A great article summarizing the debate last night!

[RiverguyVT]

I didn't watch, but this article is revealing:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/261732/ ... greenfield

Red was everywhere, reflected in the thick glasses of Bernie Sanders and in the garish red lipstick around Hillary Clinton's orifice of lies, and in their clamorous rants about Wall Street and the evils of capitalism that could have come from a back alley Communist pamphleteer in the 50s.

LOL...^^that's^^ some writing!

[VisorBoy]

I didn't watch, but this article is revealing:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/261732/ ... greenfield

Red was everywhere, reflected in the thick glasses of Bernie Sanders and in the garish red lipstick around Hillary Clinton's orifice of lies, and in their clamorous rants about Wall Street and the evils of capitalism that could have come from a back alley Communist pamphleteer in the 50s.

LOL...^^that's^^ some writing!

Front Page Mag is a fringe source, and that article is just a hit job. What's the point in posting it?

[RiverguyVT]

I didn't watch, but this article is revealing:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/261732/ ... greenfield

Red was everywhere, reflected in the thick glasses of Bernie Sanders and in the garish red lipstick around Hillary Clinton's orifice of lies, and in their clamorous rants about Wall Street and the evils of capitalism that could have come from a back alley Communist pamphleteer in the 50s.

LOL...^^that's^^ some writing!

Front Page Mag is a fringe source, and that article is just a hit job. What's the point in posting it?

What you call a "fringe" source, I call a magazine put out by a guy that used to be a leading liberal thinker who saw the light, and became conservative. Horowitz ain't no dummy. I'd recommend his book "Radical Son" if I thought you'd read it. The writer of this article was Greenfield, who is unapologetically pro-Israel.

You throw around the charge of "fringe" a bit. Just what defines "fringe" in your world?

Why did I post the article? Because I enjoyed the ideas conveyed, the writing style, and wanted to share it with others like me who may have missed the debate.
Care to comment upon the article's ideas or notions?

[VisorBoy]

I didn't watch, but this article is revealing:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/261732/ ... greenfield

Red was everywhere, reflected in the thick glasses of Bernie Sanders and in the garish red lipstick around Hillary Clinton's orifice of lies, and in their clamorous rants about Wall Street and the evils of capitalism that could have come from a back alley Communist pamphleteer in the 50s.

LOL...^^that's^^ some writing!

Front Page Mag is a fringe source, and that article is just a hit job. What's the point in posting it?

What you call a "fringe" source, I call a magazine put out by a guy that used to be a leading liberal thinker who saw the light, and became conservative. Horowitz ain't no dummy. I'd recommend his book "Radical Son" if I thought you'd read it. The writer of this article was Greenfield, who is unapologetically pro-Israel.

You throw around the charge of "fringe" a bit. Just what defines "fringe" in your world?

Why did I post the article? Because I enjoyed the ideas conveyed, the writing style, and wanted to share it with others like me who may have missed the debate.
Care to comment upon the article's ideas or notions?

I tend not to comment on articles that don't lend themselves to debate. It doesn't take a lot of intelligence to just tear the other side down, and frankly the combative nature of our national conversation (and part of the reason we are so divided) is exacerbated by articles like this.

A fringe source is tough to put one's finger on, but some of the characteristics include a plethora of (a) combative articles, (b) clearly biased authors (like this one), and (c) conspiracy theories. One can also get an idea based on the background of the authors. Did the journalists study journalism (i.e. are they professionals)? Do the authors have reputations in their field of specialization, and are they writing on those topics? What is their educational history (one sign of intelligence)?. This isn't a hard-and-fast rule, of course, and there are plenty of cases where these guidelines fail. But when considering a source's (or author's) level of bias, it's important to take in the whole source generally, as well as the article in any particular case.

One of the reasons I point this out is because it is a common mantra of the more extreme factions on the right to label all sorts of centrist or slight-left-of-center media outlets as ridiculously liberal in one breath, while in the next, quoting an absurdly biased source themselves. To wit: "The New York Times is a liberal mouthpiece," (it's not), "...here's an article from WND on why Obama hates Israel".

[awesome guy]

I didn't watch, but this article is revealing:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/261732/ ... greenfield

Red was everywhere, reflected in the thick glasses of Bernie Sanders and in the garish red lipstick around Hillary Clinton's orifice of lies, and in their clamorous rants about Wall Street and the evils of capitalism that could have come from a back alley Communist pamphleteer in the 50s.

LOL...^^that's^^ some writing!

Front Page Mag is a fringe source, and that article is just a hit job. What's the point in posting it?

