quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

The Guardian, why not depend on the Inquirer?

From wiki:
"The Guardian is a British centre-left national daily newspaper.
[snip]
In August 2013 The Guardian in paper form had an average daily circulation of 189,000 copies, behind The Daily Telegraph and The Times, and ahead of The Independent.[5] The newspaper's online edition was the third most widely read in the world as of June 2012.[6] Its combined print and online editions reach nearly 9 million readers.[7]
In the 2015 UK general election, The Guardian endorsed the Labour Party.[8] In the previous general election it supported the Liberal Democrats.
Notable scoops include the newspaper's breaking of the News International phone hacking scandal in 2011, particularly with the revelation of the hacking of murdered teenager Milly Dowler's phone.[10] The investigation brought about the closure of one of the highest circulation newspapers in the world, the News of the World.[11] The newspaper also broke news of the secret collection of Verizon telephone records held by Barack Obama's administration in June 2013,[12] and subsequently revealed the existence of the PRISM surveillance program after it was leaked to the paper by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.[13] The Guardian was named newspaper of the year at the 2014 British Press Awards, for its reporting on government surveillance."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian
Are you seriously suggesting that the Inquirer and The Guardian share the same standing?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

You are seriously misinformed about 'The Guardian'. For example, contrary to your allegation, the odious Piers Morgan has never worked for the Guardian. Morgan made his reputation (such as it is) working for Murdoch's infamous tabloids such as the Daily Mirror. SOURCE

The Guardian is an internationally respected broadsheet paper, the recipient of numerous awards and in my experience, a reputable and reliable publisher of the news without fear or favour. It broke international headline stories such as the telephone hacking scandal, the wikileaks papers and Snowden's revelations about the US Govt spying on its own citizens. You ought to be grateful for that (last) story - it confirms many of your biases about your own Govt.

The fact that it publishes content not to your liking doesn't detract from that excellent reputation one iota. In fact my guess is that you would be far better informed if you read it regularly (there is a US edition online). Your current sources of information are letting you down repeatedly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

You are seriously misinformed about 'The Guardian'. For example, contrary to your allegation, the odious Piers Morgan has never worked for the Guardian. Morgan made his reputation (such as it is) working for Murdoch's infamous tabloids such as the Daily Mirror. SOURCE

The Guardian is an internationally respected broadsheet paper, the recipient of numerous awards and in my experience, a reputable and reliable publisher of the news without fear or favour. It broke international headline stories such as the telephone hacking scandal, the wikileaks papers and Snowden's revelations about the US Govt spying on its own citizens. You ought to be grateful for that (last) story - it confirms many of your biases about your own Govt.

The fact that it publishes content not to your liking doesn't detract from that excellent reputation one iota. In fact my guess is that you would be far better informed if you read it regularly (there is a US edition online). Your current sources of information are letting you down repeatedly.

Won't argue about the paper that you put such faith in. The fact is that the case THEY use as the basis for outrage was one proven justified, even by people determined to prove otherwise. That fact is the one of importance that discredits the story. Side issues are red herrings to distract from the fact that they blew it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

You are seriously misinformed about 'The Guardian'. For example, contrary to your allegation, the odious Piers Morgan has never worked for the Guardian. Morgan made his reputation (such as it is) working for Murdoch's infamous tabloids such as the Daily Mirror. SOURCE

The Guardian is an internationally respected broadsheet paper, the recipient of numerous awards and in my experience, a reputable and reliable publisher of the news without fear or favour. It broke international headline stories such as the telephone hacking scandal, the wikileaks papers and Snowden's revelations about the US Govt spying on its own citizens. You ought to be grateful for that (last) story - it confirms many of your biases about your own Govt.

The fact that it publishes content not to your liking doesn't detract from that excellent reputation one iota. In fact my guess is that you would be far better informed if you read it regularly (there is a US edition online). Your current sources of information are letting you down repeatedly.

Won't argue about the paper that you put such faith in. The fact is that the case THEY use as the basis for outrage was one proven justified, even by people determined to prove otherwise. That fact is the one of importance that discredits the story. Side issues are red herrings to distract from the fact that they blew it.

