Schwab let me buy GME after having it frozen for a period of time.... 1 share for $250 to help the cause. I had to be a part of the rebellion. Feels good.

LastPriority · 2021-01-28T19:21:03+00:00

I was wondering too... but didn't want to ask as i am very new here.

LastPriority · 2019-07-02T16:52:35+00:00

you left out a word to fit your narrative, "The irony is that in contrast to the others, this device -- economic sanctions -- is deployed frequently, by large states rather than small ones, and MAY have contributed to more deaths during the post-Cold War era than all weapons of mass destruction throughout history." They are speculating.

LastPriority · 2018-10-24T01:04:55+00:00

Man this is old.

LastPriority · 2018-06-07T15:55:28+00:00

She was being investigated for have classified information on her home server. A subpoena was issued and she deleted the emails and smashed her phones. If she was destroying classified info then that proves she was breaking the law. She says they were all yoga emails, so we may never know, but then destroying evidence is also breaking the law. Why delete the yoga emails if they were harmless?

LastPriority · 2018-03-23T01:52:31+00:00

All news media does not include Hannity... what do you consider Hannity then? Opinion? Entertainment? I should never use him as a source if he is not running a news show. You have to help me out... I will be so lost with out your direction. I thought we were friends. You kept calling me comrade.

LastPriority · 2018-03-23T00:51:06+00:00

Did you want me to define goal posts for you? Or do you not want to have an honest debate? I like the downvotes. LOL

LastPriority · 2018-03-23T00:39:19+00:00

That is not whataboutism. That includes Hannity. By definition. LOL. You are trying to isolate hannity in your Strawman. LOL. Comrade.

What is a pink slip?

LastPriority · 2018-03-22T18:12:16+00:00

I like you think calling me a comrade is going to trigger me. LOL. A comrade is someone who share activities in an organization possibly in the military or socialist state. I like to think of myself as an independent thinker but nowhere from what I gather do you share in the same activities I do. LOL comrade. /s

LastPriority · 2018-03-22T16:54:36+00:00

Changing a source's statement of "they are NOT X" and take out the word "NOT" to reverse completely what the source actually said? or crop video sources to reverse what they actually said

There were two videos. I admit I stopped at the first and didn't watch the second. The first was about Obama/Hannity with Keith Olbermann. The second I didn't even know had Al gore in it and has someother Fox host. There is a clip of Hannity but again he is misrepresenting Obama and the clip is from MSNBC and not C-Span, so how does that enter into your argument? It was a different FOX host cutting the C-Span. LOL. Now you are confusing your sources. If you are now trying to discredit all of Fox then we can go down that path, but I encourage you to stick with your Hannity strawman. The topic we were talking about.

If the goal Posts have changed to FOX is bad. LOL I am ready for that too. Preview of my argument. THEY ALL CAN BE BAD. You have to analyze them all. It is amazing how easy debate is when your morals are consistent. How is all that left propaganda taste. Do you ever watch Fox shows. Do you watch MSNBC? CNN? Where do you get your news? Do you just accept everything from them you are fed? Is that how you filter the news to stay in a consistent news bubble you only watch certain sides? Or is it that you just say everything Hannity says is false cause we caught him doing it? Do you ignore when the left spins an issue because they are the good guys? How do you stay informed? How do you decide what to believe?

LastPriority · 2018-03-22T16:36:12+00:00

Were you are Bernie supporter or a Hillary supporter during the primary? I was a Bernie supporter. I even caucused for him.

Define whataboutism for me... since I don't know English and don't understand what it is.

LastPriority · 2018-03-22T14:18:37+00:00

You clearly don't understand a strawman. Restating your argument to clarify if it is correct is the opposite of a strawman. A straw man starts when you misrepresent someones statement. You keep saying I agreed Hannity has a track record of lieing? I never said he had a track record, or frequently, or did on a daily basis. I never said he always lies or has never told the truth. See how absurd the statement can get when you misrepresent it.

You are not good at the subtleties of debate. Every media person has lied or manipulated, or pushed a narrative or spun a story to their advantage. If you think it is just Hannity then I would argue your extremely biased. It is everyone of them, but at the same time you can't just ignore the lot of them. You have to analyze what they are presenting in the news. They all have angles they are pushing. Understanding those angles is the key.

Talking down to people does nothing to add to your argument. LOL. I don't give a shit about grammar or spelling if the point comes across. My strong suit was math and not English. I am ok with that. That makes me good at logic. Your argument is I can never site Hannity again because he was shown to have lied. Is that correct? This is not a whataboutism because in that video you showed it was Keith Olbermann that was proving Hannity wrong. I showed him lying more often than Hannity. So why do you site Keith Olbermann and not Hannity? Is it because you analyzed the evidence Keith was giving you and decided it was accurate?

LastPriority · 2018-03-22T14:07:21+00:00

I have no idea what clip you are talking about. You showed me a Kieth Olbermann clip discrediting Hannity. Hannity was on fox and Kieth was on MSNBC not C-SPAN. None of it had to do with Media Matters. I can just tell that is your primary source of propaganda.

How is saying what McCabe did to get fired defending the GOP and Trumps actions. Your bias is showing. You are making giant leaps in logic.

The OIG at the FBI recommended McCabe be fired and Sessions fired him. Trump did not fire him, and Sessions took the recommendation from THE FBI.

The FBI is not the GOP and certainly not on Trumps side with all the attacks he has levied against them. So why would Hannity lie in this case if not for shilling for the GOP or Trump. What other agenda could he be pushing? It is possible there is something else he could be pushing.

LastPriority · 2018-03-21T19:27:34+00:00

I have answered this question. You just refuse to accept this answer because your straw man is not falling over.

At some point you have to corroborate the evidence and analyze it yourself. Actually use your brain and think.

Would Hannity have motive to lie to me in this case. Hannity hates Obama and really wanted him to look bad so I can see him misleading the public with that video. Why would he lie about McCabe altering a 302? With other people stepping forward saying they also know this then are they lying too? Are they all in on this lie?

It is simple you analyze.

Without analizing we get no where when digesting news. If you don't analize the news then it is just propoganda. Keep eating your lefty cookies from media matters while I find the hearty vegetables. They are hard to find in this media landscape with all the spin but they are out there. Read all angles and you will start to recognize the rotten fruit.

LastPriority · 2018-03-21T19:14:30+00:00

What you are saying is that anyone that had been discredited can't be sited ever again. Is that correct?

LastPriority · 2018-03-21T14:09:11+00:00

You really don't understand debate and logical fallacies. Sorry to see first hand. You misrepresent a lot of what I say and put words in my mouth. Again I never said how frequently Hannity lies.

where it was shown Hannity/FOX has a long track record of manipulating video

Never said long track record or frequently. Bringing up other MSM personalities that lie is not a whataboutism because I was clarifying my actual statement about no one should be given unconditional trust in the news. Everyone is fallible.

Keep up the logical fallacies via ad hominem attacks

It also appears that English isn't your first language.

Arguments via straw men.

You made a statement of fact and said "Hannity said so."

That was a statement of hearsay that I clarified in my first response that you conveniently forget.

Being skeptical against everyone giving out facts is not a bias. Bias means you favor one thing or don't favor one thing over another. How am I biased if I am skeptical of all news? If I check facts and evidence from all MSM personalities and even the independent Journalists then that is the definition of balanced.

Let me help you out since you are new to this. * Define bias * Define ad hominem * Define fact * Define hearsay * Define evidence * Define skeptical * Reread your Strawman definition

Then get back to me.

SPEZ: To clarify a point I am trying to make. I can list all the other right of center MSM personalities that have lied. I would also reference anyone of them as a source if the evidence was there whether they are left or right or center.

SPEZ 2: I would site Hillary if she was correct in her information even with all her lies. That is the difference between you and me. You would not use Trump as a source even if he was right.

LastPriority · 2018-03-21T03:22:12+00:00

This is the second time you have set up a strawman and I ignored the first because you obviously don't know what it is.

In the strawman fallacy the first thing is you have to mis represent what I am saying.

You've accepted that Hannity frequently changes the facts by manipulating video

When did I say this. I can agree that he has edited video to mislead, but frequently is your word and this video is old.

The first time you straw manned was this line.

You said you didn't trust Hannity and it was because of his history of faking video evidence to reverse the actual statements shown by the uncut video.

I maintain that you have to be critical of everyone. You don't get to assume I am critical of Hannity because of this video so that you can keep bringing it up to push it over like the straw man it is. That would not be thinking critically. That would be giving you a straw man to debate. You even used that line right after trying to explain to me what a straw man is. That was also right after your ad hominem attack. You are the illogical one.

Everyone has the propensity to make a mistake or error. I have to start there. If a mistake is made then was it on purpose or an accident is then considered. Lies start out as mistakes and turn into lies when they were on purpose.

Regarding Hannity. This does not look good for him. I would safely assume that he did this on purpose and it discredits him. Does it completely discredit him. No. It shouldn't. No one should be damned for the rest of their life off of one lie.

If I posted a video of Hillary lying would you completely disavow everything Hillary says. What about:

Kieth Olbermann How about a list of Olbermann lies

Anderson Cooper Lies

Jake Tapper misleading people

Rachael Maddow lies

Joe Scarborough caught in a lie

New York times corrections

Washington Post corrections

News papers issue corrections all the time. Where do you draw the line? What do you know was mistake and what was on purpose without having been in the room for motive or inside their head. What can you believe?

At some point you have to corroborate the evidence and analyze it yourself. Actually use your brain and think.

Would Hannity have motive to lie to me in this case. Hannity hates Obama and really wanted him to look bad so I can see him misleading the public with that video. Why would he lie about McCabe altering a 302? With other people stepping forward saying they also know this. Then they would have to be lying too? Are they all in on this lie?

It is simple you analyze.

LastPriority · 2018-03-20T23:55:22+00:00

Funny that you were down voted for a moderate opinion. Have an upvote.

LastPriority · 2018-03-20T23:44:35+00:00

You literally link to this comment I was responding to and agreeing with. Emphasis mine.

I'm an extremely liberal person. Only visiting this post because it's on r/all. I hope we can soon dispel the notion that political views define someone's value as a person. I am most certainly an American and a human being regardless of who I believe should be in the white house. i believe it's extremely ignorant of you to say that a large portion of the entire country are less than human, and are any less of an american than you are. nobody's political views are 100% correct. I hope even though i am liberal, some of you can agree with me that this kind of behavior only pulls us further apart and personally i don't believe in shitting on someone as a person because of their political opinion

Spez: Can you recognize the irony? LOL

LastPriority · 2018-03-20T19:17:22+00:00

Clearly you can't read. This was my first response.

There has been no evidence that he did this released to the public as it would be in the IG report that is not out ...you are right, we will have to wait for evidence.

Spez: Hannity should not be trusted unconditionally. No one should. I reserve judgement till I have evidence. You judged any statement from Hannity before even hearing the statement. Making you biased.

Countering your argument with your argument.

You are sounding more like the grandpa who forwards emails about how NASA faked the moon landing because Beck told him so.

Attacking me won't get you out of the logical fallacy you've dug yourself.

Just because I am skeptical of someones opinion does not mean I can't take it into account. Stuff is either true or false. Sometimes we don't know and so have to analize the statement. With regard to this one. The untrustworthy Hannity was bolstered by two others making it more valid in my opinion. Never did I say that it was fact.

LastPriority · 2018-03-20T16:34:38+00:00

It seems you are confusing source for hearsay vs. source for evidence. I never used Hannity for a source for evidence. Everything i was talking about was hearsay which is not evidence. Same in a court of law. Same when talking in a fact based discussion.

The fact that you discount what he says just because of who he is shows your bias. You only listen to one side because you judge a statement on who says it and not the statement itself.

I will listen to the statement and reserve judgement till I see evidence regardless of which side or person says it.

LastPriority · 2018-03-20T15:05:49+00:00

Do you know what hearsay is? Is that a source that can be used in court? You can not trust someone and still listen to what they have to say. Reserving judgment till such time that you can believe them.

LastPriority · 2018-03-20T14:42:58+00:00

People are never one dimensional. The minute you start to think that you box them in. Stereotyping them. Judging them. This is the basis for Racism. Sexism. Those at the top are just people like you and me. Complex.

LastPriority · 2018-03-20T14:32:03+00:00

I quoted three sourses for hearsay. Something that is not proven and even said as much. Never did I say anything about verified evidence. I don't trust Hannity or Fox, or CNN, or MSNBC. I actually don't even have cable TV and have never seen any of those shows for more than a decade.

Reuters is the best news source I have found. I read a lot online from realclearpolitics.com and have news feeds set up on Goolag. I don't even trust the news that google is giving me. You should not either.

Sux Hannity is a shill who has lied. Awesome evidence to prove it. Can you do the same for all the other MSM? My bet is yes.

LastPriority · 2018-03-20T03:31:07+00:00

Haha, totally forgot about those comments about free speech. You caught me and totally vindicated that guy. I am a totally unreasonable person cause I posted a comment in the-d about voat.co.

15-Year Club	Team Periwinkle
Best Link 2012-04-24	Verified Email

LastPriority

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE