Suburban Chicago School Teaching White Genocide & Other Leftist Propaganda

[LumRaiderFan]

1 hour ago, bullets13 said:

the onus is on the person who posts the article to prove it's authenticity.  it's funny how someone can post something on here from a questionable source, and then everyone slaps each other's back and agrees how great or awful it is (depending on who it criticizes), and when someone questions it, they're expected to prove it false, rather than the other way around.  I had trouble reading the link that was posted in the breithbart article because of how poorly written it was, and how obvious of a hit piece it was, rather than an actual objective news story.  I'm fairly certain a lot of folks on here just read the title to the threads, without ever reading the article, much less following the links to find the original story, and then form strong opinions on the issue.

as for conservative view points, how about Texas' continued effort to purge the teaching of evolution in our schools?

 

No, it's not...you can't personally interview eyewitnesses to verify all stories...come on.  If you think a story is false...YOU prove it.

As for teaching evolution, good for them...it's a THEORY.  If you choose to believe it, fine, just don't push it on those that don't.

As CraigS pointed out, it's in the same ballpark as "man-made" global warming.

And as for "hit piece" ...so what.  Some actions deserved to be targeted and "hit".

Was it a hit piece when they reported what Trump and Billy Bush said...absolutely.  Was it true...absolutely.

[Hagar]

4 hours ago, bullets13 said:

the onus is on the person who posts the article to prove it's authenticity.  it's funny how someone can post something on here from a questionable source, and then everyone slaps each other's back and agrees how great or awful it is (depending on who it criticizes), and when someone questions it, they're expected to prove it false, rather than the other way around.  I had trouble reading the link that was posted in the breithbart article because of how poorly written it was, and how obvious of a hit piece it was, rather than an actual objective news story.  I'm fairly certain a lot of folks on here just read the title to the threads, without ever reading the article, much less following the links to find the original story, and then form strong opinions on the issue.

as for conservative view points, how about Texas' continued effort to purge the teaching of evolution in our schools?

 

So your saying anyone that post an article/link should verify the authenticity, or Breitbart should?  I consider Breitbart a reliable site.  But in the current news frenzy era, and actual fake news, even the major networks have reported false information.  I have no idea if this story is true, but it matches the trend we see in liberal states.

Btw, i think Reemus has started a new semester at school.  That'll keep him off the Forum as much.

[Tigers2010]

1 hour ago, REBgp said:

So your saying anyone that post an article/link should verify the authenticity, or Breitbart should?  I consider Breitbart a reliable site.  But in the current news frenzy era, and actual fake news, even the major networks have reported false information.  I have no idea if this story is true, but it matches the trend we see in liberal states.

Btw, i think Reemus has started a new semester at school.  That'll keep him off the Forum as much.

Well, it was fun while it lasted.

[bullets13]

3 hours ago, REBgp said:

So your saying anyone that post an article/link should verify the authenticity, or Breitbart should?  I consider Breitbart a reliable site.  But in the current news frenzy era, and actual fake news, even the major networks have reported false information.  I have no idea if this story is true, but it matches the trend we see in liberal states.

Btw, i think Reemus has started a new semester at school.  That'll keep him off the Forum as much.

Personally, I do, especially when someone posts it as fact.  I suppose if you said "I read this, and it sounds like it may be true. what are your thoughts?", that might okay.  It's funny how hot under the collar some get on here when big girl posts some article that's clearly a biased piece of propaganda from a blatantly far left "news outlet" and presents it as fact.  Everyone piles on top of her, asking for "proof it's real", criticizing her for her source, and for not being able to "back up her argument."  However when the roles are reversed, and a conservative does the exact same thing, then it's up to the person who disagrees or doesn't like the source to prove that it's not true.  Personally, I don't like it from either side, and I would prefer that we were required to post from mainstream new sources only, simply because such a staggering number of the articles posted here from overly biased sources prove to be misleading, misrepresentative, or outright false with just a minimal amount of research.  I'm much more conservative than I used to be, but i'll never be so conservative that i'll accept every article criticizing the left as fact without researching it, especially when a common sense look at the source would make it obvious that it's propaganda.  And while Breitbart might be considered by some to be reputable, if they commonly repost from other sites like the one in this article, i'll never consider them to be credible.   

[Hagar]

2 hours ago, bullets13 said:

Personally, I do, especially when someone posts it as fact.  I suppose if you said "I read this, and it sounds like it may be true. what are your thoughts?", that might okay.  It's funny how hot under the collar some get on here when big girl posts some article that's clearly a biased piece of propaganda from a blatantly far left "news outlet" and presents it as fact.  Everyone piles on top of her, asking for "proof it's real", criticizing her for her source, and for not being able to "back up her argument."  However when the roles are reversed, and a conservative does the exact same thing, then it's up to the person who disagrees or doesn't like the source to prove that it's not true.  Personally, I don't like it from either side, and I would prefer that we were required to post from mainstream new sources only, simply because such a staggering number of the articles posted here from overly biased sources prove to be misleading, misrepresentative, or outright false with just a minimal amount of research.  I'm much more conservative than I used to be, but i'll never be so conservative that i'll accept every article criticizing the left as fact without researching it, especially when a common sense look at the source would make it obvious that it's propaganda.  And while Breitbart might be considered by some to be reputable, if they commonly repost from other sites like the one in this article, i'll never consider them to be credible.   

Post from mainstream news sources only?  Which ones can we trust?   Here's a slanted smear of Rick Perry by the New York Times.  The recent campaign has seen many such slanted news stories from virtually all the mainstream news.  The fact is, what we see now is not unbiased, factual news, but opinionated news.  They take a sliver of news, and then fill 80% of the story with their own slant, which Is probably the case in the link I posted.  Imo, legitimate news is very rare indeed.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[westend1]

Can't fix stupid.   Give it up, Bullets

[bullets13]

1 hour ago, REBgp said:

Post from mainstream news sources only?  Which ones can we trust?   Here's a slanted smear of Rick Perry by the New York Times.  The recent campaign has seen many such slanted news stories from virtually all the mainstream news.  The fact is, what we see now is not unbiased, factual news, but opinionated news.  They take a sliver of news, and then fill 80% of the story with their own slant, which Is probably the case in the link I posted.  Imo, legitimate news is very rare indeed.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

I'd say cnn and fox only.  Both obviously lean way in opposite directions, but both generally post real stories.  Their motives for publishing may be up for debate, but they generally talk about things that really happened.