07-15-2014 12:26 PM
1,900 ... 2627282930 ...
tools
  1. ItnStln's Avatar
    Let's get real, neither side can be trusted to tell the truth.
    Ain't that the truth!

    You know, if a Republican did this then all hell would have broken loose.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 2
    02-27-2013 05:08 PM
  2. Aquila's Avatar
    CNN is included in the etc, etc. Also, the post directly above says, "CNN, MSNBC, Fox, etc, etc. who are all the same as The Onion." They're all lying, who cares what you call the source? Lets just call them liars and turn off the channel. Republican and Democrat are both different sounding words for the same concept, "liar". Neither believe in freedom or liberty for everyone, neither believe in achieving the best outcome possible within the law, the only thing all of these liars have in common is that they love and worship money.
    02-27-2013 06:11 PM
  3. backbeat's Avatar
    The post directly above says, "CNN, MSNBC, Fox, etc, etc. who are all the same as The Onion."
    Seriously?
    Aquila likes this.
    02-27-2013 06:15 PM
  4. Aquila's Avatar
    Seriously?
    Absolutely, they're all either making stuff up or deliberately misleading their audience, all are entertainment sources and shouldn't be taken as truth or sources of knowledge.

    Actually, I'll double down and state that The Onion is more credible, because it's honest about it's purpose. Following that, Fox News has the most credibility, because they freely admit they are a fundraising propaganda arm of the Republican party when questioned about it.

    There is nothing "fair", "balanced" or "accurate" about any of these news sources, and none of them see it as their purpose to give accurate information to their audiences, their purpose is to generate money through entertainment.

    These stations fire real journalists for asking tough questions of the opposing political party and routinely, as part of their daily operating procedure, spin stories and statements to back up their political agendas, omit extremely relevant facts and/or simply do not even ask for the information needed to inform the public.

    As the primary intermediary between the average citizen and the political process, it's no wonder we have a super-majority of uninformed and misinformed citizens who cannot move past their own personal emotional and moral frame of reference on vastly irrelevant social issues when attempting to engage in a political process that neither works for them nor wants their input.
    02-27-2013 06:23 PM
  5. backbeat's Avatar
    Absolutely, they're all either making stuff up or deliberately misleading their audience, all are entertainment sources and shouldn't be taken as truth or sources of knowledge.

    Actually, I'll double down and state that The Onion is more credible, because it's honest about it's purpose. Following that, Fox News has the most credibility, because they freely admit they are a fundraising propaganda arm of the Republican party when questioned about it.

    There is nothing "fair", "balanced" or "accurate" about any of these news sources, and none of them see it as their purpose to give accurate information to their audiences, their purpose is to generate money through entertainment.

    These stations fire real journalists for asking tough questions of the opposing political party and routinely, as part of their daily operating procedure, spin stories and statements to back up their political agendas, omit extremely relevant facts and/or simply do not even ask for the information needed to inform the public.

    As the primary intermediary between the average citizen and the political process, it's no wonder we have a super-majority of uninformed and misinformed citizens who cannot move past their own personal emotional and moral frame of reference on vastly irrelevant social issues when attempting to engage in a political process that neither works for them nor wants their input.
    How about a glass half-full answer? What is your reliable source for hard-nosed domestic/international journalism? CSM? Reuters? Ladies Home Journal? Vogue?
    02-27-2013 06:41 PM
  6. backbeat's Avatar
    Now we have this..

