ilovefuzz.com

I don't know anything about the Democrats, but I have BBDE (Bucket-Brigade Delay Energy).

Chankgeez wrote:I've heard Leftists love kale as well.

I like kale (although I don't think I'm right wing)

DrMabuse wrote:Is hearing someone call Sandy Hook a “false flag operation” entertaining? If you can divorce the imagery from the message, Triumph Of The Will is a pretty spectacular movie. People who have no excuse call Alex Jones and Rush Limbaugh “entertainment” to save face with their liberal elite acquaintances who run the media. To the blue collar Joes they want to persuade to vote against their interests, this stuff is entertaining because “it’s funny, it pisses off the snowflakes, and it’s true.”

I'm confused how Alex Jones calling Sandy Hook a false flag is supposed to enhance your argument that people take his spiel as more legitimate.

He is an entertainer, he's on shit like Joe Rogan spazzing out and those have the highest view counts of all the Joe Rogan shit. People laugh at him. Entertainers say and do abhorrent shit sometimes. Alex Jones isn't special in that regard.

jirodreamsofdank wrote:

repoman wrote:

jirodreamsofdank wrote:

repoman wrote: No on takes Alex Jones seriously.

Many, many people take Alex Jones seriously. He's just barely outside the mainstream of the GOP base today and the gap is narrowing by the day.

I think leftists like to believe many people on the right take Alex Jones seriously as it gives a pretty easy point of argue to win because if taken seriously he sets the bar so low... I think maybe Alex Jones does represent something that people on the right can identify though which is related to free speech. He has a nuanced position that leftists seem to have trouble understanding, 99% of people that watch Alex Jones do so to laugh at him and recognize him as an entertainer.

"Leftists like to believe" that... because it's true. Conspiracy theories and white aggrievement have been part and parcel of American conservatism since the John Birch Society - Jones is barely distinguishable from Glenn Beck or 2/3 of post-Obama Fox News.

Funny how Republicans keep appearing on his show, promoting his network and using figures associated with it for "an entertainer."

https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/remembe ... -1.5443723
https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/39763 ... jones-show
https://www.vox.com/2018/11/8/18074966/ ... sta-banned
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... ntributor/
https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion ... /82223726/

None of those sources are trustworthy/not hyper biased. I don't read them.

Yea I totally agree. All of those sites are hugely biased. I don't consider anything from Huffpost, Vox, Motherjones, The Hill or any like sites to be good sources of news.

Honestly, the local news people do it better than anyone else. It's Fox news but it's local and they don't stick their opinions in it, they just report shit.

What news source is truly without bias?

Chankgeez wrote:What news source is truly without bias?

Your mom.

My mom?

repoman wrote: None of those sources are trustworthy/not hyper biased. I don't read them.

LOL - there is video of Trump appearing on Infowars. There's video of Matt Gaetz appearing with Jones. Huckabee Sanders linked to Infowars, it's not up for debate.

FAKE NEWS FAKE NEWS, you pathetic sheep.

jwar, I hate to tell you this, but moms are potentially the most biased.

i just have to mention that Beto gave a speech today where he described his ideal economics as "Fugazi capitalism." this timeline is getting ridiculous. i think someone slipped me some drug from a Philip K. Dick novel back around 2015.

jirodreamsofdank wrote:

repoman wrote: None of those sources are trustworthy/not hyper biased. I don't read them.

LOL - there is video of Trump appearing on Infowars. There's video of Matt Gaetz appearing with Jones. Huckabee Sanders linked to Infowars, it's not up for debate.

FAKE NEWS FAKE NEWS, you pathetic sheep.

Sir that does not address the fact that those sources are still crap.


Also, I need to look the Trump thing up.


Oh and you may want to read back a page. I think we kind of agreed not to call names. Sooooo maybe don't?

dubkitty wrote:i just have to mention that Beto gave a speech today where he described his ideal economics as "Fugazi capitalism." this timeline is getting ridiculous. i think someone slipped me some drug from a Philip K. Dick novel back around 2015.

Fugazi is a good band.

Yeah, please, no personal attacks.

(Also, I admire Fugazi's ideals. )

Jwar wrote: Sir that does not address the fact that those sources are still crap.

That's not how it works. ALL SOURCES ARE GARBAGE ALL NEWS IS GARBAGE NOTHING IS TRUE EVERYTHING IS POSSIBLE is the laziest nihilism.

If Fox News linked to video of Obama burning an American flag, guess what, it doesn't matter that Fox News is the organization that linked to it. You can try to impeach the credibility of the video itself by providing context, but the existence of the video is not up for debate. Homeboy didn't try to give context for Trump appearing with Jones, he just said it didn't happen.

It's even lazier and dumber to dismiss a wide range of media outlets - with literally nothing in common aside from publishing words - as fake and dishonest because they don't conform to your worldview.

Oh and you may want to read back a page. I think we kind of agreed not to call names. Sooooo maybe don't?

repoman claimed that Alex Jones was a nobody, an entertainer, no one takes him seriously - I illustrated quite clearly that he is deeply connected to the mainstream of the GOP of Late Habsburg America.

Being too lazy to even try the "well, Trump/Gaetz/etc. don't represent REAL Republicans/conservatives," repoman just turned to the first page of the playbook from Trump (you know, the guy who appeared with and openly praised Jones) by simply denying actual, evidence based facts. That's a sheep.

Chankgeez wrote:What news source is truly without bias?

There aren't any unbiased news outlets. The argument over sources that show bias are without value is a weak one. If they can source their info and show it, and they understand legal and social ramifications of the story, bias is just another element of the equation. For large news outlets, there is rarely as much bias in the reporting as there is in the person reading said stories.

There are plenty of non-partisan fact-checking groups out there who publish reviews of politicians, pundits, major stories, whatever. Most people who yell about media bias and double standards and whatever rarely utilize these sources, I've found.

The most interesting media study I ever read came to the conclusion that the news services that did the best/most accurate work are the ones that barely anyone likes because readers prejudices begin to create too much cognitive dissonance. The best sources literally make no one satisfied on both ends of the political/social spectrum.