Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
effinghamillini

More evidence of media bias

Recommended Posts

That's the whole point. You link your "sources" and I'll link mine showing you the complete opposite. Only part is, who is actually telling you the truth?! :hmm

 

I'm pretty confident you have no clue what "my sources" are.

 

Some biases are hard to spot, and that's getting harder every day. Some, on the other hand, are very easy to spot..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty confident you have no clue what "my sources" are.

 

Some biases are hard to spot, and that's getting harder every day. Some, on the other hand, are very easy to spot..

 

So why withhold them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't withheld anything as far as I know.

 

If you're the kind of person who would earnestly post that link, this is pretty clearly not a discussion worth even engaging in. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want a good source that explains almost daily how ill-equipped Donald Trump is to be president just listen to the man himself (or read his tweets). :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My sources on what?

 

You obviously don't agree with the article about Joe Arpaio. So how exactly do you know the guy? What are your sources to say otherwise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"He was accused of racial profiling, but the plain fact is that the vast majority of illegal aliens in Maricopa County are Hispanic. If he was going to do his job of protecting his citizens from illegal aliens and their criminal behavior, the vast majority of his detainees were going to be Latino. That’s not Sheriff Joe’s fault; that’s the fault of the people who broke our immigration laws. A federal judge ordered him to stop enforcing the law but Arpaio just kept right on doing the job he had sworn a sacred oath to do.

 

Arpaio is no racist. Under his leadership, his county had the highest percentage of Hispanic law enforcement officers of any county in the entire state, and he elevated more Hispanic officers to command posts than anyone else in Arizona. On top of all that, two of his grandchildren are of Hispanic descent."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read it. It's an op-ed, not really an article. Has nothing to do with the constitution even though that's in the title. It doesn't cite any sources or really contain any facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"He was accused of racial profiling, but the plain fact is that the vast majority of illegal aliens in Maricopa County are Hispanic. If he was going to do his job of protecting his citizens from illegal aliens and their criminal behavior, the vast majority of his detainees were going to be Latino. That’s not Sheriff Joe’s fault; that’s the fault of the people who broke our immigration laws. A federal judge ordered him to stop enforcing the law but Arpaio just kept right on doing the job he had sworn a sacred oath to do.

 

Arpaio is no racist. Under his leadership, his county had the highest percentage of Hispanic law enforcement officers of any county in the entire state, and he elevated more Hispanic officers to command posts than anyone else in Arizona. On top of all that, two of his grandchildren are of Hispanic descent."

 

So the argument here is that someone can't hire Latinos and still racially profile?

 

I'd like an explanation on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read it. It's an op-ed, not really an article. Has nothing to do with the constitution even though that's in the title. It doesn't cite any sources or really contain any facts.

 

What are YOUR sources huh!!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read it, too. I agree with your analysis.

 

I also agree with the author that Trump didn't violate the Constitution, which was a pretty easy strawman to attack.

 

I read it. It's an op-ed, not really an article. Has nothing to do with the constitution even though that's in the title. It doesn't cite any sources or really contain any facts.

 

For me, the obvious red flag is his usage of "activist" as an insult. He provides no examples of judicial action which was not restrained or otherwise in keeping with normal judicial process. Because so many of his fellow travelers do the same thing, I'm going to assume he doesn't know what "activist" means, except that it's a label for judges he doesn't like.

 

Also, there's a fair amount of Obama outrage - the stuff that began slightly before noon on January 20, 2009 and hasn't let up since.

 

Perhaps he, like those fellow travelers, also believes that Obama started TARP, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I didn't mention that obvious strawman. I can't find anyone saying a president pardoning anyone was unconstitutional. Dumb maybe.

 

'Judicial activism' is pretty much a key that you're not going to get much from the piece.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a political science professor who told us on day one to avoid confusing activism/restraint with conservatism/liberalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Executive amnesty! Fast and Furious! IRS targeting of conservative! Obamacare! Letting terrorists go free!

 

 

Shall I go on

I never got into those movies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×