    /SNIP/
    This only furthers the display of a complete void of understanding in what impeachment means and entails. It's become quite sad, to be honest.
    Aquila likes this.
    02-27-2013 06:52 PM
  7. Aquila's Avatar
    How about a glass half-full answer? What is your reliable source for hard-nosed domestic/international journalism? CSM? Reuters? Ladies Home Journal? Vogue?
    I like to read as many articles as possible, some of the comments, assume most of it is false, and if it's something I care about, in politics I read the actual bills and transcripts of arguments whenever they are available. The comments often contain links to more information. Lately I don't care much about most of the issues that are addressed, because like the "fiscal cliff", they're manufactured issues. The politicians and media realized that reality TV sells and are now emulating it as much as possible, including cliff-hangers and soap-opera style debates. There really isn't a one size fits all new organization and it's impossible for any of them to convey the whole accurate story with full context, but I don't believe these mainstream sources are even trying. I think it's a mistake for any "news" entity to state that a politician should or should not be impeached, supported, voted out, etc. What they should do is present the facts and allow freethinking people to form their own conclusions. But presenting the facts, should mean presenting all of the facts in accurate context, not just those that support your "side".
    Markster1 likes this.
    02-27-2013 07:08 PM
  8. Aquila's Avatar
    This only furthers the display of a complete void of understanding in what impeachment means and entails. It's become quite sad, to be honest.
    Rush is an expert on how to be overweight, obnoxious and factually inaccurate. For anything else, we should consult another source.
    02-27-2013 07:10 PM
  9. Vanilla Ice's Avatar
    He was in fact so calculating, he calculated that by joining the Texas Air National Guard he could duck out of Vietnam.
    I never knew joining the ANG was for someone to bail out of any American war or conflict? I look at all Service Men and Women as heroes that serve in any US Military branch. Where did you get your recourse from about GWB and his ANG service to escape Vietnam?
    02-27-2013 11:03 PM
  10. Aquila's Avatar
    wait, dumb question here... isn't every single executive order, no matter the text, or which president orders it, unconstitutional?
    02-28-2013 06:29 AM
  11. backbeat's Avatar
    I like to read as many articles as possible, some of the comments, assume most of it is false, and if it's something I care about, in politics I read the actual bills and transcripts of arguments whenever they are available.
    Examples of hard-nosed journalists who you've learned through your extensive research deliver a relatively accurate report?
    02-28-2013 08:55 AM
  12. backbeat's Avatar
    CD posted: "The same John Adams who defended the British in Court after the Boston Massacre? GWBush would have had Adams sent to Gitmo!"

    I rely on you to provide a source for the GWB statement.


    Do you understand why John Adams took to defend the British soldiers?

    Personally I am quite proud of John Adam's defense of the British shoulders, he defended those that would have been wronged without proper representation.
    Even though those soldiers stood against all he held dear he did the right and honorable thing to ensure justice was served.


    John Adams and the Boston Massacre | American Civil Liberties Union

    Of his decision to represent the British soldiers, Adams wrote in his diary:

    "The part I took in defense of captain Preston and the soldiers, procured me anxiety, and obloquy enough. It was, however, one of the most gallant, generous, manly and disinterested actions of my whole life, and one of the best pieces of service I ever rendered my country. Judgment of death against those soldiers would have been as foul a stain upon this country as the executions of the Quakers or witches, anciently.
    Captain Preston and six of his men were acquitted while two others who were convicted of manslaughter were sentenced to be branded with an m on their thumbs.
    A genuine shame such selfless, honorable interest does not exist in interweb forums. If Adams is to be lauded (which was my point in introducing it) .....
    02-28-2013 10:00 AM
  13. Aquila's Avatar
    Examples of hard-nosed journalists who you've learned through your extensive research deliver a relatively accurate report?
    The point of the statement was that I don't know of any, which is the problem. If journalism is remade to mean propaganda, why would anyone trust any of it blindly? I think if you read my response, my position is abundantly clear and contextually addresses the point of your question, because directly answering your question without context results in a misleading dialogue.
    The second asking of the same question implies either you think that I did not understand where you are coming from, in which case more context from you would be needed, or you didn't read the response at all to realize that, in the context of the response, the question I'd not only a moot point and irrelevant, but returning to that one aspect in spite of the obviously more important 'big picture' demeans the author and readers, and jeopardizes the integrity of the discussion.
    Honestly, this is reminiscent of bad mainstream pundit "debate" strategy, where the person with little information attempts to "disprove" a theory by honing an irrelevant talking point for future use as an argument against the effectiveness or integrity of the speaker.
    The issue I brought up is the impact of entertainment news relative to the low information processing and critical analysis capabilities of their audiences. For example, listeners of Rush tend to be scared and racist ignorant people. Are there exceptions? Of course. Just like real journalist, the exception would only contrast and highlight the trend.
    The point about other networks using similar tactics is where you seem to have flipped, however you didn't state an argument or address it other than to go out of logical bounds to try to take the argument to a false absolutism that is both unnecessary for my point to stand on it's own and invalid because a judgment on the effectiveness of a quality is subjective in that the scale is internalized.
    Politics isn't physics and even in physics there are foundational philosophical differences, so why are opinions about politics black and white?
    It's funny because my criticism of right wing lunatics is praised, but as soon as I suggested co-ownership of credit in the lunacy and culture of deceit in politics, I'm assaulted with logically unsound tactics such as this. It seems as if you're stuck on this one facet, in which case let me reiterate that I'm a big picture oriented person; don't miss the forest for the trees.

