Liberals and Other Weak Thinkers (and Joshua)

[OhShoot!]

You're just jealous of my full head of luxurious hair.

Is that what that is? I thought you were growing whey grass on your noggin. Like a real skinny chia pet.

What the??... do you guys run in gangs or sumptin? Sheesh

[Duke EB]

You're just jealous of my full head of luxurious hair.

Is that what that is? I thought you were growing whey grass on your noggin. Like a real skinny chia pet.

What the??... do you guys run in gangs or sumptin? Sheesh

He's just jealous

[jukk0u]

You're just jealous of my full head of luxurious hair.

Here I was trying to be all respectful and polite and shiite.... that's a low blow, hippy!

[OhShoot!]

You're just jealous of my full head of luxurious hair.

Here I was trying to be all respectful and polite and shiite.... that's a low blow, hippy!

[TINCANBANDIT]

Like I have said before, one of my best attributes is a good Bull Shit detector (I have been in sales for 20+ years....) and every time I read a Snopes article my BS alert went off

I'll just leave these here:

http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/17/fact- ... arenthood/

http://doubtfulnews.com/2016/12/snopes- ... eputation/

http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/02/snope ... l-tribute/

http://www.energytrendsinsider.com/2017 ... le-energy/

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/8 ... t-vaccines

https://ethicsalarms.com/2016/07/31/bye ... to-me-now/

[OhShoot!]

Like I have said before, one of my best attributes is a good Bull Shit detector (I have been in sales for 20+ years....) and every time I read a Snopes article my BS alert went off

I'll just leave these here:

http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/17/fact- ... arenthood/

http://doubtfulnews.com/2016/12/snopes- ... eputation/

http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/02/snope ... l-tribute/

http://www.energytrendsinsider.com/2017 ... le-energy/

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/8 ... t-vaccines

https://ethicsalarms.com/2016/07/31/bye ... to-me-now/

Seems that you posted a link that calls out some of your own sources as Bullshit. Looks like your Bullshit detection expertise needs calibration. Not only that, but it calls out Dave Workman's Examiner as Bullshit. No shit.


http://doubtfulnews.com/beyond-doubtful-sources/

Inside:

The Beyond Doubtful List (completely unreliable sources)
Never send us stories from or link to these sources:

Natural News (Mike Adams, “Health Ranger”)
Before It’s News
Info Wars / Prison Planet (Alex Jones)
Mercola.com (Joe Mercola)
CryptozoologyNews.com
Topekasnews.com
The Canadian (agoracosmopolitan.com/new)
World News Daily Report
World Net Daily (WND.com)
Empire News (empirenews.net)
Breitbart
President Trump’s White House Press Secretary
There are thousands of sources that say they have “news” but it’s not news or trustworthy due to spin and bias. Sites that are backed by religious organizations, anti-abortion advocates, Creationists, climate change denialists or others with anti-science or pro-conspiracy agendas are obviously not reliable sources.

Don’t just trust. Verify

Some sources have lots of pictures and high hit counts but their journalism is shaky and I’d rather not link to them. Tabloids, blogs, and other aggregate sites may have a real story but I will dig back to an original source and link to that. That includes the ever-popular Huffington Post which is mostly blogs, not good journalism. Be careful passing on stories from them. If you see a piece on any of the following sources, always check for an alternate source by Googling keywords or looking for the original source in the story. If there ISN’T another source, it’s likely too ridiculous to consider and not even deserving of comment (though there are exceptions).

Check for a more reputable source if the story is from the following clickbait, mystery-mongering or pseudoscientific sites:

Daily Mail (U.K.)
The Sun (U.K.)
The Mirror (U.K.)
Examiner.com
European Union Times
RT.com
Siberian Times
Pravda.ru
Buzzfeed
Mother Nature News
Epoch Times
The Blaze
Drudge Report
IFLS (I Fucking Love Science)
Ancient Origins
Mysterious Universe
Signs of the Times (sott.net)
StrangeSounds.org
Satire sites

[Alpine]

Like I have said before, one of my best attributes is a good Bull Shit detector (I have been in sales for 20+ years....) and every time I read a Snopes article my BS alert went off

I'll just leave these here:

http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/17/fact- ... arenthood/

http://doubtfulnews.com/2016/12/snopes- ... eputation/

http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/02/snope ... l-tribute/

http://www.energytrendsinsider.com/2017 ... le-energy/

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/8 ... t-vaccines

https://ethicsalarms.com/2016/07/31/bye ... to-me-now/

Seems that you posted a link that calls out some of your own sources as Bullshit. Looks like your Bullshit detection expertise needs calibration. Not only that, but it calls out Dave Workman's Examiner as Bullshit. No shit.


http://doubtfulnews.com/beyond-doubtful-sources/

Inside:

The Beyond Doubtful List (completely unreliable sources)
Never send us stories from or link to these sources:

Natural News (Mike Adams, “Health Ranger”)
Before It’s News
Info Wars / Prison Planet (Alex Jones)
Mercola.com (Joe Mercola)
CryptozoologyNews.com
Topekasnews.com
The Canadian (agoracosmopolitan.com/new)
World News Daily Report
World Net Daily (WND.com)
Empire News (empirenews.net)
Breitbart
President Trump’s White House Press Secretary
There are thousands of sources that say they have “news” but it’s not news or trustworthy due to spin and bias. Sites that are backed by religious organizations, anti-abortion advocates, Creationists, climate change denialists or others with anti-science or pro-conspiracy agendas are obviously not reliable sources.

