From here on out, Breitbart is not a welcome link on this site, though they are not alone, there are several others that sold out for money as well.
Read this article and you'll see the issue.
Then, lets start a list of all the sites that went to the dark side for the leftists.
According to four sources with knowledge of the situation, editors and writers at the outlet have privately complained since at least last year that the company's top management was allowing Trump to turn Breitbart into his own fan website — using it to hype his political prospects and attack his enemies. One current editor called the water-carrying "despicable" and "embarrassing," and said he was told by an executive last year that the company had a financial arrangement with Trump. A second Breitbart staffer said he had heard a similar description of the site's relationship with the billionaire but didn't know the details; and a third source at the company said he knew of several instances when managers had overruled editors at Trump's behest. Additionally, a conservative communications operative who works closely with Breitbart described conversations in which "multiple writers and editors" said Trump was paying for the ability to shape coverage, and added that one staffer claimed to have seen documentation of the "pay for play."
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckayc...
Thanks for posting that Solar. I'm hoping that administration adds to it as the occasion arises.
Quote from: tac on January 22, 2016, 09:12:49 AM
Thanks for posting that Solar. I'm hoping that administration adds to it as the occasion arises.
If you know of other sites that sold out the Conservative movement for the Establishment, post it, I'll start a list of sites to avoid, should people want to.
Conservative tree house went full blown Establishment the same time breitbart sold out.
I've never heard of that site.
Quote from: tac on January 22, 2016, 09:32:08 AM
I've never heard of that site.
Pretty much a Breitbart clone.
National Review?
Weekly Standard?
Good to know I'm not losing my mind. I was wondering if I was accidentally deleting posts where I was arguing with Trumpsters, so many of my posts kept disappearing. And I was starting to see stuff Breibart never allowed before. They have always been anti PC; but anti PC differs from openly racist, and sometimes it seemed like I had accidentally tried to post on Storm Front.
Quote from: Justaguy on January 22, 2016, 10:06:41 AM
National Review?
Weekly Standard?
Weekly Standard has never been conservative. Neo-Con, but certainly not conservative. I believe the same can be said, as well, for The National Review.
Quote from: Justaguy on January 22, 2016, 10:06:41 AM
National Review?
Weekly Standard?
Sad but true. In my mind they're a given, much like FOX, NBC, ABC, but like CBS, they too can have good content from time to time, because they know it's important not to alienate yourself from your audience.
It's the ones like conservative tree house, Breitbart that just a month ago were solid Conservative, that have literally sold out and gone full court press to the left that I want to expose.
You know, after I left, it occurred to me.
That Breitbart isn't the only alleged news source we've seen doing that lately.
Rolling Stone gave El Chapo, final say over what went into their article/interview on him.
Just as Breitbart is allowing Trump to "pay" them to do now.
That's the real problem here is that there are no journalistic ethics anymore.
Whether it's Dan Rather and Rathergate, or Brian Williams lying about taking fire with our troops, or Rolling Stone and Breitbart allowing the subject of the article, to pay them to have final editing oversight on an article.
It's unethical and an abuse of the public trust.
Remember in our nation, being a reporter is not the same as being a truck driver or a clerk at the store.
It is not just another job. We afford reporters and news organizations access to area's the general public isn't allowed too enter. IE: the WH, crime scenes etc...
And we afford them certain, specific to that profession, Constitutional protections and freedoms well. Because as news organizations they're supposedly serving a public interest.
Because of that, I say, any "news organization" which does these kinds of things, should lose more than just their standing and credentials as a news organization here at Conservative Political Forum.
They should lose their press credentials as well. And every last one of the Constitutional protections, and freedoms we afford to real journalists.
Quote from: Solar on January 22, 2016, 12:27:50 PM
Sad but true. In my mind they're a given, much like FOX, NBC, ABC,
but like CBS, they too can have good content from time to time,
because they know it's important not to alienate yourself from your audience.
It's the ones like conservative tree house, Breitbart
that just a month ago were solid Conservative,
that have literally sold out and gone full court press to the left that I want to expose.
That's why I wouldn't advocate an outright ban of any website.
A "consider the source" warning should be adequate
to make people aware of questionable content.
Also, sometimes one has to quote a source to expose some bad thing it's doing.
