Make a Contribution to Remove NSFW Ads

Non-Thought, Here are all of your sources!!

G

Gunner

Potential Star
Registered
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YKvrsZwUs20&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YKvrsZwUs20&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

I had to re-up it for you to see!!:lol:
 
:lol: This is it? So is this a condemnation on Thought or on thos particular anchors? This is standard practice, I think...
 
gonzo8402 said:
:lol: This is it? So is this a condemnation on Thought or on thos particular anchors? This is standard practice, I think...
Click to expand...

Simply a spoof to Non-Thought. All of the sources he uses are wrapped into a little clip. Like the author of the clip mentions, your free to be or use a left wing blog; just don't try to pass them off as being OBJECTIVE. The anchors speak for themselves and it shows in their ratings.

Non-Thought=Non-Credible
 
Gunner said:
Simply a spoof to Non-Thought. All of the sources he uses are wrapped into a little clip. Like the author of the clip mentions, your free to be or use a left wing blog; just don't try to pass them off as being OBJECTIVE. The anchors speak for themselves and it shows in their ratings.

Non-Thought=Non-Credible
Click to expand...


I feel you on the spoof.

But I don't care where the facts come from, as long as they're presented. Attacking the source doesn't discredit the fact.
 
gonzo8402 said:
I feel you on the spoof.

But I don't care where the facts come from, as long as they're presented. Attacking the source doesn't discredit the fact.
Click to expand...

You are correct, but it is my contention that non-thought loads the board daily with the daily kos, et. al and try to pass their views as absolute. I'm all for facts and data. If he post some once in a while, the cigars and scotch is on me. Simply posting that business is evil while everyone knows its what drives the global economy is absurd to say the least.

Set up a paypal account and I'll forward the cash that he uses one of the aforementioned this week.

Sidebar:Psst! I'm only making a joke. It's Sunday a slow news day.:D
 
Gunner said:
You are correct, but it is my contention that non-thought loads the board daily with the daily kos, et. al and try to pass their views as absolute. I'm all for facts and data. If he post some once in a while, the cigars and scotch is on me. Simply posting that business is evil while everyone knows its what drives the global economy is absurd to say the least.

Set up a paypal account and I'll forward the cash that he uses one of the aforementioned this week.

Sidebar:Psst! I'm only making a joke. It's Sunday a slow news day.:D
Click to expand...

you do know that Thought, and Vegas is going to try to smear you like they tried to do to me right?

Que might side with them on this one as well.....Just be ready...
 
actinanass said:
you do know that Thought, and Vegas is going to try to smear you like they tried to do to me right?

Que might side with them on this one as well.....Just be ready...
Click to expand...

AA, if I wanted to be liked, I'd buy a dog! If you noticed their panties get bunched at the mere words Rush, Hannity or Palin. Do you actually think that with all the lofty rhetoric that Obama spews were from a conservative ideology that these guys would salivate over him like they do? Correct they would discredit him. Obama gets on tv and tell America that the stimulus is working and in another breath he says we can expect the jobless rate to climb higher. Pleeeeze. In two years if this guy is still blaming this on bush he needs to be commited.

non-thought will attempt to slay me with a huffington post
The mere mention of rush and Vegas will go into hiding
que will simply call me a white boy. Maybe before he cosigns on a previous post he should practice what he preaches and don't attack the source.

I'm a big boy, I'll tak'em all on!!!
 
gonzo8402 said:
I feel you on the spoof.

But I don't care where the facts come from, as long as they're presented. Attacking the source doesn't discredit the fact.
Click to expand...

Yet, this is the exact action Thought takes when it comes to facts coming from a conservative person.

Don't support discrediting Fox news, when you can't take it when people discredit YOUR source. It's called consistency....

Gonzo, I'm not talking about you. I'm actually talking about everyone who discredits a source, not the fact. This is actually an action both sides participate in.
 
actinanass said:
Yet, this is the exact action Thought takes when it comes to facts coming from a conservative person.

Don't support discrediting Fox news, when you can't take it when people discredit YOUR source. It's called consistency....

Gonzo, I'm not talking about you. I'm actually talking about everyone who discredits a source, not the fact. This is actually an action both sides participate in.
Click to expand...

:cool:
 
thoughtone said:
I couldn't have said it better!
Click to expand...

Yet, this is the exact action Thought takes when it comes to facts coming from a conservative person.

Don't support discrediting Fox news, when you can't take it when people discredit YOUR source. It's called consistency....

Gonzo, I'm not talking about you. I'm actually talking about everyone who discredits a source, not the fact. This is actually an action both sides participate in.

I posted that earlier...
 
QueEx said:
What exactly do you mean by "discredit the source" ? ? ?

QueEx
Click to expand...

didn't gonzo throw that term up first?

Oh wait, I'm the "different" voice. That means you have to ask me instead of the person who actually said it first.

Since, you are targeting me, I guess I should answer the question. Discrediting the source means downgrading it because of the sources ideology, race, religion, ect.

Should I make examples?
 
actinanass said:
didn't gonzo throw that term up first?

Oh wait, I'm the "different" voice. That means you have to ask me instead of the person who actually said it first.

Since, you are targeting me, I guess I should answer the question. Discrediting the source means downgrading it because of the sources ideology, race, religion, ect.

Should I make examples?
Click to expand...

Nooo M.C. Hammer don't hurt'em with examples!!!!!:dance::dance::dance::dance:
 
actinanass said:
didn't gonzo throw that term up first?

Oh wait, I'm the "different" voice. That means you have to ask me instead of the person who actually said it first.
Click to expand...
Damn man; stop acting all paranoid and shit. :lol:

actinanass said:
Since, you are targeting me, I guess I should answer the question.
Click to expand...

Targeting you ?!?! Do you think when someone asks you a simple question, so that everyone is on the same page that you're being TARGETED ??? :confused: :(

So, I take it that you're targetting people on this board when you ask questions, right ?


actinanass said:
Discrediting the source means downgrading it because of the sources ideology, race, religion, ect.

Should I make examples?
Click to expand...
No. Please don't make examples. You've said enough.

I thought you meant discredit as in: demonstrating that the source usually gets the story wrong; or demonstrating that the source usually comes to the wrong conclusion, based on the available facts; or demonstrating that most articles, opinions, etc., appearing in the source are usually "factless", etc.

Obviously, you mean something different. More like, simple name callin'

- you talk about mine; Imma talk about yern . . . LOL​

QueEx
 
QueEx said:
Damn man; stop acting all paranoid and shit. :lol:



Targeting you ?!?! Do you think when someone asks you a simple question, so that everyone is on the same page that you're being TARGETED ??? :confused: :(

So, I take it that you're targetting people on this board when you ask questions, right ?



No. Please don't make examples. You've said enough.

I thought you meant discredit as in: demonstrating that the source usually gets the story wrong; or demonstrating that the source usually comes to the wrong conclusion, based on the available facts; or demonstrating that most articles, opinions, etc., appearing in the source are usually "factless", etc.

Obviously, you mean something different. More like, simple name callin'

- you talk about mine; Imma talk about yern . . . LOL​

QueEx
Click to expand...

I find it funny that, from what it looks like, me and Gonzo had the same definition.

I would admit this though, Que, I'm expecting some type of hit piece on me from the usual suspects. So, forgive me for being cautious when you asked that question.... lol
 
actinanass said:
I would admit this though, Que, I'm expecting some type of hit piece on me from the usual suspects. So, forgive me for being cautious when you asked that question.... lol
Click to expand...
So, you're saying I'm a "Usual Suspect" ? ? ?

What do the usual do, to you ? ? ?

QueEx
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MCP
Liberals Are the Ones Hijacking BLM. Racial Justice Is Always Political
Replies
2
Views
300
QueEx
QueEx
QueEx
A Black Army Rises to Fight the Racist Right
Replies
3
Views
727
QueEx
QueEx
Back
Top