Clinton Trump 3rd Debate

Originally posted by HandyAndy
First you quote a "news source" funded by Vladimir Putin, then a website run by Donald Trump's son-in-law, and now, your latest offering, unadulterated garbage with zero reliability. Note the following from Wikipedia:

"Zero Hedge is an English-language financial blog that aggregates news and presents editorial opinions from original and outside sources. ...[text shortened]... Lokey could write 'anything and everything he wanted directly without anyone writing over it.' "

another opinion piece that purports to say something but in fact says nothing, my goodness next you will be saying that Huma Abedin is really a Russky spy, you aluminium foil hat whackjobs don't know where to get off.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
another opinion piece that purports to say something but in fact says nothing, my goodness next you will be saying that Huma Abedin is really a Russky spy, you aluminium foil hat whackjobs don't know where to get off.

Tell us why you consider Zero Hedge a reliable news source?

Originally posted by HandyAndy
Tell us why you consider Zero Hedge a reliable news source?

sure, zerohedge is a reliable source because it seeks to

widens the scope of financial, economic and political information available to the professional investing public.
it skeptically examines and, where necessary, attacks the flaccid institution that financial journalism has become.
it liberates oppressed knowledge.
it provides analysis uninhibited by political constraint.
it facilitates information's unending quest for freedom.

now tell me why CNN or the NYT are a reliable news source? Are they also uninhibited by political constraint? free from the constraints of financial journalism? are they? What makes them a reliable source of news?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
it liberates oppressed knowledge.
it provides analysis uninhibited by political constraint.
it facilitates information's unending quest for freedom.

You're just parroting the pretentious unsubstantiated crap laid out in their manifesto.

http://www.zerohedge.com/about

Your copying skills are plain to see. Do you have an original thought?

I didn't think so.

Originally posted by HandyAndy
You're just parroting the pretentious unsubstantiated crap laid out in their manifesto.

http://www.zerohedge.com/about

Your copying skills are plain to see. Do you have an original thought?

I didn't think so.

You asked a question and got an answer. You did not specify originality. Now tell us why CNN and that other DNC mouthpiece the NYT are. . . . how was it you put it. . . . a reliable source of news?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
You asked a question and got an answer. You did not specify originality. Now tell us why CNN and that other DNC mouthpiece the NYT are. . . . how was it you put it. . . . a reliable source of news?

I would expect an intelligent person to be skeptical about a "news source" before he or she evaluated some objective views on its reliability.

I guess that lets you out.

Originally posted by HandyAndy
I would expect an intelligent person to be skeptical about a "news source" before he or she evaluated some objective views on its reliability.

I guess that lets you out.

So tell us about CNN and the NYT why they are reliable. Third time asking.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
So tell us about CNN and the NYT why they are reliable. Third time asking.

Both have stood the test of time. Both are trusted by millions of people. The world would be a poorer place without them.

With your bias and severely limited powers of judgment, I don't expect you to understand

Originally posted by HandyAndy
Both have stood the test of time. Both are trusted by millions of people. The world would be a poorer place without them.

With your bias and severely limited powers of judgment, I don't expect you to understand

Bwahaha trusted by millions? An argument ad populum - many believe it therefore it is. 10, 000 Elvis fans cannot be wrong. A pile of old croc Randers!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Bwahaha trusted by millions? An argument ad populum - many believe it therefore it is. 10, 000 Elvis fans cannot be wrong. A pile of old croc Randers!

Sounds like you've had one too many. Be careful not to fall off your bar stool.

Originally posted by HandyAndy
Sounds like you've had one too many. Be careful not to fall off your bar stool.

Rather generous of you. I would've just called him an idiot and moved on.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
You asked a question and got an answer. You did not specify originality. Now tell us why CNN and that other DNC mouthpiece the NYT are. . . . how was it you put it. . . . a reliable source of news?

This just shows your disconnection with American political discourse.

The NYT has been much more critical of Democrats than Republicans lately.

Perhaps you meant the Washington Post?

Originally posted by HandyAndy
Sounds like you've had one too many. Be careful not to fall off your bar stool.

The NYT is a reliable source because its ancient and millions of people believe it. If you cannot see the logically fallacious nature of your reply then I don't think there is much hope for you Randers and I would really appreciate it if you refrained from attempting to demonize those persons who are capable of drinking responsibly.

Originally posted by Suzianne
This just shows your disconnection with American political discourse.

The NYT has been much more critical of Democrats than Republicans lately.

Perhaps you meant the Washington Post?

This highlight just how wired to the moon you really are. wikileaks has revealed just how cozy the relationship between Mrs Clibnton and the NYT actually is or have you never read any of the hacked emails. Get with it and reel yourself in from orbit.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Rather generous of you. I would've just called him an idiot and moved on.

gee that's original.