Forum rules
Keep News and Politics about News and Politics.
Do not post full articles from other websites. Always link back to the source
Discuss things respectfully and take into account that each person has a different opinion.
Remember that this is a place for everyone to enjoy. Don’t try and run people off of the site. If you are upset with someone then utilize the foe feature.
Report when things come up.
Personal attacks are against guidelines however attacks need to be directed at a member on the forum for it to be against guidelines. Lying is not against guidelines, it’s hard for us to prove someone even did lie.
Once a topic is locked we consider the issue handled and no longer respond to new reports on the topic.
There you have the links for all the peer reviewed articles used in this study if you wish to read them.
I told you before, if you don’t like someone source, dig a little deeper. It’s not rocket science, it’s a simple Google search.
Here’s another article from Psychology Today basically saying the same:
DSamuels wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2019 7:34 pm
Overall, we rate Raw Story Left Biased based on story selection that favors the left and Mixed for factual reporting due to half-true, false and unproven claims, as well as promotion of mild pseudoscience misinformation.
And again, maybe the OP should take your advice before declaring it’s not believable because it came from a right wing source.
Momto2boys973 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2019 8:13 pm
She provided the link where she read it, that’s all. If that’s unsatisfying to you or others, then at least check the info before looking all foolish by implying it’s false. Seriously, people seem lazy and uneducated when they don’t even bother to check the actual facts presented before dismissing them based on the source the poster chose to read.
I will dismiss opinion pieces from obviously biased sources, but if someone posts information and I have my doubts because of the source it really takes 10 seconds to see if it’s available in other, less biased sources.
There you have the links for all the peer reviewed articles used in this study if you wish to read them.
I told you before, if you don’t like someone source, dig a little deeper. It’s not rocket science, it’s a simple Google search.
Maybe OP should take your advice also.
Never explain - your friends do not need it and your enemies will not believe you anyway. - Elbert Hubbard
Sure. But how childish to use the old “but she does it too!!!!” argument. You’re only responsible for YOUR actions. Just because others do it as well, that doesn’t excuse you.
DSamuels wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2019 9:02 pm
And again, maybe the OP should take your advice before declaring it’s not believable because it came from a right wing source.
Momto2boys973 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2019 8:13 pm
She provided the link where she read it, that’s all. If that’s unsatisfying to you or others, then at least check the info before looking all foolish by implying it’s false. Seriously, people seem lazy and uneducated when they don’t even bother to check the actual facts presented before dismissing them based on the source the poster chose to read.
I will dismiss opinion pieces from obviously biased sources, but if someone posts information and I have my doubts because of the source it really takes 10 seconds to see if it’s available in other, less biased sources.
Momto2boys973 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2019 9:11 pm
Sure. But how childish to use the old “but she does it too!!!!” argument. You’re only responsible for YOUR actions. Just because others do it as well, that doesn’t excuse you.
DSamuels wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2019 9:02 pm
And again, maybe the OP should take your advice before declaring it’s not believable because it came from a right wing source.
Momto2boys973 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2019 8:13 pm
She provided the link where she read it, that’s all. If that’s unsatisfying to you or others, then at least check the info before looking all foolish by implying it’s false. Seriously, people seem lazy and uneducated when they don’t even bother to check the actual facts presented before dismissing them based on the source the poster chose to read.
I will dismiss opinion pieces from obviously biased sources, but if someone posts information and I have my doubts because of the source it really takes 10 seconds to see if it’s available in other, less biased sources.
Have you seen some of her responses lately. If she doesn't like the source she calls you uneducated and a liar. She has done it a number of times today. I even asked her to stop nicely!
Momto2boys973 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2019 9:11 pm
Sure. But how childish to use the old “but she does it too!!!!” argument. You’re only responsible for YOUR actions. Just because others do it as well, that doesn’t excuse you.
DSamuels wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2019 9:02 pm
And again, maybe the OP should take your advice before declaring it’s not believable because it came from a right wing source.
Have you seen some of her responses lately. If she doesn't like the source she calls you uneducated and a liar. She has done it a number of times today. I even asked her to stop nicely!
There you have the links for all the peer reviewed articles used in this study if you wish to read them.
I told you before, if you don’t like someone source, dig a little deeper. It’s not rocket science, it’s a simple Google search.
Here’s another article from Psychology Today basically saying the same:
DSamuels wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2019 7:34 pm
Overall, we rate Raw Story Left Biased based on story selection that favors the left and Mixed for factual reporting due to half-true, false and unproven claims, as well as promotion of mild pseudoscience misinformation.
the author of that psychology today article has a hard cord anti-trump, pro democrat twitter feed.
There you have the links for all the peer reviewed articles used in this study if you wish to read them.
I told you before, if you don’t like someone source, dig a little deeper. It’s not rocket science, it’s a simple Google search.
Here’s another article from Psychology Today basically saying the same:
DSamuels wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2019 7:34 pm
Overall, we rate Raw Story Left Biased based on story selection that favors the left and Mixed for factual reporting due to half-true, false and unproven claims, as well as promotion of mild pseudoscience misinformation.
the author of that psychology today article has a hard cord anti-trump, pro democrat twitter feed.
There you have the links for all the peer reviewed articles used in this study if you wish to read them.
I told you before, if you don’t like someone source, dig a little deeper. It’s not rocket science, it’s a simple Google search.
Here’s another article from Psychology Today basically saying the same:
DSamuels wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2019 7:34 pm
Overall, we rate Raw Story Left Biased based on story selection that favors the left and Mixed for factual reporting due to half-true, false and unproven claims, as well as promotion of mild pseudoscience misinformation.
the author of that psychology today article has a hard cord anti-trump, pro democrat twitter feed.
There is more than one educated psychologist who subscribes to the theory that Trump’s followers share most of the same characteristics. Actually the theory contains facts.
עמ׳ ישראל חי 
