Politics, The Friendship Breaking Topic

[Biigoh]

So... due to the issues in the original thread [See Here], the staff of Questionable Questing have decided to move it from Rants.

What does this mean?

It means that all rules are in full effect [See here for Rules]. Please familiarize yourselves with the rules before posting in the thread.

Here are the rules in brief.
1: Play nice with the other members on the forums.
2: Keep NSFW material in the NSFW section.
3: Do not post illegal content.
4: No duplicate accounts.
5: Try to stay relatively on-topic.
6: Accounts are not deleted.
7: Thread Necromancy is (very) conditionally permitted.

Additionally... there will be one additional rule for this thread.
- Be ready to cite your source, admit that your evidence is anecdotal, or concede the debate.

 

[gibbousmoons]

We started a brand new thread, and you will remember that it is no longer in Rants. I will no longer tolerate moving goalposts, evidence that does not support your assertions, and the kind of nonsense that you got away with in that subforum.

This is my ONLY warning post. Every other moderator action I take in this thread will result in a minimum threadban of one day, escalating based on previous behavior in this and previous threads.

Were you not paying attention to the election coverage? Or is it that their reporting matched your own biases, and thus you accepted it as fact?

Fine then; just to prove a point, I'll indulge you. Now I don't follow the New York Times religiously, so I can only recall one major example that doesn't involve the election off the top of my head (as I suspect you'd immediately reject anything I posted regarding that), but do you remember the build up to Bush's war in Iraq? How the New York Times published various "scoops" from Iraqi opposition leader Ahmed Chalabi, a man who's word the intelligence community considered highly suspect? Their reporting was instrumental in convincing the Democrats to go along with invading Iraq and marginalizing anyone who was opposed; leading to the deaths of millions, and a region that still hasn't recovered. I think that's quite a bit worse than anything Breitbart is accountable for.

Face it; the New York Times has been a mouthpiece for the political establishment for decades. The only reason they're against Trump now, is because they don't see him as being part of that.

Click to shrink...

This does not support your assertion that the New York Times is as unreliable as Brietbart. You will post in good faith or you will not post here.

Honey, you don't set the rules. I need only back up what I've said, not some set of goal posts a hundred yards from what I've said.

New York times publishes fabricated stories and indulges in plagiarism:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...6aca28-d45d-11e3-95d3-3bcd77cd4e11_story.html

Washington Post publishes fabricated story:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevle...ssian-hacking-of-the-power-grid/#4fa79fc0291e

CNN analyst parrots hoax:
http://freebeacon.com/issues/cnn-commentator-believes-hoax-story-mother-died-trump-travel-ban/

Click to shrink...

I do set the rules, and RobotNinja's request is perfectly reasonable in my eyes. This does not support your assertion that the New York Times is as unreliable as Brietbart. You will post in good faith or you will not post here.

Cherry pick, much? I mean, it was literally the following sentence. Not even a different paragraph.

Untrue. I asked for citations to disprove everything I said and provided citations for. You provided none of those. Your actual citation was to disprove something I never actually said.

I brought the math. You brought ad homonyms, unsubstantiated claims, and your belief that you can see the future and alternate realities.

You're turning into another ugolino. Please stop that.

Click to shrink...

You will post in good faith or you will not post here. No shifting goalposts.