Lurker > Sephiroth1288

If this goes as well as that Chik-Fil-A boycott did, it will actually lead to MORE people going to In-N-Out XD
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

Kastrada posted...

It's actually the opposite of what you said. Intersex people can have the ability to reproduce. "Corrective" surgery can lead to becoming sterile.

No, people born with both sets of genitalia are almost always sterile unless they intervene before puberty.
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

BWing posted...

davyheinz posted...

BWing posted...

Mal STILL refuses to confirm his ass wiping status

And also loses another argument that he made up

When I saw this video, I immediately thought of Mal

Projecting.

"Trump says anonymous sources aren't reliable sources of information!"

"They aren't though, you have zero assurance they aren't made up"

*4 pages of shitposting* "Ha, Mal lost again"

"But you never explained how I'm wrong"

*More shitposting*
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

BWing posted...

Mal STILL refuses to confirm his ass wiping status

If I responded to every troll then CE would be a full time job.
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

eston posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

Saying that some sources may want to be anonymous doesn't excuse making factual claims without evidence

This was never the argument, and anonymous sources =/= no evidence

Actually that's exactly what anonymous sources are. They inherently have no credentials and are basically unfalsifiable.
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

BWing posted...

So Mal refuses to confirm whether or not he wipes his own ass?

Rookie User
User Since: Aug 2018
Karma: 19
Active Posts: 122

Which one of you is using alts to shitpost? I gotta say that's a new level of pathetic.
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

eston posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

I can confirm that you simpletons have continually failed to explain why it's acceptable for journalists to have lower standards of proof than high schoolers.

Just because you don't understand the explanation does not mean one hasn't been given

Saying that some sources may want to be anonymous doesn't excuse making factual claims without evidence.

Again, Hitchens' Razor.
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

Balrog0 posted...

... You don't know it will lead to nothing,

Actually we do, since that's been the conclusion every time it's tried.

Balrog0 posted...

If you're so confident that there would be no savings then I especially don't understand why you wouldn't want to get the data that proves you right instead of just citing anonymous program staff.

The data that proves me right is this thing called "math". Not only would full UBI crash the Canadian economy, but it would also weaken the economy to an unsalvageable level because the labor force would decrease by ~1/10, and that's before you consider how several businesses would flee Canada to avoid the ridiculous tax hikes necessary to keep that system afloat.

Oh, but at least their healthcare costs would be reduced by some unspecific amount and a few thousand more people would go to college.
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

shockthemonkey posted...

davyheinz posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

Also how the fuck is anyone stupid enough to compare reporting with high school research essays? How the fuck does anyone make that comparison and still manage to wipe their own ass?

Ive yet to be told that Mal is capable of wiping his ass. Im not sure I would even believe it.

@Sephiroth1288 can you confirm that you wipe your own ass?

I can confirm that you simpletons have continually failed to explain why it's acceptable for journalists to have lower standards of proof than high schoolers.
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

Balrog0 posted...

I just don't understand why you folks can't have a rational conversation about something like this, jesus fuckin christ.

That's awfully rich when the first 100 posts ITT are almost entirely shitposts from leftists.
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

Balrog0 posted...

GreatEvilEmpire posted...

Don't know the exact numbers, but it looks to be it.

Ontario has a population of 13.6 million people. If they decided to expand the UBI to everyone, it would come to $503 billion. If they tax everyone exactly $37,000 extra per year, they can pay for the UBI budget :)

Interesting, so since you're now focusing on a new program that would be expanded to everyone, and not this pilot, are you implicitly agreeing that finishing the pilot experiment would have been sustainable?

Obviously the pilot isn't going to crash the economy. But the point of a pilot is to see how a policy would fare on a large scale. What's the point of spending $100 million on a pilot you know will lead to nothing?
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

Bio1590 posted...

davyheinz posted...

pinky0926 posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

So why are you erroneously applying Obama's qualities to a different president who hasn't jailed any media sources

I didn't, that is entirely a position you made up in your own head in order to try and win the argument which is what you always do

Lol, Mal lost an argument that he had made up

That's like his MO

This is a really interesting way of spinning how your fear of Trump jailing whistleblowers is entirely unfounded.
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

What if the one who cheated is a way better parent than the other one
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

pinky0926 posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

How many whistleblowers has Trump jailed?

Like...are you even paying attention to what I'm saying.

