Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

The Cold Hard Truth on Rand Paul.

monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2014 12:32:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
http://www.politico.com...

This is so spot on that it just begs to be discussed here on this forum. It's such an accurate indictment of Rand Paul and his teabagger philosophy that it has to be seen as the first nail in his political coffin.

Brilliant analysis!
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2014 12:14:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The lack of a rush to support Rand Paul has to lead me to believe that Rand Paul has no real support. But I know that's not true and so it seems that they are tongue tied with the truthful impact of the article.

My only regret on seeing this last night was that it's so on the money and destructive of Rand Paul's real persona that it could help to bring him down too early. What a terrible shame it would be if he didn't make it to one of the last men standing in the Republican primaries. Say, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, Chris Christie, Santorum, and maybe one or two other fatally flawed candidates.

Then on the other hand, to see Rand Paul become president would be so catastrophic for the US that the destruction he caused would last for decades and help mainly in teaching Americans a damn good lesson they have needed to learn for a long time.

Your thoughts Rand Paul supporters?
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2014 12:18:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/23/2014 12:32:18 AM, monty1 wrote:
http://www.politico.com...

This is so spot on that it just begs to be discussed here on this forum. It's such an accurate indictment of Rand Paul and his teabagger philosophy that it has to be seen as the first nail in his political coffin.

Brilliant analysis!

You have yet to respond to either of my posts on the other two forums. I gave a nice explanation on how the voting system works for one of them.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2014 12:22:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/23/2014 12:18:34 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 3/23/2014 12:32:18 AM, monty1 wrote:
http://www.politico.com...

This is so spot on that it just begs to be discussed here on this forum. It's such an accurate indictment of Rand Paul and his teabagger philosophy that it has to be seen as the first nail in his political coffin.

Brilliant analysis!

You have yet to respond to either of my posts on the other two forums. I gave a nice explanation on how the voting system works for one of them.

Off topic!
bubbatheclown
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2014 12:57:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/23/2014 12:32:18 AM, monty1 wrote:
http://www.politico.com...

This is so spot on that it just begs to be discussed here on this forum. It's such an accurate indictment of Rand Paul and his teabagger philosophy that it has to be seen as the first nail in his political coffin.

Brilliant analysis!

Whether or not this is the case, a news organization has no business releasing an article that is this slanted.
BobTurner
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2014 1:02:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/23/2014 12:57:24 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 3/23/2014 12:32:18 AM, monty1 wrote:
http://www.politico.com...

This is so spot on that it just begs to be discussed here on this forum. It's such an accurate indictment of Rand Paul and his teabagger philosophy that it has to be seen as the first nail in his political coffin.

Brilliant analysis!

Whether or not this is the case, a news organization has no business releasing an article that is this slanted.

What you call slanted, the rest of us call "facts." If you want a "all sides are equally valid" point of view, go to CNN. If you want a "the right-wing is always right and Obama is a socialist communist atheist Marxist dictator who wants to steal from the Real Americans and give it to Those People" go to Fox.
bubbatheclown
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2014 1:05:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/23/2014 1:02:18 PM, BobTurner wrote:
At 3/23/2014 12:57:24 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 3/23/2014 12:32:18 AM, monty1 wrote:
http://www.politico.com...

This is so spot on that it just begs to be discussed here on this forum. It's such an accurate indictment of Rand Paul and his teabagger philosophy that it has to be seen as the first nail in his political coffin.

Brilliant analysis!

Whether or not this is the case, a news organization has no business releasing an article that is this slanted.

What you call slanted, the rest of us call "facts." If you want a "all sides are equally valid" point of view, go to CNN. If you want a "the right-wing is always right and Obama is a socialist communist atheist Marxist dictator who wants to steal from the Real Americans and give it to Those People" go to Fox.

So basically you've been reading liberal slanted articles for so long that you think they're unbiased?
If an article says specifically that a certain set of ideas will not work, or that a certain idea is wrong, or that a certain presidential candidate would not make a good president, or that a certain country's invasion of another country is clearly wrong, then THAT IS BIASED!!!
If a news article said that the Earth is not flat and that flat-earthers are idiots, (even if this is true) that's media bias.
The news is supposed to tell us what happened, not to give us their opinion, even if their opinion has some studies behind it.
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2014 1:05:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Interesting article, thanks Monty.

It's definitely right that Americans are very much in favor of cutting the budget, but also very much opposed to actual changes that would actually cut it. I don't see a Rand Paul win as likely, but we'll see.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
bubbatheclown
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2014 1:10:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Also, I am aware that Fox News has a conservative bias, but before you blame them you should eliminate every one of the many news stations which have a liberal bias.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2014 1:12:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/23/2014 1:05:56 PM, thett3 wrote:
Interesting article, thanks Monty.

It's definitely right that Americans are very much in favor of cutting the budget, but also very much opposed to actual changes that would actually cut it. I don't see a Rand Paul win as likely, but we'll see.

Thank you for reading it and understanding it, at least as much as you have commented on. The budget cutting ideas of Rand Paul is certainly a big part of his problem, as pointed out in that article.

Is he worth defending? It appears that at least so far, it's left his supporters tongue tied!

