Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2019 12:42:01 GMT -5
Reminder: millions of Americans do not believe that birtherism is false or defamatory. I have no idea what your response means. More evasion. I have a problem with vilifying a teenager because of his political and religious views. My view has nothing to go with “birtherism”. But again, I applaud you for at least being honest enough to admit that you approve the vilification of a teenager whom you do not know based upon his political and religious views. You DO recall that Trump spent five years spreading a false and defamatory story about Obama’s birthplace for political reasons, right? Or did you just parachute into this planet in the last few weeks? You claim that “the left” is a problem for spreading false and defamatory stories about someone for their political views, while ignoring that “the right” vaulted Trump into the White House on exactly that. The lack of self awareness is really remarkable.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,468
|
Post by TC on Jan 21, 2019 12:57:51 GMT -5
You are, respectfully, twisting yourself in a pretzel to justify vilification if a person based upon his apparent religious views. I do not think it is proper to do so. Do you agree with the concept of freedom of religion and association? Or are such rights reserved only for those with whom you agree? I have no knowledge if Trump paid for an abortion in the past — even if he did please explain how this justifies vilification of a person like this teenager? I don't know where you are getting all of the vilification stuff from, the only thing I've said is that the teen shouldn't have worn a MAGA hat at a March for Life Rally because Donald Trump pays for abortions.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 21, 2019 13:13:38 GMT -5
You are, respectfully, twisting yourself in a pretzel to justify vilification if a person based upon his apparent religious views. I do not think it is proper to do so. Do you agree with the concept of freedom of religion and association? Or are such rights reserved only for those with whom you agree? I have no knowledge if Trump paid for an abortion in the past — even if he did please explain how this justifies vilification of a person like this teenager? I don't know where you are getting all of the vilification stuff from, the only thing I've said is that the teen shouldn't have worn a MAGA hat at a March for Life Rally because Donald Trump pays for abortions. If you read the reason.com article, you will see the vilification of the students to which I am referring. Comparisons to the KKK, “raised in hate”
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,468
|
Post by TC on Jan 21, 2019 13:16:50 GMT -5
I don't know where you are getting all of the vilification stuff from, the only thing I've said is that the teen shouldn't have worn a MAGA hat at a March for Life Rally because Donald Trump pays for abortions. If you read the reason.com article, you will see the vilification of the students to which I am referring. Comparisons to the KKK, “raised in hate” Oh, okay, so you're just setting up a straw man that no one here has expressed in the slightest. Carry on.
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,435
|
Post by prhoya on Jan 21, 2019 19:35:19 GMT -5
Depending on the news of the day, I check at 9:00 pm to see what those 3 news channels are saying about a particular news of the day and how they cover/spin it. Your views expressed here are almost 100% in line with Fox News. My views here are based upon facts and fairness. I could not care less if they supposedly align with Fox News. I cited an article written by an author on a site that is generally libertarian in nature, and is very critical of Trump on trade and immigration. So please do not deflect by referring to Fox - it suggests that you seek to evade a discussion of the facts. I'm not evading a discussion of the facts that you're discussing with other posters, not me. I pointed out to the fact that your views are almost 100% aligned with Fox News.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 21, 2019 19:53:43 GMT -5
I am referring to provable facts, not “views”. I avoid watching spin on media propaganda TV. Both left and right.
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,435
|
Post by prhoya on Jan 21, 2019 20:24:28 GMT -5
I am referring to provable facts, not “views”. I avoid watching spin on media propaganda TV. Both left and right. Just curious and honest question, where do you get your news from?
