Kaworu said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kid Quick said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

But I do know that the establishment media has been doing everything they could to kill the Hunter Biden story (at least until the election - maybe they'll show more interest afterward) in the name of defeating Trump.

---

How do you "know" that? What's the proof?

And remember, you have two claims here that both must be supported: that (1) the media is deliberately killing the story and (2) that they are doing it specifically to hurt Trump (or help Biden).

---

Like I said, most intellectually dishonest person on this site and it isn't close. It's not like you have to look very far for journalists who are saying this very thing.

https://nypost.com/2020/10/27/the-media-and-social-media-drive-to-squelch-information-a-menace-no-matter-who-wins-election/

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/27/opinion/hunter-biden-story-media.html

---

I was asking Kaworu, not you. I know what you think, Yogi.

---

Well, he wasn't wrong. He's hardly the only one talking about this.

---

Okay, so what's your answer? You know the media is trying to kill the story because folks like Matt Taibbi say so?

---

Because we can see that it's happening. And it's been reported on. But apparently you only consider some sources worthwhile.

---

Believe it or not, I have read his arguments like Taibbi's before. He tends to cite maybe one or two instances (like Twitter blocking the link to the original NY Post story) and then spin that into a speculative argument that the media at large is trying to help the Biden campaign. It's possible they are, but IMO it hasn't really been proven with solid evidence. There are a lot of other possible reasons why this could be happening (if it even is happening) that have little to do with helping one campaign or another. Mainstream news outlets could be trying to "cover their a**es" from being blamed again for over-focusing on sideline scandals with no real proof of wrongdoing, as they were for Hillary's emails in 2016. What about the Trump-Russia stuff from earlier in his term? That wasn't happening in an election year, and the sourcing for it wasn't someone literally working for a rival candidate (Giuliani). I think the equivalence is a little false here.

Or it could be that various editors/reporters are attempting to review and confirm the evidence and aren't finding enough to warrant a major story. That seemed to be happening at the Wall Street Journal, which is typically no friend of Democrats. How do you know it's not one of those things and instead is media collusion to help Joe Biden, as Taibbi or Greenwald or any number of right-wing pundits claim?

I try to weigh various sources' arguments against one another to determine what I find worthwhile. At the moment I'm finding Taibbi's argument wanting.

---

I have an easier summary for the above.

---

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kid Quick said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

But I do know that the establishment media has been doing everything they could to kill the Hunter Biden story (at least until the election - maybe they'll show more interest afterward) in the name of defeating Trump.

---

How do you "know" that? What's the proof?

And remember, you have two claims here that both must be supported: that (1) the media is deliberately killing the story and (2) that they are doing it specifically to hurt Trump (or help Biden).

---

Like I said, most intellectually dishonest person on this site and it isn't close. It's not like you have to look very far for journalists who are saying this very thing.

https://nypost.com/2020/10/27/the-media-and-social-media-drive-to-squelch-information-a-menace-no-matter-who-wins-election/

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/27/opinion/hunter-biden-story-media.html

---

I was asking Kaworu, not you. I know what you think, Yogi.

---

Well, he wasn't wrong. He's hardly the only one talking about this.

---

Okay, so what's your answer? You know the media is trying to kill the story because folks like Matt Taibbi say so?

---

Because we can see that it's happening. And it's been reported on. But apparently you only consider some sources worthwhile.

---

Believe it or not, I have read his arguments like Taibbi's before. He tends to cite maybe one or two instances (like Twitter blocking the link to the original NY Post story) and then spin that into a speculative argument that the media at large is trying to help the Biden campaign. It's possible they are, but IMO it hasn't really been proven with solid evidence. There are a lot of other possible reasons why this could be happening (if it even is happening) that have little to do with helping one campaign or another. Mainstream news outlets could be trying to "cover their a**es" from being blamed again for over-focusing on sideline scandals with no real proof of wrongdoing, as they were for Hillary's emails in 2016. What about the Trump-Russia stuff from earlier in his term? That wasn't happening in an election year, and the sourcing for it wasn't someone literally working for a rival candidate (Giuliani). I think the equivalence is a little false here.

