cybercoma Posted April 5, 2016 Report Posted April 5, 2016 I bet it would take me about 15 seconds to find that full question. Regardless, you still didn't address my question: how do we know YOUR source is trustworthy? another source that is not trustworthy is not evidence of yours telling the truth. Quote
betsy Posted April 5, 2016 Author Report Posted April 5, 2016 (edited) I bet it would take me about 15 seconds to find that full question. Regardless, you still didn't address my question: how do we know YOUR source is trustworthy? another source that is not trustworthy is not evidence of yours telling the truth. Well, I'm throwing the gauntlet at you. Find the video that gives the full question. I'll be interested too what site it is. Can you please post it then....it will be a good rebuttal to my argument, you know. Btw, as you go searching for it, just count how many sites have edited that question. I can't make the conclusion that my sources are trustworthy nor not trustworthy. The difference between us is that the anti-Trump media who'd edited the question had already proven they're not trustworthy - they don't have the credibility! Edited April 5, 2016 by betsy Quote
waldo Posted April 5, 2016 Report Posted April 5, 2016 The point is that, you cannot trust what the media says! and your latest 'go fetch' routine? You claim an abortion related question has been manipulated by "the leftist media". You're all about, as you say, "throwing down the gauntlet"... about supposed "good faith" discussion - yet you're the one that vanished when you were challenged to provide your claimed "scientific evidence of deity creation"... good faith, hey! in any case, why not state the abortion related question, including Trump's response --- then provide an example of your claimed "leftist media" manipulation of that question. Sure you can! I've seen that related interview where MSNBC's Chris Matthews asks Trump about punishing women for having an abortion - that interview is full, complete and intact - never edited. Step up and support your claim about media manipulation of that abortion related question. . Quote
betsy Posted April 6, 2016 Author Report Posted April 6, 2016 (edited) and your latest 'go fetch' routine? You claim an abortion related question has been manipulated by "the leftist media". You're all about, as you say, "throwing down the gauntlet"... about supposed "good faith" discussion - yet you're the one that vanished when you were challenged to provide your claimed "scientific evidence of deity creation"... good faith, hey! in any case, why not state the abortion related question, including Trump's response --- then provide an example of your claimed "leftist media" manipulation of that question. Sure you can! I've seen that related interview where MSNBC's Chris Matthews asks Trump about punishing women for having an abortion - that interview is full, complete and intact - never edited. Step up and support your claim about media manipulation of that abortion related question. . If you're referring to the thread in Religion (National Academy of Sciences) - then you should go back to that thread and read it from the very beginning. I have no obligation to pander to silly "challenges" by those who fail to grasp what the NAS is actually saying in its statement. Bringing that up here in the United States thread only proves what I've just stated. This just shows that there are those who are disjointed in their ability to discuss. Why don't you bring the intact question by Chris Matthews? Show us. Then, let's compare that full question to the edited version other anti-Trump news stations have been showing. Edited April 6, 2016 by betsy Quote
eyeball Posted April 6, 2016 Report Posted April 6, 2016 One thing we already know is that left-wing anti-Trump media are dishonest! They've got no credibility. The latest example.....just look at the way they edited the hypothetical question about abortion and punishing women. No one shows the full question when that interview happened. They edited the question. Well, I'm throwing the gauntlet at you. Find the video that gives the full question. I'll be interested too what site it is. Can you please post it then....it will be a good rebuttal to my argument, you know. Btw, as you go searching for it, just count how many sites have edited that question. I can't make the conclusion that my sources are trustworthy nor not trustworthy. The difference between us is that the anti-Trump media who'd edited the question had already proven they're not trustworthy - they don't have the credibility! Wait a minute, if you're the one claiming the question was edited shouldn't you be the one posting a link to the original along with all the edited versions? Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
