Lucylastic
Posts: 40310
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BoscoX quote:
ORIGINAL: WhoreMods Your taste for dismissing the NYT and other "leftist" sources as unreliable means that any citations you produce from right leaning sources can be dismissed in the same terms for the same reasons. Find an objective source without an ideological axe to grind, or shut up up whining about liberal biased media. (Or just continue flaunting your own wilful ignorance. That seems a lot likely.) Why do you assume that I or anyone else on here cares if you choose to be so unashamedly ignorant? I know that one has to go to the opposition for well rounded criticism of the elite ruling class. For that reason I occasionally read New York Times articles, just like I peruse every source of news and information imaginable. The Times isn't going to report extensively about Obama's (or any Democrats) illegal or unconstitutional endeavors, just like national Review will never oppose Trump. Oh wait - yes they do. (Very much so). http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443021/conservatives-uniting-behind-trump-are-delusional http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/01/22/national-review-launches-conservative-war-on-do/208111 The thing about the Times, is that it is all Kool-Aid all of the time, and deserves every bit of criticism that it gets. You asked for examples of Obama's unconstitutional dealings but refuse to see them. You want to look more like the fool that you already appear to be, that's on you. Have at it. Drink up. National review is a rw site who decided early on that trump is a disaster looking to happen. Like a LOT of conservatives, its not just the left that thinks hes stark staring bonkers. Kissing arse, like the GOP has now done, didnt stop the NR... but youve taken the balls, now take the rest. open wide, say "AHHHHHHHH" you post truthers are so sad.
_____________________________
(•_•) <) )╯SUCH / \ \(•_•) ( (> A NASTY / \ (•_•) <) )> WOMAN / \ Duchess Of Dissent Dont Hate Love
|