Difference between revisions of "Talk:Huffington Post"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
::At least Conservapedia admits its POV, proudly proclaims it, Acwellman. We don't offer ours under the cloud of deceit that the HuffPo uses. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big><sub>/Admin</sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 12:42, 6 June 2010 (EDT) | ::At least Conservapedia admits its POV, proudly proclaims it, Acwellman. We don't offer ours under the cloud of deceit that the HuffPo uses. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big><sub>/Admin</sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 12:42, 6 June 2010 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | I'm not a big fan of The Huffington Post, of course, but isn't saying that it's "often referred to as a hate site" a little much without any citation to back it up? It's liberal claptrap and essentially a media organ of the democrat party, to be sure, but I wouldn't deem it a hate site. [[User:WallyRyan|WallyRyan]] 17:19, 20 April 2011 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 21:19, April 20, 2011
Hmm...Conservapedia accuses The Huffington Post of delivering "one sided news". Isn't Conservapedia kind of one sided? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Acwellman (talk)
- Well, do you know what point of view Conservapedia stands for? Nothing in the title of the Huffinpuffin Post tells me they are liberal. Maybe it's because of deceit that they hide behind objectivity when in fact liberal.--Jpatt 12:00, 5 June 2010 (EDT)
I'm not a big fan of The Huffington Post, of course, but isn't saying that it's "often referred to as a hate site" a little much without any citation to back it up? It's liberal claptrap and essentially a media organ of the democrat party, to be sure, but I wouldn't deem it a hate site. WallyRyan 17:19, 20 April 2011 (EDT)