I love how everything with her is odious or a monster yet she gives advice not to go off on emotionally stray side paths.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

I blame fat females. If they did not eat so much, they would present a slimmer target and be more agile and more adept at avoiding being beaten up by their husband, and not being beaten up, there would have been no need for alerting the police and therefore no need for their mouth foaming husband to attack the police and therefore no need for the police to shoot dead their mouth foaming husband. It is all really simple, really. There ought to be a law prohibiting females from eating too much and becoming fat. I call on all wife-beating husbands to write to their representative in parliament and to ask them to introduce such a law. [8D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Yes, it is a left wing rag having had such notables as Piers Morgan on their staff, as I said I would as soon depend on the Inquirer. The fact remains that the DOJ went to Ferguson already convinced they would nail Wilson and even they found he acted properly. A fact not changed by your devotion to the Guardian or my contempt for it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Won't argue about the paper that you put such faith in. The fact is that the case THEY use as the basis for outrage was one proven justified, even by people determined to prove otherwise. That fact is the one of importance that discredits the story. Side issues are red herrings to distract from the fact that they blew it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Won't argue about the paper that you put such faith in. The fact is that the case THEY use as the basis for outrage was one proven justified, even by people determined to prove otherwise. That fact is the one of importance that discredits the story. Side issues are red herrings to distract from the fact that they blew it.

I really don't understand the basis for your complaint. To me you seem to be reading some meaning into the Guardian's text that isn't there. Here is the quote in full with the relevant part bolded:
"[i]Still, looking at our data for the US against admittedly less reliable information on police killings elsewhere paints a dramatic portrait, and one that resonates with protests that have gone global since a killing last year in Ferguson, Missouri: the US is not just some outlier in terms of police violence when compared with countries of similar economic and political standing.
America is the outlier – and this is what a crisis looks like."
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/09/the-counted-police-killings-us-vs-other-countries

To me, the article uses the Ferguson incident simply as a chronological reference point, as the point in time when protests against police killings went from local to global. It says nothing whatsoever about what the rights and wrongs of the Ferguson incident are or were. I cannot see how you arrive at the claim:
"The fact is that the case THEY use as the basis for outrage was one proven justified, even by people determined to prove otherwise. That fact is the one of importance that discredits the story".
There is nothing in the text to indicate that the Guardian report is using the Ferguson incident as the "basis for outrage" you claim it is. So I am unable to see any basis for your claim that this discredits the whole piece.

Perhaps you could explain your reasoning. Hopefully that will throw some light on how you arrived at the conclusion you did.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

And there you go. Exactly. Everything you bolded was not news, it was opinion. Opinion from a news paper that, on another thread, was shown to be racist and in the top ten of biased reporting. While that makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, it does point to the fact that it's more sensationalism then fact. Big drama for big drama queens to feel hate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


FR

CNN Infobabe Fights back

CNN Anchor Refers to Dallas Gunman's Actions as 'Courageous and Brave'

(If a moron says something moronic on CNN and nobodys watching...)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


FR

CNN Infobabe Fights back

CNN Anchor Refers to Dallas Gunman's Actions as 'Courageous and Brave'

(If a moron says something moronic on CNN and nobodys watching...)

Yep she still said it.
How could any sane person say something like that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


FR

CNN Infobabe Fights back

CNN Anchor Refers to Dallas Gunman's Actions as 'Courageous and Brave'

(If a moron says something moronic on CNN and nobodys watching...)

Yep she still said it.
How could any sane person say something like that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874

Maybe she had watched 'Liberty Valance' and heard the song a few too many times ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

To me you [BamaD] seem to be reading some meaning into the Guardian's text that isn't there. Here is the quote in full with the relevant part bolded:
"[i]Still, looking at our data for the US against admittedly less reliable information on police killings elsewhere paints a dramatic portrait, and one that resonates with protests that have gone global since a killing last year in Ferguson, Missouri"
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/09/the-counted-police-killings-us-vs-other-countries

quote:

HunterCA
Everything you [tweakabelle] bolded was not news, it was opinion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Opinion from a news paper that, on another thread, was shown to be racist and in the top ten of biased reporting. While that makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, it does point to the fact that it's more sensationalism then fact. Big drama for big drama queens to feel hate.