kimmy Posted April 6, 2016 Report Posted April 6, 2016 Well, no. Cruz winning, does not necessarily mean my source(s) are lying. The source points out that the attendance at Trump's rallies are high, compared to Cruz, and that another poll actually showed Trump leading. Yeah, somebody managed to find a single poll showing Trump winning Wisconsin. Disregard polls showing results you don't like, pump up polls showing results you do like... what do you get? We saw that during the 2012 election... Republican boosters convinced that the LIBERAL MEDIA were LYING and all the polls were wrong and that Romney was going to win. Disregard the large consensus of polls showing Romney losing, pump up the polls showing him winning. "THIS poll! THIS ONE RIGHT HERE is the poll you can trust!" Right up to the very end. The idea that the LIBERAL MEDIA wants to boost a Bible-thumping arch-conservative crazy-person like Ted Cruz is pretty strange, also. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
kimmy Posted April 6, 2016 Report Posted April 6, 2016 I'm sure that although he was soundly beaten in Wisconsin, Trump did manage to secure a lot of Muslim and Hindu support, however. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
waldo Posted April 6, 2016 Report Posted April 6, 2016 If you're referring to the thread in Religion (National Academy of Sciences) - then you should go back to that thread and read it from the very beginning. I have no obligation to pander to silly "challenges" by those who fail to grasp what the NAS is actually saying in its statement. Bringing that up here in the United States thread only proves what I've just stated. This just shows that there are those who are disjointed in their ability to discuss. in repeated posts in this thread, you derided and mocked MLW member cybercoma for not taking up your supposed challenge... you had the audacity to speak of your interpretation of his ignoring you as being an absence of "good faith discussion". The other thread reference was simply a showcase of your hypocrisy in that regard. Not to detract further from this thread, I suggest you appear within that other thread and either express your "mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa"... or provide examples of your claimed "scientific evidence for deity creation". Your choice! Why don't you bring the intact question by Chris Matthews? Show us. Then, let's compare that full question to the edited version other anti-Trump news stations have been showing. whoa! You're making the claim - the onus is on YOU to support your claim. . Quote
betsy Posted April 6, 2016 Author Report Posted April 6, 2016 (edited) Wait a minute, if you're the one claiming the question was edited shouldn't you be the one posting a link to the original along with all the edited versions? I can't find the original on video. All the video clips from news channels feature the edited question. It's deliberately been taken out of context. Lucky that I was able to see that question intact when it first came up (a tv station ran the clip), that's why I know the question. Edited April 6, 2016 by betsy Quote
betsy Posted April 6, 2016 Author Report Posted April 6, 2016 (edited) in repeated posts in this thread, you derided and mocked MLW member cybercoma for not taking up your supposed challenge... you had the audacity to speak of your interpretation of his ignoring you as being an absence of "good faith discussion". The other thread reference was simply a showcase of your hypocrisy in that regard. Not to detract further from this thread, I suggest you appear within that other thread and either express your "mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa"... or provide examples of your claimed "scientific evidence for deity creation". Your choice! whoa! You're making the claim - the onus is on YOU to support your claim. . Okay Waldo.....your rationale is out of whack. Either you don't understand what you read, or you're deliberately being obtuse. Either way, I've got no time. Edited April 6, 2016 by betsy Quote
