Posted by iMac

Your ignorance is actually quite hilarious. You'd think that your simple mind might be capable of understanding what "aggregated news" is. However, I think I may have given you too much credit.
So that you now know, an aggregated news site basically steals news and uses other news networks sources for their own writing. Their writers are basically “professional bloggers”, not journalists.
Given, the Huffington post has recently "upped their game" per se, in hiring more legitimate writers along with a few actual journalists. But it does not change the fact that it is an aggregated news site. And even more so, has been listed as one of the top 10 most anti-science websites on the internet, producing a large portion of pseudoscience news.
The Huffington post is merely for entertainment purposes. Unless the writer is qualified to write about that subject, it’s not a credible source.

You sir, are excquisitely obtuse. I find your rhetoric preposterous. Any perspicacious mortal, such as you and I, would be conscious to the elementary fact that this electronic locale is populated much by vacuous mavericks. As such, you should be aware of the level of doltishness that comprise your posts.  

Posted by PigParty

You sir, are excquisitely obtuse. I find your rhetoric preposterous. Any perspicacious mortal, such as you and I, would be conscious to the elementary fact that this electronic locale is populated much by vacuous mavericks. As such, you should be aware of the level of doltishness that comprise your posts.

Yet you site someone who lectures for USC Annenberg. A school that is known for its very progressive and left wing ideals. You cannot tell me that a blog, that is not peer reviewed, and written by an extreme left wing democrat, would be not biased. Bill Blum, the man you are citing, also writes for TruthDig. TruthDig is built around major "digs", who write multi-faceted pieces about contemporary, often controversial, topics. These topics tend to be left leaning, and very unethical with their sources.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/...trump_20160731
If you are looking for legitimate online sources that are trusted by both liberals and conservatives, I would suggest using The Economist, The Wall Street Journal, and BBC.  

Posted by iMac

Yet you site someone who lectures for USC Annenberg. A school that is known for its very progressive and left wing ideals. You cannot tell me that a blog, that is not peer reviewed, and written by an extreme left wing democrat, would be not biased. Bill Blum, the man you are citing, also writes for TruthDig. TruthDig is built around major "digs", who write multi-faceted pieces about contemporary, often controversial, topics. These topics tend to be left leaning, and very unethical with their sources.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/...trump_20160731
If you are looking for legitimate online sources that are trusted by both liberals and conservatives, I would suggest using The Economist, The Wall Street Journal, and BBC.

I express my profound apology to you then. I was deluded by the skew of the abhorrent non-peer reviewed article that I referenced. From this instant on, I shall solitarily cite the unprejudiced peer-reviewed source that is yourself. For my first citation from this impartial source, I shall reference this quote:

Posted by iMac

Given, I am not a liberal, I am conservative.

 

Posted by PigParty

I express my profound apology to you then. I was deluded by the skew of the abhorrent non-peer reviewed article that I referenced. From this instant on, I shall solitarily cite the unprejudiced peer-reviewed source that is yourself. For my first citation from this impartial source, I shall reference this quote:

So you reference my political view after I gave you non-biased networks. My mind is blown entirely.
These networks are trusted by both conservatives, liberals and those in between. If you are still going to be ignorant, then I will continue to bring a disillusion towards yourself, while you use a thesaurus to look up even fancier words.
http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/5446619369bedd2b5b3ecd67-800-/pj_14.10.21_mediapolarization-01.png (Unsupported image host)  

/r/iamverysmart/

almost 1 day remaining until Crooked Hillary wins!!

iMac the type of guy to get upset over someone linking a written opinion piece that is backed up by 100% FACTUAL information  

To believe that the Republicans could have put forward a more unfavorable candidate than Clinton. Fault lies with the those who voted for Trump in the primaries.  

Posted by TD*

To believe that the Republicans could have put forward a more unfavorable candidate than Clinton. Fault lies with the those who voted for Trump in the primaries.

Its not like people had much choice to begin with.  

Youtube at it again. This is "trending #2" even though it only had 4,000 views???

 

Posted by iMac

So you reference my political view after I gave you non-biased networks. My mind is blown entirely.
These networks are trusted by both conservatives, liberals and those in between. If you are still going to be ignorant, then I will continue to bring a disillusion towards yourself, while you use a thesaurus to look up even fancier words.
http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/5446619369bedd2b5b3ecd67-800-/pj_14.10.21_mediapolarization-01.png (Unsupported image host)

Sir, as you may very well comprehend, any content you publicize is deemed non-credible as you are an opinion writer. You are a biased, partisain writer who cannot be believed as credible. Any content you post is distinctly fabricated due to your lack of fairness. I cannot use you as a credible source, and therefore, neither can yourself. Please eradicate your illegitemate posts.  

Posted by TD*

To believe that the Republicans could have put forward a more unfavorable candidate than Clinton. Fault lies with the those who voted for Trump in the primaries.

Cruz wouldve had zero chance to make it past Hillary's Regime. Christie is worse than Trump. And Lord knows we didnt need Bush #3.  

Posted by twilit

Youtube at it again. This is "trending #2" even though it only had 4,000 views???

Views on trending videos always are delayed (meaning they don't update instantly to prevent fake view counts/bots from inflating it). It's been like that on youtube for over 10 years.  

Posted by twilit

Youtube at it again. This is "trending #2" even though it only had 4,000 views???

2 days old, 16th on trending and has 7,000 views. YouTube at it again right?

 

Posted by James205

Views on trending videos always are delayed (meaning they don't update instantly to prevent fake view counts/bots from inflating it). It's been like that on youtube for over 10 years.

wait nvm.. it's already disappeared from the list..  

Posted by twilit

Youtube at it again. This is "trending #2" even though it only had 4,000 views???

Lmfao  

Rubio would've crushed Hillary