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
    02-28-2013 02:36 PM
  14. Aquila's Avatar
    I think that the mythological belief that any particular corporation or political party represents the rights and interests of the common man better than any other is exactly the same fallacy as using philosophical statements attributed by humans to Thor, Zeus or Svarasvati as a basis for political argument. It's a fallacy that seriously jeopardizes the capacity critical analysis, because the false assumptions being used as the frame of reference invalidate the legitimacy of independent control over one's own mind. This is why we must move past talking points and partisan spin, because both sides manipulate the truth for the exact same reasons, because they do not worship Liberty,Freedom or Knowledge. They worship money. If your motivation is not to deify the Almighty Dollar, then your agenda is not aligned with theirs, and therefore their arguments should not be yours, because they hate you.
    02-28-2013 02:59 PM
  15. backbeat's Avatar
    The point of the statement was that I don't know of any, which is the problem. If journalism is remade to mean propaganda, why would anyone trust any of it blindly? I think if you read my response, my position is abundantly clear and contextually addresses the point of your question, because directly answering your question without context results in a misleading dialogue.
    The second asking of the same question implies either you think that I did not understand where you are coming from, in which case more context from you would be needed, or you didn't read the response at all to realize that, in the context of the response, the question I'd not only a moot point and irrelevant, but returning to that one aspect in spite of the obviously more important 'big picture' demeans the author and readers, and jeopardizes the integrity of the discussion.
    Honestly, this is reminiscent of bad mainstream pundit "debate" strategy, where the person with little information attempts to "disprove" a theory by honing an irrelevant talking point for future use as an argument against the effectiveness or integrity of the speaker.
    The issue I brought up is the impact of entertainment news relative to the low information processing and critical analysis capabilities of their audiences. For example, listeners of Rush tend to be scared and racist ignorant people. Are there exceptions? Of course. Just like real journalist, the exception would only contrast and highlight the trend.
    The point about other networks using similar tactics is where you seem to have flipped, however you didn't state an argument or address it other than to go out of logical bounds to try to take the argument to a false absolutism that is both unnecessary for my point to stand on it's own and invalid because a judgment on the effectiveness of a quality is subjective in that the scale is internalized.
    Politics isn't physics and even in physics there are foundational philosophical differences, so why are opinions about politics black and white?
    It's funny because my criticism of right wing lunatics is praised, but as soon as I suggested co-ownership of credit in the lunacy and culture of deceit in politics, I'm assaulted with logically unsound tactics such as this. It seems as if you're stuck on this one facet, in which case let me reiterate that I'm a big picture oriented person; don't miss the forest for the trees.