Here read this. I firmly believe Obama's anti-whisteblower administration was a shocking travesty of democracy and easily the worst thing about his entire period as POTUS. We should protect whisteblowers instead of shutting them down.

I know that deflecting is your bad habit but appreciate that it especially doesn't work when the person already agrees with you on the subject you're deflecting to.

So why are you erroneously applying Obama's qualities to a different president who hasn't jailed any media sources

CableZL posted...

And it's the same with journalism. Just because the public doesn't know who the anonymous sources used in journalism are doesn't mean the sources are unknown to everyone.

When an FBI investigation goes before a judge, witnesses don't get to be presented as "anonymous". The judge had to know who they are.

Your comparison is absurd.
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

Balrog0 posted...

They weren't designed to answer that question, which is why 1) the findings are suggestive and not definitive and 2) we should have done this experiment

Lol what? If the studies weren't designed to answer those questions then they wouldn't have brought the subjects up. I think you're talking out of your ass.

Balrog0 posted...

Go ahead and show me some economists who don't think a negative income tax is sustainable.

Ok

www.forbes.com/sites/marcoannunziata/2018/07/27/

(remove space)

universal-basic-income-a-universally-bad-idea/amp/

Want more?
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

pinky0926 posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

pinky0926 posted...

It's no wonder mal doesn't like anonymous sources because whistleblowers really are such a nuisance for "national security"

Says the Obama supporter, unironically.

Phewee lad sure got me there!

You must have forgotten the many, many times that I have pointed out that my chief criticism of Obama is exactly that, but it doesn't surprise me that you expect everyone to be as absurdly tribalistic as you

How many whistleblowers has Trump jailed?
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

Tyranthraxus posted...

But Caution / Mal / etc are the same type of people that complain they can't use a certain synonym for stingy so it's clear why they pick the battles they do.

Is this a Jewish joke or something

Look out @Caution999 , they know they're losing this one so they're about to accuse us of being Nazis.
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

pinky0926 posted...

It's no wonder mal doesn't like anonymous sources because whistleblowers really are such a nuisance for "national security"

Says the Obama supporter, unironically.
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

Balrog0 posted...

So what if a decrease of 8.5% in health utilization was enough to offset the costs of a 11% drop in labor force participation, given that drop in participation occurs mostly in secondary and tertiary income earners (i.e., new mothers and teenage kids, as I indicated earlier)? What if that additional time with children early in life produces better educational outcomes? What if teenagers deferring work until after they're doing with high school improves their future labor market outcomes, even if it decreases labor force participation in the near term by causing them to defer work by a few years?

Too bad the studies say nothing like that, huh?

Balrog0 posted...

Why is it that you are more willing to listen to a politician than the preponderance of research which indicates it would be sustainable, at the very least over the near-term (i.e., 3 years)?

It didn't. All that study said was that it could lead to Healthcare savings. Not Healthcare savings that would offset the cost of UBI, just a possibility of an unspecific amount of savings in one segment of of the budget.

And, again, I'm not listening to one politician here, I'm listening to several politicians and economists who have come to the same conclusion every time a UBI pilot is attempted: it's not sustainable. Sorry people, turns out there really isn't such thing as a free lunch.
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

eston posted...

Yes you are wrong, because you're completely glossing over the context of why a source would need to remain anonymous.

I know why a source may want to be anonymous.

That's still not an excuse for journalists to make claims without evidence and then trying to pass it off as a fact.
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

CableZL posted...

Yes. Operatives in certain government organizations like the CIA and FBI are anonymous sources on a pretty frequent basis. We don't reveal the identity of our spies for their own safety.

Their sources are anonymous to the public, not internally, where the investigation is actually taking place.

Christ.

The Great Muta 22 posted...

Because it has multiple examples in history where anonymous sources have been correct in journalism, and I don't give a shit that it bothers you, the practice is still the norm because it has been proven to be effective. Hence why it's length and usage are commonplace.

And again you repeating yourself when you think you've thought of something clever doesn't make it any better, so stop doing that

The Bible got some things right, like how you should wash your hands before you eat even though they had no concept of germs. I guess that means we should accept everything the Bible says.
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

scar the 1 posted...

So is labor market the only variable they're measuring?

No, but if UBI will reduce the labor market it's basically a guarantee that it can't continue for long since those taxes are how the government funds UBI in the first place

It's like thinking a game of Jenga can go on forever even though every move removes support for the whole structure. It's got to fall over eventually.

