ADVERTISEMENT

Live feed

Forum list Trending threads

Live feed

 Posts

duke football news

L
That has to be the slowest, most error filled game I've seen at the collegiate level for many years, and I'm very satisfied with the result. It was very much like what I picture making sausage looks like.:)

And then, with BC punishing the Cheaters and seeing Midnight Mike go down to a sub .500 Auburn team, the day ended perfectly.
Click to expand...
  • Like
Reactions: kingbluedevil, jeffrey236, LetsGoDuke83 and 2 others

The New Lounge

S
Dattier said:
This is a Tweet by the agency the owner of Twitter leads, citing an article from the proudly extremist Heritage Foundation. In and of itself, that does not invalidate it. Repeating for those in the back: IN AND OF ITSELF, THAT DOES NOT INVALIDATE IT. It does warrant skepticism and looking into it further.

What have you done to vet this information in any way, shape, or form? Have you ever written or read a grant? They're loooooong and detailed and precise and so, so tedious. And that tweet summarizes each of 3 cherry-picked grants in less than a sentence each. I get how convenient it is for your consumption. I do that, too. What I don't do, though, is run w/ that info as is w/o looking at other sources, considering context, and applying critical thinking skills. I repeat, WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO VET THIS INFORMATION IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM? Thank you in advance for your thoughtful response.
Click to expand...
I have absolutely written grants, successfully by the way. They were to get things like technology in the hands of underserved children. Did the media, whose job it is, vet the laptop story? Did they vet the very fine people hoax? Did they vet the bloodbath hoax? Did they vet the Chaney hoax? Did you take those stories at face value, did you take the media's word for it. It is impossible to vet all information that is out there. Sometimes you have to put trust in those you believe in. I'm sure you have no problem swallowing the tripe that is fed you. It is proven on a daily basis on this board.
Click to expand...
  • Like
Reactions: dukesince91 and KDSTONE

The New Lounge

K
Dattier said:
This is a Tweet by the agency the owner of Twitter leads, citing an article from the proudly extremist Heritage Foundation. In and of itself, that does not invalidate it. Repeating for those in the back: IN AND OF ITSELF, THAT DOES NOT INVALIDATE IT. It does warrant skepticism and looking into it further.

What have you done to vet this information in any way, shape, or form? Have you ever written or read a grant? They're loooooong and detailed and precise and so, so tedious. And that tweet summarizes each of 3 cherry-picked grants in less than a sentence each. I get how convenient it is for your consumption. I do that, too. What I don't do, though, is run w/ that info as is w/o looking at other sources, considering context, and applying critical thinking skills. I repeat, WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO VET THIS INFORMATION IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM? Thank you in advance for your thoughtful response.
Click to expand...
I hate to break it to you, but we’re not students in your shitty little classroom. No one here answers to you.
Take it down a notch, Professor
Click to expand...

The New Lounge

K
Dattier said:
The original headline and the rewrite are both awful. They are clickbait for their base and they are trolling the opposition.

It is also, however, a result of what Fox News has wrought.

More to the point, did Jose Ibarra deserve the presumption of innocence and a fair trial? It's yes or no. It's not a gotcha question. I'm not asking you whether he received both of those things or not; I'm asking you whether he was rightfully entitled to them.

I would similarly ask MSNBC, besides suspicion they had from the beginning of the trial, what evidence do they have that the trial was anything but fair?
Click to expand...
Selection of an impartial jury will always be a challenge in a case like this. Prior to tv and social media, the jury in this case would likely be over populated by illiterates who didn’t read the papers or liars who claimed they knew nothing about it. In this case, it’s highly doubtful that any of the jurors hadn’t predetermined his guilt, but given the overwhelming evidence, we’ll just have to live with it.
Given that he’s not a citizen, one could argue that he was lucky to receive the same protections granted to the rest of us by the US Constitution in the first place
Click to expand...
ADVERTISEMENT

Filter

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back