29 Mar 2017 4:48 pm
1. You could just drop it - not use that evidence, orTermin8tor » 29 Mar 2017 4:25 pm » wrote:
If it's citing factual information that supposedly "objective" sources in the corrupt liberal MSM will refuse to cover, only a moron would not use partisan sources.
I could go on for literally days about massive amounts of information the MSM either hid or just refused to cover.
So what should I do, pretend that information doesn't exist?
2. Plow ahead and damn the torpedoes, or
3. Start a NEW thread about the MSM coverup.
The problem with you is that you will commonly use an agenda source when legitimate sources SHOULD be available - for example, WSJ OpEds. Assuming the WSJ does not invent it's "facts," a quick easy google search should take you to a neutral source for that information. This habit would signal your respect for the fact that the rest of the forum does not share your woo woo for the WSJ editorial board. It's why I routinely source through the MSM when arguing with libs, and never when arguing with cons - I out of respect for bathroomers.
When you complain, ur friends roll their eyes and ur enemies rejoice
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?