MangaFan462 posted...

It was going to cost too much and not being any benefit so it was canceled.

You would think this would be easy enough for LiberalFAQs to understand...
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

The Great Muta 22 posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

I'm just asking what sorts of things you believe without any supporting evidence since you apparently think it's unreasonable to dismiss claims that have no supporting evidence. What's the problem?

I don't live in a world of absolutes where all anonymous sources are treated the same. Frankly I'm not interested in your attempts at deflection, the idea that journalists using unnamed sources has been a legitimate method for decades and it's not going to end because it triggers you and Donald

Why is it legitimate though, and who cares for how long its been a staple of journalism? As if that lends the practice more credibility?

High schoolers can't use anonymous sources in research essays because, obviously, anonymous sources aren't proof of anything. The only times anonymous sources are acceptable are in religion, cults, and journalism. Am I wrong?
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

boxington posted...

California will end the cash bail system in a sweeping reform for the state. Rather than requiring defendants to pay in order to be released before trial, their release will hinge on an assessment of their risk to public safety.

Doesn't this mean that every white collar criminal will be let go, no matter how big their crime was

Like, a guy who embezzles millions from an orphanage isn't a danger to public safety but he should probably still go to jail
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

The Great Muta 22 posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

The Great Muta 22 posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

The Great Muta 22 posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

eston posted...

Again, nobody's telling you not to be skeptical. An anonymous source isn't as believable as a named source, I can agree with that, but implying that an anonymous source automatically makes the story untrue is beyond stupid, and that's what you're defending right now.

"I know a guy who said this" is not evidence. And Hitchens' Razor states that claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Therefore any story based on an anonymous source can be immediately dismissed.

Christopher Hitchens isn't a sage who makes the rules of society lmao

How many baseless claims do you believe in then? The Tooth Fairy? The flying spaghetti monster? Marxism?

Again, you're not nearly as clever as you think you are champ

And you aren't clever enough to weasel your way out of answering questions without making it really obvious.

A question asked in bad faith deserves to be mocked and ridiculed as such. You think you'd be used to that type of response for now

I'm just asking what sorts of things you believe without any supporting evidence since you apparently think it's unreasonable to dismiss claims that have no supporting evidence. What's the problem?
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

MangaFan462 posted...

Of course they MAD that Louis CK and Aziz A. are coming back into comedy and are selling out events, which is good for everyone btw

It takes a special kind of SJW to still believe Ansari was in the wrong.
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

The Great Muta 22 posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

The Great Muta 22 posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

eston posted...

Again, nobody's telling you not to be skeptical. An anonymous source isn't as believable as a named source, I can agree with that, but implying that an anonymous source automatically makes the story untrue is beyond stupid, and that's what you're defending right now.

"I know a guy who said this" is not evidence. And Hitchens' Razor states that claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Therefore any story based on an anonymous source can be immediately dismissed.

Christopher Hitchens isn't a sage who makes the rules of society lmao

How many baseless claims do you believe in then? The Tooth Fairy? The flying spaghetti monster? Marxism?

Again, you're not nearly as clever as you think you are champ

And you aren't clever enough to weasel your way out of answering questions without making it really obvious.
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

Balrog0 posted...

tl;dr there are both upsides and downsides in the research literature and the fact that you are willing to rely on some head of government saying 'it isn't sustainable' and you are just as willing to attach yourself to the first negative statistic about it that you see is because you're a shill

Actually I'm relying on every effort so far to see if UBI would work, each one being ended because time concept wasn't deemed sustainable.

If this were the only time UBI was called unsustainable then you might have something like a point. But it isn't, not by a long shot.
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

eston posted...

If that's what you want to do then feel free. But the fact remains that there are absolutely situations in which someone's identity needs to be protected, and the idea that "anonymous source = fiction" remains stupid as fuck.

The only other scenarios where unfalsifiable evidence like "I know a guy who said/did this" is taken seriously are in religions and cults. Think about that for a moment.
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

The Great Muta 22 posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

eston posted...

Again, nobody's telling you not to be skeptical. An anonymous source isn't as believable as a named source, I can agree with that, but implying that an anonymous source automatically makes the story untrue is beyond stupid, and that's what you're defending right now.

"I know a guy who said this" is not evidence. And Hitchens' Razor states that claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Therefore any story based on an anonymous source can be immediately dismissed.

Christopher Hitchens isn't a sage who makes the rules of society lmao

How many baseless claims do you believe in then? The Tooth Fairy? The flying spaghetti monster? Marxism?
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

Balrog0 posted...

program savings in other areas of public spending, through a combination of reductions in use and improved participant performance?

if you had actually read the research with a neutral POV that would be one of the first things you would notice that those trying to do a CBA on mincome experiments use

for example, labor force participation did drop in the treatment group (11% iirc) but also

I like how you skim over that number like it's no big deal

Balrog0 posted...

This essay uses a quasi-experimental design and routinely collected health
administration data to revisit outcomes for the saturation site. We found a significant reduction
in hospitalization, especially for admissions related to mental health and to accidents and
injuries, relative to the matched comparison group. Physician contacts for mental health
diagnoses fell relative to the comparison group. A greater proportion of high school students
continued on to grade 12. We found no increase in fertility, no increase in family dissolution rates
and no improvement in birth outcomes. Our results document the value of health administration
data for historical analysis, and demonstrate that a relatively modest GAI can improve
population health suggesting the possibility of health system savings.

"Suggesting the possibility of health system savings" is not the same thing as offsetting the cost of UBI to begin with. And yes reducing the labor market is kind of a big deal, considering that's where the money for UBI is coming from.

meestermj posted...

Firstly, why are you so caught up on the lowered labor market, and not the various posts before now purporting that studies concluded the positives of the system outweighed that?

That's not what the study said.

And I'm "hung up" on the labor market because that's where the government is getting its money in the first place. Labor is kinda how the government makes money.
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

eston posted...

Again, nobody's telling you not to be skeptical. An anonymous source isn't as believable as a named source, I can agree with that, but implying that an anonymous source automatically makes the story untrue is beyond stupid, and that's what you're defending right now.

"I know a guy who said this" is not evidence. And Hitchens' Razor states that claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Therefore any story based on an anonymous source can be immediately dismissed.
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

scar the 1 posted...

I'm saying, as a matter of principle, that making an extrapolation based on an observation two years away from the experiment's end is something that anyone would agree is not smart.

Well Mincome was brought up earlier and even after 4 years they showed the labor market went down.

Why then should we expect a UBI system to work after 3 years? What magical variable was present in here but nowhere else UBI had been tried?
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

eston posted...

As a journalist it really shouldn't be an issue, because it is your job to verify your sources. They are not anonymous to you, only to your readers.

Why would anyone trust an anonymous source from an outlet that has lied before
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

scar the 1 posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

scar the 1 posted...

It seems like you're not understanding what I'm saying. Or intentionally misunderstanding. Which is lacking, your intelligence or your honesty?

You're poo-pooing linear extrapolation as a form of gathering data in order to defend linear extrapolation over a longer period of time. Do you know what linear extrapolation even is, or did you just use those words to try to sound smart?

I do know what it is. For example, if I throw a ball upwards, it would be foolish to assume that it would keep going upwards just because it happened to be doing so at one point in time.

What variable would make UBI cheaper in the long run in the way gravity would reverse a ball's trajectory

Because Mincome seemed to prove that it would reduce the labor market over time. How would that lead to more money in the economy? Much less enough to offset the cost of UBI in the first place, plus the worst-case scenario of businesses moving out of the country to avoid the higher taxes
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

The Great Muta 22 posted...

And I don't give a shit how much it triggers you and Mal, the use of unnamed sources is a common journalism practice, has been forever, and it will continue to be in the future.

I'm not seeing how any of that makes anonymous sources more trustworthy.
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

eston posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

Which most major media outlets don't have.

CNN is even willing to lie about Trump calling all hispanic people "animals" when it's obvious from the footage that he was referring to a gang that literally sells children as sex slaves.

That's an example of sensationalism and isn't really the same thing as fabricating anonymous sources

Using an anonymous source has the advantage of being nearly impossible to disprove. Watch this:

I have a friend who knows eston very well, and he says eston eats his steak well-done with ketchup, and likes pineapple on his pizza.

^ Disprove that.
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

BWing posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

Give me a break, darkman would complain that my responses to him were too long and then leave in a huff.

Keep telling yourself that. Everyone else knows the truth

Sephiroth1288 posted...

And what's the connection here ITT? That UBI didn't fail? That it's not projected to be cost-effective? Because the only posters who seem to be saying that have resorted to ad hominem 50 posts ago after they couldn't explain how it wasn't a failure.

---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

scar the 1 posted...

It seems like you're not understanding what I'm saying. Or intentionally misunderstanding. Which is lacking, your intelligence or your honesty?

You're poo-pooing linear extrapolation as a form of gathering data in order to defend linear extrapolation over a longer period of time. Do you know what linear extrapolation even is, or did you just use those words to try to sound smart?
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

BWing posted...

You're practically the definition of a shitposter. Plus you resort to every fallacy in the book. It's why people who are actually politically intelligent have stopping talking to you. Notice how people like Darkman don't engage you? He got tired of beating your ass and you continuing to attack with fallacies.

Give me a break, darkman would complain that my responses to him were too long and then leave in a huff. That's not exactly winning an argument.

And what's the connection here ITT? That UBI didn't fail? That it's not projected to be cost-effective? Because the only posters who seem to be saying that have resorted to ad hominem 50 posts ago after they couldn't explain how it wasn't a failure.
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

scar the 1 posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

Eat More Beef posted...

You do understand what a pilot project is, correct? You do understand that these things need to run their full slated course before being determined whether it was a success or failure, right? Them cancelling it after only one year, and two full years early, does not provide enough data to judge said project one way or another.

The problem is that it's never "enough" data. If a program is failing, the reason is always chalked up to it not being given enough time to work.

You'd think someone pursuing a bachelor in physics would understand that sometimes linear extrapolation isn't suitable.

You'd have more of a leg to stand on if you could point to one successful longstanding UBI system in history.
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

Bio1590 posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

bevan306 posted...

I mean trump just called for the doj to look into clinton again because he read a story that that china hacked her emails. A story based on anonymous sources....

Actually it was based on a report from the ICIG but whatever

The International Chemical Investors Group?

Intelligence Community Inspector General
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

BWing posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

the guy who does nothing but shitpost in every topic about politics.

Sephiroth1288 posted...

You can disagree with me all you want but disagreement != shitposting
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

Doom_Art posted...

BWing posted...

He literally does, as a Trump apologist

What are you talking about

Mal is a nonpartisan independent libertarian who hates both sides equally

I like how the guy who constantly accuses me of having meltdowns for arguing against progressive groupthink is the guy who does nothing but shitpost in every topic about politics.
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

bevan306 posted...

I mean trump just called for the doj to look into clinton again because he read a story that that china hacked her emails. A story based on anonymous sources....

Actually it was based on a report from the ICIG but whatever
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

MorningRose posted...

legendary_zell posted...

This dude is so dangerous to our democracy and any sense of independent truth. Anonymous sources have always been used and have always been validated.

Yeah that's a big 'ol streaming pile of bullshit right there.
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

Eat More Beef posted...

You do understand what a pilot project is, correct? You do understand that these things need to run their full slated course before being determined whether it was a success or failure, right? Them cancelling it after only one year, and two full years early, does not provide enough data to judge said project one way or another.

The problem is that it's never "enough" data. If a program is failing, the reason is always chalked up to it not being given enough time to work.
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

UnfairRepresent posted...

Your argument is self defeating

if the media could simply make shit up then Trump would be a mass murdering serial kiddie rapist

I mean they already abuse him of being the second coming of Hitler, so I don't know why you believe they wouldn't.

The problem though with falsely accusing someone of a crime is that it leads to questions of why no one has brought charges.

eston posted...

It really just comes down to credibility of the outlet.

Which most major media outlets don't have.

CNN is even willing to lie about Trump calling all hispanic people "animals" when it's obvious from the footage that he was referring to a gang that literally sells children as sex slaves.
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

DEKMStephens posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

Doom_Art posted...
Like I'm seriously struggling to understand how you arrived at this interpretation of events, Mal

I'm really enjoying watching you struggle to defend UBI with the argument that "they ended it before it could fail, therefore UBI isn't a failure".

This is an odd way of saying "prove Bigfoot doesn't exist"

That's an odd non-sequitur
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

Seriously though, what assurance do we have that anonymous sources have any credibility, or even exist? We know by now that major media outlets are all willing to lie in order to push their political agendas, so why wouldn't they also lie about their "anonymous sources"?
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248