As for it being biased news? Of course it's horribly biased and I expect them to use that excuse to run from his defence. This is standard behaviour for the libertarian bent when scrutinized in any depth. It can't be logically defended.
BobTurner
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2014 1:16:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/23/2014 1:05:30 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 3/23/2014 1:02:18 PM, BobTurner wrote:
At 3/23/2014 12:57:24 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 3/23/2014 12:32:18 AM, monty1 wrote:
http://www.politico.com...

This is so spot on that it just begs to be discussed here on this forum. It's such an accurate indictment of Rand Paul and his teabagger philosophy that it has to be seen as the first nail in his political coffin.

Brilliant analysis!

Whether or not this is the case, a news organization has no business releasing an article that is this slanted.

What you call slanted, the rest of us call "facts." If you want a "all sides are equally valid" point of view, go to CNN. If you want a "the right-wing is always right and Obama is a socialist communist atheist Marxist dictator who wants to steal from the Real Americans and give it to Those People" go to Fox.

So basically you've been reading liberal slanted articles for so long that you think they're unbiased?:

Not at all. Again, what you call liberal, I call factual.

There's this conservative methodology used by the talking heads of the right-wing -- and also by Austrian economists and goldbugs, to be honest: you assert that your story is right, and everyone else is wrong: the government is wrong, any media outlet that dares to question you is wrong, anyone who conducts a comprehensive study proving your wrong is wrong, etc.

Case in point? Sarah Palin -- probably the biggest liar and doofus in recent history -- screamed that Katie Couric was trying to ask her a "gotcha" question; she asked her "what do you read" and Palin couldn't answer.

If an article says specifically that a certain set of ideas will not work, or that a certain idea is wrong, or that a certain presidential candidate would not make a good president, or that a certain country's invasion of another country is clearly wrong, then THAT IS BIASED!!!:

First of all, you can argue that anything is biased by virtue of the inherent capacity toward bias.

Next, you're off-base here, because I doubt you were ever up in arms when USA Today would write articles back in the early 2000s entitled "Bush says surge is working." It was an utter lie by Bush, and they refused to point that out.

No, some things are objectively wrong, objectively deceptive, objectively untrue. Pointing out those lies -- most of which just happen to be right-wing, because let's face it, many of those guys are unbelievably dumb -- is not biased: it's journalism.

If a news article said that the Earth is not flat and that flat-earthers are idiots, (even if this is true) that's media bias.:

No, you're just being absurd. thank you so much for proving my case.

No, that is objective truth. What you're saying essentially is that we shoudn't have science, or on a show about the cosmos, we should give equal time to Young Earthers, whose arguments have been debunked again and again and again. When presenting scientific evidence, why in the world should I have to give time to people who accept that a 2000-year-old religious text is literally true, that Adam and Eve were the first humans and we all resulted from inbreeding, that there was a giant flood some 4800 years ago with every single type of animal -- including every single breed of insect -- and believe in invisible magic? Feel free to believe all of that, but it's not science. You're essentially advocating that we live in a fact-free, everything-goes world. Can you not understand how that will, and has, impeded progress?

The news is supposed to tell us what happened, not to give us their opinion, even if their opinion has some studies behind it.:

They are supposed to tell us what happened. They're supposed to give us facts. You're saying that all views are equally valid and they can't report on a truth because you may disagree with it. If they reported, for instance, that 97.1% of peer-reviewed academic journals attest to the existence of anthropogenic climate change -- and there are scientists like Neil DeGrasse Tyson who say that this debate is over -- you would be outraged that we didn't give time to others with different "opinions." There's a difference between opinion and fact.
bubbatheclown
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2014 1:26:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/23/2014 1:16:02 PM, BobTurner wrote:
At 3/23/2014 1:05:30 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 3/23/2014 1:02:18 PM, BobTurner wrote:
At 3/23/2014 12:57:24 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 3/23/2014 12:32:18 AM, monty1 wrote:
http://www.politico.com...

This is so spot on that it just begs to be discussed here on this forum. It's such an accurate indictment of Rand Paul and his teabagger philosophy that it has to be seen as the first nail in his political coffin.

Brilliant analysis!

Whether or not this is the case, a news organization has no business releasing an article that is this slanted.

What you call slanted, the rest of us call "facts." If you want a "all sides are equally valid" point of view, go to CNN. If you want a "the right-wing is always right and Obama is a socialist communist atheist Marxist dictator who wants to steal from the Real Americans and give it to Those People" go to Fox.

So basically you've been reading liberal slanted articles for so long that you think they're unbiased?:

Not at all. Again, what you call liberal, I call factual.

There's this conservative methodology used by the talking heads of the right-wing -- and also by Austrian economists and goldbugs, to be honest: you assert that your story is right, and everyone else is wrong: the government is wrong, any media outlet that dares to question you is wrong, anyone who conducts a comprehensive study proving your wrong is wrong, etc.

Case in point? Sarah Palin -- probably the biggest liar and doofus in recent history -- screamed that Katie Couric was trying to ask her a "gotcha" question; she asked her "what do you read" and Palin couldn't answer.


If an article says specifically that a certain set of ideas will not work, or that a certain idea is wrong, or that a certain presidential candidate would not make a good president, or that a certain country's invasion of another country is clearly wrong, then THAT IS BIASED!!!:

First of all, you can argue that anything is biased by virtue of the inherent capacity toward bias.

