Bass Pro Shops   Daveys Locker Sportfishing  Newport Landing Sportfishing  RUNCL   The Fishing Syndicate  Carver Covers  Tight Lines Guide Service  Bob Sands Fishing Tackle 
Page 13 of 14 FirstFirst ... 311121314 LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 135

Thread: (Speakers corner) What will Trump run on in 2020?

  1. #121
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Den of Iniquity
    Posts
    91

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by steelhead View Post
    Using the old, anonymous source to corroborate a commie officials remarks and then you liberals assuming that it must be true because of the anonymous source "not authorized to speak on the matter"
    Anonymous sources are not a new occurrence in journalism, and the ethical standards employed by agencies like the AP are quite clear:

    Under AP's rules, material from anonymous sources may be used only if:

    The material is information and not opinion or speculation, and is vital to the news report.

    The information is not available except under the conditions of anonymity imposed by the source.

    The source is reliable, and in a position to have accurate information.
    As a litmus test, I find these standards well within the realm of acceptable journalism.

    Quote Originally Posted by steelhead View Post
    Yeah the professa that tries to teach me about nuances but "it seems" is a real factual statement huh professuh? That is an opinion.
    My challenge to you was to cite a single line in the article in which Talmadge presented any opinion as fact.

    As stated, he qualified the statement in question - twice. But thanks for repeating what I already pointed out.

    Quote Originally Posted by steelhead View Post
    So Eric Talmadge is now the final arbiter of all objective news reporting and ohhh he's the AP bureau chief who the @#$ cares does that make him your media god and he's now the final say on truth?
    I didn't say he was a media god, or that he was the final say on anything.

    What I said was that when it comes to North Korea, as the AP's Pyongyang bureau chief (for the past six years), and someone who has covered Asia for decades, Talmadge has a great deal more insight and access, not to mention a better reputation and significantly more credibility, than you or Trump do.

    Quote Originally Posted by steelhead View Post
    The commie official never said he was an enemy of the US? Well aren't you a smart one, yeah he's gonna on record and say I'm an enemy of the US and these are my comments.
    And so you admit you lied. Fair enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by steelhead View Post
    Again you said I used Trump as my baseline for veracity, did I point that out in responding... nope I said if this was an objective article without bias and personal opinions it would have been titled... "Conflicting accounts come out of the talks" not it "seems" north koreans were telling the truth. Anything else besides your circular argument?
    You really should stop trying to incorporate other's phrases in your responses - you're just not very good at it.

    And yes, you are using Trump - a demonstrated liar and embellisher of the truth - as your baseline of veracity.

    You've not demonstrated that Talmadge, the anonymous official or the two ministers made any false statements with regard to the failed summit.

    And yes, the article does point out that their were conflicting accounts. So much for all your ballyhoo about reading comprehension.

  2. #122

    Default

    When you preface the entire article at the very beginning on "it seems" that is now opinion, and then throw in an anonymous source like so many other anonymous stories in the past two years and yes you have FAKE NEWS. He based his opinion on what you consider to be factual in this case (anonymous). How many anonymous sources, pretty much in every other story now huh?

    I lied? From this statement?

    "The commie official never said he was an enemy of the US? Well aren't you a smart one, yeah he's gonna on record and say I'm an enemy of the US and these are my comments."

    Wow, this is kinda like Your fake news printing in the past few years after an attack...ISIS claimed credit for the terrorist attack but didn't offer proof...remember seeing those remarks in the stories whoa! Who's side are you on? Are you a communist sympathizer?
    What so now commie official has to come out and say "I AM AN ENEMY OF THE US WHILE MAKING THESE STATEMENTS!" Because then and only then will you know that he's an enemy right? Oh yeah you take things literally so it must spelled out as clear as day because you're that ignorant?

    Semantics again.. blah blah more garbage said the professa.. I didn't say he was the final say I said he was trusted and across media spectrum yada yada... well within the spectrum of acceptable journalism.... so now you're a journalism expert..what a joke. What else are you an expert on besides B@#$ iT ?


    Quote Originally Posted by Panshot View Post
    Anonymous sources are not a new occurrence in journalism, and the ethical standards employed by agencies like the AP are quite clear:



    As a litmus test, I find these standards well within the realm of acceptable journalism.



    My challenge to you was to cite a single line in the article in which Talmadge presented any opinion as fact.

    As stated, he qualified the statement in question - twice. But thanks for repeating what I already pointed out.



    I didn't say he was a media god, or that he was the final say on anything.

    What I said was that when it comes to North Korea, as the AP's Pyongyang bureau chief (for the past six years), and someone who has covered Asia for decades, Talmadge has a great deal more insight and access, not to mention a better reputation and significantly more credibility, than you or Trump do.



    And so you admit you lied. Fair enough.



    You really should stop trying to incorporate other's phrases in your responses - you're just not very good at it.

    And yes, you are using Trump - a demonstrated liar and embellisher of the truth - as your baseline of veracity.

    You've not demonstrated that Talmadge, the anonymous official or the two ministers made any false statements with regard to the failed summit.

    And yes, the article does point out that their were conflicting accounts. So much for all your ballyhoo about reading comprehension.

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Den of Iniquity
    Posts
    91

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by steelhead View Post
    When you preface the entire article at the very beginning on "it seems" that is now opinion, and then throw in an anonymous source like so many other anonymous stories in the past two years and yes you have FAKE NEWS. He based his opinion on what you consider to be factual in this case (anonymous). How many anonymous sources, pretty much in every other story now huh?
    The article is not prefaced with "it seems". Yet another fabrication by you.

    And yes, as I pointed out: considering the AP's standards, their use of the anonymous source, in combination with other facts in the article and the reputation of the reporter, makes him a lot more credible than you or your primary source of "truth" in this case.

    Quote Originally Posted by steelhead View Post
    I lied?
    Yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by steelhead View Post
    Wow, this is kinda like Your fake news printing in the past few years after an attack...ISIS claimed credit for the terrorist attack but didn't offer proof...remember seeing those remarks in the stories whoa! Who's side are you on? Are you a communist sympathizer?
    I haven't mentioned or endorsed any news items regarding terrorist attacks of ISIS claims. Nor have I claimed to champion any "side" or espoused sympathy for communists.

    Quote Originally Posted by steelhead View Post
    What so now commie official has to come out and say "I AM AN ENEMY OF THE US WHILE MAKING THESE STATEMENTS!" Because then and only then will you know that he's an enemy right? Oh yeah you take things literally so it must spelled out as clear as day because you're that ignorant?
    I didn't offer an opinion of whether the ministers in question considered themselves enemies or not. You are the one who fabricated that narrative to support your faulty logic.

    Quote Originally Posted by steelhead View Post
    I didn't say he was the final say I said he was trusted and across media spectrum yada yada... well within the spectrum of acceptable journalism.... so now you're a journalism expert..what a joke.
    And now you've made another false claim in order to defend a previous false claim you made, based on words which were not spoken. And applying a double standard - by presenting your own assumptions as truth - to boot.

  4. #124

    Default

    2nd paragraph of story....

    "So who's telling the truth? In this case, it seems that the North Koreans are." Pfftt.. More poo sandwich.. coming up!


    "I didn't offer an opinion of whether the ministers in question considered themselves enemies or not. You are the one who fabricated that narrative to support your faulty logic."


    Fabricated?? I don't need a commie official to go on record to know that NKorea and the US are not allies duhh!! So when I hear you crow the credibility of some guy who YOU 100% guaranteed didn't know until the release of this article I'd say you're deep in the @#$#T. I didnt need to fabricate it, a commie official does not have the interest of the U.S. in mind... pfffftt, too easy professuh come up with some better Almost POO to sell


    You're having trouble understanding.... these are in a nutshell what you're saying...You're mincing words and pulling a webster dictionary defense when you mean the same thing... hence SEMANTICS AGAIN... but of course you're a literal guy and a one process at a time thinker so next time I'll break it down for you


    Semantics again..

    blah blah more garbage said the professa.. I didn't say he was the final say I said he was trusted and across media spectrum yada yada... well within the spectrum of acceptable journalism.
    so now you're a journalism expert..what a joke. What else are you an expert on besides B@#$ iT

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Den of Iniquity
    Posts
    91

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by steelhead View Post
    "I didn't offer an opinion of whether the ministers in question considered themselves enemies or not. You are the one who fabricated that narrative to support your faulty logic."


    Fabricated??
    Correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by steelhead View Post
    I don't need a commie official to go on record to know that NKorea and the US are not allies duhh!!
    No one has suggested or even implied they are allies.

    Quote Originally Posted by steelhead View Post
    So when I hear you crow the credibility of some guy who YOU 100% guaranteed didn't know until the release of this article
    No, you much prefer your crowing of Trump, a demonstrated liar and embellisher.

    Quote Originally Posted by steelhead View Post
    You're having trouble understanding.... these are in a nutshell what you're saying...You're mincing words and pulling a webster dictionary defense when you mean the same thing... hence SEMANTICS AGAIN... but of course you're a literal guy and a one process at a time thinker so next time I'll break it down for you
    No need to break it down, your simplistic (and false) logic is actually quite easy to understand.

    And actually, I am not mincing words - I've made it quite clear that you've made up false statements and presented them as the facts or opinions of others.

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Hamberders and Covfefe
    Posts
    12,003

    Default



    Meanwhile Steelplate was rooting from the couch.

    Although it looks like he's been taking classes and writing his posts like Trump does his speeches as of late.

  7. #127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DarkShadow View Post
    He'll be running in orange jump suits, along with "the best" he hired that got indicted and tossed in prison.

    *

    But in reality, he'll be running on "the economy," and how well his tax cuts helped the middle class.

    Oh, and his "wall."
    Legislate not investigate. Time is ticking

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Hamberders and Covfefe
    Posts
    12,003

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CHUCKY View Post
    Legislate not investigate. Time is ticking
    Chucky! They gave u your crayons back.

  9. #129

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DarkShadow View Post
    Chucky! They gave u your crayons back.
    Who is they? Democrats ran on getting things done. Not investigating what the people voted for.

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Hamberders and Covfefe
    Posts
    12,003

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CHUCKY View Post
    Who is they?
    The people that change your diapers Chucky.

    Cmon, catch up!

Page 13 of 14 FirstFirst ... 311121314 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •