Another Good Read (2and3)

[FatBiker]

http://www.stonekettle.com/2017/01/feckless.html


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post...f6bb2908a3


Also look at the comments. Spot on.


Larry
[signature]

[dubob]

[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]Nice try Larry. Stonekettle is a total POS crackpot and the Washington Post falls somewhere in between the looney left LA Times and the ultra-left NY Times. Neither of these are a 'good' read. Best thing you could do with both of these is to print them out and wrap your garbage in them.[/#800000][/font]
[signature]

[FatBiker]

Bob, sounds like you mighty be practicing a little "news bias". Only willing to look at the sources that confirm what you think you already know. Not surprisingly, a search on Fox News doesn't return any hits. It's a dangerous world when it didn't happen if fox doesn't say so. If you'd hold your nose long enough to read the article she was arrested for voting early and on election day. Long time Trump supporter. Yet, Don the Con maintains none of the illegal votes were for him. As far as Stone kettle, he's right. 3 to 5 million illegal votes casts doubt on every local, state and national election. Our entire governmental system has been compromised.



Larry


Been fishing? Did pretty good at Bear Lake yesterday
[signature]

[dubob]

[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]Let’s get real here Larry. It has been widely reported by many news sources (right & left) that Trumps estimate of 3 to 5 million illegal votes is an exaggeration. It has also been reported that about 6.4% of the estimated 20 million adult noncitizens in the U.S who voted in November added 834,381 net votes to Mrs. Clinton.

You find a documented report of just ONE person allegedly (it hasn’t been proved in court yet) casting an illegal vote for President Trump and you want me to abandon ship? Sorry; ain’t happening.

Does it really make you feel good when you can come up with essentially meaningless statistics that prove exactly nothing?

And oh, by the way, the Washington Post had this to say about the alleged voter fraud:

[#000000]Terri Lynn Rote, 56, was accused in late October of casting two ballots in the general election:[/#000000]

Accused in October for something she allegedly will do in November; how is that possible? And you really want me to take seriously anything the WP prints? Really? Come on Larry, you’re going to have to do way better than that.[/#][/font]
[signature]

[FatBiker]

Bob, when you say something that you know is not true, that isnt an exaggeration, it's a lie. That is exactly why I'll never trust him. Those are interesting facts you provided for illegals (I prefer not well papered friends from other nations). Obviously I'm guilty of news bias. Please provide a source.


Larry
[signature]

[dubob]

[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]I find it interesting that I call you out on several points and all you can respond with is what is the source of some of my facts? Having dealt with clueless liberals for most of my adult life, I'm not at all surprised. Liberals are very good at spinning the truth to make themselves feel better but are hardly ever able to back up their claims with any hard facts. You claim the opposition is nothing but a bunch of liars but offer no proof to substantiate the claim.[/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"]
[#800000][/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]To back up my data claims I'll give you the link and also tell you that I followed several links within the article to verify the validity of the data. It's called due diligence. You should practice it a lot more than you have so far on here. Here's the link: [/#800000][/font][url "http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/26/hillary-clinton-received-800000-votes-from-nonciti/"]Washington Times[/url]
[signature]

[FatBiker]

Bob, when did you become a moonie? Sorry, The washington times is not considered a credible news source in the real world. Washington Post and New York Times are credible. Also, I only claimed Don the Con was a liar, no one else.

Larry


The Washington Times
You gotta spin it to win it
Media


The Washington Times (AKA The Moonie Times) is Washington, D.C.'s newspaper which perpetually plays second fiddle to the Washington Post. The Times lost money from its inception in 1982 until 2015, in which it finally became profitable.[1]
Started by Unification Church founder Sun Myung Moon, the Church has pumped over $1.7 billion into the paper to keep it afloat.[2] Although much of the early Times staff came from the defunct Washington Star, the paper's board of directors was made up of members of the Unification Church, with the staff undergoing occasional purges, resignations, and faction fights over the direction of the paper.[3] No less an authority than the Rev. Moon himself has proclaimed the Times a "gift" to America to thank the U.S. for fighting Communism in Korea, or something like that.[4] In 2002 Rev. Moon outdid himself by proclaiming he established the Times "in response to heaven's direction" and that "The Washington Times will become the instrument in spreading the truth about God to the world."[5]
The editorial slant of the Washington Times is notably conservative and partisan in favor of the Republican Party. On occasion, they do some bang-up investigative journalism and muckraking, sometimes on other conservative groups which the Moonies are involved in intramural feuds with. Usually though, the Times is a quaint bore, ever pining for a return to the glory days of the 1850s or 1920s, and Ronald Reagan's befuddled dreams of reactionary radicalism.
The paper promotes all sorts of wingnut idiocies curiosities, including various pseudosciences (creationism, anti-environmentalism, global warming denial, false claims about abortion and abstinence-only sex education) and bigotry (homophobia, transphobia, Islamophobia, anti-secularism).
Notable editorial tics: Until, The Washington Times had an inability to mention gay marriage anywhere in their pages, including AP wire stories, without putting gratuitous scare quotes around "marriage."[6][7][8]
As of May 1, 2010, the Moonies cut off the paper's subsidy and the Washington Times was reportedly up for sale. This was scooped March 30 by the Drudge Report and denied at the time by the Times[9] and reported May 1 in the Washington Post.[10] The paper was sold in September 2010 for $1,[11] apparently back to the elder Rev. Moon to solve a feud over the paper among his sons. The Washington Times is owned by Operations Holdings,[12] a Moonie front company, which in turn is owned by HSA-UWC ("Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity"), which could be called either another front group (since few people know what HSA-UWC is) or just a synonym of the Unification Church.
[edit]Mixed nuts

The paper has employed some rather, er, controversial columnists, including:
Sam Francis, the white nationalist who they fired after he got a little bit more racist than usual. Found a warmer spot to roost at the Council of Conservative Citizens before he died.
Frank Gaffney, Islamophobe extraordinaire and "Creeping Sharia" conspiracy theorist.
Jeffrey T. Kuhner, gibbering wingnut demagogue who thinks Obama is every historical tyrant under the sun and then some, also has a severe case of psychological projection that could give even Bryan Fischer a run for his money.
Peter LaBarbera, rabid homophobe, now heads "Americans for Truth About Homosexuality."
Robert Stacy McCain, member of the neo-Confederate group League of the South.[13]
Bill Sammon, see also Fox News.
...and David Brooks Never mind, Bobo was far too sane for the Moonie Times and went on to the other Times.
[edit]External links

Moonie Times
[edit]References

↑ www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/14/washington-times-reaches-profitability-after-33-ye/?page=1
↑ Washington Post: "As of this year, Moon and his businesses have plowed about $1.7 billion into subsidizing the Times, say current and former employees."
↑ Examples: Should the paper be neoconservative and a voice for robber barons and foreign policy hawks, or should it be paleoconservative and keep company with neo-Confederates and racialists? Should every staff member give total fealty to Rev. Moon or is fealty to the memory of Ronald Reagan sufficient?
↑ In reality it is more or less an attempt by the Moonie cult to insert themselves into the mainstream by owning a major newspaper, much as Christian Science has accomplished with the Christian Science Monitor - the difference being the CSM usually deals in facts.
↑ Washington Post
↑ August 2007 headline
↑ Editorial "style" comment
↑ www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/02/26/washington_times/index.html
↑ Washington Times says it is not for sale, Washington Business Journal, Mar 30, 2010
↑ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...02043.html
↑ http://politics.usnews.com/news/blogs/wa...sweek.html
↑ [http://www.operationsholdings.com/about-us/ Operations Holdings: About Us
↑ Meet Robert Stacy McCain, Neo-Confederate Wacko Extraordinaire, Holocaust Controversies
Categories: MediaConservative wingnutteryNewspapersPropagandaPseudoscience promotersUnification Church
Log in / create accountPageTalkReadEditFossil record

Search
Search
Navigation
Main page
Recent changes
Random page
New pages
All logs
Help
Donate
Community
Saloon bar
To do list
What is going on?
Best of RationalWiki
About RationalWiki
Technical support
External links
Twitter
Blog
Facebook
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Special pages
Printable version
Permanent link
This page was last modified on 15 January 2017, at 04:00.
Unless explicitly noted otherwise, all content licensed as indicated by RationalWiki:Copyrights.
For concerns on copyright infringement please see: RationalWiki:Copyright violations
Privacy policyAbout RationalWikiDisclaimersCC-BY-SA 3.0, or any later version Powered by MediaWiki
[signature]

[FatBiker]

Bob, if you would have bothered to read the article both cast ballots were at early voter locations.


