If most sources say the opposite, that statement holds no credibility.

 

Who do the two sources work for?

With no proof from any sources...it's just a bunch of hot air.

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

With no proof from any sources...it's just a bunch of hot air.

 

Is there any proof they are wrong and this one lady on Twitter is right?

 

Nope; I will trust the TV networks and newspapers 1000 times before one tweet.

---

Is there any proof they are wrong and this one lady on Twitter is right?

 

Nope; I will trust the TV networks and newspapers 1000 times before one tweet.

If no one is showing any proof...I'm not trusting any of them.

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

Is there any proof they are wrong and this one lady on Twitter is right?

 

Nope; I will trust the TV networks and newspapers 1000 times before one tweet.

 

Do you only require proof that they're wrong if you agree with them? 

 

Why don't you require proof that they're right?

---

Funny, the Trump supporting FBI agrees

---

Do you only require proof that they're wrong if you agree with them? 

 

Why don't you require proof that they're right?

 

I know anybody can tweet anything. One person can tweet an opinion as if it was a fact. Someone can create a fake Twitter account. If there is any proof, it must come from a real news source, whether I am right or wrong.

---

If most sources say the opposite, that statement holds no credibility.


Who do the two sources work for?

All the ones saying it's true work for the Demoncrats.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

If no one is showing any proof...I'm not trusting any of them.

 

Smart

 

Is there any proof they are wrong and this one lady on Twitter is right?

 

Nope; I will trust the TV networks and newspapers 1000 times before one tweet.

 

The point is more that our current news we are fed is about the same thing thing from twitter, untrustworthy, biased, and innacurate.

 

With no proof from any sources...it's just a bunch of hot air.

 

exactly

 

Do you only require proof that they're wrong if you agree with them? 

 

Why don't you require proof that they're right?

Probably the main point.  People want proof they are right or that someone else is wrong they don't want unbiased accuracy

 

All the ones saying it's true work for the Demoncrats.

I think this is something many do not grasp.  The media is basically owned at this point.  Depending on who you watch that network is more than likely owned by a party.

---

Go Jags!
*To stay up for atleast 2 years 3/6/17
2016 draft players I think will be good

• On the Fournette train, will be best back of his class 3/6/17
  
• Lattimore please,  Lockdowns on both sides would be nice
  
• Engram at TE and the MJD clone Samaje Perine
  

If there is no proof the media is wrong, why do people insist they are?

 

People want to tell me I am wrong without being able to prove it.

 

This is the political version of "the ruling on the field stands" in football games.

---

If there is no proof the media is wrong, why do people insist they are?

 

People want to tell me I am wrong without being able to prove it.

 

This is the political version of "the ruling on the field stands" in football games.

There has to be evidence to look at first before you can say there is nothing to overturn. That would be like the refs just listening to others telling them what happened without going under the hood and having a look for themselves.

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

There has to be evidence to look at first before you can say there is nothing to overturn. That would be like the refs just listening to others telling them what happened without going under the hood and having a look for themselves.

 

The NaVorro Bowman Rule is a good example. There is no doubt the runner fumbled. Is there indisputable evidence who recovered the football?

 

So far, there is not. But there is no way to deny emails were hacked by somebody.

---

Did u actually read the UK daily mail article or any of assanges interviews?

---

Did u actually read the UK daily mail article or any of assanges interviews?

 

I read the NYT article.

---

The NaVorro Bowman Rule is a good example. There is no doubt the runner fumbled. Is there indisputable evidence who recovered the football?

 

So far, there is not. But there is no way to deny emails were hacked by somebody.

They were hacked by somebody, but given enough time, I bet I could convince enough people that you did the hacking...doesn't make it true. :no:

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

They were hacked by somebody, but given enough time, I bet I could convince enough people that you did the hacking...doesn't make it true.

 

LOL You know it could not be me because I voted for Hillary. Must be a Republican if an American did it.

---

LOL You know it could not be me because I voted for Hillary. Must be a Republican if an American did it.

I didn't say it was you, I said I could convince them it was you...lol

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

I didn't say it was you, I said I could convince them it was you...lol

 

I know. Of course you know it wasn't me. But you could not convince anybody it was me either!

 

If nothing else it is an interesting story for people who voted in the election.

---

I know. Of course you know it wasn't me. But you could not convince anybody it was me either!

 

If nothing else it is an interesting story for people who voted in the election.

I have no proof you voted for Hillary and as much as lie you're most likely a Republican plant.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I read the NYT article.

Lol.

---

Putin hacks the Dems again in new video. 

---