Don’t just trust. Verify

Some sources have lots of pictures and high hit counts but their journalism is shaky and I’d rather not link to them. Tabloids, blogs, and other aggregate sites may have a real story but I will dig back to an original source and link to that. That includes the ever-popular Huffington Post which is mostly blogs, not good journalism. Be careful passing on stories from them. If you see a piece on any of the following sources, always check for an alternate source by Googling keywords or looking for the original source in the story. If there ISN’T another source, it’s likely too ridiculous to consider and not even deserving of comment (though there are exceptions).

Check for a more reputable source if the story is from the following clickbait, mystery-mongering or pseudoscientific sites:

Daily Mail (U.K.)
The Sun (U.K.)
The Mirror (U.K.)
Examiner.com
European Union Times
RT.com
Siberian Times
Pravda.ru
Buzzfeed
Mother Nature News
Epoch Times
The Blaze
Drudge Report
IFLS (I Fucking Love Science)
Ancient Origins
Mysterious Universe
Signs of the Times (sott.net)
StrangeSounds.org
Satire sites

I saw how fast you edited your reply...

Fortunately I had two windows open because I immediately saw it...


By the way, "some" is wrong because it implies more than 1 when used in this context as a qualifier of a group of multiple nouns when referencing a list (I had a tough English teacher), I count only one from that list. Did you even read it before posting?

[OhShoot!]

Like I have said before, one of my best attributes is a good Bull Shit detector (I have been in sales for 20+ years....) and every time I read a Snopes article my BS alert went off

I'll just leave these here:

http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/17/fact- ... arenthood/

http://doubtfulnews.com/2016/12/snopes- ... eputation/

http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/02/snope ... l-tribute/

http://www.energytrendsinsider.com/2017 ... le-energy/

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/8 ... t-vaccines

https://ethicsalarms.com/2016/07/31/bye ... to-me-now/

Seems that you posted a link that calls out some of your own sources as Bullshit. Looks like your Bullshit detection expertise needs calibration. Not only that, but it calls out Dave Workman's Examiner as Bullshit. No shit.


http://doubtfulnews.com/beyond-doubtful-sources/

Inside:

The Beyond Doubtful List (completely unreliable sources)
Never send us stories from or link to these sources:

Natural News (Mike Adams, “Health Ranger”)
Before It’s News
Info Wars / Prison Planet (Alex Jones)
Mercola.com (Joe Mercola)
CryptozoologyNews.com
Topekasnews.com
The Canadian (agoracosmopolitan.com/new)
World News Daily Report
World Net Daily (WND.com)
Empire News (empirenews.net)
Breitbart
President Trump’s White House Press Secretary
There are thousands of sources that say they have “news” but it’s not news or trustworthy due to spin and bias. Sites that are backed by religious organizations, anti-abortion advocates, Creationists, climate change denialists or others with anti-science or pro-conspiracy agendas are obviously not reliable sources.

Don’t just trust. Verify

Some sources have lots of pictures and high hit counts but their journalism is shaky and I’d rather not link to them. Tabloids, blogs, and other aggregate sites may have a real story but I will dig back to an original source and link to that. That includes the ever-popular Huffington Post which is mostly blogs, not good journalism. Be careful passing on stories from them. If you see a piece on any of the following sources, always check for an alternate source by Googling keywords or looking for the original source in the story. If there ISN’T another source, it’s likely too ridiculous to consider and not even deserving of comment (though there are exceptions).

Check for a more reputable source if the story is from the following clickbait, mystery-mongering or pseudoscientific sites:

Daily Mail (U.K.)
The Sun (U.K.)
The Mirror (U.K.)
Examiner.com
European Union Times
RT.com
Siberian Times
Pravda.ru
Buzzfeed
Mother Nature News
Epoch Times
The Blaze
Drudge Report
IFLS (I Fucking Love Science)
Ancient Origins
Mysterious Universe
Signs of the Times (sott.net)
StrangeSounds.org
Satire sites

I saw how fast you edited your reply...

Fortunately I had two windows open because I immediately saw it...


By the way, "some" is wrong because it implies more than 1 when used in this context as a qualifier of a group of multiple nouns when referencing a list (I had a tough English teacher), I count only one from that list. Did you even read it before posting?

nice red herring argument. Your favorite kind. My editing was for done because I didn't like the wording. So the fuck what??

8oops there I edited again, but my argument still stands solid.

awww geeeeez 3rd edit.. You're on to me

[L_O_G]

Why don't you two go fill some pillow cases with Kale and fight it out?

