Quote: @Waterboy said:
@ Zanary said:
Sadly, I had to leave the Libertarian Party after the Mises morons ruined it while putin fluffers and various divisions (LPNH in particular) chose to act like hateful, babbling, wasted frat bois.
But, as waterboy is openly fictionalizing others' "points", can the admins change his name to "sputtering liar" or similar? It'd be accurate.
I would say give me some of what he's smoking, but I fear it has had a permanent impact on you. It's not surprising there is only one guy on the board that can interpret your babble.
either debate an issue or walk away, attacking the poster will only escalate the matter and you will be removed from the thread.
The source aside, is there anyone on the left just a bit concerned about the weaponization of the DOJ? Or is it all justified because Trump and the pro-lifers are so hated?
I always am skeptical of moves like these even when they are made by leaders on the right, i.e DeSantis in Florida. One, because I value freedom and the rights our government is supposed to recognize. Two because the current party will not always be in power and these moves will be leveraged against the other side in the future.
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ Waterboy said:
@ Zanary said:
Sadly, I had to leave the Libertarian Party after the Mises morons ruined it while putin fluffers and various divisions (LPNH in particular) chose to act like hateful, babbling, wasted frat bois.
But, as waterboy is openly fictionalizing others' "points", can the admins change his name to "sputtering liar" or similar? It'd be accurate.
I would say give me some of what he's smoking, but I fear it has had a permanent impact on you. It's not surprising there is only one guy on the board that can interpret your babble.
either debate an issue or walk away, attacking the poster will only escalate the matter and you will be removed from the thread.
This is fair Jimmy. Sometimes, it’s hard to listen to the lack of reasoning in the arguments, and not make it personal. I just can’t stand to see people knowingly listen to what’s being fed to them, and be oblivious to the bigger story. It’s kind of fascinating to see that people really don”t see it.
Quote: @Waterboy said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ Waterboy said:
@ Zanary said:
Sadly, I had to leave the Libertarian Party after the Mises morons ruined it while putin fluffers and various divisions (LPNH in particular) chose to act like hateful, babbling, wasted frat bois.
But, as waterboy is openly fictionalizing others' "points", can the admins change his name to "sputtering liar" or similar? It'd be accurate.
I would say give me some of what he's smoking, but I fear it has had a permanent impact on you. It's not surprising there is only one guy on the board that can interpret your babble.
either debate an issue or walk away, attacking the poster will only escalate the matter and you will be removed from the thread.
This is fair Jimmy. Sometimes, it’s hard to listen to the lack of reasoning I. The arguments, and not make it personal. I just can’t stand to see people knowingly listen to what’s being fed to them, and be oblivious to the bigger story. It’s kind of fascinating to see that people really don”t see it.
We all seem to see what we want at times, doesn't affect you or your views though when random people on a football site don't see it the same way. Make your points and move on is likely the safest approach.
Quote: @Waterboy said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ Waterboy said:
@ Zanary said:
Sadly, I had to leave the Libertarian Party after the Mises morons ruined it while putin fluffers and various divisions (LPNH in particular) chose to act like hateful, babbling, wasted frat bois.
But, as waterboy is openly fictionalizing others' "points", can the admins change his name to "sputtering liar" or similar? It'd be accurate.
I would say give me some of what he's smoking, but I fear it has had a permanent impact on you. It's not surprising there is only one guy on the board that can interpret your babble.
either debate an issue or walk away, attacking the poster will only escalate the matter and you will be removed from the thread.
This is fair Jimmy. Sometimes, it’s hard to listen to the lack of reasoning in the arguments, and not make it personal. I just can’t stand to see people knowingly listen to what’s being fed to them, and be oblivious to the bigger story. It’s kind of fascinating to see that people really don”t see it.
Pot meet kettle. Kettle this is pot.
Quote: @greediron said:
The source aside, is there anyone on the left just a bit concerned about the weaponization of the DOJ? Or is it all justified because Trump and the pro-lifers are so hated?
I always am skeptical of moves like these even when they are made by leaders on the right, i.e DeSantis in Florida. One, because I value freedom and the rights our government is supposed to recognize. Two because the current party will not always be in power and these moves will be leveraged against the other side in the future.
I think going after an Ex Potus for undermining the democratic process and attempting to remain in power against the peoples will is well within bounds (and warranted).
Time to reprise "lock her up" to "lock him up"
The media issue is simple: first, genuinely seek most neutral sources...and even then, be willing to follow their links to the purest data available, with the least editorializing.
Reuters is a decent example, much of the time. It's dry as hell compared to 90% of the MSM, but they also don't spend much time/effort with slant or agenda. It's not entertainment, it's information.
The best sources for news are the least entertaining, and maybe that's the lesson.
Also, strangely, I've come to appreciate local news crews more in recent years, as even the ones in very left-leaning Seattle are typically given just enough time to outline their story before "now, we go to Julie with the weather" or "here's Tom, with traffic". It's not quite pure data, but it's a ton better than the version I'll see later from some MSM factory.
The issue is deciding if you want news, or an agreeing opinion more. The popularity of MSM and sites like the one described in this thread show just how addicted the public has become to "news with their slant", something far beyond my imaginings.
Just ask if you're looking for data or entertainment, news or agreement.
Quote: @Zanary said:
The media issue is simple: first, genuinely seek most neutral sources...and even then, be willing to follow their links to the purest data available, with the least editorializing.
Reuters is a decent example, much of the time. It's dry as hell compared to 90% of the MSM, but they also don't spend much time/effort with slant or agenda. It's not entertainment, it's information.
The best sources for news are the least entertaining, and maybe that's the lesson.
Also, strangely, I've come to appreciate local news crews more in recent years, as even the ones in very left-leaning Seattle are typically given just enough time to outline their story before "now, we go to Julie with the weather" or "here's Tom, with traffic". It's not quite pure data, but it's a ton better than the version I'll see later from some MSM factory.
The issue is deciding if you want news, or an agreeing opinion more. The popularity of MSM and sites like the one described in this thread show just how addicted the public has become to "news with their slant", something far beyond my imaginings.
Just ask if you're looking for data or entertainment, news or agreement.
Some might disagree, but I would put BBC in a neutral position too - at least vs Fox/Cnn/Newsmax etc..
Quote: @purplefaithful said:
@ Zanary said:
The media issue is simple: first, genuinely seek most neutral sources...and even then, be willing to follow their links to the purest data available, with the least editorializing.
Reuters is a decent example, much of the time. It's dry as hell compared to 90% of the MSM, but they also don't spend much time/effort with slant or agenda. It's not entertainment, it's information.
The best sources for news are the least entertaining, and maybe that's the lesson.
Also, strangely, I've come to appreciate local news crews more in recent years, as even the ones in very left-leaning Seattle are typically given just enough time to outline their story before "now, we go to Julie with the weather" or "here's Tom, with traffic". It's not quite pure data, but it's a ton better than the version I'll see later from some MSM factory.
The issue is deciding if you want news, or an agreeing opinion more. The popularity of MSM and sites like the one described in this thread show just how addicted the public has become to "news with their slant", something far beyond my imaginings.
Just ask if you're looking for data or entertainment, news or agreement.
Some might disagree, but I would put BBC in a neutral position too - at least vs Fox/Cnn/Newsmax etc..
I believe that Reuters has been shown to be the most unbiased new source out there ( I read it somewhere recently )
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ purplefaithful said:
@ Zanary said:
The media issue is simple: first, genuinely seek most neutral sources...and even then, be willing to follow their links to the purest data available, with the least editorializing.
Reuters is a decent example, much of the time. It's dry as hell compared to 90% of the MSM, but they also don't spend much time/effort with slant or agenda. It's not entertainment, it's information.
The best sources for news are the least entertaining, and maybe that's the lesson.
Also, strangely, I've come to appreciate local news crews more in recent years, as even the ones in very left-leaning Seattle are typically given just enough time to outline their story before "now, we go to Julie with the weather" or "here's Tom, with traffic". It's not quite pure data, but it's a ton better than the version I'll see later from some MSM factory.
The issue is deciding if you want news, or an agreeing opinion more. The popularity of MSM and sites like the one described in this thread show just how addicted the public has become to "news with their slant", something far beyond my imaginings.
Just ask if you're looking for data or entertainment, news or agreement.
Some might disagree, but I would put BBC in a neutral position too - at least vs Fox/Cnn/Newsmax etc..
I believe that Reuters has been shown to be the most unbiased new source out there ( I read it somewhere recently )
It still leans left in my opinion. Here's the site which does a rating, which likely has a bias of its own. But I learned something that the BBC is right down the middle. lol
Reuters Media Bias | AllSides
|
