(Jul 06 2018, 04:58 AM)sift Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nat...4a8b292641
Coincidence bus gets a month ban the same week this happens?
I think not!
Crisp, clean, ya touched boys
How you know this wasn't me too Sift? I TKed Zorandi because he's one of the pilots suing me.
(Jul 06 2018, 06:28 AM)Ben- Wrote: [ -> ] (Jul 06 2018, 04:58 AM)sift Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nat...4a8b292641
Coincidence bus gets a month ban the same week this happens?
I think not!
Crisp, clean, ya touched boys
lol huffingtonpost about something sexual, sure as hell a good source, oh wait 
Lol Ben, it's on a bunch of news sites. Would you have preferred the link to Brietbart?
Edit: original reporting in the Wall Street Journal, that one okay with your biases?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/billionaire...1530648681
(Jul 06 2018, 01:49 PM)woKe Wrote: [ -> ] (Jul 06 2018, 04:58 AM)sift Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nat...4a8b292641
Coincidence bus gets a month ban the same week this happens?
I think not!
Crisp, clean, ya touched boys
How you know this wasn't me too Sift? I TKed Zorandi because he's one of the pilots suing me.
(Jul 06 2018, 06:28 AM)Ben- Wrote: [ -> ] (Jul 06 2018, 04:58 AM)sift Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nat...4a8b292641
Coincidence bus gets a month ban the same week this happens?
I think not!
Crisp, clean, ya touched boys
lol huffingtonpost about something sexual, sure as hell a good source, oh wait
Lol Ben, it's on a bunch of news sites. Would you have preferred the link to Brietbart?
Edit: original reporting in the Wall Street Journal, that one okay with your biases?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/billionaire...1530648681
Washington Post .... Only gets better
Youd tell me some drunk/high hoe on facebook wrote it and id trust it more ;P
I'm confused what you're saying here it was Wall Street Journal not WaPo...
I mean WSJ is owned by Murdoch so I'm not saying it's good, but this is fine reporting and if you're not able to read it and determine that for yourself regardless of the publisher that's kind of sad. All of the reporting in this story comes from public court filings (in which it is a crime to lie), and interviews with the people making the suits (in which case it's not a crime to lie, but it would really hurt your lawsuit and would be stupid).
You should judge reporting not by the publisher but by the actual sourcing in the article. The sourcing here is clearly and obviously good. WaPo/NYT is bad about this stuff with their Russiagate coverage because it's always "sources in the intelligence community who wish to remain anonymous," and then it gets turned into fact based on WaPo/NYT's reputation. Not clear if that's bad journalism because you cant get these IC guys to go on record because it's illegal, but it's certainly bad media coverage of the WaPo/NYT reporting because no one (i.e. no one in mainstream media) has enough skepticism. This is how we got into the Iraq war over false WMDs, let's hope its not how we get into WW3.
(Jul 06 2018, 04:24 PM)woKe Wrote: [ -> ]I'm confused what you're saying here it was Wall Street Journal not WaPo...
I mean WSJ is owned by Murdoch so I'm not saying it's good, but this is fine reporting and if you're not able to read it and determine that for yourself regardless of the publisher that's kind of sad. All of the reporting in this story comes from public court filings (in which it is a crime to lie), and interviews with the people making the suits (in which case it's not a crime to lie, but it would really hurt your lawsuit and would be stupid).
You should judge reporting not by the publisher but by the actual sourcing in the article. The sourcing here is clearly and obviously good. WaPo/NYT is bad about this stuff with their Russiagate coverage because it's always "sources in the intelligence community who wish to remain anonymous," and then it gets turned into fact based on WaPo/NYT's reputation. Not clear if that's bad journalism because you cant get these IC guys to go on record because it's illegal, but it's certainly bad media coverage of the WaPo/NYT reporting because no one (i.e. no one in mainstream media) has enough skepticism. This is how we got into the Iraq war over false WMDs, let's hope its not how we get into WW3.
Most news/journals whatever the political affiliation report 50-90% accurate, unbiased, objective news. I stop caring about x media source the second its too much BS for my own taste, you gotta go by elimination at some point, otherwise i would be reading the news the entire day and even then claiming im reading em all would be dishonest.
In other words, outside of my local french "MSM" for local news, i dont listen to anything you guys could consider MSM and for the better
Even in our local MSM the second its talking about international, or bilateral politics with the US, or anything that is a leftist issue you can see the "objectivity" clear as day.
Yeah, that all makes sense. It's true you gotta learn how to weight the various sources after a while
(Jul 06 2018, 01:49 PM)woKe Wrote: [ -> ]Lol Ben, it's on a bunch of news sites. Would you have preferred the link to Brietbart?
Edit: original reporting in the Wall Street Journal, that one okay with your biases?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/billionaire...1530648681
btw breitbart is also full of shit
dont presume my political identity, im triggered ..... sexually