Quote from: daidalos on January 22, 2016, 05:06:20 PM
And we afford them certain, specific to that profession, Constitutional protections and freedoms well. Because as news organizations they're supposedly serving a public interest.
Because of that, I say, any "news organization" which does these kinds of things, should lose more than just their standing and credentials as a news organization here at Conservative Political Forum.
They should lose their press credentials as well. And every last one of the Constitutional protections, and freedoms we afford to real journalists.
What Constitutional protection does an "official" news organization have
that does not apply to
every citizen?
Quote from: je_freedom on January 22, 2016, 06:27:04 PM
That's why I wouldn't advocate an outright ban of any website.
A "consider the source" warning should be adequate
to make people aware of questionable content.
Also, sometimes one has to quote a source to expose some bad thing it's doing.
What Constitutional protection does an "official" news organization have
that does not apply to every citizen?
A free press is specifically stated in the Constitution as a protected entity. No other business in the United States is by name named in the Constitution.
As for examples of where the press can go that you cannot.
Crime Scenes.
A white house press briefing.
Certain places in the capital building.
Warzones.
Just a few examples.
Quote from: je_freedom on January 22, 2016, 06:27:04 PM
That's why I wouldn't advocate an outright ban of any website.
A "consider the source" warning should be adequate
to make people aware of questionable content.
Also, sometimes one has to quote a source to expose some bad thing it's doing.
What Constitutional protection does an "official" news organization have
that does not apply to every citizen?
No. Sites like Breitbart and the tree house seldom if ever have original content.
My point was, and always has been, to always use the original source, especially where those two in-particular are concerned.
Yes, the ban will remain in effect indefinitely and will be expanding as the need grows. We're at war for our very survival in this country as a free nation.
And please don't double quote in a single post, always one quote per post.
Thanks.
Quote from: daidalos on January 22, 2016, 05:06:20 PM
You know, after I left, it occurred to me.
That Breitbart isn't the only alleged news source we've seen doing that lately.
Rolling Stone gave El Chapo, final say over what went into their article/interview on him.
Just as Breitbart is allowing Trump to "pay" them to do now.
That's the real problem here is that there are no journalistic ethics anymore.
Whether it's Dan Rather and Rathergate, or Brian Williams lying about taking fire with our troops, or Rolling Stone and Breitbart allowing the subject of the article, to pay them to have final editing oversight on an article.
It's unethical and an abuse of the public trust.
Remember in our nation, being a reporter is not the same as being a truck driver or a clerk at the store.
It is not just another job. We afford reporters and news organizations access to area's the general public isn't allowed too enter. IE: the WH, crime scenes etc...
And we afford them certain, specific to that profession, Constitutional protections and freedoms well. Because as news organizations they're supposedly serving a public interest.
Because of that, I say, any "news organization" which does these kinds of things, should lose more than just their standing and credentials as a news organization here at Conservative Political Forum.
They should lose their press credentials as well. And every last one of the Constitutional protections, and freedoms we afford to real journalists.
I was a practicing journalist for roughly a decade and agree with the principle, although "credentials" is and always will be a shaky premise. Just because they won't issue you a press card does not mean you can't practice journalism. Two splendid local examples in Detroit are MotorCityMuckraker.com and DeadlineDetroit.com --- both doing better jobs at showing the true condition of the world's largest unflushed toilet.
Also at issue here is the matter of opinion creeping into news pieces. Journalistic ethics begins when the pencil comes down to strike that crap from whatever the story is about. The narcissistic Crybaby Kidz of today are terribly loathe to self-edit.
I know you can't find a single news source anymore that tells you the facts, and lets you make up your own damned mind.
It's always, always, filled with the authors own biased opinions.
And some of em are pretty slick at sticking what is their own biased opinion, into an article, making it appear as if it's part of the facts.
It should be noted however, that while it's typical of libbers to do this. It happens on the other side of the aisle too. Just look no further than some of the Trump coverage to see that.
FOX News has gone full Trump
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/01/23/3742238/how-fox-news-became-a-glorified-infomercial-for-donald-trump/
Quote from: daidalos on January 23, 2016, 12:48:38 PM
I know you can't find a single news source anymore that tells you the facts, and lets you make up your own damned mind.
It's always, always, filled with the authors own biased opinions.
And some of em are pretty slick at sticking what is their own biased opinion, into an article, making it appear as if it's part of the facts.
It should be noted however, that while it's typical of libbers to do this. It happens on the other side of the aisle too. Just look no further than some of the Trump coverage to see that.
I know what you're saying and agree, but it's just an illusion, the other side is the Trump side, the leftist side, the Establishment, Leftist media, RINO, Dims, are all on the dame team/side.
They've merely kept an illusion of division alive as a cover. The Omnibus Bill should be all the evidence necessary.
It's the very reason this nation is in a war for it's very existence, and Trump is the puppet they're backing as their vehicle.
As useful as this is, I have a further suggestion -- how about a list of the individual opinion journalists shilling for Trump? That would be TV, radio, print, or electronic print. Whatever, these are the people with enough knowledge, and presumably enough intelligence to know better. They are also, in my opinion, the critical factor in putting Trump over the top in the nomination process. In other words, it's principally their fault if Trump goes on to win the nomination.
Of course they'll weasel and backtrack after the damage becomes undeniable, but I'd like a longstanding and comprehensive list of those who sold us out. I'd like to brand them with a scarlet 'T' for the endurance of their journalistic careers. Just give the thumbs up if you think this is worthwhile, and I'll contribute names as they come to mind or otherwise become evident.
Both Fox and CNN today had nothing but Trump for over 45 minutes. Then a little blurb about the snowstorm of the century in N.Y. and back to Trump.
Looks to me like both networks, with the exception of Megyn Kelly's show, are in the tank for Trump.
Quote from: Cali Contrarian on January 24, 2016, 01:26:36 PM
As useful as this is, I have a further suggestion -- how about a list of the individual opinion journalists shilling for Trump? That would be TV, radio, print, or electronic print. Whatever, these are the people with enough knowledge, and presumably enough intelligence to know better. They are also, in my opinion, the critical factor in putting Trump over the top in the nomination process. In other words, it's principally their fault if Trump goes on to win the nomination.
Of course they'll weasel and backtrack after the damage becomes undeniable, but I'd like a longstanding and comprehensive list of those who sold us out. I'd like to brand them with a scarlet 'T' for the endurance of their journalistic careers. Just give the thumbs up if you think this is worthwhile, and I'll contribute names as they come to mind or otherwise become evident.
That's an excellent idea.
Quote from: Solar on January 24, 2016, 04:50:35 PM
That's an excellent idea.
OK then, what to do about the details? Post them in here, in a different thread? What about disagreements we have? How clear cut are the criteria?
What about documentation? I would suggesting posting at least one link of an exemplary writing or video, where applicable. But how do we document somebody like Sean Hannity or Lou Dobbs, who are just Trump cheerleaders generally?
Quote from: Cali Contrarian on January 24, 2016, 01:26:36 PM
As useful as this is, I have a further suggestion -- how about a list of the individual opinion journalists shilling for Trump? That would be TV, radio, print, or electronic print. Whatever, these are the people with enough knowledge, and presumably enough intelligence to know better. They are also, in my opinion, the critical factor in putting Trump over the top in the nomination process. In other words, it's principally their fault if Trump goes on to win the nomination.
Of course they'll weasel and backtrack after the damage becomes undeniable, but I'd like a longstanding and comprehensive list of those who sold us out. I'd like to brand them with a scarlet 'T' for the endurance of their journalistic careers. Just give the thumbs up if you think this is worthwhile, and I'll contribute names as they come to mind or otherwise become evident.
Go back to MoveOn.org.
What's with the
sheep in wolves' clothing act?
Quote from: Cali Contrarian on January 25, 2016, 02:34:28 PM
OK then, what to do about the details? Post them in here, in a different thread? What about disagreements we have? How clear cut are the criteria?
What about documentation? I would suggesting posting at least one link of an exemplary writing or video, where applicable. But how do we document somebody like Sean Hannity or Lou Dobbs, who are just Trump cheerleaders generally?
Great. More
speech-police rhetoric.
Kit --
You done posting non-sequitors, or you got more?
Quote from: Cali Contrarian on January 25, 2016, 02:34:28 PM
OK then, what to do about the details? Post them in here, in a different thread? What about disagreements we have? How clear cut are the criteria?
What about documentation? I would suggesting posting at least one link of an exemplary writing or video, where applicable. But how do we document somebody like Sean Hannity or Lou Dobbs, who are just Trump cheerleaders generally?
Post them here. The guide lines are pretty basic, if they're supporting Chump, they're Establishment, if they're backing Cruz, who cares, they're backing cruz. :biggrin:
Quote from: Cali Contrarian on January 25, 2016, 02:34:28 PM
OK then, what to do about the details? Post them in here, in a different thread? What about disagreements we have? How clear cut are the criteria?
What about documentation? I would suggesting posting at least one link of an exemplary writing or video, where applicable. But how do we document somebody like Sean Hannity or Lou Dobbs, who are just Trump cheerleaders generally?
They both, have video's as well as audio recordings on their sites online as well. Post the links to them.
Quote from: Cali Contrarian on January 25, 2016, 03:04:45 PM
Kit --
You done posting non-sequitors, or you got more?
Yeah, you spelled 'sequitur' wrong. -You any good at anything besides
divisionist-theory?
What isn't relevant about what I've slung at you? You gonna go
Missouri Prof on me, and start calling for muscle to throw me out?
Quote from: kit saginaw on January 25, 2016, 03:21:45 PM
Yeah, you spelled 'sequitur' wrong. -You any good at anything besides divisionist-theory?
What isn't relevant about what I've slung at you? You gonna go Missouri Prof on me, and start calling for muscle to throw me out?
Oh, the irony of a Trumpette trying to throw conservative cred at me.
At some point ridicule needs to be lobed at Buzzfeed. They have less credibility than those late night penis pill infomercials.
Quote from: Cali Contrarian on January 25, 2016, 03:38:41 PM
Oh, the irony of a Trumpette trying to throw conservative cred at me.
Read my posts. Go back as far as you want. If I wanna quote somebody, I'll quote 'em. You'll see I virtually never quoted from
Breitbart anyway.
I can see I'll get no help with this and nobody cares anyway, so less pressure on me to be thorough or organized about it. I'll just post these from time to amuse myself. Better than cluttering up the main forum with complaints all of the same sort.
Opinion Journalists COMPLETELY in the Tank for Donald Trump:
1. Rush Limbaugh. The instances are ubiquitous, of course, so her's just the latest:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/01/27/trump_refuses_to_play_by_the_rules
Quote from: Cali Contrarian on January 28, 2016, 11:38:19 AM
I can see I'll get no help with this and nobody cares anyway, so less pressure on me to be thorough or organized about it. I'll just post these from time to amuse myself. Better than cluttering up the main forum with complaints all of the same sort.
Opinion Journalists COMPLETELY in the Tank for Donald Trump:
1. Rush Limbaugh. The instances are ubiquitous, of course, so her's just the latest:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/01/27/trump_refuses_to_play_by_the_rules
I appreciate your help. I had hoped to get more sites like Breitbart, conservative tree house, they're nothing more than news agrgating opinion sites with Discuss.
Sites like Rush are pretty innocuous n that they're merely a circular repository file for his daily bloviating, and most people never post his stuff, just repeat what he said on the air that day.
But don't stop, I will make a list. Hanniity is another, as well as O'Reilly.
Quote from: Cali Contrarian on January 28, 2016, 11:38:19 AM
I can see I'll get no help with this and nobody cares anyway, so less pressure on me to be thorough or organized about it. I'll just post these from time to amuse myself. Better than cluttering up the main forum with complaints all of the same sort.
Opinion Journalists COMPLETELY in the Tank for Donald Trump:
1. Rush Limbaugh. The instances are ubiquitous, of course, so her's just the latest:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/01/27/trump_refuses_to_play_by_the_rules
Hardly. He just explains the news of the day. Your witch hunt is silly Next you'll target Levin since he doesn't come out endorsing Cruz. I don't understand it, but the top radio guys never endorse anyone in the primary. They WILL endorse the nominee over Hillary.
This witch hunt is beneath Conservatism. Some of you sound more the the Politically Correct left -- or college students demanding their "safe space."
