if you leave a “please only take one” sign prepare for the outrage.I’m giving out Covid booster pops for halloween
I decided to go as something extra scary this year. . . a tourist.I’m giving out Covid booster pops for halloween
Sorry that’s just not rightI decided to go as something extra scary this year. . . a tourist.
Not that I agree with the approach, but I get your point in terms of the idea that all credibility has been lost such that anything he posts is immediately scrubbed. Because @randman1 is the poster and is providing the linked sources, your theory is that one can simply and automatically discount even the possibility that his information is valid or reliable. However, that's a flawed line of thought because it's personal about him and not the topic he's posting about. For instance, to use your example, if @randman1 posted that the earth were in fact round and cited a source from Epoch reporting on a scientific study, under your theory you would immediately trash the posting and the source - and you'd be dead wrong.I'll answer your question with another question. If someone were to say the earth was flat and provided "proof" from a flat earth society website, would you take the time out of your day to research and provide links to show that the earth was round? Or would you chuckle and not waste your time trying to convince them?
I didn't attack him. I just pointed out why people don't take him seriously. As far as your question about Hunter's laptop, I don't know enough about, nor care enough about, his laptop to form an opinion or reply to that question. That's why I left it out of my response.Not that I agree with the approach, but I get your point in terms of the idea that all credibility has been lost such that anything he posts is immediately scrubbed. Because @randman1 is the poster and is providing the linked sources, your theory is that one can simply and automatically discount even the possibility that his information is valid or reliable. However, that's a flawed line of thought because it's personal about him and not the topic he's posting about. For instance, to use your example, if @randman1 posted that the earth were in fact round and cited a source from Epoch reporting on a scientific study, under your theory you would immediately trash the posting and the source - and you'd be dead wrong.
Incidentally, you actually didn't answer any of my questions. You just again attacked @randman1 . There are one or two who I would have expected that response from (except it probably would have included the seemingly mandatory personal insult about my breath smelling similar to orange balls or something else equally inane), but it surprised me coming from you.
Attacked is hilarious! No one is "attacking" the nutjob. He loads this thread with one wacky-ass story after another, from the most notoriously extreme-right, loony sources and... somehow, you wonder why he gets mocked. If you wanna jump on the wacky wagon, just do it. It's been fun to watch how the rest of the "conservatives" will let themselves go straight down the rabbit-holes with him. It just shows how people will believe anything if they need to, in order to validate their own bias.Not that I agree with the approach, but I get your point in terms of the idea that all credibility has been lost such that anything he posts is immediately scrubbed. Because @randman1 is the poster and is providing the linked sources, your theory is that one can simply and automatically discount even the possibility that his information is valid or reliable. However, that's a flawed line of thought because it's personal about him and not the topic he's posting about. For instance, to use your example, if @randman1 posted that the earth were in fact round and cited a source from Epoch reporting on a scientific study, under your theory you would immediately trash the posting and the source - and you'd be dead wrong.
Incidentally, you actually didn't answer any of my questions. You just again attacked @randman1 . There are one or two who I would have expected that response from (except it probably would have included the seemingly mandatory personal insult about my breath smelling similar to orange balls or something else equally inane), but it surprised me coming from you.
It's because he and so many others of the same mentality are intellectually pure trash. It doesn't matter to them what is true or not. All conservatives are automatically wrong and their Party's Narrative is always right.Not that I agree with the approach, but I get your point in terms of the idea that all credibility has been lost such that anything he posts is immediately scrubbed. Because @randman1 is the poster and is providing the linked sources, your theory is that one can simply and automatically discount even the possibility that his information is valid or reliable. However, that's a flawed line of thought because it's personal about him and not the topic he's posting about. For instance, to use your example, if @randman1 posted that the earth were in fact round and cited a source from Epoch reporting on a scientific study, under your theory you would immediately trash the posting and the source - and you'd be dead wrong.
Incidentally, you actually didn't answer any of my questions. You just again attacked @randman1 . There are one or two who I would have expected that response from (except it probably would have included the seemingly mandatory personal insult about my breath smelling similar to orange balls or something else equally inane), but it surprised me coming from you.
It's because he and so many others of the same mentality are intellectually pure trash. It doesn't matter to them what is true or not. All conservatives are automatically wrong and their Party's Narrative is always right.
The fact the entire media continually lies as we saw with the Hunter laptop situation being sold as Russian disinformation means absolutely nothing to them. Doesn't even dint their thinking. It's really not about me, or Trump, or a very credible news source like Epoch or whomever.
It's about the fact objective reality and truth no longer exist for them, at least concerning politics. If the Narrative said 2 plus 2 =5, then that's what they will say with their continual Pavlovian babel.
Everything, every fact, every news source, even if things provably true like Hunter's laptop, are mere wacko things if they do not comport to their Narrative. They are basically part of a cult and yet laughabiy think sane and objective people are the weirdos.
They also imagine they are in the majority when that is not the case. Most Americans disagree with their beliefs.
So says the man that believes men can have babies....Attacked is hilarious! No one is "attacking" the nutjob. He loads this thread with one wacky-ass story after another, from the most notoriously extreme-right, loony sources and... somehow, you wonder why he gets mocked. If you wanna jump on the wacky wagon, just do it. It's been fun to watch how the rest of the "conservatives" will let themselves go straight down the rabbit-holes with him. It just shows how people will believe anything if they need to, in order to validate their own bias.
Here's an example of what I am talking about. These guys castigate someone like the following as a wacko and that Fauci is some sort of elite scientist rather than a politician.Not that I agree with the approach, but I get your point in terms of the idea that all credibility has been lost such that anything he posts is immediately scrubbed. Because @randman1 is the poster and is providing the linked sources, your theory is that one can simply and automatically discount even the possibility that his information is valid or reliable. However, that's a flawed line of thought because it's personal about him and not the topic he's posting about. For instance, to use your example, if @randman1 posted that the earth were in fact round and cited a source from Epoch reporting on a scientific study, under your theory you would immediately trash the posting and the source - and you'd be dead wrong.
Incidentally, you actually didn't answer any of my questions. You just again attacked @randman1 . There are one or two who I would have expected that response from (except it probably would have included the seemingly mandatory personal insult about my breath smelling similar to orange balls or something else equally inane), but it surprised me coming from you.
we turned our world upside down because of dem fear-mongering and we are still paying the price and will for quite some time. But orange man bad.Here's an example of what I am talking about. These guys castigate someone like the following as a wacko and that Fauci is some sort of elite scientist rather than a politician.
"
John Ioannidis is one of the nation’s leading public health experts, employed at Stanford University as Professor of Medicine in Stanford Prevention Research, of Epidemiology and Population Health,” as well as “of Statistics and Biomedical Data Science.”
You’d think that those impeccable qualifications and a track record of being one of the most published and cited scientists in the modern world would insulate him from criticism, but unfortunately that’s no longer how The Science™ works."
...
"
- Ages 60-69, fatality rate 0.501%, survival rate 99.499%
- Ages 50-59, fatality rate 0.129%, survival rate 99.871%
- Ages 40-49, fatality rate 0.035% survival rate 99.965%
- Ages 30-39, fatality rate 0.011%, survival rate 99.989%
- Ages 20-29, fatality rate 0.003%, survival rate 99.997%
- Ages 0-19, fatality rate 0.0003%, survival rate 99.9997%"
A Closer Look at the Covid Mortality Rate ⋆ Brownstone Institute
Their estimates were hopelessly, catastrophically wrong, yet they maintained their unchallenged sense of authority for multiple yearsbrownstone.org
But somehow in the middle of the pandemic, they could take a break and burn down neighborhoods and loot some stores, just peacefully protesting, Not wearing masks either.we turned our world upside down because of dem fear-mongering and we are still paying the price and will for quite some time. But orange man bad.
Another thing, @pooponduke. He also loses credibility when he calls everyone who doesn't agree with him a liberal. That's just dumb. I've never once been confused with a liberal and my posting history backs that up. But God forbid someone disagree with his crazy world. That just isn't acceptable.I didn't attack him. I just pointed out why people don't take him seriously. As far as your question about Hunter's laptop, I don't know enough about, nor care enough about, his laptop to form an opinion or reply to that question. That's why I left it out of my response.
You echo a lot of dem media talking points and so yeah, it can be easy to mistake you for a liberal, although I've been using the term "groomer" much more lately considering the demoncat's obsession with bringing small children to drag shows, providing them with obscene materials, teaching them sexual stuff that's age inappropriate, fostering gender confusion, etc,....Another thing, @pooponduke. He also loses credibility when he calls everyone who doesn't agree with him a liberal. That's just dumb. I've never once been confused with a liberal and my posting history backs that up. But God forbid someone disagree with his crazy world. That just isn't acceptable.
So, there's MAGA... and, then there's Ultra-MAGA???You did express hostility towards either Ultra-Maga or Maga types and so forth.
Ultra-Maga stems from Biden in one of his speeches if you can call it that.So, there's MAGA... and, then there's Ultra-MAGA???
I'm sure it's a very important distinction.Ultra-Maga stems from Biden in one of his speeches if you can call it that.
It's just typical inanity from democrats to try to act like Trump supporters are extremist when it's they that are.I'm sure it's a very important distinction.
Trump supporters? Extreme??? Hell no!It's just typical inanity from democrats to try to act like Trump supporters are extremist when it's they that are.
We're not grooming children; nor trying to kill American energy; opening the border to the cartels; nor trying to kill the economy with massive money printing.Trump supporters? Extreme??? Hell no!
Wait, you’re really not a liberal?!Another thing, @pooponduke. He also loses credibility when he calls everyone who doesn't agree with him a liberal. That's just dumb. I've never once been confused with a liberal and my posting history backs that up. But God forbid someone disagree with his crazy world. That just isn't acceptable.
I didn't attack him. I just pointed out why people don't take him seriously. As far as your question about Hunter's laptop, I don't know enough about, nor care enough about, his laptop to form an opinion or reply to that question. That's why I left it out of my response.
I agree that it's of little value to paint everyone with a broad brush. Your past posting has revealed your insight on things and it was one reason I was surprised by your attack on him and the complete manipulation of my questions. I'll restate the topics for anyone who cares to take a swing.Another thing, @pooponduke. He also loses credibility when he calls everyone who doesn't agree with him a liberal. That's just dumb. I've never once been confused with a liberal and my posting history backs that up. But God forbid someone disagree with his crazy world. That just isn't acceptable.
We're just going to have to disagree about me attacking him. I think you're just misinterpreting what I was saying or trying to say. As far as where to look for media, it's not really the media you look for. It's the sources they use. A source could be a person, study, poll, etc. It's easy to find ones that are legit if you look. Then you can just see if that source is being misrepresented.But you did and that's all you've done in responding to my inquiry. I didn't ask a single question about Hunter's laptop so any reference to it is a misdirection and an avoidance of the actual questions. The laptop inclusion was simply to provide a clear-cut example of how the media got it wrong (whether due to bias, intentional, by design, or incompetence is irrelevant). It's indisputable at this point, yet, we've had the msm consistently tell us there was nothing to see there, it was russian disinformation. This now confirmed bias tells us that all sources are to be questioned and/or challenged.
I agree that it's of little value to paint everyone with a broad brush. Your past posting has revealed your insight on things and it was one reason I was surprised by your attack on him and the complete manipulation of my questions. I'll restate the topics for anyone who cares to take a swing.
What alternatives to the typical msm sources does one find acceptable regardless of whether @randman1 or anyone else uses them?
The CDC has added the covid shot to the "immunization" requirements for kids (something the numbers show is totally, utterly unnecessary). Many jurisdictions use this list as the prerequisite for being able to attend school. Attending school: required by law. Thus, in essence, the CDC is now, through the backdoor, legally requiring our kids to take a completely unnecessary shot. This has gotten almost no mention here - in a thread about coronavirus. How can this not be subject to any push back (and it's not ok to simply say because @randman1 posted the original link to the CDC vote)?
Well, perhaps we are just characterizing it differently. All good.We're just going to have to disagree about me attacking him. I think you're just misinterpreting what I was saying or trying to say. As far as where to look for media, it's not really the media you look for. It's the sources they use. A source could be a person, study, poll, etc. It's easy to find ones that are legit if you look. Then you can just see if that source is being misrepresented.
Except that's clearly not what you do. You reject the original source material based on the media group reporting it, and so you seem to believe only primarily liberal democrat media outlets should be listened to; hence thinking you are a liberal. You act like one as the chief ways liberals debate is via censorship and demeaning the messenger. They generally cannot actually debate the facts.We're just going to have to disagree about me attacking him. I think you're just misinterpreting what I was saying or trying to say. As far as where to look for media, it's not really the media you look for. It's the sources they use. A source could be a person, study, poll, etc. It's easy to find ones that are legit if you look. Then you can just see if that source is being misrepresented.
I certainly can't tell you what media to believe and if they are fair in their reporting. Obviously that's a personal decision. I don't think the main goal of any media outlet is to be unbias. The main goal is to make money, so you always have to question them. Some have a better relationship to the truth than others, but you can choose who you think that is.Well, perhaps we are just characterizing it differently. All good.
The "source" is a factor for sure (and it makes me cringe about the dreaded "unnamed sources" articles they constantly parade out), but it's still a problem. Again, I'll refer to the laptop story. 70 or 80 intelligence "experts" signed off on that letter saying it was just russian bs. They should have known better or, worse, did know better. But, from a msm standpoint, they correctly cited the source and the source should have been reliable. Turns out it was crap - apparently all for election results in which they were all pulling for the same team. Thus, I can only conclude that:
We should question all reports from all sources. Which, ironically, means that @randman1 sources could theoretically be just as good or correct as anyone else. It's actually kind of sad because it puts us all in a constant state of not knowing who to trust.
indeed…was at topsail beach this past summer and saw “ultra-maga” tee shirts being worn.So, there's MAGA... and, then there's Ultra-MAGA???
My recollection is that it was a term Biden's team (might have actually been attributed to him) came up with . . . I'd guess there was a focus group involved, lol. Whether that embodies Topsail is an unknown to me.indeed…was at topsail beach this past summer and saw “ultra-maga” tee shirts being worn.
was told that’s a north topsail kinda vibe haha
i’m sure of biden using the term…someone put it on a tee shirt and apparently it’s rather popular…maybe biden’s team haha.My recollection is that it was a term Biden's team (might have actually been attributed to him) came up with . . . I'd guess there was a focus group involved, lol. Whether that embodies Topsail is an unknown to me.
You may be right. Marketing guys are always interesting. Who knew that Brandon would take off the way it did? Of course, I think you can find a t-shirt with virtually anything on it if you look hard enough.i’m sure of biden using the term…someone put it on a tee shirt and apparently it’s rather popular…maybe biden’s team haha.
So how many Team Biden shirts did you see?indeed…was at topsail beach this past summer and saw “ultra-maga” tee shirts being worn.
was told that’s a north topsail kinda vibe haha
You may be right. Marketing guys are always interesting. Who knew that Brandon would take off the way it did? Of course, I think you can find a t-shirt with virtually anything on it if you look hard enough.
One of my friends makes custom holsters out of kydex in one of his side businesses. Besides having holsters that fit me perfectly, one of the benefits is he has the equipment that facilitates custom shirts. I never know what he's going to have on. . . .I got my son a heat press for Christmas a few years ago. We make shirts all the time. He made a bunch of Let's Go Brandon shirts and sold them cheap to his friends.
It was meant as a slur (dumb political marketing) but Trump voters liked it and started saying, yeah, we're Ultra-Maga as a way to mock the democrats, the media and Biden.My recollection is that it was a term Biden's team (might have actually been attributed to him) came up with . . . I'd guess there was a focus group involved, lol. Whether that embodies Topsail is an unknown to me.