Reply With Quote
You asked and i responded. Now shut the up!
Yeah, John Oliver's purpose is to tell you how to think by being on premium cable a few weeks out of the year.
You're totally onto him.
You asked and i responded. Now shut the up!
Didnt complain about watergate one bit. Dont care.
So you get your regular news from Wikileaks and what other sites?
And the others? It's not just one on tv at night.
Anywhere you dont get your news from.
Yes, you think comedians on TV are there to tell you how to think.
You're totally onto them.
yes they didmainstream media didn't cover watergate!
these 2 guys from wapo
He has now become a nihilist and does not believe in anything.
Sure, you're so edgy.
But what actual sites?
You are now done.
Why do you enter these conversations when you don't know wtf you are talking about and more importantly, don't care?
Seriously, just don't type.
Quote my actual words dip ... btw when i asked to have a refresher on watergate it was sarcasm but you up tight knowitalls grasp for anything. out of here.
you know
Lmao whatever
Im not edgy at all... what is this hs?
This is you dodging a simple question. What sites do you visit to get your news?
Exactly.
"I don't care, I don't read, wtf I'm I doing here, ..."
This is called an ad hominem attack.
Rather than bother refuting any of the reporting or particulars of coverage, the tactic goes for some attack on the source.
It is flawed reasoning 101 and so common/old that it has a formal name, and has had a formal name since the ancient Greeks.
You can argue with flawed reasoning, but it is generally more effective to show that the reasoning is itself flawed.
Well done.
I am guessing the response is to declare victory, donning-kruger style.
Let me ask you this then:
Is attacking any press coverage of a leader that is negative as being "fake news" good, or bad for democracy? Why or why not?
No actually, you didn't respond. This is a general question, meant to allow you to provide an opinion of an action without attaching persons or parties to it.
Maybe my question was too hard.
Should leaders be allowed to say that any negative coverage of them is "fake", as if they are the ONLY person who can say what is fake or not? Is this a good thing to you?
Lol you care
who's dodging? there's a difference between dodging and not giving you what you want. it's my choice whether or not i answer your line of questioning. i don't see you as important so therefor i don't give a to answer everyone of your Q's when asked.
oh, i def read.
btw, your Q wasn't a tough one.
no that's not good and teeters on the edge of a dictatorship. now with all that's come out in the last year sit back for a minute and reflect on most things newsworthy. how much of it has been news and not just some fabricated bs because a bunch of en led s hate djt? yall prop these networks up as if they have a clean track record of which they don't and never have. they're bs liars and yall love lies.
yes its your choice to dodge a question or to answer it
Rofl the effort is noted tho
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions