5 Ways to Spot a B.S. Political Story in Under 10 Seconds Read more: 5 Ways to Spot a B.S. Political Story in Under 10 (Christmas, holidays)

[Dale Cooper]

Originally Posted by whogo

If NBC has anything on tape do not believe it.

Or CBS or ABC or CNN, or most of all, MSNBC.

[wrecking ball]

Originally Posted by twinArmageddons

....No, that's a staple with every idiotic political pundit, left or right.

yep, altho fun to do a title search for "war on" in the C-D archives. from both sides of the political spectrum we have:

War On Common Sense
War On Women
War on Drugs
war on bedroom politics
War on the Poor
War On Terror
War on LEGOs
War on Aging
war on children
War on Family Pig Farmers ( a personal fav )
War on Unborn Children
War on Middle Class
War on Christianity
War Against Couponers
WAR ON I-4!!

..... and those are just from the past month ( and not including repeats ).

[stillkit]

Around here, it seems the quickest way to spot a BS political post is when it has Obama in the title.

They usually turn out to be either completely false or spun so hard to the right that they're dry of any facts at all.

[Three Wolves In Snow]

Originally Posted by Mulhall

#6. The News Source is the "Daily Mail"

#8. The link leads to Wikipedia as the source of "proof".

[btownboss4]

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

Hmmmm.... Nixon declared the "War on Drugs." Bush declared the "War on Terror."

It appears that it has been a staple for at least 40 years, and not just for the left.

that an acual war though

[twinArmageddons]

Originally Posted by Three Wolves In Snow

#8. The link leads to Wikipedia as the source of "proof".

I'm still wondering why people get all hung up over WIkipedia as a source, when it's been proven to be as reliable as current encyclopedias.

At the very least, one can rely on the sources in wikipedia articles.

[OICU812]

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

So... are you one of those people constantly annoyed that nobody ever actually reads the links you post and instead just rip into to you for posting bull**** flame bait, bilious spin or vacuous propaganda?

Here's how:

Or any of these

Critics Say...

Which is a common way for partisan journalists to insert their own political bias, and pass it off as news


Unnamed sources say...

This is a way to also insert rumors, personal attacks and opinions from angry or disgruntled insiders, with an axe to grind against the people the journalist does not like.

[Three Wolves In Snow]

Originally Posted by twinArmageddons

I'm still wondering why people get all hung up over WIkipedia as a source, when it's been proven to be as reliable as current encyclopedias.

At the very least, one can rely on the sources in wikipedia articles.

"needs citation". I see that all over Wikipedia. Any idiot can write what they want on there and "cite" their proof. It's a complete and utter joke and I'm incredulous that anyone thinks it's a great way to prove their point or position.

[wutitiz]

Originally Posted by Three Wolves In Snow

"needs citation". I see that all over Wikipedia. Any idiot can write what they want on there and "cite" their proof. It's a complete and utter joke and I'm incredulous that anyone thinks it's a great way to prove their point or position.

How about #eleventeen: runs afoul of Three Wolves' law.
//www.city-data.com/forum/polit...olves-law.html

[Mulhall]

Originally Posted by twinArmageddons

I'm still wondering why people get all hung up over WIkipedia as a source, when it's been proven to be as reliable as current encyclopedias.

At the very least, one can rely on the sources in wikipedia articles.