posted August 13, 2012 02:43 PM            

quote:

---

I knew you're intellectually incapable of understanding that a far left lunatic rag like Mother Jones is self disqualifying because of it's blatant bias.

---

If blatantly biased sources were outlawed by you, you'd have nothing to say here. The majority of what you post comes from obviously biased and unbalanced sources. So, once again, your position is ironic.

quote:

---

Just to show how unbalanced the usual suspects are, they love the far left loons..newspapers, blogs, cable and mags... who only tell their side..the leftist side, of the story but despise Fox News which puts on advocates from both sides and gives viewers both sides of stories.

Leftist loons don't want both sides to be heard. TS babies.

---

You might believe this, but it's factually untrue. Fox News copied the other cable stations that already were reporting from both sides of issues long before Fox ever existed. As such, there's no room for an attempt to make Fox out as the "fairest" (as if) news station.

There's also no room for the belief that Conservatives get a broader depth of news. If that were so, the Conservatives on this board would be FAR better informed. When you guys are able to start demonstrating that you actually grasp the full extent of what you're talking about, we'll re-assess your news sources. Until then, things are the same as they have been, which is to say that the Left here is generally better informed, and the Right is less informed.

posted August 13, 2012 08:45 PM            

Derail a thread about campaign finance-- dark money, by pretending to misread data, pretending to discredit a source, followed by LL pong.

Well done!

posted August 14, 2012 11:41 AM            

Mother Jones has zero credibility in rational circles. Mother Jones is a Socialist rag and an unfit source for credible news.

The Mother Jones founders and staff support communist dictators, are anti-capitalist and anti-America. Zero credibility there....except among the usual suspects, Socialist Kool-Aid swillers and radical revolutionaries who want to overthrow the United States.

MOTHER JONES MAGAZINE (MJM)

731 Market Street
6th Floor
San Francisco, CA
94103

Phone :415-665-6637
URL: Website

Magazine named for socialist labor organizer Mary Harris "Mother" Jones
Does investigative reporting that mostly targets corporations, capitalists, private property, and Republican officeholders

Mother Jones is a bimonthly magazine and website named for socialist "union organizer" Mary Harris "Mother" Jones (1830-1930). It prides itself on continuing her pursuit of socialist "social justice" by doing investigative reporting that mostly targets corporations, capitalists, private property, and Republican political officeholders.

Well-known leftist editors and writers on this magazine's masthead include Todd Gitlin, Molly Ivins, Bill McKibben, Richard Rodriguez, William Saletan, Orville Schell, Eric Schlosser, and Amy Wilentz.

Mother Jones began taking shape in 1974 when the Watergate scandal was demonstrating how investigative reporting could weaken and oust a Republican President elected by an overwhelming majority. Its genesis was a failed attempt to save the reigning radical magazine of the day, Ramparts. Ramparts editor David Horowitz had put together a team consisting of labor journalist Paul Jacobs, leftist entrepreneur Richard Parker, and leftist millionaire Adam Hochschild to take over Ramparts from its retiring editors, Horowitz and Peter Collier. When the trio had a falling out with Ramparts staffers, they elected to leave and create their own magazine, which became Mother Jones.

The magazine was launched in February 1976.

Mother Jones focuses heavily on the evils of capitalism and the alleged desirability of government control over business. On a global level, the magazine reserves its harshest condemnations for the U.S. and Israel, and is staunchly supportive of Marxist regimes like Fidel Castro's Cuba.

In 1986 Mother Jones hired a young Michigan underground newspaper founder named Michael Moore as its Editor. Five months later, Moore was fired after he rejected an article by socialist Paul Berman, a piece that Moore claimed was "unfairly critical" of the Sandinista dictatorship in Nicaragua. Moore sued, claiming wrongful dismissal. He pocketed $58,000 in an out-of-court settlement of his lawsuit, then used the money to produce his first film documentary, "Roger and Me."

posted August 14, 2012 12:05 PM            

You're citing a "Discover The Networks" article as your proof? So you're going on record using a biased source to out a biased source? Way to fight fire with fire.

posted August 15, 2012 04:59 PM            

completely false, completely motivated by hate, and printed as FACT.

posted August 15, 2012 11:07 PM            

Horowitz was a certified leftist...a communist and quite well known. He knows all the players in communist circles.

So acoustic, if it comes down to who I believe, it's sure as hell going to be Horowitz...Discover the Networks...and it sure as hell isn't going to be you.

"Its genesis, (Mother Jones) was a failed attempt to save the reigning radical magazine of the day, Ramparts. Ramparts editor David Horowitz had put together a team consisting of labor journalist Paul Jacobs, leftist entrepreneur Richard Parker, and leftist millionaire Adam Hochschild to take over Ramparts from its retiring editors, Horowitz and Peter Collier. When the trio had a falling out with Ramparts staffers, they elected to leave and create their own magazine, which became Mother Jones."

If you knew how to read with comprehension acoustic, it would not have escaped you that the Horowitz who was mobbed up with the other communists who broke off and started Mother Jones IS THE SAME HOROWITZ AT FRONTPAGE MAGAZINE WHERE "DISCOVER THE NETWORKS IS FOUND.

You're easy acoustic.

posted August 16, 2012 12:03 PM            

quote:

---

So acoustic, if it comes down to who I believe, it's sure as hell going to be Horowitz...Discover the Networks...and it sure as hell isn't going to be you.

---

Likewise, I'm sure. I get confirmation that I grasp reality all the time. You, on the other hand, get confirmation that you don't understand crap. If you were a thinking person that you be a call to inner scrutiny, but you don't engage in that. If you run into conflict with your ideas you try throwing everything at the wall to see what can get you out of having to face the sad fact that you're wrong.

quote:

---

If you knew how to read with comprehension acoustic, it would not have escaped you that the Horowitz who was mobbed up the the other communists who broke off and started Mother Jones IS THE SAME HOROWITZ AT FRONTPAGE MAGAZINE WHERE "DISCOVER THE NETWORKS IS FOUND.

---

My reading is NOT at issue as usual. I don't read Discover The Networks bullsh t. I don't care who Horowitz is, or who he was formerly associated with. That's guilt-by-association nonsense. If you can't bring yourself to disprove the data in the magazine, then your attempt at wholesale discrediting of the magazine is moot. It's the data that should be debated.

quote:

---

You're easy acoustic.

---

posted August 16, 2012 01:01 PM            

Mother Jones was started by Communists, staffed by Communists and remains so today. They're anti-capitalist, anti-free markets, anti-America and pro Communist dictatorships.

As such, Mother Jones has not one shred of credibility...except among the Loony-Tunes leftist set which you and the other usual suspects attempt to defend...and fail.

On the other hand, David Horowitz is a famous author.."Radical Son", lecturer and former Communist who knows where all the bodies are buried...some of them at Mother Jones.

posted August 16, 2012 01:35 PM            

It's not about connecting dots, or any such guilt-by-association nonsense as I JUST said.

The FACT remains that if you can't attack the data credibly, then your attack on the data source is moot.

posted August 17, 2012 11:14 AM            

This is the reason I sometimes use the Treason Times, Washington Compost and other leftist rags posing as new papers. They made a mistake and got something right!

As for the Daily Mail, I never go to their site. Posting from this source is incidental..meaning, I found their story on another site and clicked the link.

But, Mother Jones remains a Communist disinformation mag/rag. As such, Mother Jones is totally unreliable as a source for factual news...including the utter bullshiiit under discussion here.

It's not surprising to me that our "accidental Americans" here, the usual suspects, gravitate to and defend the anti-capitalist, anti-America, anti-American, pro Communist dictatorship rag...Mother Jones.

posted August 17, 2012 11:43 AM            

Nowhere in your ranting and raving do I see a dissection of the data. You're still in that hole you dug for yourself. You still haven't found a way to disprove Mother Jones.

posted August 17, 2012 03:44 PM            

Whatever, those who were interested clicked on the links.