betsy Posted April 6, 2016 Author Report Posted April 6, 2016 (edited) I'm sure that although he was soundly beaten in Wisconsin, Trump did manage to secure a lot of Muslim and Hindu support, however. -k ....however, they're not enough. Obviously. And of course, it did hurt Trump that the popular Wisconsin governor - who himself was an earlier nominee before dropping out - had endorsed Cruz.. Did Trump say anything negative about Walker in the early days of the primary? I don't know - I wasn't interested at all at the time. If he did, Wisconsinians would naturally have an aversion or a distaste for Trump. It's also said that Wisconsin is a very "polite" state, thus the abrasive style of Trump would definitely not warm the people to him. My first choice is Trump. Second choice would be Cruz. I just fail to see Cruz beating Clinton in a debate, what more in the election! His speech(es) sound too contrived and rehearsed. He sounds like a career politician. He lacks the oomph, too.....I just love Trump's shock factor! CPAC interview with a journalist last night who apparently travelled all over America to get why people like Trump had said that a lot is due to political correctness. I can definitely understand that. That's the very thing I got attracted to Trump in the first place - political correctness is not in his vocabulary! Edited April 6, 2016 by betsy Quote
waldo Posted April 6, 2016 Report Posted April 6, 2016 I can't find the original on video. All the video clips from news channels feature the edited question. It's deliberately been taken out of context. Lucky that I was able to see that question intact when it first came up (a tv station ran the clip), that's why I know the question. since you also improperly put the onus on me to support YOUR unsubstantiated claim, perhaps you should retract your claim then, hey! I mean, c'mon... you profess to be all about "good faith" discussion, right? . Quote
betsy Posted April 6, 2016 Author Report Posted April 6, 2016 (edited) since you also improperly put the onus on me to support YOUR unsubstantiated claim, perhaps you should retract your claim then, hey! I mean, c'mon... you profess to be all about "good faith" discussion, right? . You're just being deliberately silly now. Sorry Waldo. Gotta let you go. Edited April 6, 2016 by betsy Quote
waldo Posted April 6, 2016 Report Posted April 6, 2016 ... the abrasive style of Trump ... I just love Trump's shock factor! ... That's the very thing I got attracted to Trump in the first place - political correctness is not in his vocabulary! Trump claims he can be... and will be... the most Presidential candidate ever! What's he waiting for? . Quote
betsy Posted April 6, 2016 Author Report Posted April 6, 2016 (edited) Yeah, somebody managed to find a single poll showing Trump winning Wisconsin. Disregard polls showing results you don't like, pump up polls showing results you do like... what do you get? We saw that during the 2012 election... Republican boosters convinced that the LIBERAL MEDIA were LYING and all the polls were wrong and that Romney was going to win. Disregard the large consensus of polls showing Romney losing, pump up the polls showing him winning. "THIS poll! THIS ONE RIGHT HERE is the poll you can trust!" Right up to the very end. The idea that the LIBERAL MEDIA wants to boost a Bible-thumping arch-conservative crazy-person like Ted Cruz is pretty strange, also. -k Propagandizing is not exclusive to leftist media. Did I say that? BUT, what we do know by the abortion remarks of Trump though, is that....anti-Trump media/opponents are definitely being dishonest. They'd blatantly shown their dishonesty by deliberately editing the full question, thus taking Trump's statement out of context. That's the big difference. The leftist media are openly being dishonest, and they're not even ashamed about it! And no, Liberal Media wants to stop Trump. That's the reason. They are afraid of Trump. They do not want Trump against Clinton. They'd very much prefer Cruz. Clinton already know how to battle with Cruz and Kasich. They're prepared for these two. But the unpredictability of Trump? No. Edited April 6, 2016 by betsy Quote
waldo Posted April 6, 2016 Report Posted April 6, 2016 Propagandizing is not exclusive to leftist media. Did I say that? BUT, what we do know by the abortion remarks of Trump though, is that....anti-Trump media/opponents are definitely being dishonest. They'd blatantly shown their dishonesty by deliberately editing the full question, thus taking Trump's statement out of context. That's the big difference. The leftist media are openly being dishonest, and they're not even ashamed about it! you have been unable to support your continued unsubstantiated claims in this regard. Is there a problem... for you? . Quote
cybercoma Posted April 6, 2016 Report Posted April 6, 2016 Wait a minute, if you're the one claiming the question was edited shouldn't you be the one posting a link to the original along with all the edited versions?Yeah. I'm just going to sit back and wait for her to show her work.I better not start drinking because I have a feeling I will be here awhile. Quote
cybercoma Posted April 6, 2016 Report Posted April 6, 2016 I'm sure that although he was soundly beaten in Wisconsin, Trump did manage to secure a lot of Muslim and Hindu support, however. -k Damn. Just gonna curb stomp that point, eh? Ouch. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.