Both opinions agree that you should not vote for Obama, that is the editorial strategy, the different motivations are to capture the whole range of voters.
Nowadays it is even easier to do this, thank to personalized news. They can tell unemployed people that immigrants are stealing all the jobs, while they can tell taxpayers that immigrants are leaving off grants. They can even tell cat lovers that immigrants are eating all the cats.
The idea you are pushing that Op-Eds are a whiteboard for diverse opinions is either innocent or malicious.
Op Eds are obviously influenced by the bias of the newspaper that runs them. But, there’s no need to veer into conspiracy theories just because two of them happen to be anti-Obama for different reasons.
Op Eds are obviously influenced by the bias of the newspaper that runs them. But, there’s no need to veer into conspiracy theories just because two of them happen to be anti-Obama for different reasons.
Here you are, making the exact same point I made, in slightly different terms.
The post is about Schrödinger so me pointing it out was cromulent.
Thanks for both proving my point and making me laugh at you. You’re Schrödinger’s commentor; both an idiot and smart at the same time.
So, you read what I wrote and concluded that in life I’d only seen one Op-Ed page?
You funny, in a sad way.
Apparently so. You seem surprised that there were two people who had different opinions on the same page in the Op Eds. That’s what Op Eds are.
Again, I ask, are you familiar with the concept of an Op Ed? Or are you just confused that people might have different opinions?
Both opinions agree that you should not vote for Obama, that is the editorial strategy, the different motivations are to capture the whole range of voters.
Nowadays it is even easier to do this, thank to personalized news. They can tell unemployed people that immigrants are stealing all the jobs, while they can tell taxpayers that immigrants are leaving off grants. They can even tell cat lovers that immigrants are eating all the cats.
The idea you are pushing that Op-Eds are a whiteboard for diverse opinions is either innocent or malicious.
Op Eds are obviously influenced by the bias of the newspaper that runs them. But, there’s no need to veer into conspiracy theories just because two of them happen to be anti-Obama for different reasons.
You get funnier and funnier.
Please keep telling me about how much smarter you are than I am.
I’m just letting you prove it yourself.
So, you got nothing?
Too bad, I could always use another laugh.
The rest of us are laughing at you, so you could try that?
Here you are, making the exact same point I made, in slightly different terms.
The post is about Schrödinger so me pointing it out was cromulent.
Thanks for both proving my point and making me laugh at you. You’re Schrödinger’s commentor; both an idiot and smart at the same time.
Apparently you don’t understand Schrodinger.
lol!
And now you’re an expert in physics too.
How can one person be so incredibly smart and talented as you think you are?
Keep the laughs coming, joke boy!