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
    Sometimes a cigar simple question is just a cigar simple question. Feel better after your purge(s)?
    Aquila likes this.
    02-28-2013 03:12 PM
  16. Aquila's Avatar
    Sometimes a cigar simple question is just a cigar simple question. Feel better after your purge(s)?
    I don't know of any, which is the problem.
    02-28-2013 03:16 PM
  17. Aquila's Avatar
    If I misconstrued the intent and overreacted, I apologize. I believe everything I said, but it might not have been appropriate to address it to you, rather than to the general interwebs.
    02-28-2013 03:18 PM
  18. backbeat's Avatar
    Posted 2/13/13: I am currently looking into the issue if Bush actually did release funds for Hamas in his last year in office. I have one source that says he did not, and Carolinadroid provided another source that says he did. If it turns out that I am wrong then I will thank CD for for the information and edit my post accordingly. If I find further information that suggests he did not release the funds then I will provide that information to CD and he can make his own determination.
    Need more time? Just thought I'd ask since I had to turn the calendar page and all.
    03-01-2013 08:19 AM
  19. kilofoxtrot's Avatar
    I never knew joining the ANG was for someone to bail out of any American war or conflict? I look at all Service Men and Women as heroes that serve in any US Military branch. Where did you get your recourse from about GWB and his ANG service to escape Vietnam?
    It doesnt work now as there is no draft, the armed services are all volunteer.... but back in GWB's day, the draft did exist, and there was no need to have the guard fill the ranks of troops in theatre. So yes... back in the 70's you could join the Guard and avoid 'Nam.
    03-01-2013 01:38 PM
  20. ItnStln's Avatar
    I never knew joining the ANG was for someone to bail out of any American war or conflict? I look at all Service Men and Women as heroes that serve in any US Military branch. Where did you get your recourse from about GWB and his ANG service to escape Vietnam?

    I know Guard and Reserve people who deploy more than active duty people...
    03-01-2013 03:58 PM
  21. Aquila's Avatar
    I know Guard and Reserve people who deploy more than active duty people...
    In the last 20 years that's accurate.
    03-01-2013 05:06 PM
  22. pappy53's Avatar
    Well, what do you think? With the absolutely botched rollout of the Obamacare website, and the minimal number of people that have signed up (last count that I read was less than 60,000), should the individual mandate be delayed? Website traffic has already dropped 90% by the second week. Maybe to delay it if a fix is not accomplished by November 15? From what I have read, there could be over 5,000,000 lines of code to be rewritten, just for starters. Other say that they are clueless as to what the problem is!
    I am not speaking of repeal, as it is already a law, but a delay to get it functional. How can people be fined, if they cannot buy the insurance?
    10-22-2013 09:17 PM
  23. Mooncatt's Avatar
    If the vote to repeal is taken out of this particular discussion, I say delay it. Even if not for the site issues, just on principle because of the delay afforded to companies.
    10-22-2013 09:37 PM
  24. Scott7217's Avatar
    I am not speaking of repeal, as it is already a law, but a delay to get it functional. How can people be fined, if they cannot buy the insurance?
    Could people apply using other means besides the website? Maybe people should apply over the phone or via postal mail.
    10-22-2013 09:58 PM
  25. pappy53's Avatar
    Could people apply using other means besides the website? Maybe people should apply over the phone or via postal mail.
    If you call the phone number, they tell you to go to the website, because they can't take personal info over the phone.
    10-22-2013 10:02 PM
1,900 ... 2627282930 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Should there be another category for Games?
    By Basis in forum Android Games
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-21-2010, 09:22 PM
  2. Should I be upset about this dirt under my screen.
    By rem_kujawa in forum HTC EVO 4G
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 07-06-2010, 08:12 PM
  3. Should I be disappointed? Screen color availability!
    By TREOpalooza in forum HTC EVO 4G
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 05-31-2010, 01:56 PM
  4. Should GMail be telling me how many new?
    By dgalanter in forum Verizon Droid Incredible
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 05-09-2010, 04:46 PM
  5. Should I be worried about the LED?
    By solideliquid in forum Motorola Droid
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-28-2010, 09:30 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD