Liberal Forum

Termin8tor » 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?

Misty » 29 Mar 2017 3:08 pm » wrote:Yeah, if you're a wingnut.
You've gone from sources like The Weekly Standard and National Review to Pajamas Media.
Oh how the mighty have fallen.

RussiaGate: Hillary Clinton and John Podesta's Troubling Ties to Russia
BY DEBRA HEINE MARCH 29, 2017
Peter Schweizer, president of the Government Accountability Institute and the author of “Clinton Cash,” explained on Fox News Tuesday how a Russia connection to the Clinton campaign and Obama presidency is much bigger and more troubling than anything Democrats have accused Team Trump of.


During his appearance on “Fox & Friends,” Schweizer alleged that Clinton campaign chair John Podesta probably violated federal law when he failed to disclose his stock holdings in a Kremlin-funded company.

“In 2011, John Podesta joins the board of this very small energy company called Joule Energy based out of Massachusetts," Schweizer said. "About two months after he joins the board, a Russian entity called Rusnano puts a billion rubles -- which is about 35 million dollars -- into John Podesta’s company. Now, what is Rusnano? Rusnano is not a private company, Steve. It is a fund directly funded by the Kremlin. In fact, the Russian science minister called Rusnano Putin’s child. So you have the Russian government investing in one of John Podesta’s businesses in 2011, while he is an advisor to Hillary Clinton at the State Department.”


"Does anyone in Trump's circle rise to the level where there's this kind of money involved?" asked host Steve Doocy.


Schweizer answered that he hadn't seen anything like that yet. "Nobody that has an advisory role in the White House has had this money exchange. And certainly the money hasn't exchanged as far as we know while they have been advising the president," he said, pointing out that while he was an advisor in the Obama White House, Podesta owned stock shares with "Putin's Child" and failed to disclose it.


“So then in 2013, he goes to the White House, to be a special counselor to Barack Obama, and that requires that you, you know, have financial disclosures every year," he explained. "In his financial disclosure form in 2013, he not only fails to disclose these 75,000 shares of stock that he has in Joule Energy, which is funded in part by the Russian government. He also fails to disclose that he is on one of the three corporate boards that this entity has. It’s got this very complex ownership structure. He discloses he is on the company in Massachusetts, that is he on the board of a company in the Netherlands, but he fails to disclose that he is also on the executive board of the holding company. That’s a clear violation of the disclosure rules that I think needs to be looked at.”


He added, “What makes the Podesta case clear is there was a transfer of money and there was a transfer of a lot of money that stood to make John Podesta a lot of money. That is unique and that’s extremely troubling because at the time that transfer is taking place he is advising Hillary Clinton at the State Department.
We know that from the Podesta emails that he is helping her make personnel decisions, speech decisions, policy decisions. He is meeting with her monthly. It’s a transfer of money from a foreign government, at the time that he is advising America’s chief diplomat, Hillary Clinton.”


In a piece earlier this month at Fox News, Schweizer acknowledged that examining the business ties between Russia and those in President Donald Trump’s orbit is "a legitimate exercise"
while pointing out the glaring double standard in the way the stories have been reported. "Those sounding the loudest alarm bells over Russian influence in U.S. politics were curiously silent when far greater concerns were raised about the Clintons," he said.


Unlike the revelations so far concerning Russian ties in the Trump camp, the Clinton deals involved hundreds of millions of dollars and enormous favors that benefitted Russian interests.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/03/29 ... to-russia/

Cannonpointer » 29 Mar 2017 4:48 pm » wrote: 1. You could just drop it - not use that evidence, or
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.

Termin8tor » 29 Mar 2017 5:00 pm » wrote:
Sorry, I'm not being paid to take the time to go through all that, especially when no matter what I cite, most on the other side will brush it off anyway.

And who defines "neutral?" For decades, the liberal-left has insulted and rejected excellent sources like Robert Conquest. Do I have to wait 3 decades until he's proven to be correct beyond all doubt?

Regarding op-eds, facts are facts are facts are facts, but if someone disputes them, then a debate ensues.

Hey, and another complaint. We haven't been nearly as rude to each other as we should be, so please assume the usual ugly personal insults I make about you.

Cannonpointer » 29 Mar 2017 5:23 pm » wrote: Facts are not facts until BOTH parties agree.

One party cannot keep a good face if they ignore facts from a neutral or even friendly media source - they will discredit their own argument if they call **** on such sources, and lose all credibility. But no one has to blindly trust ANY source, simply because you do. If it is a source with an agenda, no one except you will expect them to. Essentially, a link to an agenda source is not much of a link at all - unless the person you are arguing with is in agreement with that media - quoting MSNBC in an argument with a liberal, for example.

