Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Daily Caller
Breitbart
Gateway Pundit
Huffington Post

You are an idiot if you read any of these.

Reading different viewpoints does not make one an idiot.

Reading unreliable news sources does.

Reading them isn't the problem, believing them is. There is a difference.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Daily Caller
Breitbart
Gateway Pundit
Huffington Post

You are an idiot if you read any of these.

Reading different viewpoints does not make one an idiot.

Reading unreliable news sources does.

What does "unreliable" mean. Something that doesn't fit your biased assumption about what news is? Sorry, the real idiot is the one categorically rejecting ideas based on the source, rather than on the idea.

No. Unreliable means frequently reports facts that are disproven, and seldom or never issues retractions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Daily Caller
Breitbart
Gateway Pundit
Huffington Post

You are an idiot if you read any of these.

Reading different viewpoints does not make one an idiot.

NP... The homeless drunk who lives under a bridge also has a "viewpoint" which is as much schlock as the ones above. Only difference is that the President and his staff, i.e Bannon isn't listening to the homeless drunk guy ranting, but they apparently do listen to the Breitbart and Gateway Pundit. And the difference is that Breitbart and Gateway Pundit's angry ranting will actually end up hurting people.

Anonymous wrote:Is there a reason you are discussing the views of a minor pundit from two weeks ago?

I believe this is the person who is absolutely obsessed with celebrities s/he disagrees with. Nuttily obsessed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Daily Caller
Breitbart
Gateway Pundit
Huffington Post

You are an idiot if you read any of these.

Reading different viewpoints does not make one an idiot.

Reading unreliable news sources does.

What does "unreliable" mean. Something that doesn't fit your biased assumption about what news is? Sorry, the real idiot is the one categorically rejecting ideas based on the source, rather than on the idea.

Good God. The publications mentioned above are too ideologically aligned (both right and left) to be viewed as reliable news sources. They exist on both ends of the political spectrum. Thinking that Breitbart brings you the unvarnished truth while the Huffington Post is lies and propaganda (or vice versa) speaks to your issues with the reality.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Daily Caller
Breitbart
Gateway Pundit
Huffington Post

You are an idiot if you read any of these.

Reading different viewpoints does not make one an idiot.

Reading unreliable news sources does.

What does "unreliable" mean. Something that doesn't fit your biased assumption about what news is? Sorry, the real idiot is the one categorically rejecting ideas based on the source, rather than on the idea.

Unreliable means the news is made up. Why not just pick up a good novel if you are looking to get ideas from fiction?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Daily Caller
Breitbart
Gateway Pundit
Huffington Post

You are an idiot if you read any of these.

Reading different viewpoints does not make one an idiot.

Reading unreliable news sources does.

What does "unreliable" mean. Something that doesn't fit your biased assumption about what news is? Sorry, the real idiot is the one categorically rejecting ideas based on the source, rather than on the idea.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Daily Caller
Breitbart
Gateway Pundit
Huffington Post

You are an idiot if you read any of these.

Reading different viewpoints does not make one an idiot.

Reading unreliable news sources does.

Anonymous wrote:Daily Caller
Breitbart
Gateway Pundit
Huffington Post

You are an idiot if you read any of these.

Reading different viewpoints does not make one an idiot.

Daily Caller
Breitbart
Gateway Pundit
Huffington Post

You are an idiot if you read any of these.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a reason you are discussing the views of a minor pundit from two weeks ago?

At least you admit that the daily Kos is just a bunch of minor, unimportant, fake-news, pundits.

"Admit?" Can you point me to the people who think Daily Kos is a big deal, other than conservatives who hate it?

Anonymous wrote:Is there a reason you are discussing the views of a minor pundit from two weeks ago?

At least you admit that the daily Kos is just a bunch of minor, unimportant, fake-news, pundits.

Is there a reason you are discussing the views of a minor pundit from two weeks ago?

That was reported weeks ago. It was across the media.

Are there people out there who are so foolish they actually believe this drivel? It's right up there with Sarah Silverman claiming she was finding "swastikas" all around town which were actually construction markings. My God, the idiocy.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/2/21/1636419/-Yes-Trump-s-Aide-Really-Did-Throw-White-Power-Sign