jakee

That broadcast, and pretty much every other story out there, specifically says it was an off campus unofficial student party 15 or so miles from the campus. Which part of that information isn't correct? It seems like the only thing they got wrong is the title of the Youtube video clip, but that's a pretty weak basis to use this tragic event as an excuse to launch into an attack on the credibility of the media. Just for once try to have a bit of integrity and class, yeah?

What did they sensationalise? Why is it sensational if it happens to students but not to other people?

How did that sentence make any sense to you? You do realise that this is a recogniseable MO of yours, right? When you realise you were caught talking bollocks you just recall an unrelated hot button topic and hope it'll distract attention from your fuckup.

It's almost everything you've written in the past week. Rampant bias, rampant hypocrisy, and the arrogance to lecture others on how to avoid the same partisanship you're still wallowing in.

And I think Pence is looking at the guy who's telling him to look at the 'feed'.

That's sad. You claim to want to get better but have no interest in correcting any of the partisan bias you still display. You just excuse it by telling yourself you're only doing what everyone else does, even when deep down you know how dishonest that is.

Now your maths is broken. If the ultra rich give up 75% of their money they will still be far richer than everyone else after that money has been redistributed. The idea that your plan will result in everyone having the same cash in the bank is blatant nonsense. Why do you assume the fix must involve everyone having equal assets anyway? That's absurd. And the article is specifically talking about the ultra rich. It even says, in the first paragraph, that talking about income inequality in terms of couples making $350k a year is phoney and you should forget about it. Since your 'fix' involves taking money from anyone earning over $120k, it appears you have failed to comprehend the basic points of article you linked.

So again, your only response to having it pointed out that you keep using the false balance fallacy is to use the false balance fallacy. Just like there's no basis to assume Obama did the same things as Trump, there's no basis to assume anyone else here is as biased as you.

But, again, you only guess that because of your blind partisanship. Trump was a known habitual criminal, cheat and liar as a businessman who has turned out to be exactly the same as President. There is absolutely no reason to assume that Obama was the same as Trump just because we know Trump is bad. It is a pernicious fallacy to argue that thinking both sides are equally bad all the time means you are neutral. In this case, it simply means you are a biased hypocrite intent on ignoring the evidence that is staring you in the face.

Your sentence is broken.

Do you realise what the word ‘generally’ means?

First - YOU bought up the issue of giving credit. No one here criticised Trump over that until YOU implied that he should be given so much credit that the rest of his behaviour should be immune from criticism. Second, are you so blind that you can’t see the difference? That thread was about a group criticising Obama simply because he publicly stated that Obama had been killed by US forces. No one is criticising Trump for making this death public. He’s being criticised for bragging about in language more suited to a 13 year old kid playing call of duty. So no, it’s not the same. And you know it’s not the same. Why can’t you behave honestly on here?

Nah, Obama was treated far worse for far less.

But he hasn't. And what has he actually done here? As much as he might like to say 'Me, it was me, I did it, no-one else' he didn't do it himself. Soldiers did it, based on direction by the intelligence services. How much credit is Trump personally due for that? What Trump is directly, personally responsible for is the public communication of it, and I'd love to see you try and make the case that his comments weren't utterly lacking any form of class, statesmanship or leadership. It was simply juvenile, as I'm sure you agree.

.

But you’re not pointing out any examples of hypocrisy that actually happened. You’re pointing out hypocrisy that you assume will happen because (real hypocrisy alert) you always assume the worst in anyone who isn’t a staunch right winger. Now here’s something to get through your skull - just because you’re level of public outrage would be 100% flipped if the situation was reversed, that isn’t grounds for assuming everyone else is as hypocritical as you. (By the way - do you even realise how many hypotheticals you’ve had to use to make your point? If Clinton did this, if Clinton did that, if Obama did this, if Biden did that - but none of them are things that Clinton, Biden or Obama did and all of them are things that Trump did. When do you stop to consider that there might be a good reason for more outrage to be directed at Trump?)

Why would anyone have said it? No-one thinks MIA is the biggest airport in the world. It's nowhere close to being the biggest airport in the world. You don't need any bias to figure out Trump's simply lying about this. You'd need an enormous amount of bias to believe he wasn't. Except for evidence, precedent and black and white fact.

Then what does any of your last post mean? If you still think what you said is factually correct then what do you think it has to do with your bias? Evidence. What have you got? You haven't examined his phone calls. You haven't examined his correspondence. You don't have that evidence, yet you've assumed you know what it will show, and you're saying that anyone who doesn't agree with your assumption is naive. You understand why that makes you look bad, right? Do you think that people here can't read? Do you think no-one will notice when you try to change your entire position? Possibility my arse. You said that what Biden did "is corruption". Here's an idea - if you want people to believe you, try being honest. Don't try and pull this gaslighting bait and switch bullshit. Or because we know why the Ukrainian prosecutor was fired. There's solid reasoning, backed by evidence, that the Obama administration wanted him fired for the good of the region. There's no need to imagine any nefarious motive. Anything's possible - that doesn't mean you have any grounds to think it's plausible or likely. Only your deep partisan bias and hipocrisy.

How much question? When Trump says “some people are saying” you pretty much know he’s lying, and that the entire thing is a fabrication from whole cloth. When the mainstream media say they have a source, they almost always have a source. It’s a fairly fundamental difference.

Hang on so you now concede that the only reason you think Joe Biden is corrupt is your own bias? Great! Then if you want to be seen as viewing both sides equally it’s the easiest thing in the world. Apologise to everyone you called naive, and admit that there’s no evidence that Biden or Obama were involved in any Trump-like political corruption involving Ukraine.

So those are your examples? Ok, great. So you concede that Trump’s “some people say” is absolutely not the same as the major news media’s “sources say”. Good to know you’re not a total loss.

But the irony there is that the thing you are being most taken to task for right now are baseless accusations of corruption against Joe Biden. Your actual, literal argument is that people are being naive if they don’t simply assume Joe Biden is corrupt. There’s your hypocrisy. There’s your idiocy. There’s your closed minded bias. There you are, actively looking for anything bad to believe about any democrat.

Right, so I’m sure you’ll have plenty o examples ready of how the mainstream media have used ‘sources’ recently where both the source and the story have turned out to be entirely fictitious?

No. Unlike Trump, mainstream journalists usually have ethics and accountability. But well done you for finding yet another way to defends him.