Wednesday, October 21, 2015

Why I'm Better Than Eduardo Porter

Continuing on from my previous observation that the MSM is nothing more than a leftist veil of aging and dying baby boomers, enter Eduardo Porter.

This guy is at least 20 years my senior and he works for the New York Times.

The NEW YORK fucking TIMES!

You know, that has-been baby boomer rag that claimed in the 70's it was "all the news fit to print?"

Anyway, he came out with this article about how welfare does not corrupt people and is a good thing.

Now, again, if you believe how you've been conditioned to believe that because he works for "THE" New York Times he is some how an authority figure. Well, just take a looksy at his twitter followers:

Look, guys, again, I'm a freaking nobody.  I alone with NO MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR NEW YORK ASS KISSING SUPPORT NETWORK still have 50% the followers "Eduardo" does. 

So why would you listen to him?

Which behooves, why would you listen to the New York Times?

I will say it again simply because it advances the focus of the American public to realize that the MSM and the likes of "Eduardo" are NOT the "authorities" they claim they are:

These people are HAVE BEENS!  And sadly they were "NEVER WERE'S."  They are an obsolete class of political activists that never had any talent and are simply trying to fight against the internet and its democratizing effects on the American public.  This guy is a NOBODY!  He's just an aged baby boomer journalist who never worked a real job in his life!  The only reason you heard about him is because the NYT slapped their stick on him and (sadly) I'm bringing attention to the fact this man even exists.

So seriously, I mean this.  We are winning.  The dipshits at the bankrupt-only-to-be-bailed-out-by-Carlos-Slim-New York times have to resort to hiring nobodies like Eduardo Porter to write masturbatory pieces for their leftist 50+ readership.  They aren't real "journalists."  They're wanna-be's.  They're hacks.  They're propaganda pieces.

Just realize that the next time some idiot out there cites the "New York Times" as a "source."


Tom Arrow said...

I love reading angry articles, but I would have loved if you had taken his point and refuted it. The only thing you did, as it is, is to call him a failure and what not. Kinda shitty and pointless. As you said - if he is so shitty, why bring attention to him?

Anonymous said...

I can't remember the last time I ever read the NYT? It has to be at least 15 years ago, if not longer. Same with the MSM "news". Don't watch, because I don't need too. I get about 98% of my news from the interwebz, and buy a dead tree newspaper once or twice a year as a fire starter for my fireplace or backyard charcoal grill. It is definitely not 1975 with only 3 networks, big daily newspapers and crappy AM radio.

Glen Filthie said...

I don't think anyone takes the Noo Yawk Slimes seriously anymore. Those of us with triple digit IQ's, anyway.

The Slimes - like pretty much every other MSM leftwing rag sheet, has been reduced to politically correct trolling to generate ratings and sell copy. Looking at that boy's stats you can see how successful he is.

I am proud to say I have been banned from pretty much every one that allows comments. When they write something to troll me, I troll 'em right back and their zombies start hitting the 'thumbs down' like spazzing howler monkeys and complaining! HAR HAR HAR! No, I don't fit well into their 'conversations' - if that is indeed what those children want to call them.

Judging from their diving sales and revenues I don't think most of the lefties are taking them seriously anymore either.

grey enlightenment said...

useless liberal babyboomers holding back the economy

Joe said...

It's funny how the vote-buying left will argue that welfare doesn't incent people to make certain decisions, but special tax credits and subsidies do.

Matthew Bailey said...

I agree with you, but i believe aaron thought he'd be beating a dead horse on this one.

FSK said...

It's meaningless to count Twitter followers or Facebook followers. You don't know how many of them are fake accounts.

If you're managing 1000+ fake social media profiles, you don't have all of them follow the exact same people. You also have them follow some random people, so it looks legitimate.

You can count "sales of your book", which is a valid measure.

Matthew Bailey said...

Correction, in response to Tom Arrow's comment, I agree with you; however, I believe Aaron thought he'd be beating a dead horse on this one, seeing that he has refuted this man's ideology over and over again (not saying that I don't find it entertaining when he does so).
This site is not very mobile friendly, and it gave me a reply option but it turned out that didn't work so well..