Quote from: carlb on January 29, 2016, 12:41:03 AM
Hardly. He just explains the news of the day. Your witch hunt is silly Next you'll target Levin since he doesn't come out endorsing Cruz. I don't understand it, but the top radio guys never endorse anyone in the primary. They WILL endorse the nominee over Hillary.
This witch hunt is beneath Conservatism. Some of you sound more the the Politically Correct left -- or college students demanding their "safe space."
Do you even listen to Rush?
I have listened since his very first show, long before he went national, listened over the years, seldom disagreed with what he had to say, but a little over a month ago, when it became the trump show, that was it for me.
Rush was promoting a lib over a Conservative, I haven't turned him back on since and never will again, and I'm not a alone,, he's lost more than a million listeners just like me.
Quote from: Solar on January 29, 2016, 05:24:52 AM
Do you even listen to Rush?
I have listened since his very first show, long before he went national, listened over the years, seldom disagreed with what he had to say, but a little over a month ago, when it became the trump show, that was it for me.
Rush was promoting a lib over a Conservative, I haven't turned him back on since and never will again, and I'm not a alone,, he's lost more than a million listeners just like me.
Over the last week or so I sense he is leaning to Cruz although he says he will not endorse anyone for the nomination
Cruz... and Dr. Henry Kissinger are the only two live interviews that Rush has hosted in over a decade.
Yeah, sounds like a real Trump supporter. -Considering DT has been averaging 2-interviews every 10-hours since last September. But none on Rush. Hmmmm. How'd that happen?
Quote from: Solar on January 29, 2016, 05:24:52 AM
Do you even listen to Rush?
I have listened since his very first show, long before he went national, listened over the years, seldom disagreed with what he had to say, but a little over a month ago, when it became the trump show, that was it for me.
Rush was promoting a lib over a Conservative, I haven't turned him back on since and never will again, and I'm not a alone,, he's lost more than a million listeners just like me.
Yes. DAILY.
But you just said you don't. But you believe you know what he says and I don't?
Quote from: kit saginaw on January 29, 2016, 08:31:59 AM
Cruz... and Dr. Henry Kissinger are the only two live interviews that Rush has hosted in over a decade.
Yeah, sounds like a real Trump supporter. -Considering DT has been averaging 2-interviews every 10-hours since last September. But none on Rush. Hmmmm. How'd that happen?
:thumbsup: exactly. But that won't stop the PC witch hunt
Quote from: carlb on January 29, 2016, 09:42:58 AM
Yes. DAILY.
But you just said you don't. But you believe you know what he says and I don't?
No, I said I turned him off after it became the Trump show.
The fact that Rush is even discussing the lib is all the evidence a person needs to see that Rush bailed on Conservative values.
It's. not my forum, these moderators have a tough enough job as it is - espically when it's busy!
Disagree with banning quotes or links to another site is not something I'd do without some forethought... I'm in Carl's corner on this one.
But the real fallout is the hassle inforcing rules like that, fairly, not alienating the new curious or casual onlooker. I think the moderator job is tough enough, without this, why start banning quotes / linking and add to the workload?
Where do you stop? Who or what political persuasion gets the axe next?
I really despise liberalism for the way they want to regulate and legislate every aspect of our lives. Even more an oying is this one size fits all legal mentality. IMO, this could be starting down the same road, completely unnecesary - because you've already got a good idea here, and great facilities supporting it. Please reconsider.
Quote from: Hoofer on January 29, 2016, 07:30:31 PM
It's. not my forum, these moderators have a tough enough job as it is - espically when it's busy!
Disagree with banning quotes or links to another site is not something I'd do without some forethought... I'm in Carl's corner on this one.
But the real fallout is the hassle inforcing rules like that, fairly, not alienating the new curious or casual onlooker. I think the moderator job is tough enough, without this, why start banning quotes / linking and add to the workload?
Where do you stop? Who or what political persuasion gets the axe next?
I really despise liberalism for the way they want to regulate and legislate every aspect of our lives. Even more an oying is this one size fits all legal mentality. IMO, this could be starting down the same road, completely unnecesary - because you've already got a good idea here, and great facilities supporting it. Please reconsider.
Well said, Hoofer. We are just as human as liberals and thus vulnerable to making the same human mistakes.
Quote from: Hoofer on January 29, 2016, 07:30:31 PM
It's. not my forum, these moderators have a tough enough job as it is - espically when it's busy!