Next, you're off-base here, because I doubt you were ever up in arms when USA Today would write articles back in the early 2000s entitled "Bush says surge is working." It was an utter lie by Bush, and they refused to point that out.

No, some things are objectively wrong, objectively deceptive, objectively untrue. Pointing out those lies -- most of which just happen to be right-wing, because let's face it, many of those guys are unbelievably dumb -- is not biased: it's journalism.

If a news article said that the Earth is not flat and that flat-earthers are idiots, (even if this is true) that's media bias.:

No, you're just being absurd. thank you so much for proving my case.

No, that is objective truth. What you're saying essentially is that we shoudn't have science, or on a show about the cosmos, we should give equal time to Young Earthers, whose arguments have been debunked again and again and again. When presenting scientific evidence, why in the world should I have to give time to people who accept that a 2000-year-old religious text is literally true, that Adam and Eve were the first humans and we all resulted from inbreeding, that there was a giant flood some 4800 years ago with every single type of animal -- including every single breed of insect -- and believe in invisible magic? Feel free to believe all of that, but it's not science. You're essentially advocating that we live in a fact-free, everything-goes world. Can you not understand how that will, and has, impeded progress?


The news is supposed to tell us what happened, not to give us their opinion, even if their opinion has some studies behind it.:

They are supposed to tell us what happened. They're supposed to give us facts. You're saying that all views are equally valid and they can't report on a truth because you may disagree with it. If they reported, for instance, that 97.1% of peer-reviewed academic journals attest to the existence of anthropogenic climate change -- and there are scientists like Neil DeGrasse Tyson who say that this debate is over -- you would be outraged that we didn't give time to others with different "opinions." There's a difference between opinion and fact.

First of all, you're assuming that anything Right Wing is automatically wrong and that everything Left-Wing is automatically right. The Far-Right has been proven wrong on many occasions, but so has the Far-Left. For instance, communism didn't work.

Where we disagree most here is the point of journalism. Journalism is NOT meant to tell viewers that the president's recent decision is foolish or wise or that this occupation of a certain land is justified or evil. The media's job is to report what happened or what's happening...and let the viewer decide for his or her self what to think.
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2014 1:28:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/23/2014 1:26:05 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 3/23/2014 1:16:02 PM, BobTurner wrote:
At 3/23/2014 1:05:30 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 3/23/2014 1:02:18 PM, BobTurner wrote:
At 3/23/2014 12:57:24 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 3/23/2014 12:32:18 AM, monty1 wrote:
http://www.politico.com...

This is so spot on that it just begs to be discussed here on this forum. It's such an accurate indictment of Rand Paul and his teabagger philosophy that it has to be seen as the first nail in his political coffin.

Brilliant analysis!

Whether or not this is the case, a news organization has no business releasing an article that is this slanted.

What you call slanted, the rest of us call "facts." If you want a "all sides are equally valid" point of view, go to CNN. If you want a "the right-wing is always right and Obama is a socialist communist atheist Marxist dictator who wants to steal from the Real Americans and give it to Those People" go to Fox.

So basically you've been reading liberal slanted articles for so long that you think they're unbiased?:

Not at all. Again, what you call liberal, I call factual.

There's this conservative methodology used by the talking heads of the right-wing -- and also by Austrian economists and goldbugs, to be honest: you assert that your story is right, and everyone else is wrong: the government is wrong, any media outlet that dares to question you is wrong, anyone who conducts a comprehensive study proving your wrong is wrong, etc.

Case in point? Sarah Palin -- probably the biggest liar and doofus in recent history -- screamed that Katie Couric was trying to ask her a "gotcha" question; she asked her "what do you read" and Palin couldn't answer.


If an article says specifically that a certain set of ideas will not work, or that a certain idea is wrong, or that a certain presidential candidate would not make a good president, or that a certain country's invasion of another country is clearly wrong, then THAT IS BIASED!!!:

First of all, you can argue that anything is biased by virtue of the inherent capacity toward bias.

Next, you're off-base here, because I doubt you were ever up in arms when USA Today would write articles back in the early 2000s entitled "Bush says surge is working." It was an utter lie by Bush, and they refused to point that out.

No, some things are objectively wrong, objectively deceptive, objectively untrue. Pointing out those lies -- most of which just happen to be right-wing, because let's face it, many of those guys are unbelievably dumb -- is not biased: it's journalism.

If a news article said that the Earth is not flat and that flat-earthers are idiots, (even if this is true) that's media bias.:

No, you're just being absurd. thank you so much for proving my case.

No, that is objective truth. What you're saying essentially is that we shoudn't have science, or on a show about the cosmos, we should give equal time to Young Earthers, whose arguments have been debunked again and again and again. When presenting scientific evidence, why in the world should I have to give time to people who accept that a 2000-year-old religious text is literally true, that Adam and Eve were the first humans and we all resulted from inbreeding, that there was a giant flood some 4800 years ago with every single type of animal -- including every single breed of insect -- and believe in invisible magic? Feel free to believe all of that, but it's not science. You're essentially advocating that we live in a fact-free, everything-goes world. Can you not understand how that will, and has, impeded progress?


The news is supposed to tell us what happened, not to give us their opinion, even if their opinion has some studies behind it.:

They are supposed to tell us what happened. They're supposed to give us facts. You're saying that all views are equally valid and they can't report on a truth because you may disagree with it. If they reported, for instance, that 97.1% of peer-reviewed academic journals attest to the existence of anthropogenic climate change -- and there are scientists like Neil DeGrasse Tyson who say that this debate is over -- you would be outraged that we didn't give time to others with different "opinions." There's a difference between opinion and fact.

