. When you debate, you lean on your sources to explain your position... YOU EXPECT ME TO READ YOUR SOURCES EVEN IF I DON"T LIKE YOUR SOURCES. I read them, and then I respond.

You can't tell us they you won't read our sources and then 5 minutes later you present one of your sources for us to read. You can't expect this to be a one way street, koobookie. The fact is, you would have a very hard time disputing sources I post, if you were actually curious enough to read them. You could gain yourself some credibility if you were actually willing and able to prove that one of our sources was feeding us bullshit. Try it sometime.

Then copy and paste some from your "news sources." Show me.

BTW - what I post from "my sources" is usually not opinion pieces, they are facts, such as the Meuller Report. It's too bad that you won't even accept that as a fact, but what else can I expect from you.

Did the Mueller report make mention of the FBI lying or that the fake Russian dossier was paid for by Trump's opponent? If there were actual facts that Trump colluded with Russia, don't you think the Democrats would have tried to impeach him for that? That whole 3 years was a massive waste of taxpayer time and money and not one of your sources admitted that Trump was not guilty of what they tried to convince their viewers and readers of.

When a good source gets something wrong, they should admit they were wrong... but that never happens, does it?

Read the report, Rick. Make up your own mind, rather than regurgitate what your special sources tell you to think.