reuters bias

Patton said:
you worthless chair-stealing douchebag-award winning republican twat
Click to expand...

oh hey insults cool

I know ive really hit the mark on a thread, or an idea, when all the moonbats come out of the woodwork to call me an idiot. Not that you guys would ever, i dunno, contribute anything meaningful to a conversation, lol.
 
It isn't rumored, AA is in bankruptcy. The reasons aren't as clear cut as you'd like to assume, however.

FUCKING LIBERAL BIAS TURNED MY SON GAY AND NOW MY DAUGHTER IS SLEEPING WITH BLACK MEN!
 
what counts as a meaningful contribution to a political thread?

do I have to agree with you?

or do i need to type out a tsetse style diatribe so we can argue for 6 pages and not actually accomplish anything

anything you have to say won't change my mind, nor will i believe any of it, because i generally disagree with you and take anything you post with a pound of salt

and vice versa for you with anything someone who could be considered liberal would post

so whats the point of threads like this?

it gives me an opportunity to make fun of people

go ahead, you can make fun of me. lets take this fucker to 3
 
Patton said:
what counts as a meaningful contribution to a political thread?

do I have to agree with you?
Click to expand...

FUCK YOU YOU RABID FUCKER TWAT CUNT SUCKING WHORE.

wait, is that what you consider meaningful conversation? Maybe I should just put you on ignore, then. leave the political threads to the adults.
 
triple said:
FUCK YOU YOU RABID FUCKER TWAT CUNT SUCKING WHORE.

wait, is that what you consider meaningful conversation? Maybe I should just put you on ignore, then. leave the political threads to the adults.
Click to expand...

Seriously you're one of the most annoying people on TW because even when people prove you to be wrong or overwhelmingly disagree with you, you cannot face it. You seriously should stop posting political threads. But hey I'm a liberal, just like everyone else who thinks you're a moron (read: 80% of the boards).

P.S Learn to use commas. Spelling mistakes are forgivable on the internet, but incorrect use of punctuation really makes things a chore to read.
 
It's too bad you can't stay OT for more than one post.

Is that by design, since you have nothing valuable to say, or is it simply because you're incapable? I don't want to seem insensitive to the mentally challenged, and if you are, I apologize.

As I recall this thread used to be about reuters. That ended around post.. #3.
 
inkja said:
Both these things aren't bias, they're fact. The 'war on terror' is no more a war than the 'war on drugs' is. Plus, Blair has been accused by his critics as been a puppet of Washington for years now, so this is also fact.
Click to expand...

:lol: you are a fucking moron.
 
inkja said:
But hey I'm a liberal, just like everyone else who thinks you're a moron (read: 80% of the boards).
Click to expand...

:lol: I can't believe you guys are naive enough to think TW is the center of the universe.

Wow I guess since there are roughly 200 comments detailing exactly what I think - that means you make up the vast minority of thought here, right?

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22561_What_Media_Bias#comments

Lesson of the day: "Moron" is a relative term. One im proud to wear when the left is calling me one :lol:
 
Last edited:
The reason this seems bias to triple is because there's no question mark at the end, he's used to the Fox News way of inserting bias and potential libel into reporting and passing it off as a question.
 
First, Reuters is a news agency. Second, I can't find out what specific publication the writer belongs to- but his stuff has been published in Entertainment Weekly.

Now, saying a 'so-called' war on terror may sound incredibly biased, but it is more an interpretation of intent by the reader.

The poodle statement was strong, but it isn't horrible considering much of the flak Blair has gotten from the British. In fact, you do know that Blair is definitely on the way out, right? Anti-Blair sentiment is very strong in England.
 
can't fox news decide not to publish obvious liberal propaganda, or do their contracts with AP force them to print every tiny bit of liberalese they're sent?
 
triple said:
Rilke's critics often accuse him of being a faggot and taking cock up the ass. His "so-called" hetrosexuality is up for question, at best.

^not biased. fact. I didn't say it, either - "critics" did.

"what critics?"

What, you expect a reputable news source like me to actually cite names?
Click to expand...


You didn't really make an argument, except to imply by the sum of your title and post that a particular news agency was biased, ostensibly because of a few quotes, which have been removed from their contexts.

If you were more genuine in thought and speech, I might return you the same courtesy. But since, it seems, you merely want to make inflammatory statements and then follow whatever willy nilly lead responders must necessarily provide if they respond at all, I don't see the point.

If you actually made a concise statement, "news agency x is biased," I would concede to you in my response: "Ok. Therefore what?" Your response, in turn, would provide more information for what you meant in the initial post. In your response you would imply your definition of "bias," or perhaps even provide more clues as to what your motives and arguments are, at which point I would become bored with your drivel and opt for an ad hominem attack instead of genuine conversation.

Thought I'd save us all some time by skipping the formalities and going straight to the halmark insincerity that characterizes TW.
 
The statement 'so-called' isn't necessarily biased in and of itself. You are applying bias to the statement. You were probably looking for liberal bias- but the term so-called war on terror has been used before.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top