First of all, you're assuming that anything Right Wing is automatically wrong and that everything Left-Wing is automatically right. The Far-Right has been proven wrong on many occasions, but so has the Far-Left. For instance, communism didn't work.

Where we disagree most here is the point of journalism. Journalism is NOT meant to tell viewers that the president's recent decision is foolish or wise or that this occupation of a certain land is justified or evil. The media's job is to report what happened or what's happening...and let the viewer decide for his or her self what to think.

Yes, he is litterally generalizing everything on the right wing as wrong, which it isn't. I do consider myself more left though. Progressive right is cool though.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2014 1:33:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
quote: "
Yes, he is litterally generalizing everything on the right wing as wrong, which it isn't. I do consider myself more left though. Progressive right is cool though."

I think your opinions and ideas could be worthwhile and valid if you would just attempt to stay on topic. What is your opinion of the topic here? Let's see if we can make this work.
bubbatheclown
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2014 2:04:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
To further justify my position, I'll use a fictional example.
Let's say that in August of 2011, 12,500 jobs were created in the state of Nevada. In that same month, 16,000 jobs were lost in the state of Oregon.
Then, CNN writes an article labeled "Why the Governor of Oregon Ought To Be Fired."
Here's the thing: whether or not the Governor ought to be fired or not is not what the Media is supposed to tell its viewers. It should give statistics on how many jobs were created and lost, and let the viewers decide for themselves whether the Governor of Oregon should be fired,

P.S. I made all those figures on job creation and loss up in order to prove a point.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2014 3:20:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/23/2014 12:32:18 AM, monty1 wrote:
http://www.politico.com...

This is so spot on that it just begs to be discussed here on this forum. It's such an accurate indictment of Rand Paul and his teabagger philosophy that it has to be seen as the first nail in his political coffin.

Brilliant analysis!

I see this as less of a problem with Rand Paul and more of a problem with the concept of democracy in general.

It's clear in this article (and in many, many articles before it) that America suffers from cognitive dissonance when it comes to government spending. As long as America suffers from it, America's politicians will also suffer from it. Such is how democracy works.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2014 5:15:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/23/2014 12:32:18 AM, monty1 wrote:
http://www.politico.com...

This is so spot on that it just begs to be discussed here on this forum. It's such an accurate indictment of Rand Paul and his teabagger philosophy that it has to be seen as the first nail in his political coffin.

Brilliant analysis!

You're definitely right, Monty.
Tsar of DDO
Kc1999
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2014 5:19:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/23/2014 5:15:42 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/23/2014 12:32:18 AM, monty1 wrote:
http://www.politico.com...

This is so spot on that it just begs to be discussed here on this forum. It's such an accurate indictment of Rand Paul and his teabagger philosophy that it has to be seen as the first nail in his political coffin.

Brilliant analysis!

You're definitely right, Monty.
His father, Ron Paul, is a crazy man. He wants to ban chocolate milk.
#NoToMobocracy #BladeStroink
BobTurner
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2014 5:45:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/23/2014 1:26:05 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 3/23/2014 1:16:02 PM, BobTurner wrote:
At 3/23/2014 1:05:30 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 3/23/2014 1:02:18 PM, BobTurner wrote:
At 3/23/2014 12:57:24 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 3/23/2014 12:32:18 AM, monty1 wrote:
http://www.politico.com...

This is so spot on that it just begs to be discussed here on this forum. It's such an accurate indictment of Rand Paul and his teabagger philosophy that it has to be seen as the first nail in his political coffin.

Brilliant analysis!

Whether or not this is the case, a news organization has no business releasing an article that is this slanted.

What you call slanted, the rest of us call "facts." If you want a "all sides are equally valid" point of view, go to CNN. If you want a "the right-wing is always right and Obama is a socialist communist atheist Marxist dictator who wants to steal from the Real Americans and give it to Those People" go to Fox.

So basically you've been reading liberal slanted articles for so long that you think they're unbiased?:

Not at all. Again, what you call liberal, I call factual.

There's this conservative methodology used by the talking heads of the right-wing -- and also by Austrian economists and goldbugs, to be honest: you assert that your story is right, and everyone else is wrong: the government is wrong, any media outlet that dares to question you is wrong, anyone who conducts a comprehensive study proving your wrong is wrong, etc.

Case in point? Sarah Palin -- probably the biggest liar and doofus in recent history -- screamed that Katie Couric was trying to ask her a "gotcha" question; she asked her "what do you read" and Palin couldn't answer.


If an article says specifically that a certain set of ideas will not work, or that a certain idea is wrong, or that a certain presidential candidate would not make a good president, or that a certain country's invasion of another country is clearly wrong, then THAT IS BIASED!!!:

First of all, you can argue that anything is biased by virtue of the inherent capacity toward bias.

Next, you're off-base here, because I doubt you were ever up in arms when USA Today would write articles back in the early 2000s entitled "Bush says surge is working." It was an utter lie by Bush, and they refused to point that out.

No, some things are objectively wrong, objectively deceptive, objectively untrue. Pointing out those lies -- most of which just happen to be right-wing, because let's face it, many of those guys are unbelievably dumb -- is not biased: it's journalism.

If a news article said that the Earth is not flat and that flat-earthers are idiots, (even if this is true) that's media bias.:

No, you're just being absurd. thank you so much for proving my case.

No, that is objective truth. What you're saying essentially is that we shoudn't have science, or on a show about the cosmos, we should give equal time to Young Earthers, whose arguments have been debunked again and again and again. When presenting scientific evidence, why in the world should I have to give time to people who accept that a 2000-year-old religious text is literally true, that Adam and Eve were the first humans and we all resulted from inbreeding, that there was a giant flood some 4800 years ago with every single type of animal -- including every single breed of insect -- and believe in invisible magic? Feel free to believe all of that, but it's not science. You're essentially advocating that we live in a fact-free, everything-goes world. Can you not understand how that will, and has, impeded progress?


The news is supposed to tell us what happened, not to give us their opinion, even if their opinion has some studies behind it.:

They are supposed to tell us what happened. They're supposed to give us facts. You're saying that all views are equally valid and they can't report on a truth because you may disagree with it. If they reported, for instance, that 97.1% of peer-reviewed academic journals attest to the existence of anthropogenic climate change -- and there are scientists like Neil DeGrasse Tyson who say that this debate is over -- you would be outraged that we didn't give time to others with different "opinions." There's a difference between opinion and fact.

First of all, you're assuming that anything Right Wing is automatically wrong and that everything Left-Wing is automatically right. The Far-Right has been proven wrong on many occasions, but so has the Far-Left. For instance, communism didn't work.

I never assumed that at all. All I said was that there is such a thing as objective reality.

Also, the "far left", insofar as it actually exists (it doesn't; there are very few "communists" even left in the world because the country has moved radically to the right over the past 30 years), is hardly the same as the Fox-News, "Real Americans," Sarah-Palin-led far-right. Don't try to make a false equivalency to the tune of "well, everyone lies!" Fox distorted the hell out of the ACA for years since it was passed. You can't find an equivalent on the other side.

Also, you can't tell me that the right-wing position on climate change -- that it's a hoax -- is as relevant as the left-wing position that it's real. Those positions are not equal. One is backed by science, one by Oil money. You can't tell me that the two positions on gay marriage are valid: one is for equality, the other for bigotry. You can't tell me that the two sides on food stamps vs. agriculture subsidies are relevant: the GOP slashed food stamps while maintaining agribusiness subsidies.

I'm in no way saying the left is always right, and the right is always wrong. That's a fundamental misreading of my post. I'm simply saying that facts exist. Attempting to equate opinion with fact is the equivalent of equating creationism with science -- it simply cannot be done.

Where we disagree most here is the point of journalism. Journalism is NOT meant to tell viewers that the president's recent decision is foolish or wise or that this occupation of a certain land is justified or evil. :

Actually, we don't disagree there. You're again misunderstanding my argument.

The media should actually look at the facts and report on those facts. They should report that, when Bush said the surge was working and it clearly wasn't, that's he clearly full of it. That's not taking a side on the war -- though, mind you, anchors who opposed the war in Iraq at the time were told to shut up -- but simply reporting on the objective reality. Answering that question is not contingent only on opinion. If you think it is, you're simply living in a dream world.

The media's job is to report what happened or what's happening...and let the viewer decide for his or her self what to think.:

That's right, and they're not doing that if they're sucking up to Bush or the GOP, are they? They're not doing that if they're suggesting that there are "two sides" on the debate on climate change, when there is overwhelming evidence on one side.

The job of the media is to report on facts, not to appease intellectual lightweights, be they in the Republican or Democrat party.
BobTurner
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2014 5:46:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/23/2014 1:28:54 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 3/23/2014 1:26:05 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 3/23/2014 1:16:02 PM, BobTurner wrote:
At 3/23/2014 1:05:30 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 3/23/2014 1:02:18 PM, BobTurner wrote:
At 3/23/2014 12:57:24 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 3/23/2014 12:32:18 AM, monty1 wrote:
http://www.politico.com...

This is so spot on that it just begs to be discussed here on this forum. It's such an accurate indictment of Rand Paul and his teabagger philosophy that it has to be seen as the first nail in his political coffin.

Brilliant analysis!

Whether or not this is the case, a news organization has no business releasing an article that is this slanted.

What you call slanted, the rest of us call "facts." If you want a "all sides are equally valid" point of view, go to CNN. If you want a "the right-wing is always right and Obama is a socialist communist atheist Marxist dictator who wants to steal from the Real Americans and give it to Those People" go to Fox.

So basically you've been reading liberal slanted articles for so long that you think they're unbiased?:

Not at all. Again, what you call liberal, I call factual.

There's this conservative methodology used by the talking heads of the right-wing -- and also by Austrian economists and goldbugs, to be honest: you assert that your story is right, and everyone else is wrong: the government is wrong, any media outlet that dares to question you is wrong, anyone who conducts a comprehensive study proving your wrong is wrong, etc.

Case in point? Sarah Palin -- probably the biggest liar and doofus in recent history -- screamed that Katie Couric was trying to ask her a "gotcha" question; she asked her "what do you read" and Palin couldn't answer.


If an article says specifically that a certain set of ideas will not work, or that a certain idea is wrong, or that a certain presidential candidate would not make a good president, or that a certain country's invasion of another country is clearly wrong, then THAT IS BIASED!!!:

First of all, you can argue that anything is biased by virtue of the inherent capacity toward bias.

Next, you're off-base here, because I doubt you were ever up in arms when USA Today would write articles back in the early 2000s entitled "Bush says surge is working." It was an utter lie by Bush, and they refused to point that out.

No, some things are objectively wrong, objectively deceptive, objectively untrue. Pointing out those lies -- most of which just happen to be right-wing, because let's face it, many of those guys are unbelievably dumb -- is not biased: it's journalism.

If a news article said that the Earth is not flat and that flat-earthers are idiots, (even if this is true) that's media bias.:

No, you're just being absurd. thank you so much for proving my case.

No, that is objective truth. What you're saying essentially is that we shoudn't have science, or on a show about the cosmos, we should give equal time to Young Earthers, whose arguments have been debunked again and again and again. When presenting scientific evidence, why in the world should I have to give time to people who accept that a 2000-year-old religious text is literally true, that Adam and Eve were the first humans and we all resulted from inbreeding, that there was a giant flood some 4800 years ago with every single type of animal -- including every single breed of insect -- and believe in invisible magic? Feel free to believe all of that, but it's not science. You're essentially advocating that we live in a fact-free, everything-goes world. Can you not understand how that will, and has, impeded progress?


The news is supposed to tell us what happened, not to give us their opinion, even if their opinion has some studies behind it.:

They are supposed to tell us what happened. They're supposed to give us facts. You're saying that all views are equally valid and they can't report on a truth because you may disagree with it. If they reported, for instance, that 97.1% of peer-reviewed academic journals attest to the existence of anthropogenic climate change -- and there are scientists like Neil DeGrasse Tyson who say that this debate is over -- you would be outraged that we didn't give time to others with different "opinions." There's a difference between opinion and fact.

First of all, you're assuming that anything Right Wing is automatically wrong and that everything Left-Wing is automatically right. The Far-Right has been proven wrong on many occasions, but so has the Far-Left. For instance, communism didn't work.

Where we disagree most here is the point of journalism. Journalism is NOT meant to tell viewers that the president's recent decision is foolish or wise or that this occupation of a certain land is justified or evil. The media's job is to report what happened or what's happening...and let the viewer decide for his or her self what to think.

Yes, he is litterally generalizing everything on the right wing as wrong, which it isn't. I do consider myself more left though. Progressive right is cool though.

*literally

Actually, no I wasn't, but thank you so much for your wonderfully incisive commentary. Much appreciated. Maybe one day you'll have a primetime slot on CNN.
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2014 6:32:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/23/2014 5:46:15 PM, BobTurner wrote:
At 3/23/2014 1:28:54 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 3/23/2014 1:26:05 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 3/23/2014 1:16:02 PM, BobTurner wrote:
At 3/23/2014 1:05:30 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 3/23/2014 1:02:18 PM, BobTurner wrote:
At 3/23/2014 12:57:24 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 3/23/2014 12:32:18 AM, monty1 wrote:
http://www.politico.com...

This is so spot on that it just begs to be discussed here on this forum. It's such an accurate indictment of Rand Paul and his teabagger philosophy that it has to be seen as the first nail in his political coffin.

Brilliant analysis!

Whether or not this is the case, a news organization has no business releasing an article that is this slanted.

What you call slanted, the rest of us call "facts." If you want a "all sides are equally valid" point of view, go to CNN. If you want a "the right-wing is always right and Obama is a socialist communist atheist Marxist dictator who wants to steal from the Real Americans and give it to Those People" go to Fox.

So basically you've been reading liberal slanted articles for so long that you think they're unbiased?:

Not at all. Again, what you call liberal, I call factual.

There's this conservative methodology used by the talking heads of the right-wing -- and also by Austrian economists and goldbugs, to be honest: you assert that your story is right, and everyone else is wrong: the government is wrong, any media outlet that dares to question you is wrong, anyone who conducts a comprehensive study proving your wrong is wrong, etc.

Case in point? Sarah Palin -- probably the biggest liar and doofus in recent history -- screamed that Katie Couric was trying to ask her a "gotcha" question; she asked her "what do you read" and Palin couldn't answer.


If an article says specifically that a certain set of ideas will not work, or that a certain idea is wrong, or that a certain presidential candidate would not make a good president, or that a certain country's invasion of another country is clearly wrong, then THAT IS BIASED!!!:

First of all, you can argue that anything is biased by virtue of the inherent capacity toward bias.

Next, you're off-base here, because I doubt you were ever up in arms when USA Today would write articles back in the early 2000s entitled "Bush says surge is working." It was an utter lie by Bush, and they refused to point that out.

No, some things are objectively wrong, objectively deceptive, objectively untrue. Pointing out those lies -- most of which just happen to be right-wing, because let's face it, many of those guys are unbelievably dumb -- is not biased: it's journalism.

If a news article said that the Earth is not flat and that flat-earthers are idiots, (even if this is true) that's media bias.:

No, you're just being absurd. thank you so much for proving my case.

No, that is objective truth. What you're saying essentially is that we shoudn't have science, or on a show about the cosmos, we should give equal time to Young Earthers, whose arguments have been debunked again and again and again. When presenting scientific evidence, why in the world should I have to give time to people who accept that a 2000-year-old religious text is literally true, that Adam and Eve were the first humans and we all resulted from inbreeding, that there was a giant flood some 4800 years ago with every single type of animal -- including every single breed of insect -- and believe in invisible magic? Feel free to believe all of that, but it's not science. You're essentially advocating that we live in a fact-free, everything-goes world. Can you not understand how that will, and has, impeded progress?


The news is supposed to tell us what happened, not to give us their opinion, even if their opinion has some studies behind it.:

They are supposed to tell us what happened. They're supposed to give us facts. You're saying that all views are equally valid and they can't report on a truth because you may disagree with it. If they reported, for instance, that 97.1% of peer-reviewed academic journals attest to the existence of anthropogenic climate change -- and there are scientists like Neil DeGrasse Tyson who say that this debate is over -- you would be outraged that we didn't give time to others with different "opinions." There's a difference between opinion and fact.

First of all, you're assuming that anything Right Wing is automatically wrong and that everything Left-Wing is automatically right. The Far-Right has been proven wrong on many occasions, but so has the Far-Left. For instance, communism didn't work.

Where we disagree most here is the point of journalism. Journalism is NOT meant to tell viewers that the president's recent decision is foolish or wise or that this occupation of a certain land is justified or evil. The media's job is to report what happened or what's happening...and let the viewer decide for his or her self what to think.

Yes, he is litterally generalizing everything on the right wing as wrong, which it isn't. I do consider myself more left though. Progressive right is cool though.

*literally

Actually, no I wasn't, but thank you so much for your wonderfully incisive commentary. Much appreciated. Maybe one day you'll have a primetime slot on CNN.

I caught you Monty. Forgot to switch accounts.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
BobTurner
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2014 7:22:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/23/2014 6:32:51 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 3/23/2014 5:46:15 PM, BobTurner wrote:
At 3/23/2014 1:28:54 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 3/23/2014 1:26:05 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 3/23/2014 1:16:02 PM, BobTurner wrote:
At 3/23/2014 1:05:30 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 3/23/2014 1:02:18 PM, BobTurner wrote:
At 3/23/2014 12:57:24 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 3/23/2014 12:32:18 AM, monty1 wrote:
http://www.politico.com...

This is so spot on that it just begs to be discussed here on this forum. It's such an accurate indictment of Rand Paul and his teabagger philosophy that it has to be seen as the first nail in his political coffin.

Brilliant analysis!

Whether or not this is the case, a news organization has no business releasing an article that is this slanted.

What you call slanted, the rest of us call "facts." If you want a "all sides are equally valid" point of view, go to CNN. If you want a "the right-wing is always right and Obama is a socialist communist atheist Marxist dictator who wants to steal from the Real Americans and give it to Those People" go to Fox.

So basically you've been reading liberal slanted articles for so long that you think they're unbiased?:

Not at all. Again, what you call liberal, I call factual.

There's this conservative methodology used by the talking heads of the right-wing -- and also by Austrian economists and goldbugs, to be honest: you assert that your story is right, and everyone else is wrong: the government is wrong, any media outlet that dares to question you is wrong, anyone who conducts a comprehensive study proving your wrong is wrong, etc.

Case in point? Sarah Palin -- probably the biggest liar and doofus in recent history -- screamed that Katie Couric was trying to ask her a "gotcha" question; she asked her "what do you read" and Palin couldn't answer.


If an article says specifically that a certain set of ideas will not work, or that a certain idea is wrong, or that a certain presidential candidate would not make a good president, or that a certain country's invasion of another country is clearly wrong, then THAT IS BIASED!!!:

First of all, you can argue that anything is biased by virtue of the inherent capacity toward bias.

Next, you're off-base here, because I doubt you were ever up in arms when USA Today would write articles back in the early 2000s entitled "Bush says surge is working." It was an utter lie by Bush, and they refused to point that out.

No, some things are objectively wrong, objectively deceptive, objectively untrue. Pointing out those lies -- most of which just happen to be right-wing, because let's face it, many of those guys are unbelievably dumb -- is not biased: it's journalism.

If a news article said that the Earth is not flat and that flat-earthers are idiots, (even if this is true) that's media bias.:

No, you're just being absurd. thank you so much for proving my case.

No, that is objective truth. What you're saying essentially is that we shoudn't have science, or on a show about the cosmos, we should give equal time to Young Earthers, whose arguments have been debunked again and again and again. When presenting scientific evidence, why in the world should I have to give time to people who accept that a 2000-year-old religious text is literally true, that Adam and Eve were the first humans and we all resulted from inbreeding, that there was a giant flood some 4800 years ago with every single type of animal -- including every single breed of insect -- and believe in invisible magic? Feel free to believe all of that, but it's not science. You're essentially advocating that we live in a fact-free, everything-goes world. Can you not understand how that will, and has, impeded progress?


The news is supposed to tell us what happened, not to give us their opinion, even if their opinion has some studies behind it.:

They are supposed to tell us what happened. They're supposed to give us facts. You're saying that all views are equally valid and they can't report on a truth because you may disagree with it. If they reported, for instance, that 97.1% of peer-reviewed academic journals attest to the existence of anthropogenic climate change -- and there are scientists like Neil DeGrasse Tyson who say that this debate is over -- you would be outraged that we didn't give time to others with different "opinions." There's a difference between opinion and fact.

First of all, you're assuming that anything Right Wing is automatically wrong and that everything Left-Wing is automatically right. The Far-Right has been proven wrong on many occasions, but so has the Far-Left. For instance, communism didn't work.

Where we disagree most here is the point of journalism. Journalism is NOT meant to tell viewers that the president's recent decision is foolish or wise or that this occupation of a certain land is justified or evil. The media's job is to report what happened or what's happening...and let the viewer decide for his or her self what to think.

Yes, he is litterally generalizing everything on the right wing as wrong, which it isn't. I do consider myself more left though. Progressive right is cool though.

*literally

Actually, no I wasn't, but thank you so much for your wonderfully incisive commentary. Much appreciated. Maybe one day you'll have a primetime slot on CNN.

I caught you Monty. Forgot to switch accounts.

What the hell are you talking about? Monty and I are not the same person.

You responded to bubbatheclown who responded to me. He was saying that I was making the argument that the left is always right and the right is always wrong, and you agreed with him -- at least I thought you did. So I responded to you to tell you that you were wrong.

Geez, critical thinking skills are heavily lacking in several pockets of this site.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2014 10:16:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
BobTurner, I have something to tell you that I don't want anybody else to hear so I guess I'll have to send you a private message. It's about our user names here and a small problem that has come up. I think maybe somebody is uh, how shall I say this, uh, well, let's just say that somebody, uh, he, uh knows too much now?

When you hear from me again it might be under a new user name, you can't be too careful if you know what I mean ...............
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2014 10:25:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/23/2014 10:16:56 PM, monty1 wrote:
BobTurner, I have something to tell you that I don't want anybody else to hear so I guess I'll have to send you a private message. It's about our user names here and a small problem that has come up. I think maybe somebody is uh, how shall I say this, uh, well, let's just say that somebody, uh, he, uh knows too much now?

When you hear from me again it might be under a new user name, you can't be too careful if you know what I mean ...............

Hi monty1, got your message and think we should maybe lay low for a while. Hint: the room's full of popcorn.....
-Bob..
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2014 10:34:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/23/2014 10:25:21 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 3/23/2014 10:16:56 PM, monty1 wrote:
BobTurner, I have something to tell you that I don't want anybody else to hear so I guess I'll have to send you a private message. It's about our user names here and a small problem that has come up. I think maybe somebody is uh, how shall I say this, uh, well, let's just say that somebody, uh, he, uh knows too much now?

When you hear from me again it might be under a new user name, you can't be too careful if you know what I mean ...............

Hi monty1, got your message and think we should maybe lay low for a while. Hint: the room's full of popcorn.....
-Bob..

For anyone confused about what's going on here, that last post wasn't mine. It came through under my name by it wasn't posted by me. Or maybe it wasn't posted by BobTurner but was posted by somebody that's trying to trick us to get us to say that we're the same person. No, wait, that's not it. I don't know what's going on but I'm not mont....., no, .......... I'm not Bob..........., oh never mind.
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2014 5:20:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
As a libertarian I find it odd that people call Rand Paul a libertarian.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2014 11:45:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/24/2014 5:20:38 AM, Korashk wrote:
As a libertarian I find it odd that people call Rand Paul a libertarian.

Oh, then tell us how he isn't a libertarian. It's a chance for you to begin to define what a litertarian really is because I don't think anybody really knows for sure.
Haroush
Posts: 1,329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2014 7:48:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/23/2014 12:32:18 AM, monty1 wrote:
http://www.politico.com...

This is so spot on that it just begs to be discussed here on this forum. It's such an accurate indictment of Rand Paul and his teabagger philosophy that it has to be seen as the first nail in his political coffin.

Brilliant analysis!

People are probably going to get pissed off at me for this, but if something simple is a nail in Rand Paul's political coffin then Obama should have done been shot dead.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2014 9:02:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/24/2014 7:48:46 PM, Haroush wrote:
At 3/23/2014 12:32:18 AM, monty1 wrote:
http://www.politico.com...

This is so spot on that it just begs to be discussed here on this forum. It's such an accurate indictment of Rand Paul and his teabagger philosophy that it has to be seen as the first nail in his political coffin.

Brilliant analysis!

People are probably going to get pissed off at me for this, but if something simple is a nail in Rand Paul's political coffin then Obama should have done been shot dead.

No, people will likely just conclude that you're not very bright. The hint that gave it away for me was when you said: Obama should have 'done' been shot dead.
Haroush
Posts: 1,329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2014 11:53:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/24/2014 9:02:54 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 3/24/2014 7:48:46 PM, Haroush wrote:
At 3/23/2014 12:32:18 AM, monty1 wrote:
http://www.politico.com...

This is so spot on that it just begs to be discussed here on this forum. It's such an accurate indictment of Rand Paul and his teabagger philosophy that it has to be seen as the first nail in his political coffin.

Brilliant analysis!

People are probably going to get pissed off at me for this, but if something simple is a nail in Rand Paul's political coffin then Obama should have done been shot dead.

No, people will likely just conclude that you're not very bright. The hint that gave it away for me was when you said: Obama should have 'done' been shot dead.

Well, if you knew any better you'd know why I included the word "done" in that sentence even though it wasn't technically proper enough for you.