Does this prove CNN is part of the DNC?
- Thread starter NZ Poke
- Start date
Don’t need any “proof”they are running the democrat party. I was interested in hearing & mostly seeing Dana Loesch last night but wouldn’t watch cnn to do it.
No. But it clearly shows they aren't balanced in their perspective unless of course there is evidence that they ask the RNC for questions to ask democrat candidates.
I watched Trump’s “listening meeting” yesterday on Fox. He owns those type situations like no other, even the most left wing commie would have to agree.
#This-Is-CNN
Note that they didnt include any diversity in their article photo.
Imagine the reaction if only Blacks, Latinos or Middle Easterners we’re in the article photo. (You know, diversity)
Link to article: https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/25/health/cuckolding-sex-kerner/index.html
Note that they didnt include any diversity in their article photo.
Imagine the reaction if only Blacks, Latinos or Middle Easterners we’re in the article photo. (You know, diversity)
Link to article: https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/25/health/cuckolding-sex-kerner/index.html
#This-Is-CNN
Note that they didnt include any diversity in their article photo.
Imagine the reaction if only Blacks, Latinos or Middle Easterners we’re in the article photo. (You know, diversity)
Link to article: https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/25/health/cuckolding-sex-kerner/index.html
I know most of NZ's posts are just clickbait or inflammatory. But I'll ask this of both the lefties and righties anyway...What's the purpose of this article? Is it to begin acceptance of multiple partners in order to eventually promote polygamy? Is it just acceptance of 'kink', as we saw in the acronym debate a few weeks ago? Was it just some writer hoping his or her partner would become more open to 3way action? What is CNN trying to accomplish with this type of article?
The purpose of the original article was to get people to read and comment on it so CNN could sell more ads.
Which is pretty much all modern “journalism” consists of today.
There is a concerted movement by the Mass Media (in conjunction with the DNC) to replace our cultural norms (based on Christianity) with their secular humanism value system which includes redefining the meanings of the terms "life", "marriage" and "gender." This is just part of that concerted effort.
So less than 10% is “pretty common”?
Less than 10% would be pretty uncommon in my book.
I would add “pretty” to a list that includes “likely” and “apparently”...but that is just me. All three are squishy “hedging” words.
“Blumstein and Schwartz found that 15 percent of married couples share an agreement that allows extramarital sex, but only about 24 percent of men and 22 percent of women (or 6 percent and 5 percent of the total, respectively) who had such an agreement actually engaged in extramarital sex during the prior year.”
We could argue all day what “pretty common” means to you, but that reality is it’s an everyday commonplace occurrence in society. Agree/disagree?
I won't argue that 'open' relationships are commonplace or not. I don't think they are, but I think its semantics and likely very closely tied to which generation you come from. But if this is already commonplace as you state, then what is the underlying point of the article? What is CNN trying to accomplish (besides more ad views, or maybe that is the answer and that this is CNNs way of selling sex?).
Some marriages reinforce their love for each other this way. Couples use open relationships to spice things up. Does it backfire at times? Sure...there’s evidence to that end.
For perspective, here are four statements that would have been considered “inflammatory clickbait” in the not-too-distant past:
- Toppling Saddam Hussein might cause more problems than it solves
- Low-fat foods actually cause obesity (and “don’t stop eating eggs”)
- Global cooling is nothing to worry about
- The media is filled with sexual predators
What's your opinion on CNN's goal with running this article? Is it just selling sex? Or is it promoting alternative lifestyle choices? Can you actually answer the question I'm asking rather than debating the benefits and commonality of open relationships.
David Koresh believed in open marriages, and he had sex with underage girls, all in the name of god. He stood up to the FBI and perhaps because of that died. WTF would CNN do with Koresh today? Would they just ignore the story? How would they spin this in to a lib win while ignoring all the death?
My mind did not make that leap, but yours did. All I mentioned was facts. Perhaps you just gave me a view in how CNN might spin this today.
We have gone from open marriages being “pretty common” to roughly 6% of marriages being open to 15% of marriages having an agreement that allows it, but only 6/5% taking advantage of that agreement.
No, I would not agree that any of the numbers you have googled up indicates it is a “commonplace” occurrence in society. In fact, the numbers you present indicate it is still uncommon. That doesn’t make it bad or worthy of disparagement in my book. Those numbers just don’t add up to it being “occurring or appearing frequently”.
It happens more than you seem to want to believe lol. Don’t believe me? Craigslist
Like it or not, you post a lot of links, memes, and other articles related to the 'uniparty' or some nationalistic perspectives. I don't have a problem with that. Its your right to have your opinion, but I personally find many of them to have tenuous evidence or correlation at best and are relying heavily on the predisposition of the reader to make connections where they may or may not exist. Hence my description of inflammatory clickbait. And you are right, as the examples above show, some of these positions may actually have merit/truth behind them. But when you fire a machine gun spray of these articles, its not exactly impressive that one or two stories hit the mark.
Is that your credible news site? Or the place you go to see what adult women want to get it on with a 35 year old man living at home?
You gave me numbers and asked me whether those numbers indicated it is commonplace.
I believed your numbers and answered.
Now you’re professing an opinion on what I want to believe (mindreading?) and suggesting I don’t believe you.
In support of that is a single word “Craigslist”. I’m not sure how “Craigslist” is going to prove how common or uncommon “open marriages” are or what I want to believe.
Does that accurately sum up where we are at in the discussion right now?
FWIW, I would add “seem”, “seemingly”, and “you know it” or any other statement that you know what is in someone’s thoughts (rather than addressing the proposition they explicitly forwarded) to your list of words that indicate someone is just rambling.
Last edited:
@CSCOTTOSUPOKES
You keep liking most of the posts I have made in response to you in this thread.
Is that because you think we are just “sparring”?
Because we aren’t.
What is actually happening is me attempting to give you valuable lessons in effective rhetoric.
Imagine how much more #winning you could be doing if you just listened and learned a bit.
You keep liking most of the posts I have made in response to you in this thread.
Is that because you think we are just “sparring”?
Because we aren’t.
What is actually happening is me attempting to give you valuable lessons in effective rhetoric.
Imagine how much more #winning you could be doing if you just listened and learned a bit.
I and my bros. Darrell are on call for any additional numerical analysis needed; we each have 16 hrs. of acctg., and will pool 'em if the calculation(s) require.
