Wikipedia as a tool to manipulate the public perception

You can bluster as much as you want. It is, and has always been, a far right trope.

I haven't called you any names. I have just referred to the reality. Why are you pretending to be anything but far right?

 

then tell yourself it's a far-right trope and give yourself a great big ol hug and tell yourself how you won the argument.

If you need me to pat you on the back burner until you good job forget it

I'm sure anyone that disagrees with you is invariably judged as far right.



As to how I'm going to convince you that I'm not far right I don't care to. Think of me whatever you want.

 

It is. There's no debate in it. You either say "ooops, sorry for that" or "yep, I'm far right". You haven't done the former.

 

I don't care what you think. if there's no debate on it what are you doing here?

I'm not doing either one of those. I'm not the least bit sorry and I never will be. And no I'm not far right.

Hold whatever painting you wish of me as far as that goes I don't care.

 

Its nothing to do with me and my opinion. You've given a well known far right wing trope. I've merely asked you to apologise or celebrate the far right perspective. You say that you're not far right, but ignore the fact that you have given that trope. You need to be more honest.

 

I'm not sorry and I'm not far right.

If you want to think I'm dishonest be my guest I don't value your approval.

 

Given you use a far right trope and pretend otherwise, we haven't got anything else to say. We both know the reality. Goodbye.

 

Posturing aside if you need people to admit things in order to move forward in debate this isn't for you.

But it's been fun teaching you this lesson

Goodbye.

 

The far right trope won't let the far right winger go....

 

So, what happened to Conservapedia? Oh, I see, they are still online, looking like Wikipedia but serving up RW disinformation.

 

At least they're honest about their bias.

 

Question of the Ages, are they -that- clueless that obvious bias escapes them utterly when it's compliant and favoring "their side?" or more likely, just garden variety purposeful, repetitive liars?

No "c" answer.

 

When I said today I was referring to conservapedia. They are at least honest that they are biased.

Also bias doesn't mean fake.

 

I know, the difference between conservapedia and wikipedia is evident in this thread and almost all threads here. Ask a private sector person what they are seeking? "less obtrusive and taxing government." Simple, clear, honest. It says what it is -right on the label-, "less government, less taxes" in giant bold letters.

Ask what a gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-trial lawyer-MSM Complex parasite creep what they are seeking? Some gibberish about "right wing tropes," "BLM/white privilege," "wealth inequality," the "difference between LW, 'liberals,' radicals, communists, progressives,'" "you didn't do that," or some other transparent claptrap or hoodoo. What they will never admit? "Me and my government-dependent family want more salary, benefits, welfare, less work, gov contracts, public union clout, gov grants, redistribution-fueled consumer-celebrity culture, outright handouts etc. on the taxpayer's dime."

Difference is STARK, repeated here hundreds of times a day.

 

You really have to check the sourcing.

 

You know the old saying, 'Truth and Facts have a liberal bias'.

 

Y'all just can't help trotting out the Venezuela 'socialist nightmare' boogeyman. Strawman argument..

 

Yip, FB... messenger and marketplace are all I use it for.

 

Frankly I wouldn't trust any of the sites you like to post here.

 

He is worried for his country. It is a reasonable worry in my view.

 

I don't even know what that is. all I know is that's what people say they use it for