There is a glaring problem with this article. It jumps right off the page in just the second sentence and keeps doing it again and again.
Look at this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-teams-meeting-with-muellers-office-poised-to-ratchet-up-tensions/2017/12/18/15dac668-e41d-11e7-a65d-1ac0fd7f097e_story.htmlWe get so used to seeing it, we don't even notice it after a while. Here's what's wrong:
"people familiar with the probe"
"according to administration officials"
"advisers close to Trump"
"People with knowledge of the investigation"
"according to a person familiar with the Trump team’s plan who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations".
"according to a person who spoke with Trump last week and spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a private conversation".
"He is living in his own world," the person said
"Another associate said"
"Among people familiar with the probe"
"A White House adviser said"
I make that a total of 10 anonymous sources in an article spanning little more than a few hundred words.
Either the reporter is monumentally lazy or this is a total fabrication. Either way, it garners very little veracity in my mind.
Larry the Legend wrote:
There is a glaring problem with this article. It jumps right off the page in just the second sentence and keeps doing it again and again.
Look at this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-teams-meeting-with-muellers-office-poised-to-ratchet-up-tensions/2017/12/18/15dac668-e41d-11e7-a65d-1ac0fd7f097e_story.htmlWe get so used to seeing it, we don't even notice it after a while. Here's what's wrong:
"people familiar with the probe"
"according to administration officials"
"advisers close to Trump"
"People with knowledge of the investigation"
"according to a person familiar with the Trump team’s plan who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations".
"according to a person who spoke with Trump last week and spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a private conversation".
"He is living in his own world," the person said
"Another associate said"
"Among people familiar with the probe"
"A White House adviser said"
I make that a total of 10 anonymous sources in an article spanning little more than a few hundred words.
Either the reporter is monumentally lazy or this is a total fabrication. Either way, it garners very little veracity in my mind.
There is a glaring problem with this article. It ... (
show quote)
Undoubtedly 90% fabrication.
The reporter is not lazy. He/she has entered every dodge, way out the left uses to spin their fabrications.
Larry the Legend wrote:
There is a glaring problem with this article. It jumps right off the page in just the second sentence and keeps doing it again and again.
Look at this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-teams-meeting-with-muellers-office-poised-to-ratchet-up-tensions/2017/12/18/15dac668-e41d-11e7-a65d-1ac0fd7f097e_story.htmlWe get so used to seeing it, we don't even notice it after a while. Here's what's wrong:
"people familiar with the probe"
"according to administration officials"
"advisers close to Trump"
"People with knowledge of the investigation"
"according to a person familiar with the Trump team’s plan who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations".
"according to a person who spoke with Trump last week and spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a private conversation".
"He is living in his own world," the person said
"Another associate said"
"Among people familiar with the probe"
"A White House adviser said"
I make that a total of 10 anonymous sources in an article spanning little more than a few hundred words.
Either the reporter is monumentally lazy or this is a total fabrication. Either way, it garners very little veracity in my mind.
There is a glaring problem with this article. It ... (
show quote)
Hemiman wrote:
The other 10%are lies.
90% fab +10 % lies= 100% truth!!!!
Larry the Legend wrote:
There is a glaring problem with this article. It jumps right off the page in just the second sentence and keeps doing it again and again.
Look at this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-teams-meeting-with-muellers-office-poised-to-ratchet-up-tensions/2017/12/18/15dac668-e41d-11e7-a65d-1ac0fd7f097e_story.htmlWe get so used to seeing it, we don't even notice it after a while. Here's what's wrong:
"people familiar with the probe"
"according to administration officials"
"advisers close to Trump"
"People with knowledge of the investigation"
"according to a person familiar with the Trump team’s plan who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations".
"according to a person who spoke with Trump last week and spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a private conversation".
"He is living in his own world," the person said
"Another associate said"
"Among people familiar with the probe"
"A White House adviser said"
I make that a total of 10 anonymous sources in an article spanning little more than a few hundred words.
Either the reporter is monumentally lazy or this is a total fabrication. Either way, it garners very little veracity in my mind.
There is a glaring problem with this article. It ... (
show quote)
You are right of course but when anyone takes just a moment to digest what these lying rag news media are trying to give us You know right away..That is if you have the reasoning of a 5 year old that is..
Perhaps that’s why so many of the left eat it up so readily....????
wuzblynd wrote:
90% fab +10 % lies= 100% truth!!!!
That may pass for mathematical logic in your universe, but in mine, 90% fabrication + 10% lies = 100% lies = 100% fabrication, because a fabrication is the same as a lie.
Failure to cite a credible source provides grounds for accusations of fabrication. Since a fabrication is a lie, failure to cite a credible source is equivalent to lying.
Having established that these are lies, the big question remains: Why? What do they gain by so obviously lying like that? That's the $64,000 question. If you can provide a credible answer, you just might become famous.
lindajoy wrote:
You are right of course but when anyone takes just a moment to digest what these lying rag news media are trying to give us You know right away..That is if you have the reasoning of a 5 year old that is..
Perhaps that’s why so many of the left eat it up so readily....????
I think it's more about positive reinforcement. They see something that appears to affirm a predetermined bias and they automatically latch onto it whether it makes sense or not. Actually, having the reasoning ability of a five-year-old would probably overrule many of these biases in the first place... Sad, isn't it?
Larry the Legend wrote:
Having established that these are lies, the big question remains: Why? What do they gain by so obviously lying like that? That's the $64,000 question. If you can provide a credible answer, you just might become famous.
if you study the 'prog cult' long enough you'll find they all have
group think, and they all whole heartedly believe if they
repeat the lie often enough and long enough it becomes the truth.
Larry the Legend wrote:
I think it's more about positive reinforcement. They see something that appears to affirm a predetermined bias and they automatically latch onto it whether it makes sense or not. Actually, having the reasoning ability of a five-year-old would probably overrule many of these biases in the first place... Sad, isn't it?
Well can’t argue your Logic....
The predetermined bias is of course their own bias they relate to so well...
Larry the Legend wrote:
That may pass for mathematical logic in your universe, but in mine, 90% fabrication + 10% lies = 100% lies = 100% fabrication, because a fabrication is the same as a lie.
Failure to cite a credible source provides grounds for accusations of fabrication. Since a fabrication is a lie, failure to cite a credible source is equivalent to lying.
Having established that these are lies, the big question remains: Why? What do they gain by so obviously lying like that? That's the $64,000 question. If you can provide a credible answer, you just might become famous.
That may pass for mathematical logic in your unive... (
show quote)
I meant it adds up to 100%truth about what is being reported, it's 90% fab and 10%lies and that's the truth . I do live in my own universe, it's pretty kool here.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.