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,376
|
Post by tashoya on Jan 21, 2019 20:26:03 GMT -5
I don't know where you are getting all of the vilification stuff from, the only thing I've said is that the teen shouldn't have worn a MAGA hat at a March for Life Rally because Donald Trump pays for abortions. If you read the reason.com article, you will see the vilification of the students to which I am referring. Comparisons to the KKK, “raised in hate” Comparisons to the KKK and raised in hate. I wonder how anyone could make such a connection to someone wearing a MAGA hat. I'm not saying that everyone that wears a MAGA hat is a racist or, generally, hateful. But they should certainly be aware that Trump has actively stoked racism and aligned himself with white supremacists.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 21, 2019 22:22:38 GMT -5
I am referring to provable facts, not “views”. I avoid watching spin on media propaganda TV. Both left and right. Just curious and honest question, where do you get your news from? I do not watch network or cable "news". It is biased both ways depending upon the agenda. Since the near demise of print media over the past several years I have found that the MSM simply caters to one side or the other and has mixed news with opinion. I rely upon sources like Bloomberg News, Reuters, European papers -- they generally have far less of an agenda that the NYT, WPost, or WSJ. The financial media is also good, e.g., CNBC. I also read Real Clear Politics and Real Clear World for a sampling of opinion across the political spectrum, and the Hill as I find that it is generally less partisan than other similar sites, and read The American Interest until Walter Russell Mead left. I also check the Intercept as Greenwald has provocative articles. I Know that you will be unhappy but I do not read Breitbart -- I also avoid Vox and the like because they are the Breitbart of the left. I avoid Twitter and Facebook.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 21, 2019 22:35:30 GMT -5
Just curious and honest question, where do you get your news from? I do not watch network or cable "news". It is biased both ways depending upon the agenda. Since the near demise of print media over the past several years I have found that the MSM simply caters to one side or the other and has mixed news with opinion. I rely upon sources like Bloomberg News, Reuters, European papers -- they generally have far less of an agenda that the NYT, WPost, or WSJ. The financial media is also good, e.g., CNBC. I also read Real Clear Politics and Real Clear World for a sampling of opinion across the political spectrum, and the Hill as I find that it is generally less partisan than other similar sites, and read The American Interest until Walter Russell Mead left. I also check the Intercept as Greenwald has provocative articles. I Know that you will be unhappy but I do not read Breitbart -- I also avoid Vox and the like because they are the Breitbart of the left. I avoid Twitter and Facebook. And for a chuckle: babylonbee.com/news/press-that-incited-online-mob-against-teenagers-based-on-10-second-video-clip-unsure-why-some-people-call-them-fake-newsI thought of you guys when I read this...
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,376
|
Post by tashoya on Jan 21, 2019 22:52:51 GMT -5
Just curious and honest question, where do you get your news from? I do not watch network or cable "news". It is biased both ways depending upon the agenda. Since the near demise of print media over the past several years I have found that the MSM simply caters to one side or the other and has mixed news with opinion. I rely upon sources like Bloomberg News, Reuters, European papers -- they generally have far less of an agenda that the NYT, WPost, or WSJ. The financial media is also good, e.g., CNBC. I also read Real Clear Politics and Real Clear World for a sampling of opinion across the political spectrum, and the Hill as I find that it is generally less partisan than other similar sites, and read The American Interest until Walter Russell Mead left. I also check the Intercept as Greenwald has provocative articles. I Know that you will be unhappy but I do not read Breitbart -- I also avoid Vox and the like because they are the Breitbart of the left. I avoid Twitter and Facebook. The odd part is that, on a Georgetown board, you assume others don't read at least as many sources as you read and also, apparently, assume that most of us rely on the networks with which you take issue. I can assure you, both assumptions are wildly wrong.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 21, 2019 23:06:57 GMT -5
I do not watch network or cable "news". It is biased both ways depending upon the agenda. Since the near demise of print media over the past several years I have found that the MSM simply caters to one side or the other and has mixed news with opinion. I rely upon sources like Bloomberg News, Reuters, European papers -- they generally have far less of an agenda that the NYT, WPost, or WSJ. The financial media is also good, e.g., CNBC. I also read Real Clear Politics and Real Clear World for a sampling of opinion across the political spectrum, and the Hill as I find that it is generally less partisan than other similar sites, and read The American Interest until Walter Russell Mead left. I also check the Intercept as Greenwald has provocative articles. I Know that you will be unhappy but I do not read Breitbart -- I also avoid Vox and the like because they are the Breitbart of the left. I avoid Twitter and Facebook. The odd part is that, on a Georgetown board, you assume others don't read at least as many sources as you read and also, apparently, assume that most of us rely on the networks with which you take issue. I can assure you, both assumptions are wildly wrong. I responded to a question that another person asked. You seem to read wild things into other’s factual, neutral statements. I do not assume anything about what you or others read. Your insecurity is showing.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,468
|
Post by TC on Jan 21, 2019 23:08:32 GMT -5
I do not watch network or cable "news". It is biased both ways depending upon the agenda. Since the near demise of print media over the past several years I have found that the MSM simply caters to one side or the other and has mixed news with opinion. I rely upon sources like Bloomberg News, Reuters, European papers -- they generally have far less of an agenda that the NYT, WPost, or WSJ. The financial media is also good, e.g., CNBC. I also read Real Clear Politics and Real Clear World for a sampling of opinion across the political spectrum, and the Hill as I find that it is generally less partisan than other similar sites, and read The American Interest until Walter Russell Mead left. I also check the Intercept as Greenwald has provocative articles. I Know that you will be unhappy but I do not read Breitbart -- I also avoid Vox and the like because they are the Breitbart of the left. I avoid Twitter and Facebook. And for a chuckle: babylonbee.com/news/press-that-incited-online-mob-against-teenagers-based-on-10-second-video-clip-unsure-why-some-people-call-them-fake-newsI thought of you guys when I read this... You're really going to town on that straw man you've constructed. Great job, you're a real man for beating up on arguments no one makes.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 21, 2019 23:13:11 GMT -5
You're really going to town on that straw man you've constructed. Great job, you're a real man for beating up on arguments no one makes.[/quote Arguing with you is like trying to nail jello to the wall! But at least I avoid ad hominem attacks...