I got $10 on it to the winner

[Alpine]

Like I have said before, one of my best attributes is a good Bull Shit detector (I have been in sales for 20+ years....) and every time I read a Snopes article my BS alert went off

I'll just leave these here:

http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/17/fact- ... arenthood/

http://doubtfulnews.com/2016/12/snopes- ... eputation/

http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/02/snope ... l-tribute/

http://www.energytrendsinsider.com/2017 ... le-energy/

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/8 ... t-vaccines

https://ethicsalarms.com/2016/07/31/bye ... to-me-now/

Seems that you posted a link that calls out some of your own sources as Bullshit. Looks like your Bullshit detection expertise needs calibration. Not only that, but it calls out Dave Workman's Examiner as Bullshit. No shit.


http://doubtfulnews.com/beyond-doubtful-sources/

Inside:

The Beyond Doubtful List (completely unreliable sources)
Never send us stories from or link to these sources:

Natural News (Mike Adams, “Health Ranger”)
Before It’s News
Info Wars / Prison Planet (Alex Jones)
Mercola.com (Joe Mercola)
CryptozoologyNews.com
Topekasnews.com
The Canadian (agoracosmopolitan.com/new)
World News Daily Report
World Net Daily (WND.com)
Empire News (empirenews.net)
Breitbart
President Trump’s White House Press Secretary
There are thousands of sources that say they have “news” but it’s not news or trustworthy due to spin and bias. Sites that are backed by religious organizations, anti-abortion advocates, Creationists, climate change denialists or others with anti-science or pro-conspiracy agendas are obviously not reliable sources.

Don’t just trust. Verify

Some sources have lots of pictures and high hit counts but their journalism is shaky and I’d rather not link to them. Tabloids, blogs, and other aggregate sites may have a real story but I will dig back to an original source and link to that. That includes the ever-popular Huffington Post which is mostly blogs, not good journalism. Be careful passing on stories from them. If you see a piece on any of the following sources, always check for an alternate source by Googling keywords or looking for the original source in the story. If there ISN’T another source, it’s likely too ridiculous to consider and not even deserving of comment (though there are exceptions).

Check for a more reputable source if the story is from the following clickbait, mystery-mongering or pseudoscientific sites:

Daily Mail (U.K.)
The Sun (U.K.)
The Mirror (U.K.)
Examiner.com
European Union Times
RT.com
Siberian Times
Pravda.ru
Buzzfeed
Mother Nature News
Epoch Times
The Blaze
Drudge Report
IFLS (I Fucking Love Science)
Ancient Origins
Mysterious Universe
Signs of the Times (sott.net)
StrangeSounds.org
Satire sites

I saw how fast you edited your reply...

Fortunately I had two windows open because I immediately saw it...


By the way, "some" is wrong because it implies more than 1 when used in this context as a qualifier of a group of multiple nouns when referencing a list (I had a tough English teacher), I count only one from that list. Did you even read it before posting?

nice red herring argument. Your favorite kind. My editing was for done because I didn't like the wording. So the fuck what??

8oops there I edited again, but my argument still stands solid.

awww geeeeez 3rd edit.. You're on to me

No, you edited your post because it was factually wrong.

Definition of most
1
: greatest in quantity, extent, or degree the most ability
2
: the majority of most people

When you make factually inaccurate statements or exaggerate to make a point, it detracts from the point. The fact that you did so to attempt to point out something you thought the person you were quoting had failed to read/notice is particularly ironic given your own mistakes here.

Plank before splinter...

[OhShoot!]

nope, you are wrong here. Go back for remedial english.
(2) Daily caller quotes and an ethics alarm quote do qualify as some. Read the whole of my post again without nitpicking single words. The claim stands.

oops. Edited again.

Last edited by OhShoot! on Thu Jul 27, 2017 8:34 am, edited 2 times in total.

[PMB]

Still a Red Herring.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/too ... ed-Herring

Don't let this get sidetracked into a pillow fight.
Unless there are good pics.

[Alpine]

Actually not, only one source and one link was from that list. Given the several other links provided serving as a preponderance of evidence, pointing out how the attempt to discredit the sources started off deceptively listing one source as discrediting MOST of the sources was germane.

Fine, lets play Devil's Advocate and throw out the Breitbart article in this instances, the others still stand and, again ironically, that constitutes MOST of the sources and MOST of the links.

[OhShoot!]

Actually not, only one source and one link was from that list. Given the several other links provided serving as a preponderance of evidence, pointing out how the attempt to discredit the sources started off deceptively listing one source as discrediting MOST of the sources was germane.

Fine, lets play Devil's Advocate and throw out the Breitbart article in this instances, the others still stand and, again ironically, that constitutes MOST of the sources and MOST of the links.

ok. I agree to disagree.

[Alpine]

nope, you are wrong here. Go back for remedial english.
(2) Daily caller quotes and an ethics alarm quote do qualify as some. Read the whole of my post again without nitpicking single words. The claim stands.

oops. Edited again.

Daily Caller and Ethics Alarm weren't on that list or on the webpage I went to from your link....