Larry
[signature]

[dubob]

[quote FatBiker]Bob, when did you become a moonie? [font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]I didn't and I'm not. You know me well enough to cast dispersion on my religious affiliation do you? Have you degraded to the point that you are going to start calling me names?[/#800000][/font]

Sorry, The washington times is not considered a credible news source in the real world. [font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]And that 'real' world would be the one in which all liberals dwell in - the one in which FNC doesn't really report fair and balanced news? [/#800000][/font]

Washington Post and New York Times are credible. [font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]Says who - liberals? Yeah; right.[/#800000][/font]

Also, I only claimed Don the Con was a liar, no one else. [font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]No, you did not. Your statement about liars was open ended and did not specifically name anybody and you still haven't offered up any REAL proof to substantiate your claims.[/#800000][/font][/quote][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]So the bottom line is you can't find anything wrong with the data figures I posted so you attack the media it was reported in. That's called spin Larry, and you are very good at it. And still no response about your beloved Washington Post saying that a person was accused in October for an alleged crime she will commit in November. Boy, your WP is REALLY on top of things. Keep 'em coming Larry. This is fun.[/#800000][/font]
[signature]

[dubob]

[quote FatBiker]Bob, if you would have bothered to read the article both cast ballots were at early voter locations.[/quote][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]
I have absolutely no clue as to what you are talking about here; what article?[/#][/font]
[signature]

[FatBiker]

Bob, you continue to question NY TIMES and Washington Posts credibility. Times has one 119 Pulitzer Prizes and WaPo has won 47. Someday the Washington Times might be recognized for their journalism excellence with a Pulitzer. Maybe. The article in question was the original article you discounted based upon the date published was before the November election.

Larry
[signature]

[FishingLunatic]

Larry, here is a interesting read that I think explains most things. http://www.sciencealert.com/researchers-...U.facebook
[signature]

[Troll]

[quote dubob][quote FatBiker]Bob, if you would have bothered to read the article both cast ballots were at early voter locations.[/quote][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]
I have absolutely no clue as to what you are talking about here; what article?[/#][/font][/quote]

Well, there it is, they don't even know what is being talked about yet do not hesitate to give their 2 cents worth.
[signature]

[dubob]

[quote FatBiker]Bob, you continue to question NY TIMES and Washington Posts credibility. [font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]You bet I do. Just like ALL the liberal drive-by media, they are in the tank for anything and/or anybody liberal and have no credibility.[/#800000][/font]

Times has one 119 Pulitzer Prizes and WaPo has won 47. [font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]So what? Winning a prize does not alter ones spots. You seem to think that somehow winning a Pulitzer makes the winner above reproach. Not hardly.[/#800000][/font]

Someday the Washington Times might be recognized for their journalism excellence with a Pulitzer. Maybe. [font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]And maybe pigs will fly someday. I could care less.[/#800000][/font]

The article in question was the original article you discounted based upon the date published was before the November election. [font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]Once again I have no clue as to what you are referencing here.[/#800000][/font][/quote]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]You can discount the WT article all you want. It does not change the validity of the data presented in the article which were a result of groundbreaking research by political scientist [url "http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/jesse-richman/"]Jesse Richman[/url] of Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, working with colleagues to produce the data on noncitizen voting. Just because it was reported by the WT does NOT make it any less valid.[/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]Look, you have admitted to being a liberal politically. I understand that and you have my deepest sympathy and condolences. You have shown through this thread and others that you will never change your political opinion on anything. While it is fun to see you struggle with the truth on here, it has become boring and I have way too much ice fishing to catch up on before the ice season comes to a close. So with that, I bid you adieu. [/#800000][/font]
[signature]

[dubob]

[quote Troll][quote dubob][quote FatBiker]Bob, if you would have bothered to read the article both cast ballots were at early voter locations.[/quote][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]
I have absolutely no clue as to what you are talking about here; what article?[/#800000][/font][/quote]

Well, there it is, they don't even know what is being talked about yet do not hesitate to give their 2 cents worth.[/quote][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]Well thank you Troll for that absolutely perfect example of a person engaging his mouth (or fingers in this case) BEFORE engaging his brain. FB originally had posted links to two (2) articles - count 'em, there are actually two (2) links in his original post - and was not clear as to which of the two (2) articles - count 'em, there are actually two (2) links in his original post - he was referring to. Seems Troll has a wee bit of a problem with comprehension when reading threads on forums.[/#800000][/font]
[signature]