If something is worth doing, it is worth doing right. If you cannot quickly find a neutral source to corroborate "facts" the WSJ is feeding you, then they are taking you for a ride. They got those "facts" SOMEWHERE, didn't they? Google looks just about everywhere except their *** - so if google can't find 'em, THAT'S where they got 'em.

Termin8tor » 30 Mar 2017 7:09 am » wrote:
As I explicitly said.

I don't expect anyone to automatically accept facts in an opinion piece, but they certainly should have the integrity to consider them and accept them, unless a specific reason is given to believe they are wrong. Even skepticism is fine, but flat out rejection is intellectually dishonest.

I don't recall you ever accepting the facts in my opinion sources, and yes, they are sources.

I cannot recall a single time the WSJ ever "took me for a ride." I can only once or twice recall an egregious mistake in any of my sources. That's the point; I have read my sources for decades, so I've had that long to reality-check them for accuracy and generally sound judgment.

I am not an academic who needs to do original research, and it sure ain't worth my time to do so here.

And as I've noted before, your judgment in how to analyze facts on topics like Economics is appalling, so even if I took the time to do original analysis, you'd just reject it anyway.

Termin8tor » 29 Mar 2017 11:53 am » wrote:Oh look, another dishonest smear job.
I cited a sworn affidavit by the poor woman in which she admitted here severe emotional problems and admitted she'd told many lies about Fund.

Cannonpointer » 30 Mar 2017 1:34 pm » wrote: So you have no duty to source your "facts" - the people who fed you your opinion already did that for you.

And you don't bother with original analysis. The thinking is already done for you, by sources you trust - and that means the hard part is out of the way. All that's left for you to do is believe. And those who do not join you are not smart and are not honest.

Okay, clemjob - thanks for clarifying.

Misty » 30 Mar 2017 1:50 pm » wrote: Where did you cite this affidavit?
Show me.

So now you refer to her as a 'poor woman' when in past you have portrayed her as a hussy who used her feminine wiles to lure John Fund into bed.

Cannonpointer » 30 Mar 2017 1:34 pm » wrote:The thinking is already done for you, by sources you trust - and that means the hard part is out of the way. All that's left for you to do is believe.

Termin8tor » 29 Mar 2017 4:03 pm » wrote:
Yeah, I get quite angry when decent people are dishonestly smeared.

So who's crazy, the person who gets angered by smears?

Or the person who commits them and has for many years?

Misty » 30 Mar 2017 1:56 pm » wrote: And to spout his talking points.

Have you ever seen Clem have the integrity to consider a left leaning opinion piece and not flat out reject it?

Termin8tor » 30 Mar 2017 1:54 pm » wrote:"Show me, show me!," demands the lying wackjob who hasn't answer a single one of my important questions in close to a decade.

Termin8tor » 30 Mar 2017 1:52 pm » wrote:
You're kidding, right?

Do you do a detailed engineering check of the car you buy or do you trust them to have done it for you?
When you buy a computer program, do you go over each line of the software to make sure it's properly written?
When you buy food, do you have an extensive food testing kit to check its safety or do you trust the supermarket?

And we should trust your judgment that they are "generally reliable."


You make it very difficult to be polite to you, even more so given how dumb and wrong those claims are.

Do you really think I'm going to spend weeks going reams of statistics and the fine print of, say, what Trump's policies will do to today's weak economic growth?

Don't be freaking absurd.

Lots of original or somewhat original analysis is done. I have the knowledge and judgment to reject most of what's false; to accept and learn further from what I see to be right.

I also have the knowledge to come to my own conclusions based on facts newly available.

I didn't need to read one single opinion to know that most of Trump's policies will create strong economic growth.

Termin8tor » 29 Mar 2017 4:03 pm » wrote: Yeah, I get quite angry when decent people are dishonestly smeared.

Cannonpointer » 30 Mar 2017 2:02 pm » wrote:Unless I am willing to take my new car apart and examine every piece, then reassemble it, I must - to be consistent - engage in the effeminate practice of allowing other men to do my thinking?

You are a true clown. Wimpy.


Keep eating that **** sandwich,son.

Termin8tor » 29 Mar 2017 4:00 pm » wrote:The Clinton News Network covered up Clinton's crimes and impeachable acts, it's so partisan and corrupt.

Misty » 30 Mar 2017 2:06 pm » wrote: Your definition of the word 'decent' is rather loose.
You defend every pervert with an R after their name.
Be it the guy who **** his girlfriend's daughter or the guy who likes to watch videos of women getting **** by horses.
And let us not forget the ****** grabber himself.

Misty » 30 Mar 2017 2:08 pm » wrote: blah, blah

, then cite that utter joke of a source.

Termin8tor » 30 Mar 2017 7:09 am » wrote:I cannot recall a single time the WSJ ever "took me for a ride."