|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Play online chess!
"The American Thinker"... NOT
« Back to club forum| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
 "The American Thinker"... NOT—The site in a nutshell American Thinker (affectionately nicknamed "American Stinker" by its fans) is an online wingnut publication that's more or less the poor man's WND or Newsmax. They've published articles by such conservative luminaries as Noel Sheppard (NewsBusters) and Pamela Geller and such climate "experts" as S. Fred Singer and Christopher Monckton, as well as an interview with (and hagiography of) white nationalist Jared Taylor.[2][3][4] The webshite, of course, is chock-full of right-wing conspiracy theories, woo, and pseudoscience. On the conspiracy side, they promote birtherism, "creeping sharia," red-baiting, and still occasionally prattle on about Vince Foster. On the science side, they concentrate on creationism and global warming denialism. The site's wingnut credentials are commemorated with an "extreme" bias rating from Media Bias/Fact Check.[5] To no one's surprise, the site is an exuberant cheerleader of donald tRump, and regularly regurgitates right wing blather in the snotty, pretentious style of a typical conservative talk radio host.[6] rationalwiki.org Overall, we rate the American Thinker, Questionable based on extreme right-wing bias, promotion of conspiracy theories/pseudoscience, use of poor sources, and several failed fact checks. Read more here... mediabiasfactcheck.com |
||
|
Voci “But ‘Thinker’ is in the name! It must be true!” Nonsense! Overview Ad Fontes Media rates American Thinker in the Hyper-Partisan Right category of bias and as Unreliable, Misleading in terms of reliability. American Thinker is a conservative daily online magazine that focuses on American politics, foreign policy, national security, Israel, economics, diplomacy, culture and military strategy. Founded in 2003 by Thomas Lifson, the publication lists “the right to exist and the survival of the State of Israel” as important to its values. |
||
|
|
||
|
Zorro 14:49 I am perpetually bemused by how people throw around the phrase 'a right to ...'. What exactly does this mean, outside the purely legal meaning? A nation's 'right to exist'? Since when did nations have 'rights'? Sovereigns assert 'rights' but what they mean is main force to get what they want. Do ALL nations have a 'right to exist'? Did Nazi Germany? Does Wales? Does Cuba? Does Saudi Arabia? If not all, then why some and not others? I think we would do well to forget about the 'rights' of any nation or corporation or anything else except PERSONS. Persons have rights, nations are constructs. Persons have rights, and among them is the right to form their own Body Politic, provided they do so that does not infringe on the reasonable rights of other PERSONS. In that sense, no nation has a 'right to exist', but humans have a right to form nations. Having done so, those nations have a duty to observe all the rights of other persons outside that nation. When Israel starts to respect the rights of other persons, then Israelis have a right to maintain their nation. But Israel itself, like every other nation, has NO rights other than those implicit in its citizens. |
||
|
|
