Political rants

Everyone. We must have a moment of silence. Our President, Commander in Chief of our great nation, has unceremoniously shat himself during a meeting with the pope. Let us wish his routine colonoscopy goes well so that he may freely purge his bowels in front of other leaders. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpap1qULKd0&ab_channel=Memology101 First George Washington taking part in founding our great nation, then Abe Lincoln and the emancipation proclamation, and now Joe Biden shitting his pants in front of the pope. I think we can check this one of the list of America's great accomplishments. People who voted for Biden never knew they would be voting for the very man who would soon soil himself in front of the pope, but now we have been graced with a man who is not afraid to rip a wet one in front of anybody. Today, let us hang the American flag high, for we are the land of the red, brown, and blue!

Biden will star a movie! The stage set is inside him!

Alright, I agreed to avoid this site if I failed NNN, but couldn't because I saw a topic that I've been trying to get started here for fuckin forever. @timelessness YOU ARE BEST BOY!

@verucassault Actually, he's right to call out our media, there's a reason we're a joke compared to the rest of the world. Here's the shit you can't make up. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzCl_sMrJaI First thing wrong here, you could prove this without listening to MSNBC. You can watch the clip from fox news on their own channel, then watch the unedited cspan footage of Biden's speach. They objectively warped the evidence which is something even wannabe news like CNN or MSNBC don't do. So that at least is genuine in that regard. But do you see how they linger on the subject and have to give their opinions about it? THAT's the part you ignore. Never listen to any source who takes time out of your day to tell you what should be thinking on an emotional level. By far, the best sources are apolitical. Those are what you cross reference with the shit they put in the news.

News stations are never a good place to educate yourself. They're only useful for raising awareness. You don't have to think about it very hard to arrive at that conclusion. The person spoon feeding you information is a journalist, newscaster, or something to that effect. They're not a doctor, scientist, tech expert, lawyer, etc. They're not qualified in any way. They also have close to zero accountability for what they say. Even if they were to be completely neutral it behooves you to do your own research.

@chocopyro "But do you see how they linger on the subject and have to give their opinions about it? THAT's the part you ignore. Never listen to any source who takes time out of your day to tell you what should be thinking on an emotional level. By far, the best sources are apolitical. Those are what you cross reference with the shit they put in the news." --- I don't know if you read both of my posts in response to the news thing, but I agree with you. Below is parts of what I said from both. --- Post 1 Re Fox "I'm not defending them. They have sensationalized news just as badly as CNN has they both have an "us vs them" mentality. Even independent journalists are taking on that mentality. Post 2 "It's not too hard to weed out the facts from the opinions or spins, especially if you read from multiple sources. In the US there is currently less trust in major news sources ... I prefer to get my news from independent sources, but I'll also take what I can get. I hate to say it, but Twitter and it's rapid response to things going LIVE is starting to be my preferred way to ingest news. There you can see coverage before it gets spun by major media networks."

I know reading a lot of shit is kryptonite for some people, but not me. I don't mind looking at multiple sources. My point to timelessness was to figure out the difference between universities here and there in Europe and what they allow for as sources for citation in research. For me there was no cap on the sources you could cite, only a minimum requirement and the only restriction was using Wikipedia because of how people could put anything down and there was no validation system in place. Of course you could see other people going in and making edits such as "citation needed". They wouldn't frown on us for reading it as a starting point to find more information or sources though. Also I noticed there's kind of a catch in the argument timelessness was making. What if you are writing a paper about spins or falsehoods in the media and you want to use an article from Fox or CNN as an example? You would HAVE to cite it as a source.

Reminds me a lot of how movie criticism works now and days. Rather than telling you if it's a good structured story, with solid character work. They lean over to ya and say "but how did it make you feel"? Then get super upset when you use facts and logic to criticize the narrative, which they'll try to discredit you by saying you're doing it all wrong. Emotions is a effective tool to avoid logical reasoning, and trick somebody into thinking/feeling a certain way.