1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Twitter is Awesome! Higher-Ed Version

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by doctorquant, Jul 17, 2015.

  1. JohnHammond

    JohnHammond Well-Known Member

    Anyone who watches WWE on a regular basis has no moral ground to stand on regarding public policy or the conduct of others.
     
    Songbird, Mr. Sunshine and YankeeFan like this.
  2. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    Who died and made you moral arbiter of the world?

    BTW, you must not read the wrestling thread. There's about 7-8 posters who regularly post on that, plus some others who post sporadically. A couple of them are conservative, or at least, have some leanings towards that. You sure you want to make such a blanket statement?
     
  3. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    Second time: anything inaccurate about what was said?
     
  4. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    Second time: Tell me more about what an unbiased source PR Watch is. As I recall, they were the ones who blew the roof off that NBER-is-a-right-wing-front story.

    #liberalmethods
     
  5. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    That's nonsense. What a man does when he's not in the mood to think isn't disqualifying in the least. What a man does as a result of his thinking, however ...
     
  6. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    Never said they wern't unbiased. But for the third time, anything inaccurate about what they said? Were the people they quoted in their articles misquoted? Taken out of context? In what way?

    At least with Fox News, their bullshit is easy to refute. So refute PR Watch.

    And anything inaccurate about the two judges, who chose to rule on a case involving their campaign donors?
     
  7. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    You mean the two in the minority? Or were their campaigns group-funded?
     
  8. Batman

    Batman Well-Known Member

    Damn straight, Baron. We don't see eye to eye on politics at all, but when it comes to wrestling I consider you a kindred spirit.
     
    jpetrie18 and Baron Scicluna like this.
  9. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    Damn straight, and we're all pretty good leaving politics out of that thread, except when it comes to Linda McMahon's failed Senate races.
     
    jpetrie18 and Batman like this.
  10. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    Nope, Gableman and Prosser, both of whom voted with the majority

    Since you're not crazy about PR Watch, how about the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, which noted the prosecutor had asked the two to recuse themselves, which they had refused.

    Wisconsin Supreme Court ends John Doe probe into Scott Walker's campaign
     
  11. Batman

    Batman Well-Known Member

    Or the gigantic missed opportunity for America that was Hulk Hogan's failed presidential bid. Instead of Obamacare, we as a nation could've found a healthier path by saying our prayers and eating our vitamins.
     
    jpetrie18 likes this.
  12. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    Yeah, except President Hogan would be accused of making the country into a theocracy by telling everyone to say their prayers.
     
    jpetrie18 and Batman like this.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page