A Place for Conservatives

[fishonjazz]

I saw this on World's Funniest Home Videos, but it was a white father doing it to his son. The audience thought it was hilarious.

The audience on worlds funniest (and pretty much every other comedy tv show with a live audience) is encouraged to laugh at everything and even told when to do so. Helps the show seem funnier.

I like AFV though anyway

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Safetydan]

Don't tell Al Gore. He invented it you know.

Why not tell him? Seems like Al, the inventor of the internet, would be proud that Heathme can now resuscitate staged, 9th generation shampoo prank videos for his equally clueless conservative folk.

 

[jazzrule]

The truth does not always win out. The candidate that lied more than any modern candidate ever, won the last election. That is not an opinion either, it has been well proven with facts.

"The Media" does not attack conservatism. The media is wayyyyyyy too broad to make any kind of claim about it. But I am guessing you dont know what that is. Or maybe you meant main stream media. Which is still a pretty silly broad thing to make claims about and that would still be incorrect.

So many factually incorrect statements crammed in here that are all easily proven wrong. But I think you were just hoping to make a statement that sounded cool and powerful, lol. Love the ALWAYS statements though, they gave me a good chuckle.

Independent outlets have made studies of the mainstream media and found they are 90% against Trump with their coverage. Thanks for the chuckle.

 

[Ron Mexico]

Independent outlets have made studies of the mainstream media and found they are 90% against Trump with their coverage. Thanks for the chuckle.

Lol, please define that more. Fox news is very mainstream. Are they the study? Who is and who isn't.

Please post your source for that claim.

 

[Ron Mexico]

Independent outlets have made studies of the mainstream media and found they are 90% against Trump with their coverage. Thanks for the chuckle.

Independent studies have shown that every persistent who has won in recent years received more stories from media in general. They have also received more positive stories overall. Except Trump. But he didn't win the popular vote so that makes sense. Generally the media favors who the people favor because they chase viewers and numbers. At least in the large scale. That's why it's important to pursue good sources of news that don't cater to that or mix opinions and facts. That's why CNN and fox news are a complete waste of time.

But I'm preaching this to someone who thinks Yahoo comment sections are a good source.

 

[jazzrule]

Lol, please define that more. Fox news is very mainstream. Are they the study? Who is and who isn't.

Please post your source for that claim.

Will do old buddy: https://gellerreport.com/2019/01/2018-enedmia-coverage-trump-negative.html/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...ent-network-trump-coverage-has-been-negative/

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/6/trump-coverage-still-90-negative-says-new-study/

https://www.lifezette.com/2017/12/study-finds-90-percent-of-abc-cbs-nbc-trump-coverage-is-negative/

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/dec/12/media-bias-continues-90-of-trump-coverage-in-last-/

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...dy-cnn-nbc-trump-coverage-93-percent-negative

https://www.ibtimes.com/media-out-d...nds-91-percent-news-coverage-negative-2437262

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/media-trump-hatred-coverage/

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/timot...-media-coverage-negative-study-shows-n2504929 Are those enough old buddy, if not there is more.

 

[Ron Mexico]

Will do old buddy: https://gellerreport.com/2019/01/2018-enedmia-coverage-trump-negative.html/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...ent-network-trump-coverage-has-been-negative/

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/6/trump-coverage-still-90-negative-says-new-study/

https://www.lifezette.com/2017/12/study-finds-90-percent-of-abc-cbs-nbc-trump-coverage-is-negative/

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/dec/12/media-bias-continues-90-of-trump-coverage-in-last-/

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...dy-cnn-nbc-trump-coverage-93-percent-negative

https://www.ibtimes.com/media-out-d...nds-91-percent-news-coverage-negative-2437262

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/media-trump-hatred-coverage/

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/timot...-media-coverage-negative-study-shows-n2504929 Are those enough old buddy, if not there is more.

I don't have time right now to go through all of those. But the first one simple used 3 news sources for their info and only used the latest election. That's a terrible study. Is there reason to keep going? Or did you just use confirmation bias again as usual? Do you know what that is?

 

[Ron Mexico]

Will do old buddy: https://gellerreport.com/2019/01/2018-enedmia-coverage-trump-negative.html/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...ent-network-trump-coverage-has-been-negative/

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/6/trump-coverage-still-90-negative-says-new-study/

https://www.lifezette.com/2017/12/study-finds-90-percent-of-abc-cbs-nbc-trump-coverage-is-negative/

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/dec/12/media-bias-continues-90-of-trump-coverage-in-last-/

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...dy-cnn-nbc-trump-coverage-93-percent-negative

https://www.ibtimes.com/media-out-d...nds-91-percent-news-coverage-negative-2437262

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/media-trump-hatred-coverage/

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/timot...-media-coverage-negative-study-shows-n2504929 Are those enough old buddy, if not there is more.

Okay, going through those slightly more. You realize that a lot of those are quoting the same study right? You also realize you are claiming the liberal news is lying to you and wrong but using the same sources to show you are right? Also you realize that based on this really skewed concept that Fox news is has a liberal bias as well according to this data? Do you think that is true?

Trump got a lot more media coverage than any other candidate according to these sources. Most of that was bad news stories. But even if you just go off the good news stories he got more of those than Clinton did. Again, that is what people were reading and clicking on so that is the stories the news ran. Its pretty simple.

Just like Obama got more news stories, just like Bush got more news stories... See the trend?

Also why wouldnt you give the original source for the studies? Why give the news interpretations of those studies? Do you not know how to do that? Or, again. Did you just google what you think and post anything that confirms that without doing actual research?

 

[Heathme]

 

[Heathme]

 

[jazzrule]

I don't have time right now to go through all of those. But the first one simple used 3 news sources for their info and only used the latest election. That's a terrible study. Is there reason to keep going? Or did you just use confirmation bias again as usual? Do you know what that is?

Nice try Ron but one study had it at 93% bias against Trump, and it was made by liberal Harvard University. See you guys simply refuse to except facts. Show me show me and then I don't have time. Pitiful That is why I did not continue I knew I was wasting my time.

 

[fishonjazz]

Nice try Ron but one study had it at 93% bias against Trump, and it was made by liberal Harvard University. See you guys simply refuse to except facts. Show me show me and then I don't have time. Pitiful That is why I did not continue I knew I was wasting my time.

You didn't read his post right after the one you quoted?
You suck at this

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app