He's not the journalist, dumbass. He takes the stories of the day and talks about them.
Alex Jones takes stories, spins them and concocts a conspiracy. And sells t-shirts and coffee mugs.
tell me how much you really love alex jones... how often do you watch his show(s)?
as well, i'm the dumbass because i don't buy into the bs comedian journalist crap that's infected our tv's since the late 90's. ty comedians at that to boot.
here's a kicker for you lefty's... my ex, from up north, was a huge republican to the point of making me sick but i bet yall couldn't guess her favorite late night show. here's a hint; it featured a dude with an accent. hahahaha!
you just described all journalists presently. good job.
Huh? Next to never. His views on 9/11 were laughably stupid but he still made money off of his merchandise sold to gullible idiots.
They aren't journalists. Damn you're ing re ed.As well, i'm the dumbass because i don't buy into the bs comedian journalist crap that's infected our tv's since the late 90's. ty comedians at that to boot.
i have no idea. i'd have to look him and his views up. i know of alex jones and have heard he was controversial when it came to sandy hook but i literally found out, about 2 months ago, that he made loosechange. i didn't know that but i also have never seen loosechange so i have no clue what i am missing.
i'm sure i could guess but then i'd probably question some as well. i already do when it comes to most things.
so pretending to be makes them not what they are pretending to be. perception is 99% truth buddy. keep telling yourself you're not being played. it's all good!
as well, is it not right to question most everything? yall demonize that dude jones but not the news outlets yall watch. news outlets that have blatantly set up fake scenarios, carried out fake narratives, etc... i see no difference.
Where do you get your news from again?
im just asking you to explain your alex jones/jon oliver comparison
both personalities from different spectrums. none of which i'd lay trust in.
so their comparison ends with "they're both personalities with shows?"
do you think their content is comparable?
sure. both biased... one panders to a certain group while the other panders to another group. but here's the kicker, both groups buy into the pandering and then point fingers at each other.so their comparison ends with "they're both personalities with shows?"
do you think their content is comparable?
again, your comparison ends with "they're both personalities with shows"
my arguments end with.... you'll believe what you'd like because of your closed mind bias.
no, i tend to believe things that are credibly sourced.
on one hand you say alex jones and john oliver represent the same thing and when pressed to explain that, your response is they're both people with shows
lmao you meant, as long as the bs comes out of another far-left talking head.
nah, if a right winger sources his info, it's all good.
what right-wing talking heads do you listen to then?
Sorry to interrupt, but on the subject....
Since Trumps defense liarwyer paid off Stormy, does this mean the non disclosure agreement has ended and she can tell all she wants? She is 100% ho, so I'm sure for a very fat payoff she would keep silent. I'm guessing that is her ballgame. However for a book deal she could get multi multi millions.
So does she need to end up dead or what's gonna happen here?
wgaf one way or the other? they're both adults and those that concern themselves in their biz are just bitter s.
Actually. If Trump directed Cohen to pay her off that is a crime.
i wonder how much ol' billy boy had to pay that tranny lewinsky off?
It's never gonna be proven and just like the Repugnatins persecuted Billy, Demons need to just f off and let it go.
Puritanical portion of USA population can seriously go F themselves.
it's the ol' glass house scenario but i forgot everyone in the USA is all angelical and whatnot.
I listen to Ben Shapiro's podcast on occasion. I've said this many times before... but with him, I find his lectures/debates to be cringe-worthy, as he just mouths off a bunch of canned responses. With respect to his podcast, where he goes over the news items of the day, I think he does a more or less solid job of being objective. He doesn't really shy away from criticizing conservatives (though once he does, he seems to always get this itch to throw in a "but democrats are guilty of this too, for example..." but that's to be expected from any partisan source.
Believe it or not, when i'm in the car on my way to/from work I listen to conservative talk radio more than anything else. Granted, I usually do so to hear how ridiculous they can get on certain points. In the mornings I typically listen to Dennis Prager. He's among my least favorite political personalities because he's way to embedded in religion and is obsessed with the whole transgender thing. Any time he quotes a liberal and they said the word "he" or "she" Prager makes the same dumb joke of "I just caught the liberal assuming someone's gender." He's quite stale. Think liberalism is the greatest evil in the world, etc., and he does the same thing you do when he says leftists aren't really liberals, but then doesn't really define what a liberal is. When he's on commercial i'll flip to Rush, but he's almost never entertaining anymore.
In the evenings I'll catch Larry Elder, who spends his entire show literally doing nothing but whataboutisms. "Don't you remember what Bill Clinton said about illegal aliens back in the 90'?" "Don't you remember what Chuck Schumer said about government shutdowns a decade ago?" Any time there's a sexual assault/harrassment story, he goes right back to Juanita Broaddrick. Also does that annoying thing where he says "close quote" every time he's done reading a quote
If people are giving their opinions on issues/policy, that's fine. You can agree or disagree with them. If they want to convince me of a fact, as in something that is not really subject to disagreement, then I'm going to need a source, plain and simple. If John Oliver goes on a ramble about why he thinks net neutrality is good, that's fine. I can agree or disagree with him. But if he's going to try to tell me what specific abuses could be a result of the net neutrality appeal, then he's going to have to back up his claims with a source. He typically does.
I listen to Ben Shapiro's podcast on occasion. I've said this many times before... but with him, I find his lectures/debates to be cringe-worthy, as he just mouths off a bunch of canned responses. With respect to his podcast, where he goes over the news items of the day, I think he does a more or less solid job of being objective. He doesn't really shy away from criticizing conservatives (though once he does, he seems to always get this itch to throw in a "but democrats are guilty of this too, for example..." but that's to be expected from any partisan source.
Believe it or not, when i'm in the car on my way to/from work I listen to conservative talk radio more than anything else. Granted, I usually do so to hear how ridiculous they can get on certain points. In the mornings I typically listen to Dennis Prager. He's among my least favorite political personalities because he's way to embedded in religion and is obsessed with the whole transgender thing. Any time he quotes a liberal and they said the word "he" or "she" Prager makes the same dumb joke of "I just caught the liberal assuming someone's gender." He's quite stale. Think liberalism is the greatest evil in the world, etc., and he does the same thing you do when he says leftists aren't really liberals, but then doesn't really define what a liberal is. When he's on commercial i'll flip to Rush, but he's almost never entertaining anymore.
In the evenings I'll catch Larry Elder, who spends his entire show literally doing nothing but whataboutisms. "Don't you remember what Bill Clinton said about illegal aliens back in the 90'?" "Don't you remember what Chuck Schumer said about government shutdowns a decade ago?" Any time there's a sexual assault/harrassment story, he goes right back to Juanita Broaddrick. Also does that annoying thing where he says "close quote" every time he's done reading a quote
If people are giving their opinions on issues/policy, that's fine. You can agree or disagree with them. If they want to convince me of a fact, as in something that is not really subject to disagreement, then I'm going to need a source, plain and simple. If John Oliver goes on a ramble about why he thinks net neutrality is good, that's fine. I can agree or disagree with him. But if he's going to try to tell me what specific abuses could be a result of the net neutrality appeal, then he's going to have to back up his claims with a source. He typically does.
you're more brave than i am. there's no way i am turning my radio to AM! lol too monotone for me and regurgitated talking points.
i was made aware of shapiro from ST. the only videos i have seen thus far are those of him breaking the backs of sjw students. that's about it.
if what you say above is true then i applaud you for trying to see both sides of the aisle.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
