Why even cite the article if you think it's crap. I mean I'm sure that there is plenty of coverage on Breitbart Fox or some other "completely unbiased" source.
where do you get your news?
Then why don't we all kneel down on both knees to antifa and BLM to beg forgiveness then turn in our guns? (Not griping at your comment, just another question because I agree with your comment)
We aren't going to change or organize anything on OSA, but I'm shocked that there is not a national pushback organized by someone with money and influence to combat this narrative.
A comment from above that said some anti-anti fa rally's might bring out people that may be misinterpreted to put it politically correct.
Of course it would. What in the hell does the anti fa rally's bring out? Thugs, looters and those that burn businesses is what comes out.
The media glorify's them, but if some conservative at a rally took the liberty to just take down an offensive sign posted by the left, the entire weight of the media would be brought down on them and their family that would focus on costing their jobs an livelihoods just like the soccer player (don't remember his name) who was half a continent away when his wife posted all lives matter. He lost his position on the team. Drew Brees, NFL player just about got fired from his team by saying all lives matter, not just black lives.
Yet these same people want to put parents and children in jail for being bully's because their child didn't get a participation trophy. Think about that. A party that abhors bullying to the point they would just about have firing squads for classmates that participated in it are the biggest bully's in the world when you disagree with them politically.
The biggest bully's in the world are dimocraps and the media that support them. Conservative rally's are always billed as extremist and racist while those that burn and loot are called freedom fighters.
BTW since I earlier mentioned BLM was having a march in Ponca City, I thought I'd bring up the result. Falsebook had a rumor that hell was about to hit as 20,000 marchers were being bused in that morning.
I immediately called BS because nobody was going to sponsor 266 buses to bring protesters to a town that has been integrated since the 50's. Minorities live all over town attend every school, etc. It's not an issue in this town.
In reality, a white person sponsored the march. 80% approximately were white, 10 or so percent were native american and another 10 percent or so were black in my personal observation by watching live streaming on the local news outlet. Don't hold me to those percentages, as it was a guesstimate.
Who is the "unbiased" resource you use? Just an inquiring mind.
I've read enough posts of yours that it's more than a simple inquiring mind question.
That question is as broad as me trying to explain my political beliefs. But to keep it simple I'll just claim that I like my news 100 percent organic straight from the teets of OSA posts and where ever they lead.
Actually just an inquiring mind since you seem to have an opinion about what is biased or unbiased.
Surely you don't rely 100% on what others post on OSA as an unbiased opinion or report?
Bear with me, I may be on your side, I just need to know where your side is getting the unbiased intel. A lot of outlets profess unbiased reporting.
While I can't disagree, because there is no data to "assume" the other side doesn't have jobs, which some certainly do, it seems the left dedicates themselves to the "movement" employed or not while the Right goes to work.
I know we value our vacations with spouse and children, but that seems to never stop the other side from showing up in mass. Why is that?
Mostly because those highly organized are well funded and they pay people to show up. Outrage is acceptable and encouraged.
You have posted pics of leaflets wanting paid protesters. Cash doesn't count against taxes.
The right and the public in general certainly went against draconian government extended lock downs during the supposed "pandemic" which is quietly being found to be not so "pandemic" as was first thought. Every liberal angry talking point about quarantines, drugs that might prevent or help recovery, might cause heart attacks, etc are being leaked very slowly now as to not be needed or truthful.
Why would the media and leftists progressives feed us lies about the "pandimic"?
Okay, I'll admit you caught me in one thing --- I rarely rely on OSA at all for unbiased opinions. Generally speaking all US media is all biased from the major networks (CNN, Fox, etc) down to social (FB/Twitter/Insta) and then cesspools like we have here (tongue in cheek implied). Local news stations are unreliable as well since so many are owned by Sinclair or other conglomerates where they'll dictate scripts down to local personalities to give it a veneer of authenticity.
Where possible I prefer reporting from outside the states such as the BBC. Within the states, and I say this knowing people will fight me over this claiming they are leftist crap, I prefer NPR. However, they are the only one that being a public non-profit news org that has to weave a line between what some would consider "the libtards" that support them and "the magtards" in Congress that want to defund them. So to exist they have to work to go down the center and piss neither crowd off. That is not to say I don't take exception to many of their stories, programs of pieces, but generally I find their coverage much less slanted than say a CNN or a Fox. Out of the major networks, I'd probably think of MSNBC first. To be honest, I don't have cable and haven't really watched TV in a few years so most of the time if I see coverage from any major network its pieces on published online, so that could play into my assessments as well.
Even that's not really enough so what I'd hope for to get started for perspective is to be able to see a story as reported by a couple different levels of coverage if you will --- a major publication (NYT, WaPo, etc), network, and local. If there are independent reports (social media) all the better. At the end of the day, since there's no way to actually resolve the bias problem, the solution becomes deliberate consumption of different viewpoints and weighing each of their merits.
@Rez Exelon If MSNBC comes to your mind as the first network news source, you've got no place disrespecting Fox or any other right-leaning source.
And NYT, WaPo? Even NPR makes me choke.
My son used to work at the Stillwater NPR station and he was quite the liberal, he finally saw (without my input) how biased they are. He's 36 now and a lawyer, and the more he sees of life and people, the more conservative he leans.
I agree with you that there is no unbiased source, and I say world-wide, not just in the USA.
Getting info from multiple sources is good, I try to as well.
I watch a lot of Fox and can see how they spin things, they just don't make me wanna puke like most of the other networks.
In the end I think we're comfortable with the source that most matches opinions that we already have.
And NYT, WaPo? Even NPR makes me choke.
My son used to work at the Stillwater NPR station and he was quite the liberal, he finally saw (without my input) how biased they are. He's 36 now and a lawyer, and the more he sees of life and people, the more conservative he leans.
I agree with you that there is no unbiased source, and I say world-wide, not just in the USA.
Getting info from multiple sources is good, I try to as well.
I watch a lot of Fox and can see how they spin things, they just don't make me wanna puke like most of the other networks.
In the end I think we're comfortable with the source that most matches opinions that we already have.
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
-
Want To Buy Wanted to Buy Pre Lock Vintage or Older S&W Smith and Wesson Revolver- Latest: sushi & pistols
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Frontier Justice in Jenks: don't waste your money on a range membership- Latest: Oklahomabassin
-