Or it could be that various editors/reporters are attempting to review and confirm the evidence and aren't finding enough to warrant a major story. That seemed to be happening at the Wall Street Journal, which is typically no friend of Democrats. How do you know it's not one of those things and instead is media collusion to help Joe Biden, as Taibbi or Greenwald or any number of right-wing pundits claim?

I try to weigh various sources' arguments against one another to determine what I find worthwhile. At the moment I'm finding Taibbi's argument wanting.

---

I have an easier summary for the above.

---

I no longer believe you're not Yogi. I will not attempt to discuss things seriously with you anymore.

---

Kaworu said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kid Quick said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

But I do know that the establishment media has been doing everything they could to kill the Hunter Biden story (at least until the election - maybe they'll show more interest afterward) in the name of defeating Trump.

---

How do you "know" that? What's the proof?

And remember, you have two claims here that both must be supported: that (1) the media is deliberately killing the story and (2) that they are doing it specifically to hurt Trump (or help Biden).

---

Like I said, most intellectually dishonest person on this site and it isn't close. It's not like you have to look very far for journalists who are saying this very thing.

https://nypost.com/2020/10/27/the-media-and-social-media-drive-to-squelch-information-a-menace-no-matter-who-wins-election/

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/27/opinion/hunter-biden-story-media.html

---

I was asking Kaworu, not you. I know what you think, Yogi.

---

Well, he wasn't wrong. He's hardly the only one talking about this.

---

Okay, so what's your answer? You know the media is trying to kill the story because folks like Matt Taibbi say so?

---

Because we can see that it's happening. And it's been reported on. But apparently you only consider some sources worthwhile.

---

Believe it or not, I have read his arguments like Taibbi's before. He tends to cite maybe one or two instances (like Twitter blocking the link to the original NY Post story) and then spin that into a speculative argument that the media at large is trying to help the Biden campaign. It's possible they are, but IMO it hasn't really been proven with solid evidence. There are a lot of other possible reasons why this could be happening (if it even is happening) that have little to do with helping one campaign or another. Mainstream news outlets could be trying to "cover their a**es" from being blamed again for over-focusing on sideline scandals with no real proof of wrongdoing, as they were for Hillary's emails in 2016. What about the Trump-Russia stuff from earlier in his term? That wasn't happening in an election year, and the sourcing for it wasn't someone literally working for a rival candidate (Giuliani). I think the equivalence is a little false here.

Or it could be that various editors/reporters are attempting to review and confirm the evidence and aren't finding enough to warrant a major story. That seemed to be happening at the Wall Street Journal, which is typically no friend of Democrats. How do you know it's not one of those things and instead is media collusion to help Joe Biden, as Taibbi or Greenwald or any number of right-wing pundits claim?

I try to weigh various sources' arguments against one another to determine what I find worthwhile. At the moment I'm finding Taibbi's argument wanting.

---

I have an easier summary for the above.

---

I no longer believe you're not Yogi. I will not attempt to discuss things seriously with you anymore.

---

If up above is what you consider a serious discussion, I'm not so sure it's a huge loss

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kid Quick said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

But I do know that the establishment media has been doing everything they could to kill the Hunter Biden story (at least until the election - maybe they'll show more interest afterward) in the name of defeating Trump.

---

How do you "know" that? What's the proof?

And remember, you have two claims here that both must be supported: that (1) the media is deliberately killing the story and (2) that they are doing it specifically to hurt Trump (or help Biden).

---

Like I said, most intellectually dishonest person on this site and it isn't close. It's not like you have to look very far for journalists who are saying this very thing.

https://nypost.com/2020/10/27/the-media-and-social-media-drive-to-squelch-information-a-menace-no-matter-who-wins-election/

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/27/opinion/hunter-biden-story-media.html

---

I was asking Kaworu, not you. I know what you think, Yogi.

---

Well, he wasn't wrong. He's hardly the only one talking about this.

---

Okay, so what's your answer? You know the media is trying to kill the story because folks like Matt Taibbi say so?

---

Because we can see that it's happening. And it's been reported on. But apparently you only consider some sources worthwhile.

---

Believe it or not, I have read his arguments like Taibbi's before. He tends to cite maybe one or two instances (like Twitter blocking the link to the original NY Post story) and then spin that into a speculative argument that the media at large is trying to help the Biden campaign. It's possible they are, but IMO it hasn't really been proven with solid evidence. There are a lot of other possible reasons why this could be happening (if it even is happening) that have little to do with helping one campaign or another. Mainstream news outlets could be trying to "cover their a**es" from being blamed again for over-focusing on sideline scandals with no real proof of wrongdoing, as they were for Hillary's emails in 2016. What about the Trump-Russia stuff from earlier in his term? That wasn't happening in an election year, and the sourcing for it wasn't someone literally working for a rival candidate (Giuliani). I think the equivalence is a little false here.

Or it could be that various editors/reporters are attempting to review and confirm the evidence and aren't finding enough to warrant a major story. That seemed to be happening at the Wall Street Journal, which is typically no friend of Democrats. How do you know it's not one of those things and instead is media collusion to help Joe Biden, as Taibbi or Greenwald or any number of right-wing pundits claim?

I try to weigh various sources' arguments against one another to determine what I find worthwhile. At the moment I'm finding Taibbi's argument wanting.

---

I have an easier summary for the above.

---

I no longer believe you're not Yogi. I will not attempt to discuss things seriously with you anymore.

---

"Give me my ball back too!"

---

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kid Quick said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

But I do know that the establishment media has been doing everything they could to kill the Hunter Biden story (at least until the election - maybe they'll show more interest afterward) in the name of defeating Trump.

---

How do you "know" that? What's the proof?

And remember, you have two claims here that both must be supported: that (1) the media is deliberately killing the story and (2) that they are doing it specifically to hurt Trump (or help Biden).

---

Like I said, most intellectually dishonest person on this site and it isn't close. It's not like you have to look very far for journalists who are saying this very thing.

https://nypost.com/2020/10/27/the-media-and-social-media-drive-to-squelch-information-a-menace-no-matter-who-wins-election/

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/27/opinion/hunter-biden-story-media.html

---

I was asking Kaworu, not you. I know what you think, Yogi.

---

Well, he wasn't wrong. He's hardly the only one talking about this.

---

Okay, so what's your answer? You know the media is trying to kill the story because folks like Matt Taibbi say so?

---

Because we can see that it's happening. And it's been reported on. But apparently you only consider some sources worthwhile.

---

Believe it or not, I have read his arguments like Taibbi's before. He tends to cite maybe one or two instances (like Twitter blocking the link to the original NY Post story) and then spin that into a speculative argument that the media at large is trying to help the Biden campaign. It's possible they are, but IMO it hasn't really been proven with solid evidence. There are a lot of other possible reasons why this could be happening (if it even is happening) that have little to do with helping one campaign or another. Mainstream news outlets could be trying to "cover their a**es" from being blamed again for over-focusing on sideline scandals with no real proof of wrongdoing, as they were for Hillary's emails in 2016. What about the Trump-Russia stuff from earlier in his term? That wasn't happening in an election year, and the sourcing for it wasn't someone literally working for a rival candidate (Giuliani). I think the equivalence is a little false here.

Or it could be that various editors/reporters are attempting to review and confirm the evidence and aren't finding enough to warrant a major story. That seemed to be happening at the Wall Street Journal, which is typically no friend of Democrats. How do you know it's not one of those things and instead is media collusion to help Joe Biden, as Taibbi or Greenwald or any number of right-wing pundits claim?

I try to weigh various sources' arguments against one another to determine what I find worthwhile. At the moment I'm finding Taibbi's argument wanting.

---

I have an easier summary for the above.

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/05_04/035ostrich_468x538.jpg

---

I no longer believe you're not Yogi. I will not attempt to discuss things seriously with you anymore.

---

dajo9 said:

---

Where is the E Jean Carroll coverage. Why is that story being hidden by the media?

---

Kid Quick said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kid Quick said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

But I do know that the establishment media has been doing everything they could to kill the Hunter Biden story (at least until the election - maybe they'll show more interest afterward) in the name of defeating Trump.

---

How do you "know" that? What's the proof?

And remember, you have two claims here that both must be supported: that (1) the media is deliberately killing the story and (2) that they are doing it specifically to hurt Trump (or help Biden).

---

Like I said, most intellectually dishonest person on this site and it isn't close. It's not like you have to look very far for journalists who are saying this very thing.

https://nypost.com/2020/10/27/the-media-and-social-media-drive-to-squelch-information-a-menace-no-matter-who-wins-election/

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/27/opinion/hunter-biden-story-media.html

---

I was asking Kaworu, not you. I know what you think, Yogi.

---

Well, he wasn't wrong. He's hardly the only one talking about this.

---

Okay, so what's your answer? You know the media is trying to kill the story because folks like Matt Taibbi say so?

---

Because we can see that it's happening. And it's been reported on. But apparently you only consider some sources worthwhile.

---

Believe it or not, I have read his arguments like Taibbi's before. He tends to cite maybe one or two instances (like Twitter blocking the link to the original NY Post story) and then spin that into a speculative argument that the media at large is trying to help the Biden campaign. It's possible they are, but IMO it hasn't really been proven with solid evidence. There are a lot of other possible reasons why this could be happening (if it even is happening) that have little to do with helping one campaign or another. Mainstream news outlets could be trying to "cover their a**es" from being blamed again for over-focusing on sideline scandals with no real proof of wrongdoing, as they were for Hillary's emails in 2016. What about the Trump-Russia stuff from earlier in his term? That wasn't happening in an election year, and the sourcing for it wasn't someone literally working for a rival candidate (Giuliani). I think the equivalence is a little false here.

Or it could be that various editors/reporters are attempting to review and confirm the evidence and aren't finding enough to warrant a major story. That seemed to be happening at the Wall Street Journal, which is typically no friend of Democrats. How do you know it's not one of those things and instead is media collusion to help Joe Biden, as Taibbi or Greenwald or any number of right-wing pundits claim?

I try to weigh various sources' arguments against one another to determine what I find worthwhile. At the moment I'm finding Taibbi's argument wanting.

---

I have an easier summary for the above.

---

I no longer believe you're not Yogi. I will not attempt to discuss things seriously with you anymore.

---

Yeah, because it's just totally inconceivable that someone else would realize that you're the most intellectually dishonest Democratic poster on this. Everybody is Russians. Everybody is Yogi.

---

sycasey said:

---

Kid Quick said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kid Quick said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

But I do know that the establishment media has been doing everything they could to kill the Hunter Biden story (at least until the election - maybe they'll show more interest afterward) in the name of defeating Trump.

---

How do you "know" that? What's the proof?

And remember, you have two claims here that both must be supported: that (1) the media is deliberately killing the story and (2) that they are doing it specifically to hurt Trump (or help Biden).

---

Like I said, most intellectually dishonest person on this site and it isn't close. It's not like you have to look very far for journalists who are saying this very thing.

https://nypost.com/2020/10/27/the-media-and-social-media-drive-to-squelch-information-a-menace-no-matter-who-wins-election/

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/27/opinion/hunter-biden-story-media.html

---

I was asking Kaworu, not you. I know what you think, Yogi.

---

Well, he wasn't wrong. He's hardly the only one talking about this.

---

Okay, so what's your answer? You know the media is trying to kill the story because folks like Matt Taibbi say so?

---

Because we can see that it's happening. And it's been reported on. But apparently you only consider some sources worthwhile.

---

Believe it or not, I have read his arguments like Taibbi's before. He tends to cite maybe one or two instances (like Twitter blocking the link to the original NY Post story) and then spin that into a speculative argument that the media at large is trying to help the Biden campaign. It's possible they are, but IMO it hasn't really been proven with solid evidence. There are a lot of other possible reasons why this could be happening (if it even is happening) that have little to do with helping one campaign or another. Mainstream news outlets could be trying to "cover their a**es" from being blamed again for over-focusing on sideline scandals with no real proof of wrongdoing, as they were for Hillary's emails in 2016. What about the Trump-Russia stuff from earlier in his term? That wasn't happening in an election year, and the sourcing for it wasn't someone literally working for a rival candidate (Giuliani). I think the equivalence is a little false here.

Or it could be that various editors/reporters are attempting to review and confirm the evidence and aren't finding enough to warrant a major story. That seemed to be happening at the Wall Street Journal, which is typically no friend of Democrats. How do you know it's not one of those things and instead is media collusion to help Joe Biden, as Taibbi or Greenwald or any number of right-wing pundits claim?

I try to weigh various sources' arguments against one another to determine what I find worthwhile. At the moment I'm finding Taibbi's argument wanting.

---

I have an easier summary for the above.

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/05_04/035ostrich_468x538.jpg

---

I no longer believe you're not Yogi. I will not attempt to discuss things seriously with you anymore.

---

Yeah, because it's just totally inconceivable that someone else would realize that you're the most intellectually dishonest Democratic poster on this. Everybody is Russians. Everybody is Yogi.

---

I mean, you've got to admit you brought the "everybody is Yogi" claims on yourself.

---

Kid Quick said:

---

Ain't my fault I have so many ID's.

---

Kid Quick said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Where is the E Jean Carroll coverage. Why is that story being hidden by the media?

---

Nobody cares, twat. It has nothing to do with why the media is burying this story. It's just your typical whataboutism.

---

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kid Quick said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

But I do know that the establishment media has been doing everything they could to kill the Hunter Biden story (at least until the election - maybe they'll show more interest afterward) in the name of defeating Trump.

---

How do you "know" that? What's the proof?

And remember, you have two claims here that both must be supported: that (1) the media is deliberately killing the story and (2) that they are doing it specifically to hurt Trump (or help Biden).

---

Like I said, most intellectually dishonest person on this site and it isn't close. It's not like you have to look very far for journalists who are saying this very thing.

https://nypost.com/2020/10/27/the-media-and-social-media-drive-to-squelch-information-a-menace-no-matter-who-wins-election/

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/27/opinion/hunter-biden-story-media.html

---

I was asking Kaworu, not you. I know what you think, Yogi.

---

Well, he wasn't wrong. He's hardly the only one talking about this.

---

Okay, so what's your answer? You know the media is trying to kill the story because folks like Matt Taibbi say so?

---

Because we can see that it's happening. And it's been reported on. But apparently you only consider some sources worthwhile.

---

Believe it or not, I have read his arguments like Taibbi's before. He tends to cite maybe one or two instances (like Twitter blocking the link to the original NY Post story) and then spin that into a speculative argument that the media at large is trying to help the Biden campaign. It's possible they are, but IMO it hasn't really been proven with solid evidence. There are a lot of other possible reasons why this could be happening (if it even is happening) that have little to do with helping one campaign or another. Mainstream news outlets could be trying to "cover their a**es" from being blamed again for over-focusing on sideline scandals with no real proof of wrongdoing, as they were for Hillary's emails in 2016. What about the Trump-Russia stuff from earlier in his term? That wasn't happening in an election year, and the sourcing for it wasn't someone literally working for a rival candidate (Giuliani). I think the equivalence is a little false here.

Or it could be that various editors/reporters are attempting to review and confirm the evidence and aren't finding enough to warrant a major story. That seemed to be happening at the Wall Street Journal, which is typically no friend of Democrats. How do you know it's not one of those things and instead is media collusion to help Joe Biden, as Taibbi or Greenwald or any number of right-wing pundits claim?

I try to weigh various sources' arguments against one another to determine what I find worthwhile. At the moment I'm finding Taibbi's argument wanting.

---

I have an easier summary for the above.

---

I no longer believe you're not Yogi. I will not attempt to discuss things seriously with you anymore.

---

If up above is what you consider a serious discussion, I'm not so sure it's a huge loss

---

Yeah, that ostrich picture was such an attempt at serious discussion.

C'mon man.

---

Watching the same people who drowned the country for 5 years in deranged conspiracy theories -- Putin had taken over the US through clandestine sexual blackmail -- now declare themselves competent to censor the internet to stop "misinformation": the audacity is almost impressive.

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) July 19, 2021