Disagree with banning quotes or links to another site is not something I'd do without some forethought... I'm in Carl's corner on this one.
But the real fallout is the hassle inforcing rules like that, fairly, not alienating the new curious or casual onlooker. I think the moderator job is tough enough, without this, why start banning quotes / linking and add to the workload?
Where do you stop? Who or what political persuasion gets the axe next?
I really despise liberalism for the way they want to regulate and legislate every aspect of our lives. Even more an oying is this one size fits all legal mentality. IMO, this could be starting down the same road, completely unnecesary - because you've already got a good idea here, and great facilities supporting it. Please reconsider.
Did you not see the qualifier regarding news aggregating sites such as Breitbart?
Basically they are nothing more than sites that post news articles from around the web and add discuss, no different than what we do here.
As I said, it is policy on this site to always go to the source of and given story for credit, and if everyone did this here, Breitbart would be eliminated via attrition.
Man I wish people would pay more attention on occasion. And you wonder why Trump supporters exist?
Quote from: Solar on January 30, 2016, 04:59:35 AM
Did you not see the qualifier regarding news aggregating sites such as Breitbart?
Basically they are nothing more than sites that post news articles from around the web and add discuss, no different than what we do here.
As I said, it is policy on this site to always go to the source of and given story for credit, and if everyone did this here, Breitbart would be eliminated via attrition.
Man I wish people would pay more attention on occasion. And you wonder why Trump supporters exist?
At times, missing the extra "spin" can be make a better point than the original article.
If Hillary says, "What difference, at this point in time, does it make?" - go ahead and use that, correct?
But, if the liberals use the same quote, and proclaim, "She owned the MSM, showed her brilliant intellect, and left the conservatives scratching their heads, wondering what to do next!" - nope, can't quote that.
Yeah, man, I wish the news was just the nuts-n-bolts stuff (who-what-where-when). Those days are long gone, it's all SPUN right or left like God Himself is speaking through the Prophets, there is rarely an original source because the
"WHY" spin IS the news.
... and that's what we're all talking about here. Why burden yourself, and the folks with it?
Quote from: Hoofer on January 30, 2016, 05:46:12 AM
At times, missing the extra "spin" can be make a better point than the original article.
If Hillary says, "What difference, at this point in time, does it make?" - go ahead and use that, correct?
But, if the liberals use the same quote, and proclaim, "She owned the MSM, showed her brilliant intellect, and left the conservatives scratching their heads, wondering what to do next!" - nope, can't quote that.
Yeah, man, I wish the news was just the nuts-n-bolts stuff (who-what-where-when). Those days are long gone, it's all SPUN right or left like God Himself is speaking through the Prophets, there is rarely an original source because the "WHY" spin IS the news.
... and that's what we're all talking about here. Why burden yourself, and the folks with it?
Seriously? When people post links to these site, you boost their outreach and credibility.
Not to mention, you help deliver their warped message which is usually opinion in the title of the article.
Posting the original source gives us the strength of opinion in titling the article the way Conservatives view a given issue. Remember, you aren't just posting to a hand full of members, but thousands of readers looking for our take on a given issue.
Take the time, and I know, those few extra seconds can be stressful in looking for the source which is generally in the first paragraph of the article.
But this gives you the opportunity to voice your opinion, and not those of leftist trolls with an agenda.
Like I said, it's always been policy here regardless. There's no excuse for lazy.
Quote from: Solar on January 30, 2016, 05:56:37 AM
Seriously? When people post links to these site, you boost their outreach and credibility.
Not to mention, you help deliver their warped message which is usually opinion in the title of the article.
Posting the original source gives us the strength of opinion in titling the article the way Conservatives view a given issue. Remember, you aren't just posting to a hand full of members, but thousands of readers looking for our take on a given issue.
Take the time, and I know, those few extra seconds can be stressful in looking for the source which is generally in the first paragraph of the article.
But this gives you the opportunity to voice your opinion, and not those of leftist trolls with an agenda.
Like I said, it's always been policy here regardless. There's no excuse for lazy.
Point well made, and taken.
My perspective is the quality of the forums, policing foul language & personal attacks -ought- to elevate the value of the whole system above those others, and attract that many more viewers and participants. I had not though the "hits" to other sites mattered as much as you've pointed out. (still in BBS land here, the forums on web is largely new to me).
Opinion Journalists COMPLETELY in the Tank for Donald Trump:
2. Charles Hurt.
This guy is pretty obscure (writes for the Washington Times), but he's probably the most shameless Trump shill this side of Ann Coulter. Today's link is typical of the BS propaganda he spews. Every editorial is exactly the same thing.
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/2/charles-hurt-ted-cruz-wins-iowa-but-he-wont-be-the/?page=all#pagebreak (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/2/charles-hurt-ted-cruz-wins-iowa-but-he-wont-be-the/?page=all#pagebreak)
Sorry about having to link to a site with so much going on in terms of busy ads and popups. I hate to say it about a supposedly "conservative" paper, but what a RAG it is.
Quote from: Cali Contrarian on February 02, 2016, 09:20:13 AM
Opinion Journalists COMPLETELY in the Tank for Donald Trump:
2. Charles Hurt.
This guy is pretty obscure (writes for the Washington Times), but he's probably the most shameless Trump shill this side of Ann Coulter. Today's link is typical of the BS propaganda he spews. Every editorial is exactly the same thing.
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/2/charles-hurt-ted-cruz-wins-iowa-but-he-wont-be-the/?page=all#pagebreak (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/2/charles-hurt-ted-cruz-wins-iowa-but-he-wont-be-the/?page=all#pagebreak)
Sorry about having to link to a site with so much going on in terms of busy ads and popups. I hate to say it about a supposedly "conservative" paper, but what a RAG it is.
Even after having the polls completely wrong, Hurt foolishly refers to Trump's lead in the polls in New Hampshire? :lol:
Quote from: Solar on February 02, 2016, 10:41:40 AM
Even after having the polls completely wrong, Hurt foolishly refers to Trump's lead in the polls in New Hampshire? :lol:
Fred's kid even did that during his Iowa concession... talking about how much he's up in the polls. It's amazing to watch.
Quote from: taxed on February 02, 2016, 03:19:48 PM
Fred's kid even did that during his Iowa concession... talking about how much he's up in the polls. It's amazing to watch.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Like a deer in the headlights, it's all they see.
Wow! Here's one:
http://www.infowars.com
Jones has to have been bought off. They totally got to him. He's the biggest Trump fan out there right now.
Quote from: taxed on February 02, 2016, 09:33:21 PM
Wow! Here's one:
http://www.infowars.com
Jones has to have been bought off. They totally got to him. He's the biggest Trump fan out there right now.
The place is a Breitbart. That's a new term used to clarify "profiting off the ignorant".
Seriously, I forgot it was up, happened to go back and thought it was Breitbart.
I thought Trump only bribed them, but they somehow all look alike, as if they are controlled by one operation.
Kind of like radio today, where one signal is sent via satellite, and every so often a local trigger kicks in and you hear commercials for your area.
A few writers:
Ann Coulter
Sarah Palin
Rick Santorum
Mike Huckabee
Quote from: taxed on February 04, 2016, 03:31:29 PM
A few writers:
Ann Coulter
Sarah Palin
Rick Santorum
Mike Huckabee
Did the Gateway pundit sellout tto Trump?
Sheriff Joe Arpaio endorsed Trump last week:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/az-sheriff-joe-arpaio-endorses-donald-trump-for-president/
Talking to Taxed yesterday, he informed me that Breitbart must have seen the light, so I checked it out, and even though they they're still doing stupid rah rah stories on Trump, they've gone back to being more balanced.
So the ban is lifted, but remember, they are kind of a recycle site, where they either repackage others work, or they copy it, claim it and link it.
So always do your best to link to the original source.
Wait, so we are banning websites from this site? Is there a list of approved reading and prohibited reading?
No offense, but this sounds a lot like the Progressive college campuses with their "safe spaces" to protect them from freedom of speech and ideas they don't like.
Quote from: Skeptic on February 09, 2016, 11:32:13 AM
Wait, so we are banning websites from this site? Is there a list of approved reading and prohibited reading?
No offense, but this sounds a lot like the Progressive college campuses with their "safe spaces" to protect them from freedom of speech and ideas they don't like.
Oh shut the fuck up, dumb ass!