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,435
|
Post by prhoya on Jan 21, 2019 23:31:32 GMT -5
I do not watch network or cable "news". It is biased both ways depending upon the agenda. Since the near demise of print media over the past several years I have found that the MSM simply caters to one side or the other and has mixed news with opinion. I rely upon sources like Bloomberg News, Reuters, European papers -- they generally have far less of an agenda that the NYT, WPost, or WSJ. The financial media is also good, e.g., CNBC. I also read Real Clear Politics and Real Clear World for a sampling of opinion across the political spectrum, and the Hill as I find that it is generally less partisan than other similar sites, and read The American Interest until Walter Russell Mead left. I also check the Intercept as Greenwald has provocative articles. I Know that you will be unhappy but I do not read Breitbart -- I also avoid Vox and the like because they are the Breitbart of the left. I avoid Twitter and Facebook. Thanks for answering. I don't care if you read Breibart or not, but I'm calling BS on you not watching Fox News... ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png)
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,376
|
Post by tashoya on Jan 21, 2019 23:44:19 GMT -5
The odd part is that, on a Georgetown board, you assume others don't read at least as many sources as you read and also, apparently, assume that most of us rely on the networks with which you take issue. I can assure you, both assumptions are wildly wrong. I responded to a question that another person asked. You seem to read wild things into other’s factual, neutral statements. I do not assume anything about what you or others read. Your insecurity is showing. Stick to being an attorney because your armchair psychology game is not strong. You're the one linking babylonbee and saying that it made you think of those here. What did I read into that?
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 22, 2019 6:21:18 GMT -5
I responded to a question that another person asked. You seem to read wild things into other’s factual, neutral statements. I do not assume anything about what you or others read. Your insecurity is showing. Stick to being an attorney because your armchair psychology game is not strong. You're the one linking babylonbee and saying that it made you think of those here. What did I read into that? The link is to show how you all fall for fake news.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 22, 2019 6:26:48 GMT -5
I do not watch network or cable "news". It is biased both ways depending upon the agenda. Since the near demise of print media over the past several years I have found that the MSM simply caters to one side or the other and has mixed news with opinion. I rely upon sources like Bloomberg News, Reuters, European papers -- they generally have far less of an agenda that the NYT, WPost, or WSJ. The financial media is also good, e.g., CNBC. I also read Real Clear Politics and Real Clear World for a sampling of opinion across the political spectrum, and the Hill as I find that it is generally less partisan than other similar sites, and read The American Interest until Walter Russell Mead left. I also check the Intercept as Greenwald has provocative articles. I Know that you will be unhappy but I do not read Breitbart -- I also avoid Vox and the like because they are the Breitbart of the left. I avoid Twitter and Facebook. Thanks for answering. I don't care if you read Breibart or not, but I'm calling BS on you not watching Fox News... ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png) It is so sad that your worldview is governed by whether a person follows a particular media source. Whatever happened to gaining facts and forming opinions there on? You cannot conceive that a person can do this?
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 22, 2019 6:27:57 GMT -5
Stick to being an attorney because your armchair psychology game is not strong. You're the one linking babylonbee and saying that it made you think of those here. What did I read into that? The link is to show how so many for fake news...
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 22, 2019 6:35:05 GMT -5
The link is to show how so many for fake news. This refers back to the discussion on the Muelker thread regarding the debunked Buzzfeed story on Cohen. You were all excited by this on Friday on that thread. Before Mueller refuted the story I commented that it may not be accurate and noted that one of the authors had a very shaky past. The gang immediately attacked. So yes you did fall for fake news, just like the satire link.
|
|