House Intel votes to release FISA memo...

[Tassman]

This is called an opinion.

It's an "opinion" from an authoritative source and it's widely supported. Therefore it warrants being taken seriously.

[Mountain Man]

It matters in that one needs to take into account it's extreme right-wing bias. “Breitbart News Network is a politically conservative American news and opinion website founded in 2007 by conservative commentator and entrepreneur Andrew Breitbart (1969–2012). It also has a daily radio program, Breitbart News Daily. The content ranges from extreme right wing bias to conspiracy to racism”.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/breitbart/

The fact that you quote Breitbart almost exclusively puts you in the same category.

Media Bias Fact Check has no credibility, not when they rate far-left and questionably accurate sites like Snopes, Politifact, Washington Post, and Politico as unbiased or slightly left-leaning and highly accurate.

But they tell you what you want to hear, and that's good enough for you, am I right?

[Tassman]

Media Bias Fact Check has no credibility, not when they rate far-left and questionably accurate sites like Snopes, Politifact, Washington Post, and Politico as unbiased or slightly left-leaning and highly accurate.

But they tell you what you want to hear, and that's good enough for you, am I right?

Well you are a prime example of that, as several people have pointed out.

[shunyadragon]

This is called an opinion.

. . . by a recognized Republican authority.

[Mountain Man]

Well you are a prime example of that, as several people have pointed out.

Nah, I see you babies crying about my sources without ever successfully refuting any of the information presented. One of the reasons I keep using Breitbart is because of your histrionics.

[shunyadragon]

Nah, I see you babies crying about my sources without ever successfully refuting any of the information presented. One of the reasons I keep using Breitbart is because of your histrionics.

This is not a coherent reason to use Breitbart, because the reason to use a news source is the nature of the news source and not you accusation of histrionics of another which is questionable hyperbole. Breitbart is an extreme conservative right wing source. I would not rely on Bretbart any more than I would rely on Chapo Trap House,

[Cow Poke]

. . . by a recognized Republican authority.

And THIS is a really DUMB opinion.

[Mountain Man]

This is not a coherent reason to use Breitbart, because the reason to use a news source is the nature of the news source and not you accusation of histrionics of another which is questionable hyperbole. Breitbart is an extreme conservative right wing source. I would not rely on Bretbart any more than I would rely on Chapo Trap House,

And yet nobody has ever refuted any Breitbart article I've posted. They cry, they whine, they appeal to the genetic fallacy, they find some liberal website that will give it the unsubstantiated spin they're looking for... but actual refutations? Few and far between, my friend.

[carpedm9587]

So now you double down with the ad hominem fallacy and still haven't credibly disputed the article in question.

Nicely played.

Ad hominem? I observe that you are locked into a bubble, MM. That is an observation based upon your posts. And of COURSE I have not credibly disputed your post. History suggests there is absolutely nothing anyone can post that you will view as "credible" if it has to do with Breitbart and casts them in a negative, so you can continue to say, "never been shown wrong." Making any further attempt to do so is pointless. If you think I am wrong about this, there is a simple solution. Show me (us?) a single post in which you agreed with a negative summary of Breitbart. Surely this media outlet cannot be unique in being flawless? Surely you must have found one little article where Breitbart has erred, and retracted it?

[Mountain Man]

Ad hominem? I observe that you are locked into a bubble, MM.

You've convinced yourself that this is what you "observe" because you think this in and of itself discredits my position without you taking the trouble to actually discredit it. It's a classic ad hominen fallacy.

So here's the article in question:

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2018/...yre-going-win/

Which I summarized as follows: 'Former CIA counterterrorism official Phil Mudd tells CNN that the FBI is ticked at Trump for releasing the memo and says, "I know how this game is going to be played, and we’re going to win."'

I then gave some commentary that these are chilling words, almost as if he's forgotten that the FBI is not its own branch of the government but is answerable to Congress and the President himself.

You've objected to this, but I'm not sure why. Are you suggesting that Mudd really didn't say this, and that Breitbart fabricated the quote? Do you dispute the fact that the FBI is answerable to Congress and the President? Do you take issue with my calling this a "chilling" pronouncement?

Who knows what you're actually disagreeing with here, because all you've offered is "But- but Breitbart! "

Seriously, carpe, stop this foolishness, because you are quickly becoming a waste of my time.

[carpedm9587]

You've convinced yourself that this is what you "observe" because you think this in and of itself discredits my position without you taking the trouble to actually discredit it. It's a classic ad hominen fallacy.

So here's the article in question:

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2018/...yre-going-win/

Which I summarized as follows: 'Former CIA counterterrorism official Phil Mudd tells CNN that the FBI is ticked at Trump for releasing the memo and says, "I know how this game is going to be played, and we’re going to win."'

I then gave some commentary that these are chilling words, almost as if he's forgotten that the FBI is not its own branch of the government but is answerable to Congress and the President himself.

You've objected to this, but I'm not sure why. Are you suggesting that Mudd really didn't say this, and that Breitbart fabricated the quote? Do you dispute the fact that the FBI is answerable to Congress and the President? Do you take issue with my calling this a "chilling" pronouncement?

Who knows what you're actually disagreeing with here, because all you've offered is "But- but Breitbart! "

Seriously, carpe, stop this foolishness, because you are quickly becoming a waste of my time.

So would you please go back and point out exactly where I "objected to" this article?

[Sparko]

Does anyone else find it ironic that while the democrats and FBI are investigating Trump for colluding with the Russians, the only thing that is clear is that the Democrats were the ones colluding with the Russians to create the dossier that they are using to investigate Trump?

[Zymologist]

Does anyone else find it ironic that while the democrats and FBI are investigating Trump for colluding with the Russians, the only thing that is clear is that the Democrats were the ones colluding with the Russians to create the dossier that they are using to investigate Trump?

There's so much irony in politics nowadays that I think I might be at risk of liver failure.

[Mountain Man]

So would you please go back and point out exactly where I "objected to" this article?

Is this your way of conceding that Breitbart accurately reported the facts?

[carpedm9587]

Is this your way of conceding that Breitbart accurately reported the facts?

No. I have not read the article, so I have no position on the article. I never have. This is my way of asking you to defend your claim that I "objected to" the Brietbart article.