What you call a "fringe" source, I call a magazine put out by a guy that used to be a leading liberal thinker who saw the light, and became conservative. Horowitz ain't no dummy. I'd recommend his book "Radical Son" if I thought you'd read it. The writer of this article was Greenfield, who is unapologetically pro-Israel.

You throw around the charge of "fringe" a bit. Just what defines "fringe" in your world?

Why did I post the article? Because I enjoyed the ideas conveyed, the writing style, and wanted to share it with others like me who may have missed the debate.
Care to comment upon the article's ideas or notions?

I tend not to comment on articles that don't lend themselves to debate. It doesn't take a lot of intelligence to just tear the other side down, and frankly the combative nature of our national conversation (and part of the reason we are so divided) is exacerbated by articles like this.

A fringe source is tough to put one's finger on, but some of the characteristics include a plethora of (a) combative articles, (b) clearly biased authors (like this one), and (c) conspiracy theories. One can also get an idea based on the background of the authors. Did the journalists study journalism (i.e. are they professionals)? Do the authors have reputations in their field of specialization, and are they writing on those topics? What is their educational history (one sign of intelligence)?. This isn't a hard-and-fast rule, of course, and there are plenty of cases where these guidelines fail. But when considering a source's (or author's) level of bias, it's important to take in the whole source generally, as well as the article in any particular case.

One of the reasons I point this out is because it is a common mantra of the more extreme factions on the right to label all sorts of centrist or slight-left-of-center media outlets as ridiculously liberal in one breath, while in the next, quoting an absurdly biased source themselves. To wit: "The New York Times is a liberal mouthpiece," (it's not), "...here's an article from WND on why Obama is a dunderhead".

Fringe is clearly just stuff you disagree with.

[VisorBoy]

I didn't watch, but this article is revealing:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/261732/ ... greenfield

Red was everywhere, reflected in the thick glasses of Bernie Sanders and in the garish red lipstick around Hillary Clinton's orifice of lies, and in their clamorous rants about Wall Street and the evils of capitalism that could have come from a back alley Communist pamphleteer in the 50s.

LOL...^^that's^^ some writing!

Front Page Mag is a fringe source, and that article is just a hit job. What's the point in posting it?

What you call a "fringe" source, I call a magazine put out by a guy that used to be a leading liberal thinker who saw the light, and became conservative. Horowitz ain't no dummy. I'd recommend his book "Radical Son" if I thought you'd read it. The writer of this article was Greenfield, who is unapologetically pro-Israel.

You throw around the charge of "fringe" a bit. Just what defines "fringe" in your world?

Why did I post the article? Because I enjoyed the ideas conveyed, the writing style, and wanted to share it with others like me who may have missed the debate.
Care to comment upon the article's ideas or notions?

I tend not to comment on articles that don't lend themselves to debate. It doesn't take a lot of intelligence to just tear the other side down, and frankly the combative nature of our national conversation (and part of the reason we are so divided) is exacerbated by articles like this.

A fringe source is tough to put one's finger on, but some of the characteristics include a plethora of (a) combative articles, (b) clearly biased authors (like this one), and (c) conspiracy theories. One can also get an idea based on the background of the authors. Did the journalists study journalism (i.e. are they professionals)? Do the authors have reputations in their field of specialization, and are they writing on those topics? What is their educational history (one sign of intelligence)?. This isn't a hard-and-fast rule, of course, and there are plenty of cases where these guidelines fail. But when considering a source's (or author's) level of bias, it's important to take in the whole source generally, as well as the article in any particular case.

One of the reasons I point this out is because it is a common mantra of the more extreme factions on the right to label all sorts of centrist or slight-left-of-center media outlets as ridiculously liberal in one breath, while in the next, quoting an absurdly biased source themselves. To wit: "The New York Times is a liberal mouthpiece," (it's not), "...here's an article from WND on why Obama is a dunderhead".

Fringe is clearly just stuff you disagree with.

Nah, there are lots of things I don't agree with that don't come from fringe sites.

[awesome guy]

I didn't watch, but this article is revealing:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/261732/ ... greenfield


LOL...^^that's^^ some writing!

Front Page Mag is a fringe source, and that article is just a hit job. What's the point in posting it?

What you call a "fringe" source, I call a magazine put out by a guy that used to be a leading liberal thinker who saw the light, and became conservative. Horowitz ain't no dummy. I'd recommend his book "Radical Son" if I thought you'd read it. The writer of this article was Greenfield, who is unapologetically pro-Israel.

You throw around the charge of "fringe" a bit. Just what defines "fringe" in your world?

Why did I post the article? Because I enjoyed the ideas conveyed, the writing style, and wanted to share it with others like me who may have missed the debate.
Care to comment upon the article's ideas or notions?

I tend not to comment on articles that don't lend themselves to debate. It doesn't take a lot of intelligence to just tear the other side down, and frankly the combative nature of our national conversation (and part of the reason we are so divided) is exacerbated by articles like this.

A fringe source is tough to put one's finger on, but some of the characteristics include a plethora of (a) combative articles, (b) clearly biased authors (like this one), and (c) conspiracy theories. One can also get an idea based on the background of the authors. Did the journalists study journalism (i.e. are they professionals)? Do the authors have reputations in their field of specialization, and are they writing on those topics? What is their educational history (one sign of intelligence)?. This isn't a hard-and-fast rule, of course, and there are plenty of cases where these guidelines fail. But when considering a source's (or author's) level of bias, it's important to take in the whole source generally, as well as the article in any particular case.

One of the reasons I point this out is because it is a common mantra of the more extreme factions on the right to label all sorts of centrist or slight-left-of-center media outlets as ridiculously liberal in one breath, while in the next, quoting an absurdly biased source themselves. To wit: "The New York Times is a liberal mouthpiece," (it's not), "...here's an article from WND on why Obama is a dunderhead".

Fringe is clearly just stuff you disagree with.

Nah, there are lots of things I don't agree with that don't come from fringe sites.

We'll just disagree. You certainly don't have a problem using fringe sources to support your arguments so it's clearly a one-way street and thusly a device to control inputs.

[VisorBoy]

Nah, there are lots of things I don't agree with that don't come from fringe sites.

We'll just disagree. You certainly don't have a problem using fringe sources to support your arguments so it's clearly a one-way street and thusly a device to control inputs.

Which sources are you referring to?

[awesome guy]

Nah, there are lots of things I don't agree with that don't come from fringe sites.

We'll just disagree. You certainly don't have a problem using fringe sources to support your arguments so it's clearly a one-way street and thusly a device to control inputs.

Which sources are you referring to?

Southern poverty law center, PBS, etc.

[VisorBoy]

Nah, there are lots of things I don't agree with that don't come from fringe sites.

We'll just disagree. You certainly don't have a problem using fringe sources to support your arguments so it's clearly a one-way street and thusly a device to control inputs.

Which sources are you referring to?

Southern poverty law center, PBS, etc.

Can you clarify how SPLC and PBS are fringe in terms that show that Front Page Mag is not?

[awesome guy]

Nah, there are lots of things I don't agree with that don't come from fringe sites.

We'll just disagree. You certainly don't have a problem using fringe sources to support your arguments so it's clearly a one-way street and thusly a device to control inputs.

Which sources are you referring to?

Southern poverty law center, PBS, etc.

Can you clarify how SPLC and PBS are fringe in terms that show that Front Page Mag is not?

Come on

[ip_law-hokie]

I didn't watch, but this article is revealing:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/261732/ ... greenfield

Red was everywhere, reflected in the thick glasses of Bernie Sanders and in the garish red lipstick around Hillary Clinton's orifice of lies, and in their clamorous rants about Wall Street and the evils of capitalism that could have come from a back alley Communist pamphleteer in the 50s.

LOL...^^that's^^ some writing!

Front Page Mag is a fringe source, and that article is just a hit job. What's the point in posting it?

What you call a "fringe" source, I call a magazine put out by a guy that used to be a leading liberal thinker who saw the light, and became conservative. Horowitz ain't no dummy. I'd recommend his book "Radical Son" if I thought you'd read it. The writer of this article was Greenfield, who is unapologetically pro-Israel.

You throw around the charge of "fringe" a bit. Just what defines "fringe" in your world?

Why did I post the article? Because I enjoyed the ideas conveyed, the writing style, and wanted to share it with others like me who may have missed the debate.
Care to comment upon the article's ideas or notions?

Fringe.

Although I'm a registered Republican, I found the Democratic debate to be more substantive and issue-focused, as compared to the republican debates.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[VoiceOfReason]

I didn't watch, but this article is revealing:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/261732/ ... greenfield

Red was everywhere, reflected in the thick glasses of Bernie Sanders and in the garish red lipstick around Hillary Clinton's orifice of lies, and in their clamorous rants about Wall Street and the evils of capitalism that could have come from a back alley Communist pamphleteer in the 50s.

LOL...^^that's^^ some writing!

Front Page Mag is a fringe source, and that article is just a hit job. What's the point in posting it?

Well... this is a fringe board. A large majority of articles linked on this site are fringe sources (conservative fringe obviously). The purpose of this board is to tear down anything Democrat, Progressive or Liberal and provide a safe environment for conservatives to post fringe articles that have no factual basis... but allow conservatives to feel better about themselves and their world view.

I'm not saying the Left does not have fringe sources... they certainly do. But those are never rarely, if ever, linked on this board.