Liberal Forum

Huey » Today, 12:05 pm » wrote: ↑

Today, 12:05 pm

Yeah, that's a fact.  We used to snipe at each other but it was while we actually discussed issues.  That went out the window a long time ago.  about 9 years ago.

It's like you two whining quimms don't read your own ****.

but it was while we actually discussed issues.

That would be impossible..

" It (The Five)  relies on short segments, quick banter, and personal anecdotes."doesn’t this suggest that it is glib, flimsy and unreliable?


That specific description is exactly why many media critics do view the show as glib, flimsy, and an unreliable source for deep news.Whether those traits are seen as a negative depends entirely on what a viewer is looking for:

## 🔎 The Case for "Glib and Flimsy" 
* Superficial Coverage
* Complex policy issues like inflation, healthcare, or foreign diplomacy are often condensed into five-minute segments. 
 * This format leaves little room for historical context, data verification, or structural nuance.
* Entertainment Over Accuracy
* The rapid-fire, banter-heavy structure rewards witty retorts, emotional reactions, and memorable punchlines. 
 * This dynamic can incentivize hosts to prioritize scoring political points over delivering objective facts.
* Partisan Echo Chamber
* Relying heavily on personal anecdotes rather than vetted data can lead to generalizations that reinforce existing biases rather than challenging them. 
  Ultimately, if a viewer relies on The Five as their primary source of factual news, the format is highly likely to leave them with a surface-level or one-sided understanding. However, for an audience seeking light political commentary and entertainment after a workday, the format achieves exactly what it sets out to do. 

Blackvegetable » 8 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

8 minutes ago

It's like you two whining quimms don't read your own ****.


That would be impossible..

" It (The Five)  relies on short segments, quick banter, and personal anecdotes."doesn’t this suggest that it is glib, flimsy and unreliable?


That specific description is exactly why many media critics do view the show as glib, flimsy, and an unreliable source for deep news.Whether those traits are seen as a negative depends entirely on what a viewer is looking for:

## The Case for "Glib and Flimsy" 
* Superficial Coverage
* Complex policy issues like inflation, healthcare, or foreign diplomacy are often condensed into five-minute segments. 
 * This format leaves little room for historical context, data verification, or structural nuance.
* Entertainment Over Accuracy
* The rapid-fire, banter-heavy structure rewards witty retorts, emotional reactions, and memorable punchlines. 
 * This dynamic can incentivize hosts to prioritize scoring political points over delivering objective facts.
* Partisan Echo Chamber
* Relying heavily on personal anecdotes rather than vetted data can lead to generalizations that reinforce existing biases rather than challenging them. 
  Ultimately, if a viewer relies on The Five as their primary source of factual news, the format is highly likely to leave them with a surface-level or one-sided understanding. However, for an audience seeking light political commentary and entertainment after a workday, the format achieves exactly what it sets out to do. 

 

You should read the discussions from years ago where we did discuss issues.  You love to search the archives and for gotcha moments.

You can start a thread about the rest of your rant.
 

Huey » 5 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

5 minutes ago

You should read the discussions 

I have...I've quoted you, verbatim..

You've run.

GIGO...

 

Blackvegetable » 3 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

3 minutes ago

I have...I've quoted you, verbatim..

You've run.

GIGO...

 

 

From what year?  Try pre 2017.


 

Huey » 1 minute ago » wrote: ↑

1 minute ago

From what year?  Try pre 2017.

Yes.

Make your case..

The archives are up..
 

Blackvegetable » 5 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

5 minutes ago

Yes.

Make your case..

The archives are up..
 

 

I have made my case.  You have yet to post anything to disprove my assertion.

Have a nice day.
 

Huey » 10 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

10 minutes ago

I have made my case.  You have yet to post anything to disprove my assertion.

Have a nice day.

You ALWAYS assert.

Now make the case that your past discussions were worth spit.

Blackvegetable » Today, 1:44 pm » wrote: ↑

Today, 1:44 pm

An endless stream of **** like

Endless streams bother you? Huh...

Your endless streams would indicate otherwise.
Between the hypocritical trash and relentless deflections,
which tries to overtake the constant questions the most?

ps Thank you for stalking me. It gives my life purpose.  

DeezerShoove » 4 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

4 minutes ago

Endless streams bother you? Huh...

Your endless streams would indicate otherwise.
Between the hypocritical trash and relentless deflections,
which tries to overtake the constant questions the most?

ps Thank you for stalking me. It gives my life purpose.

Enlighten me...

Huey » Today, 12:05 pm » wrote: ↑

Today, 12:05 pm

Yeah, that's a fact.  We used to snipe at each other but it was while we actually discussed issues.  That went out the window a long time ago.  about 9 years ago.

I tried the PG a few times but posters are so used to the barrage of useless sniping that the threads get buried onto the second then third page pretty quick. Keeping a reasonable amount of complete **** out of the thread is keeping out most traffic these days. It's all become kinda ****.
To stay "popular" you have to wallow in the ****. That why we have the **** queen deflecting here daily. She loves wallowing.

DeezerShoove » 4 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

4 minutes ago

I tried the PG a few times but posters are so used to the barrage of useless sniping that the threads get buried onto the second then third page pretty quick. Keeping a reasonable amount of complete **** out of the thread is keeping out most traffic these days. It's all become kinda ****.
To stay "popular" you have to wallow in the ****. That why we have the **** queen deflecting here daily. She loves wallowing.

Trumpoopyloops..  $5500 Dollars

Sick man.. Sick..


https://youtu.be/aT7e1OhPQR4?is=hAMDtx0FfDcOAhiQ

Blackvegetable » 5 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

5 minutes ago

Enlighten me...

You still have to put out what you believe my "opus" is...

Copy/pasting a couple epic posts of mine doesn't quite ring as well as YOUR OWN WORDS.
You have the biggest and best vocabulary East of Eden. Dazzle me with some insight.

Huey » Today, 12:05 pm » wrote: ↑

Today, 12:05 pm

Yeah, that's a fact.  We used to snipe at each other but it was while we actually discussed issues.  That went out the window a long time ago.  about 9 years ago.

So are you cool with Kushner and Witkoff?

Going to Moscow in YOUR representation?
 

DeezerShoove » 25 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

25 minutes ago

You still have to put out what you believe my "opus" is...

Copy/pasting a couple epic posts of mine doesn't quite ring as well as YOUR OWN WORDS.
You have the biggest and best vocabulary East of Eden. Dazzle me with some insight.

Are you demanding that I translate your ******* into my own words?


 

Blackvegetable » Today, 5:54 pm » wrote: ↑

Today, 5:54 pm

Are you demanding that I translate your ******* into my own words?

Yes.

DeezerShoove » Yesterday, 9:12 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 9:12 pm

Yes.

Why?

Blackvegetable » 5 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

5 minutes ago

Why?

You asked a direct question and I answered.
Your turn. Answer.

DeezerShoove » 17 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

17 minutes ago

You asked a direct question and I answered.
Your turn. Answer.

You're not asking for an "answer"....you're asking for a composition.

Which is amusing given that you don't even answer.

It strikes me as entirely arbitrary and unbelievably stupid.

Make the case that it isn't.