• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

What are you watching on YouTube?



Don't let the clickbait fool you. It's a good telling of the history of the building of the bridge.
 
Last edited:
Unreal courage this man has:


Brick by brick? Holy crap. After the first hour, I'd just blow the thing and to hell with the other buildings.


THere was an episode of "DMV" that used this delima.

Apparently, this was a real commercial back in the day. WTF? I don't remember it playing in my area, though. Apparently, you get a recording of some sad story of spousal cheating, a family pet dying. home destroyed in a fire...stuff like that. For people who just want a good cry and are willing to pay for it.


It probably failed very quickly, and/or never went national.
 
What happens when FauxNews watchers see real news.

I clicked on this to see what the source of the "real news" was. It was CNN. Many years ago, it was trusted source. Today, not so much. Reliability-wise, its probably on par with Fox News, but with a left bias instead of right.
 
What happens when FauxNews watchers see real news.

I clicked on this to see what the source of the "real news" was. It was CNN. Many years ago, it was trusted source. Today, not so much. Reliability-wise, its probably on par with Fox News, but with a left bias instead of right.

The "source" isn't CNN. The source is researchers from UC Berkeley. Do you know what a source is?
 
Yes, I watch CNN for all of my communist news. :LOL::coffee: My favorite anchor is Brother Boris from Liberation Hour, with his famous catchphrase "forward the common man". Such a laugh riot!
 
For atheist content, there are untold hours of The Atheist Experience and Deconstruction Zone with Justin. These are both call-in shows where the Christians call in, with various levels of IQ on display.
 
What happens when FauxNews watchers see real news.

I clicked on this to see what the source of the "real news" was. It was CNN. Many years ago, it was trusted source. Today, not so much. Reliability-wise, its probably on par with Fox News, but with a left bias instead of right.

The "source" isn't CNN. The source is researchers from UC Berkeley. Do you know what a source is?

My use of the word "source" was quite obvious and correct from the context of my post. It is not to be confused with the other usage of the word "source" which you are referring to, i.e. the source of the study itself, which as you correctly pointed out is UC Berkeley. Do you not know that there can simultaneously be two distinct usages of the word "source" within a single video/article?
 
What happens when FauxNews watchers see real news.

I clicked on this to see what the source of the "real news" was. It was CNN. Many years ago, it was trusted source. Today, not so much. Reliability-wise, its probably on par with Fox News, but with a left bias instead of right.

The "source" isn't CNN. The source is researchers from UC Berkeley. Do you know what a source is?

My use of the word "source" was quite obvious and correct from the context of my post.

Your post makes it seem as though the source of the information itself is CNN. Also, CNN didn't put any spin on the research. They presented the information accurately.
 
Back
Top Bottom