By your response, it appears that you do not.
You obviously did not use any of the links. If you had, you would know that "tinyurl" is not the "source", reliable or otherwise.
Would anyone like to tell her?
In case no one steps up before you read this -- Here is the link to the tinyurl site. When you actually visit "The Original URL Shortener" site, what a tinyurl link is should become clear to you within a few minutes. http://tinyurl.com/app
Of course, you can always take what I have presented in the OP as gospel, without bothering to verify that I am presenting you the truth, which is exactly how most people continue to be manipulated -- it seems that's their preferred level of intellectual curiosity and critical thinking skills, or you can visit the sites and see for yourself. There are multiple sources linked; national, Facebook, YouTube and local media outlets (even ABC is cited -- you know that far "left wing" type of source that even you would consider reliable -- oh no!! :-O )
As long as you are not the type of person who cannot handle reading, or hearing, anything that they disagree with (i.e. other viewpoints) without claiming that anything that doesn't comport to whatever partisan view they hold must automatically be something from an "unreliable" source without even being willing to use an ounce of critical thinking skill to focus on what is actually being presented to determine what may, or may not, be valid points.
Over the years, I have found that the people who either cannot back up the arguments they claim are their own (as opposed to the simply political talking points that have been spoon fed to them that they claim are "their own" views) will refuse to even consider, or look at, anything that does not 100% go along with whatever the current days political talking points might be. The phrase they employ the most is one they believe will shut down any intellectual debate on a subject, because again, they are unable to actually defend their claimed views, or to put it simply, they know they have lost the debate but believe they can change the topic if they can get the other person to think they must defend where the information comes from rather than discussing the actual information. That phrase is usually something like, "That's not a reliable source!"
When someone says that, "that's not a reliable source" without offering any proof -- meaning backing up such a claim by providing proof of why that source is "not a reliable source", then I know that they have just admitted that they are nothing more than a partisan hack with no core beliefs of their own, even if they refuse to see what they they have just admitted to; their actions betray the truth they hide from themselves.
I believe that type of person is often charitably considered a "useful idiot" by whatever political group has succeeded in gaining their blind loyalty. |
